Christians and non-Christians alike are perplexed by the seemingly cruel portrayal of God in the Old Testament.
This is because in the New Testament they encounter a Jesus who loves his neighbors and enemies, whereas in the Old Testament they encounter a God who incites war and slaughter.
The situation becomes even worse when they read about the conquest of the Promised Land as recorded in the Book of Joshua.
Not only does God appear harsh and cruel, but he also appears to be the one who drives the Israelites to commit mass murder of the native inhabitants of the land.
Is God really a cosmic monster who commits or condones “genocide”?

This question has caused theoretical and practical difficulties for many Christians.
This is because those who criticize Christianity use the conquest of Canaan as a main topic when attacking the Bible, the God of the Bible, and Christians who sincerely believe in the Bible.
Moreover, when Christians see God's appearance in the conquest of Canaan, they cannot help but doubt the Bible, God, and their own faith.


So, Christians and skeptics alike have asked, “How can Christians worship such a harsh and cruel God?”
Some interpreters of this question argue that God is not actually harsh and cruel, but that it was recorded as God's command after the Israelites had independently conquered the land.
On the other hand, other interpreters believe that God was the real instigator of this conquest and that everything He did was justified.
He justifies the conquest of Canaan as a holy war.
In other words, the book of Joshua is understood as a book in which God gives the order to advance and sweep away the pagans.
Conversely, some interpreters reconstruct the reason to defend God, believing that since God always acts rightly, there is a just ethical reason for exterminating the people of the land.


Evangelical Old Testament scholars John Walton and his son Harvey Walton do not follow the above interpretation.
They strongly argue that we must understand the ancient “river of culture.”
In other words, they argue that modern people can properly approach the conquest of Canaan only when they properly understand the cultural background of the ancient Near East.
The Waltons use the word “Herem” as a representative example.
In the ancient Near East, herem did not mean mass slaughter, like ethnic cleansing in the modern sense.
In this respect, they say, the modern common translation (“annihilation”) is misleading.
The Waltons ask their readers to listen to the writing methods and literary conventions of ancient texts, explaining the similar texts of the ancient Near East, the vocabulary of ancient languages, and hyperbole as an ancient literary convention.
As a result, herem is not a one-sided concept of mass slaughter, but a purification process within the territory for Israel to live holy, and this is connected to the struggle of Christians in the New Testament to kill their own fleshly desires.


This book offers a fresh and original perspective to those who, because of the conquest of Canaan, have come to doubt the Bible, God, and even their own faith, believing God to be harsh and cruel. For those who wish to persuade such people and suggest a better interpretation of the Book of Joshua, this book is sufficient to provide a fresh and original perspective.

Conquest is war.
But if we want to understand that event—what is war, what is war for, is war good or evil, how should war be conducted, and so on—we cannot do so using our modern understanding of war.
Instead, we must examine the conquest accounts in the light of ancient understandings of war.
---From “Proposition 1_Reading the Bible consistently means reading the Bible as an ancient document”

The modern-day charge regarding the conquest is that Yahweh is violating the rights of the Canaanites in a barbaric and immoral way.
However, this objection has no bearing on the context of the text (there is no such thing as human rights or divine morality in the text).
In context, the text indicates that Yahweh distributes the land to whomever He wishes, since He can distribute the land to whomever He wishes.
However, in context this is part of the definition of God (as Chemosh can do in Judges 11:24) and is not particularly significant.
The text emphasizes that Yahweh had indeed given the land to Israel, but it does not place special importance on the notion that Yahweh could have given the land to Israel (i.e., that Yahweh had the legal right to do so).
---From "Proposition 7_Neither the Israelites nor the Canaanites are described as people who steal other people's rightful property"

Since holiness implies identification with God and should not be equated with meeting standards of morality or purity, no one, whether Israelite or Canaanite, can commit the sin of being unholy.
Holiness is a status.
The conquest of the land was clearly connected with Israel's holy status, but had nothing to do with any lack of holiness on the part of the Canaanites.

---「Proposition 10_Holiness is a status bestowed by God.
It is not obtained through moral acts, and one is not judged for not having holiness.”

During the conquest, God removed the Canaanites from the land to prepare it for His use.
During the captivity, God removed Israel from the land to demonstrate His commitment to enforcing the order with which He had identified Himself.
There is no possible similarity between those events.
Therefore, it is not justifiable to claim that what happened to Israel during the captivity was the same as what happened to the Canaanites during the conquest.
The outward appearance may be similar, but the essence of the incident cannot be compared.
Consequently, it is not justifiable to claim that the Canaanites were expelled by doing the same things that brought about the curses and exile of the covenant upon Israel.

---「Proposition 11_Since Israel is under the covenant and the Canaanites are not, the expulsion of the Canaanites from the land during the conquest cannot be evaluated by comparing it with the expulsion of the Israelites from the land during the captivity」

The language used to describe the Canaanites in Leviticus and Deuteronomy is neither an accusation nor a rationale for war.
It is a brilliant borrowing of literary figures of speech and typology designed to simultaneously emphasize Israel's dependence on Yahweh, exalt the covenant order as an ideal state of existence, and warn the Israelites of the consequences of covenant infidelity.
---「Proposition 13_The acts described as abominable are intended to contrast with the ideal behavior according to the Israelite covenant, not to accuse those who commit them of being criminals」

The historical Canaanites were not actually subhuman, chaotic monsters, just as they were not actually bestial to the point of impairing normal functioning.
The purpose of a conquest story is not to describe the characters of real people in a literal and strict manner, but to describe what happens to them in such a way that the nature of the event can be adequately understood.
(Like all mankind) they were sinners, but that did not mean that conquest happened to them.
They were not treated like sinners, but like creatures of chaos.
Therefore, the text portrays them as if they were creatures of chaos (through rhetoric about invincible savages) to make clear what is actually happening.
---From "Proposition 14_The image of the conquering knight represents creation"

Christians should not “herem” atheists and unbelievers in order to rid the world of apostasy.
They must not conquer territories and subject them to theocracy, nor pass murderous judgments on individuals of outgroups for their immorality.
Instead, they must “herem” themselves for the wholeness of the Christian community, not as punishment, but to make room for God to work out His purposes through their lives.
That is what the conquest of Canaan did within the context and purpose of the old covenant, and that is what Christians must do within the context and purpose of the new covenant.

---「Proposition 21_The application of “herem” in the New Testament is found in our laying aside our former status and submitting to the sovereignty of Christ.
Therefore, “Herem” has nothing to do with killing people.