Divine Judgment and the Problem of Herem

Why God Commanded the Destruction of the Canaanites in the Old Testament

Few parts of the Old Testament trouble readers more than the conquest of Canaan. In books like Deuteronomy and Joshua, God commands Israel to “devote to destruction” entire cities, including men, women, and children. To many modern readers, that sounds cruel, immoral, or even genocidal.

That reaction is understandable. These are difficult passages, and they shouldn’t be treated lightly, but they are often read without sufficient attention to the language, the historical setting, the purpose of the judgment, and how war was described in the ancient world.

When those things are taken into account, the picture becomes clearer. The conquest of Canaan wasn’t a racial genocide. It was a unique act of divine judgment against a deeply corrupt culture, described in the kind of victory language common in the ancient Near East. It was limited and exceptional, and it is not presented as a standing model for God’s people across history, especially not as a mandate for Christians under the new covenant.

What Does Herem Mean?

The key Hebrew word behind these passages is herem (חֵרֶם). It is often translated “utterly destroy” or “devote to destruction,” but the word means more than simple killing. In practice, herem could involve real killing in certain battles, but it also emphasizes that what is placed under the ban belongs to God and cannot be treated as ordinary plunder or personal gain. At its core, it refers to something being set apart completely to God and removed from ordinary human use.^1

In some contexts, herem refers to something devoted to the Lord in a sacred sense. In war, it refers to people or things being placed under God’s judgment and therefore not to be taken as plunder, profit, or personal gain.^2 The context shows these battles weren’t presented as ordinary wars of expansion. Israel wasn’t free to fight for greed, empire, or revenge because the judgment belonged to God.

This Was Not About Race

One of the most important points in this discussion is that the Canaanites were not judged because of their ethnicity. The Bible explicitly says the reason was their wickedness, not their ancestry.^3

In Genesis 15:16, God tells Abraham that his descendants won’t enter the land yet because “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” In other words, God wasn’t acting rashly. He gave these nations centuries before judgment came.^4

The problem was moral and spiritual. Leviticus 18 and 20 describe the kinds of practices associated with the people of the land: incest, adultery, sexual perversion, occult practices, and child sacrifice.^5 These weren’t isolated personal sins. They were deeply rooted in their culture and religion itself. God’s Word teaches us that the Canaanite society had become so corrupt that it deserved judgment. Israel wasn’t authorized to destroy them just because they were foreigners. Israel was used as the instrument of a judicial sentence from God.^6

Why Would God Kill Men, Women, and Children?

This is the hardest question, and it deserves a direct answer.

The Bible’s answer is not that human life is cheap; it is that God is Judge. The conquest of Canaan is presented as a unique, time-bound act of divine judgment after centuries of patience.^7 The judgment wasn’t based on race, because even Canaanites who turned to God, such as Rahab and the Gibeonites, were spared.^8 It was based on persistent wickedness and resistance to God.

Why, then, were women and children included? Because the judgment was aimed at removing an entire corrupt religious and social order, not merely defeating enemy soldiers on a battlefield. In the ancient world, people were often viewed more corporately than modern Western readers tend to think. Family, nation, religion, and identity were deeply connected.^9 That helps explain how the text frames the judgment, even if it doesn’t remove the emotional weight modern readers feel when they read it.

This doesn’t make it easy to accept emotionally, but according to the Bible, God is the Creator and has the right to decide about life and death in a way that people don’t. People are not allowed to kill others because life belongs to God, not to us. God, however, is the giver of life and the judge of all. So the real question is not whether people may take innocent life on their own authority; they may not, but whether God may bring temporal judgment. The Bible’s answer is yes.^10

Ancient War Language Was Often Hyperbolic

Another important part of this discussion is how ancient war accounts were written.

In the ancient Near East, kings often used exaggerated battle language. They would claim to have destroyed everyone, wiped out entire peoples, or left no survivors, even when later records made it clear that many people were still alive. This was a standard way of saying the victory was decisive.^11

Joshua’s conquest summaries sometimes use this same kind of total-victory language.

