Why Did God Command War in the Old Testament? A Biblical Answer for Men
Few Bible questions feel heavier than this one. Deuteronomy and Joshua describe commands and battles that include severe judgment on Canaanite peoples. A thoughtful Christian man should not dismiss the moral weight, hide the difficult wording, or offer a slogan where careful reading is needed.
The short answer is that Scripture presents the conquest as a limited act of divine judgment within Israel's unique covenant history, not as a standing command for believers. The Bible also denies that Israel deserved the land because it was morally superior. Christians still disagree about how literally to read the warfare formulas, how to reconstruct the events, and whether every reported command should be attributed directly to God.
This article takes the canonical text seriously, argues that the church has no authority to repeat Israel's conquest, and names the interpretive disagreements honestly. It also gives practical ways to discuss the issue with a skeptic, a son, or a man in your church without pretending every question has an easy answer.
Why are the conquest passages so difficult?
The difficulty begins with the wording. Deuteronomy 20:16-18 commands Israel not to leave alive anything that breathes in certain Canaanite cities. Joshua 6:21 reports the destruction of Jericho with comprehensive language. These are not gentle texts. Any answer that avoids them will fail the reader who has actually opened the Bible.
Two questions must remain distinct. First, what did these texts mean in their ancient literary and covenant setting? Second, what moral and theological conclusions should Christians draw from them now? Confusing those questions can produce either a shallow defense or a misuse of Scripture.
What the Bible says before Israel enters Canaan
Genesis 15:13-16 places the coming possession of the land inside a long timeline. God tells Abram that his descendants will suffer in another land and return in a later generation because the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. Within the biblical narrative, judgment is delayed rather than impulsive.
Deuteronomy 9:4-6 removes a second misunderstanding. Moses tells Israel not to claim that its righteousness earned the land. The text attributes the nations' removal to their wickedness and God's covenant promise, then calls Israel stubborn. The passage gives Israel no basis for ethnic pride or moral superiority.
Leviticus 18 presents the biblical accusation against the practices of the nations and warns Israel that the land can expel Israel too if Israel follows the same path. That warning matters because it shows the judgment is not a license to hate an ethnicity. Israel remains accountable to the same holy God.
The command is presented as judgment, not a model for ordinary war
In the narrative, Israel does not invent a policy for expansion and apply it wherever leaders want more territory. The commands concern particular peoples, places, and a defined period in Israel's history. That specificity does not remove the moral difficulty, but it blocks the move from Joshua to a general rule for religious conquest.
The text also turns the same judgment against Israel. Second Kings 17 describes Assyria removing the northern kingdom after persistent covenant rebellion. Second Kings 25 recounts Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem and exile of Judah. Israel's later defeat shows that biblical judgment is not simple favoritism toward one nation.
A practical conclusion follows. No man may treat a private impression, political ambition, or group identity as permission to imitate the conquest. The biblical account does not transfer Joshua's role to a modern pastor, politician, father, or nation.
Rahab and Achan show that ethnicity is not the final dividing line
Joshua 2 and 6 introduce Rahab, a woman of Jericho who protects the Israelite spies, confesses what she has heard about the Lord, and joins Israel. Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 later remember her faith and action. Her rescue does not erase the destruction around her, but it contradicts a simple theory of racial hatred.
Joshua 7 then records judgment on Achan, an Israelite who violates the command concerning devoted things. The story places a Canaanite woman inside the covenant community and an Israelite man under judgment. Covenant loyalty, not ancestry alone, drives the narrative distinction.
Did the warfare language mean total extermination?
Christians who affirm Scripture's authority do not all answer this question the same way. The disagreement concerns literary convention, historical reconstruction, moral reasoning, and the relationship between divine inspiration and ancient human authors.
View 1: the judgment language should be read largely at face value
Some interpreters understand the commands and battle reports as describing the deaths of entire populations in the targeted cities. They argue that God, as creator and judge, has authority over life and can commission a temporal judgment. This view accepts the fullest scope of the language and locates the moral justification in God's unique authority.
This position still must explain how the judgment fits God's goodness, why children appear in the language, and why no present believer can claim an equivalent commission. Naming divine authority does not make those emotional and pastoral questions disappear.
View 2: the accounts use ancient warfare hyperbole
Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan argue that phrases such as total destruction function as conventional ancient victory language. They point to later passages that describe Canaanite survivors and continued resistance. On this reading, the principal goal involved defeating military strongholds and driving populations from the land, though real and severe violence still occurred.
Not every scholar accepts the hyperbole argument or agrees about how much it reduces the scope of killing. The surviving-population texts may clarify the rhetoric, but critics argue they do not answer every passage about civilians. Treat this as an argued interpretation, not an undisputed historical fact.
View 3: accommodation or critical readings
Other Christian interpreters argue that the conquest accounts reflect Israel's ancient understanding of God rather than a command God actually gave. Some connect this view to divine accommodation or to reading every portrayal through Jesus' enemy love. Randal Rauser has defended a version of this criticism and disputes Copan's moral defense.
Many evangelicals reject this approach because they believe it conflicts with the Bible's truthfulness and with later biblical writers who treat the Old Testament as God's word. The disagreement is therefore doctrinal as well as historical. A fair conversation should identify the cost of each position instead of pretending all Christians hold one answer.
Does the Old Testament God differ from Jesus?
