Some biblical passages describe violence as an act of God or as something God commands. Joshua's campaigns, the deaths in Egypt, and judgments in the prophets can trouble experienced Christians as well as newcomers. An honest comparison needs to face the suffering and the moral questions these passages raise.
Several questions, overlapping approaches
Ask what the text describes, how ancient language works, whether a character's conduct is endorsed, and how Christians connect the passage with Jesus. A theodicy is an argument about God's goodness in relation to evil. The following approaches address different parts of that problem and can overlap. They are influential examples, not an exhaustive list or a ranking of every Christian tradition.
Divine judgment: a particular act within Israel's story
A traditional judgment reading understands God as justly confronting entrenched wrongdoing, sometimes using human agents. Advocates appeal to Genesis 15:16, which portrays a long delay before judgment, and Deuteronomy 9:4–6, which denies that Israel receives the land because of moral superiority. Judgment later falls on Israel too. In this approach, God's authority over life is different from an individual's authority to kill.
The strongest objection concerns children and others who do not appear personally responsible for a society's practices. Appealing to divine authority does not make their suffering easy to understand. Advocates reply that these texts describe judgment on a whole society and a command given for a particular moment in Israel's history. They distinguish this from an individual's right to punish others, and some acknowledge that difficult questions remain.
Read John Piper's argument that the conquest represents divine judgment. This is a Reformed evangelical defense, not a statement representing all Christians.
Ancient warfare language: sweeping victory claims
Another approach emphasizes hyperbole, deliberate exaggeration or sweeping language. Ancient victory accounts can declare an enemy completely destroyed while later describing survivors. Readers compare Joshua's broad summaries with its unconquered territories and with Judges. Some scholars also emphasize the Bible's language of driving people out, rather than assuming every reference means killing every inhabitant.
This argument can coexist with a judgment reading. It seeks to establish what the text claims happened, rather than simply deciding that violence is metaphorical. Critics point to explicit references to women and children and ask whether rhetoric explains those details. Forced displacement also remains morally serious. Advocates respond that each passage needs separate examination: recognizing conventional victory language does not mean no one was killed or every ethical problem is solved.
Read David M. Howard Jr.'s extended argument about destruction and dispossession in Joshua.
A cross-centered reading: divine accommodation
Some Christian interpreters take Jesus' life and self-giving death as the clearest guide to understanding violent portrayals of God. Accommodation means God communicating through people's limited understanding. Greg Boyd argues that God remains involved with a violent culture while its writers sometimes portray God through assumptions that fall short of the character revealed in Jesus. Cruciform means shaped by the cross.
Advocates appeal to Jesus' teaching about enemy-love in Matthew 5, his refusal of violent defense, and Hebrews 1's account of God's revelation through the Son. Critics argue that this can override an Old Testament passage's explicit account of God's command and struggle to explain judgment in the New Testament. Boyd replies that Jesus supplies the controlling revelation through which the whole Bible must be read, and interprets judgment through God's withdrawal of protection rather than direct violence.
Read Boyd's own account of his cross-centered principles. This particular proposal is contested and does not represent every Christian who emphasizes nonviolence or progressive revelation. Traditional judgment readings also understand Jesus as central; the disagreement concerns how that conviction governs difficult texts.
Keep the passage and its victims in view
Read Joshua, Numbers, or Nahum in complete sections. An explanation designed for conquest summaries may not resolve an account of prisoners killed in Numbers 31. Nor is a warning about divine judgment permission to declare a present-day disaster deserved.
These interpretations provide no automatic authorization for modern conquest, religious coercion, or private revenge. Christians still disagree about war, policing, and pacifism; those are further ethical questions. Attending to ancient context and listening to the vulnerable are necessary parts of responsible discussion, whichever interpretation you find persuasive.
Questions for reading
- Is the proposed explanation addressing language, historical events, or God's character?
- Which people suffer, and does the explanation acknowledge their experience?
- How does an interpretation account for both judgment and enemy-love?
Sources & further reading
A question in the margin is a good place to begin.