“…you must utterly destroy them…” (Deut 7:2)

Many people, non-believer and believer alike, regard the Old Testament as particularly bellicose. For many, in fact, this perception justifies a devaluation of the Old Testament generally or especially in comparison to the New Testament. This entry will examine whether the Old Testament deserves its reputation for ruthless violence, especially with regard to Israel’s “Holy War” tradition.

First, while it is true that the historical books record ancient Israel’s involvement in scores of military conflicts, the overwhelming majority of them were defensive actions (cf. especially the incidents recorded in the book of Judges) or territorial disputes (for example, the centuries long conflict between Syria, Ammon, and Israel over the northern Trans-Jordan). In this respect, Israel in this era differed little from other ethnicities and nations of the time. From a theological perspective, while war hardly represents a desideratum, in order for Israel to fulfill the role to which God had called it, it must first survive, even if that survival meant defending itself militarily. The Philistines were unlikely to have placidly abandoned their territorial ambitions in order to uphold a tenet of Israel’s faith.

Second, the Old Testament itself disapproves of several of Israel’s recorded military campaigns, characterizing them as reckless adventures, contrary to God’s will (cf. 1 Sam 4; 1 Kgs 22). Readers of the Old Testament should remember that its historical books describe events; they do not necessarily prescribe behaviors. At least some of Israel’s aggression conflicted with God’s will, just as David’s adultery and murder do not represent behaviors God endorsed.

Third, however, the Israelite institution of “Holy War” (Hebr. ḥerem) represents a significant hurdle for many readers because Israel understood these wars as divinely-ordained, and because they required Israel to annihilate their enemies entirely. Still, a number of observations suggest that the “Holy War” institution may have been more a theological ideal than a historical reality.

• References to ḥerem are largely restricted to the Joshua accounts of Israel’s “conquest” of Canaan (but cf. 1 Sam 15).
• The Bible offers several theological rationales for the eradication of the Canaanites, namely, that they merited God’s punishment (see Gen 15) and that they constituted a temptation toward syncretism (for example Deut 29:17-18).
• The only systematic outline of the regulations governing Holy War (Deut 20) indicates the additional theological emphases that, in Holy War, God fights God’s enemy, God wins the battle, and God claims the spoils. In other words, Israel depended entirely upon God to provide and protect. Israel has nothing gained by its own might (cf. Deut 7). To underscore this assertion, the regulations dictate that they army exclude newlyweds, those who have recently acquired land, and those who are afraid (cf. Joshua’s battle technique, a bugle corps, and Gideon’s diminishment of the size of his army). Who would be left to fight?
• With very few exceptions, references to Holy War are all formulaic, lacking detail; they cite locations otherwise unknown; and, they seem hyperbolic – several of the peoples that early texts report as “annihilated” resurface intact in later texts (Josh 10:21 cf. 2 Kgs 8:22; Josh 11:10-11 cf. Judg 4 and 1 Sam 12:9; 1 Sam 15:7-8 but see 1 Sam 27:8; 30:1, 18; 2 Sam 1:1; Esther 3:1 – Haman the Agagite).

Fourth, while the Joshua account seems intent on leaving the impression that Israel conquered the whole of Canaan, expelling and eradicating the entire Canaanite population, Judges – the next book in the canon – begins with a long list of peoples and places Israel did not conquer. Indeed, Judges grapples with the continued existence of the Canaanites among the Israelite populace, a theological problem given the requirements of Deut 20 and the explicit contention of the book of Joshua. In the end, Judges stops just short of contradicting Deuteronomy and Joshua.

So the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel; and he said, “Because this people have transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not obeyed my voice, I will not henceforth drive out before them any of the nations that Joshua left when he died, that by them I may test Israel, whether they will take care to walk in the way of the LORD as their fathers did, or not.” So the LORD left those nations, not driving them out at once, and he did not give them into the power of Joshua. Now these are the nations which the LORD left, to test Israel by them, that is, all in Israel who had no experience of any war in Canaan; it was only that the generations of the people of   would obey the commandments of the LORD, which he commanded their fathers by Moses. So the people of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and they took their daughters to themselves for wives, and their own daughters they gave to their sons; and they served their gods. (Judg 2:20-3:6 RSV)

In sum, Israel’s early history of survival is similar to those of many peoples on the verge of becoming nations or expanding into new territory. The history of European colonization and westward expansion in North American is even more bellicose More importantly, however, the “Holy War” theme in the Old Testament makes the theological claim that Israel owed its existence, its land, and its prosperity entirely to the God who provides and protects, not the historical claim that the Israelites, on God’s instructions, annihilated the Canaanites, man, woman, and child.