The Bible does not present one harsh deity in the Old Testament and a different loving deity in the New Testament. Exodus 34:6-7 joins mercy, patience, covenant love, and judgment in one description of God. Jesus commands enemy love in Matthew 5:44, welcomes sinners, and gives his life for enemies. He also warns of judgment and speaks with the authority of the God of Israel.
Christians center their moral life on Jesus' teaching and saving work. That does not require pretending the conquest texts are absent. It requires reading them within the whole biblical story, including God's patience, judgment, Israel's failure, the cross, the resurrection, and the church's mission among all nations.
Why Christians cannot use these texts to justify holy war
Jesus tells his disciples to love their enemies and pray for persecutors. When Pilate questions him, Jesus says his kingdom is not from this world and notes that his servants are not fighting to prevent his arrest. Paul tells Christians not to repay evil for evil and to overcome evil with good.
Christians disagree about pacifism and just war. Some believe followers of Jesus should never kill. Others distinguish the church's mission from the state's limited authority to restrain grave evil. Neither position turns the church into a new Israelite army or gives a Christian permission to wage war because he believes God spoke privately to him.
The church advances through witness, service, discipline, suffering love, and proclamation of Christ. Any attempt to use Joshua to authorize racial hatred, terrorism, forced conversion, or private violence contradicts the New Testament mission and dangerously tears a unique text from its context.
How to discuss this question without arguing
First, admit the weight. Say that the commands trouble careful readers and that you will not pretend the language is easy.
Second, read the actual passages together. Include Genesis 15, Deuteronomy 9, Deuteronomy 20, Joshua 6 and 7, and the later exile of Israel. A single isolated verse cannot carry the whole explanation.
Third, separate the text from the interpretations. The Bible gives the commands and narratives. Hyperbole, literal scope, accommodation, and historical reconstruction are explanations offered by interpreters.
Fourth, state your conclusion with limits. You can affirm a unique divine judgment while admitting that faithful Christians disagree about its extent and description.
Fifth, reject misuse clearly. Tell your son, friend, or skeptic that no modern Christian may claim Joshua's commission. If someone uses Scripture to threaten violence, treat the threat seriously and seek immediate help from appropriate authorities.
Questions Christian men ask about Old Testament warfare
Was the conquest genocide? The term carries modern legal and historical meanings that interpreters debate applying to an ancient text. Some reject the label because they understand the goal as judgment and expulsion rather than racial extermination. Others use it because the text includes comprehensive destruction language. Define the term before arguing about it.
What about women and children? The hard passages include totalizing language that cannot be responsibly ignored. Literal readers appeal to divine judgment. Hyperbole readers argue that the formulas do not describe every civilian death. Critical readers deny that God issued such a command. No brief answer removes the moral weight, so do not claim that it does.
Did the Canaanites have an opportunity to respond? Genesis 15 presents delayed judgment, and Rahab responds to what she has heard and is spared. Those facts belong to the narrative. Scripture does not give a biography of every person involved, so avoid filling the silence with invented details.
Can a Christian serve in the military? This article does not settle the historic dispute between Christian pacifism and just war reasoning. It does establish that service in a modern state is not a reenactment of Canaan's conquest and cannot be justified by claiming a private holy-war mandate.
Use the question to grow in careful faith
A hard Bible text does not need a quick answer. Read it in context, compare responsible interpretations, and refuse both contempt and defensiveness. Mature faith can acknowledge uncertainty about literary and historical details while remaining honest about the text and loyal to Jesus.
For related study, see Men Building Faith articles on the problem of evil, the reliability of Scripture, and defending faith without turning every conversation into a fight.
Watch a careful debate on the Canaanite conquest
Premier Unbelievable? hosts Paul Copan and Randal Rauser as they debate whether the Canaanite conquest can be reconciled with a God of love. The conversation is useful because it lets two Christian thinkers challenge each other's assumptions about hyperbole, civilians, judgment, and moral reasoning. Compare both positions with Scripture rather than treating either speaker as the final authority.
Further reading: Is God a Vindictive Bully? by Paul Copan
Paul Copan's 2022 Baker Academic book examines difficult Old Testament portrayals of God, including warfare, judgment, and the relationship between the Testaments. It is relevant because it presents a detailed defense of the hyperbole and divine-judgment approach discussed above. The book also engages Christian critics who offer different readings. Readers should compare Copan's arguments with Scripture and with the objections named in this article.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Product Title
16 px collapsible text is perfect for longer content like paragraphs and descriptions. It’s a great way to give people more information while keeping your layout clean. Link your text to anything, including an external website or a different page. You can set your text box to expand and collapse when people click, so they can read more or less info.
$320
Product Title
16 px collapsible text is perfect for longer content like paragraphs and descriptions. It’s a great way to give people more information while keeping your layout clean. Link your text to anything, including an external website or a different page. You can set your text box to expand and collapse when people click, so they can read more or less info.
$900
Product Title
16 px collapsible text is perfect for longer content like paragraphs and descriptions. It’s a great way to give people more information while keeping your layout clean. Link your text to anything, including an external website or a different page. You can set your text box to expand and collapse when people click, so they can read more or less info.
$560
Product Title
16 px collapsible text is perfect for longer content like paragraphs and descriptions. It’s a great way to give people more information while keeping your layout clean. Link your text to anything, including an external website or a different page. You can set your text box to expand and collapse when people click, so they can read more or less info.
$280
Comments