Why did God command violence in the Old Testament?

These are among the Bible’s most difficult passages. Christians interpret them through their ancient setting, their portrayal of judgment, and the revelation of God in Jesus. There is no interpretation that removes every moral difficulty, and these texts do not authorize Christians to attack religious or ethnic opponents today.

Scripture to read in context

Deuteronomy 7:1–6 — Israel receives troubling commands within the conquest setting.
Joshua 6 — The fall of Jericho includes destruction and Rahab’s rescue.
Matthew 5:38–48 — Jesus commands nonretaliation and love of enemies.

Understanding the question

Conquest passages belong to a particular narrative about Israel, land, covenant, and judgment. They are not general instructions for anyone who believes a cause is holy. The severity of their language, including references to children, makes the moral question real. A faithful reading should acknowledge that difficulty rather than trivialize it.

Some interpreters argue that ancient warfare language uses conventional total-victory rhetoric, noting later passages that still describe inhabitants in the land. That can clarify certain statements, but it does not automatically establish that no killing occurred or solve every troubling command. Others stress judgment after sustained wickedness, while critics question whether this adequately addresses innocent victims.

Christians also ask how these passages relate to Jesus’s enemy-love teaching. Some see continuity between divine judgment and a distinct calling for the church; others emphasize progressive revelation or read violent portrayals through the cross. Whatever approach is taken, claiming new divine permission for violence against a modern group is not a warranted application.

Where Christians agree and differ

Interpretations range from historical judgment accounts to hyperbole readings and Christ-centered critiques of violent portrayals. These positions do not divide neatly by denomination. Christian pacifists and just-war traditions differ about warfare in general, but neither should turn the conquest narratives into a standing mandate for religious conquest.

Putting this into practice

Study the passages with historical context and more than one serious commentary. Reject interpretations that dehumanize present-day peoples or encourage vigilantism.

Does my explanation honestly acknowledge the victims described in the text?

Sources and further reading

Dei Verbum — Scripture and interpretation (§§7–13, 18–19)

This AI-assisted overview has not received independent theological review. Read the Scripture and primary sources and consult a trusted teacher.