For example, Joshua sometimes says that Joshua “left no one remaining” or “utterly destroyed all that breathed.” But later in Joshua and Judges, many of those same peoples are still in the land. Joshua 13:1 says that “very much land remains to be possessed.” Judges 1 repeatedly says Israel failed to drive out various inhabitants. Joshua 15:63 and 17:12 say the Canaanites still remained in key places.^12

That tells us something important: the conquest language should not always be read as a literal, modern-style statistical report. It often functions as victory language. The point is that God gave Israel victory and transferred the land to them, not necessarily that every last individual everywhere was killed immediately.^13

Hyperbole Doesn’t Mean the Judgment Was Unreal

At the same time, saying that these passages use ancient war rhetoric doesn’t mean the judgment itself was unreal or merely symbolic. It means the battle reports shouldn’t always be read like modern battlefield statistics. The judgment was still real, severe, and required actual obedience.

We need to understand this when we come to passages like 1 Samuel 15. Saul was not rebuked for failing to match the rhetoric of a war report. He was rebuked for directly disobeying a specific command from God by sparing Agag and keeping livestock that had been placed under the ban. His sin was not failing to use the right literary form, but choosing partial obedience while pretending it was enough.^14

So ancient war hyperbole helps explain the style of the conquest accounts, but it doesn’t remove the seriousness of divine judgment. It guards us from reading every phrase as a literal census-style report, while still affirming that God truly did command judgment in particular cases.^13 This doesn’t erase the moral difficulty of the text, but it does correct the common picture of a nonstop extermination campaign against every civilian in the land.

The Goal Was Also to Prevent Spiritual Corruption

The conquest had another purpose beyond judgment: it was meant to protect Israel from becoming like the nations they were replacing.

The Bible repeatedly warns that if the Canaanites remain in the land and Israel adopts their religious practices, Israel too will fall into idolatry, immorality, and child sacrifice.^15 In that sense, herem was also a kind of spiritual quarantine. The Canaanite religious system wasn’t seen as harmless diversity. It was seen as something spiritually destructive. If Israel mixed with it, the result would be national corruption, and that is exactly what later happened when Israel failed to fully separate from pagan worship. The warnings proved justified.

The Bible Also Speaks of Driving Out, Not Just Killing

A detail many readers miss is that the Old Testament doesn’t describe the conquest only in terms of killing. It also frequently uses the language of “driving out” the inhabitants of the land.

Exodus 23:27–30 and Deuteronomy 7:22 say God would drive the nations out “little by little.” The reason given is practical: if the land were emptied too quickly, it would become desolate and overrun with wild animals.^16 This information shows the larger picture wasn’t simply one of total physical extermination. Some passages emphasize dispossession and removal from the land, while others emphasize judgment under the ban, and the narrative shows both happening in different places and ways.^17 This circumstance fits the later biblical picture, where many Canaanites clearly remained.

There Were Important Exceptions

If this had been racial genocide, there could be no exceptions, but the Bible includes major exceptions, and those exceptions are important to our understanding of all of this.

Rahab was a Canaanite woman living in Jericho. She and her family were spared because she acknowledged the God of Israel and helped the spies. She was not merely allowed to live; she became part of Israel.^18 The Gibeonites were also spared after making a treaty with Israel.^19

These cases show that the judgment wasn’t focused on an ethnic bloodline as such. It was directed at those who remained in rebellion against God. Even within Canaan, mercy was available, which is a major point. The destruction wasn’t based on race. It was based on moral and spiritual rebellion.

What About the Archaeology?

Archaeology can help in some cases, but it should be used carefully. Some point out that only a few cities are specifically said to have been burned by Joshua, especially Jericho, Ai, and Hazor. That limited scope fits the idea that the conquest wasn’t a blanket annihilation of all life in Canaan.^20

Archaeology is also often used to support the claim that child sacrifice was a real part of Canaanite and Phoenician religion. The strongest archaeological evidence comes from Phoenician sites like Carthage, which is later and outside Canaan itself, where large numbers of infant remains have been found in ritual contexts. That does not prove every detail of earlier Canaanite practice in the land, but it does support the broader claim that child sacrifice existed within the wider Phoenician-Canaanite religious stream and was not invented out of thin air.^21

So, archaeology supports parts of the biblical picture, but it doesn’t settle every debate.

What I Am Not Claiming

I am not suggesting that these passages are easy to accept on an emotional level. Nor am I claiming that every historical detail is free from debate. Ancient war rhetoric doesn’t resolve every difficulty, and I don’t believe Christians, or anyone, should ignore the deep challenges these texts present.

My point is more specific: the conquest of Canaan becomes more understandable when considered within its own biblical and ancient context, rather than imposing the modern term “genocide” on it.

A Clear Summary

So why would God command such judgment in the Old Testament?

Well, according to the Bible, the Canaanite culture had reached an extreme level of moral corruption after centuries of divine patience. The judgment wasn’t racial, since repentant Canaanites could be spared. The language used to describe the conquest includes the kind of hyperbole common in ancient war reports. The larger goal was both judgment and the removal of a deeply corrupt religious system that would otherwise destroy Israel spiritually. Unlike human beings, God has authority over life and death because He is the Creator and Judge of all.

That doesn’t make the subject easy, but it does make it more coherent.

Concise Answer for Quick Use

God didn’t command Israel to destroy the Canaanites because of race, but as a unique act of judgment against a culture that had become deeply wicked over centuries. Even then, Canaanites like Rahab and the Gibeonites were spared when they turned to Israel’s God, which shows the issue was moral and spiritual, not ethnic. The conquest language also uses the kind of exaggerated war rhetoric common in the ancient world, so it shouldn’t always be read as a literal report that every last person everywhere was killed. In biblical theology, God as Creator has authority over life and death that human beings do not, so these events are presented as exceptional divine judgment, not a model for human violence.

Final Thought

The conquest of Canaan is one of the most difficult subjects in Scripture. It shouldn’t be approached carelessly or defended with shallow answers, but neither should it be judged by modern assumptions alone.

The Bible presents these events as a limited and unrepeatable act of divine judgment in a specific moment of redemptive history. The same Bible that records the sword in Joshua ultimately points forward to Christ, where God’s victory comes not through Israel destroying her enemies, but through the Messiah giving Himself for sinners.

That larger story doesn’t erase the difficulty of these passages, but it does place them within the full moral and redemptive framework of Scripture.

Footnotes

1. See discussions of herem as something “devoted” or “set apart” to God rather than a mere synonym for indiscriminate killing.

2. Leviticus 27:28–29; Deuteronomy 7:2; Joshua 6:17–19.

3. Deuteronomy 9:4–5 explicitly grounds the judgment in the wickedness of the nations, not Israel’s superiority.

4. Genesis 15:16.

5. Leviticus 18; 20; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:9–12.

6. On this general line of argument, see Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide?

7. Genesis 15:16.

8. Joshua 2; 6:22–25; 9:3–27.

9. This is an important explanatory lens, though it should be treated as a historical-cultural observation rather than a complete moral solution by itself.

10. For a theological defense centered on God’s authority as Creator and Judge, see Christopher J. H. Wright and Paul Copan.

11. See comparative discussions of ancient Near Eastern war rhetoric in Copan and Flannagan and in discussions of “hagiographic hyperbole.”

12. Joshua 10:40; 11:21; 13:1; 15:63; 17:12; Judges 1.

13. This is one of the strongest internal arguments against reading every conquest statement as a literal census-style report.

14.  1 Samuel 15:1–23. Saul’s failure shows that even if conquest accounts use ancient victory rhetoric, the underlying command of judgment was still real and required obedience.

15.  Exodus 23:32–33; Deuteronomy 7:1–5; 12:29–31; 20:16–18.

16.  Exodus 23:27–30; Deuteronomy 7:22.

17.  See also the repeated biblical language of “driving out” the nations.

18.  Joshua 2; 6:25; Matthew 1:5; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25.

19.  Joshua 9; 11:19–20.

20.  Joshua 6; 8; 11.

21.  Evidence from Phoenician tophets is often brought into this discussion. It is relevant, though it should be used cautiously and not overstated.

Bibliography

Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011.

Copan, Paul, and Matthew Flannagan. Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014.

Flannagan, Matthew. “The Canaanites: Genocide or Judgment?” Stand to Reason.

Hess, Richard S. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

Hess, Richard S. “War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview.” In works addressing warfare and conquest in the Old Testament.

Howard, David M., Jr. Joshua. New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B&H, 1998.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. “The Case for Spiritual Warfare in the Old Testament.” In studies on Old Testament ethics and warfare.

Kitchen, K. A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B&H, 1994.

Millard, Alan R. “Ancient Near Eastern Accounts and Biblical War Language.” In studies comparing biblical and ANE conquest rhetoric.

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. “Reading Joshua Morally.” Journal of Religious Ethics 36, no. 1 (2008): 1–19.

Wright, Christopher J. H. The God I Don’t Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.

Younger, K. Lawson, Jr. Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.

Walton, John H. and J. Harvey Walton. The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017.