All that God did and commanded in the Old Testament was just.

[Zceptre]

Ultimately this issue boils down to trusting God when things look off.

Typically I've found when digging into controversial situations in the Biblical text, that there was a very clear explanation and that it was me that was wrong in my assumption. I obviously still don't have all the answers to every situation presented.

It is all about trust from cover to cover, Abraham to the Churches in Revelation.

Is it just of God to allow Christians to be burned at the stake in Rome? Or be slaughtered today in the Congo and around the world? Or to demand they be faithful unto death to receive their crown of life leaving families without fathers or mothers in early Church days?

Was it just for Christ to take all of our sins on Himself or is He quite literally far more good than we can imagine and do we have any right to even consider the possibility He made a mistake in any of His judgments. (Genesis 18:25)

If that is just, then why would we expect less than Sodom received for nations with the same wicked appetites for blood and witchcraft and habits of burning their own children alive and living in moral decay the likes of which God counted them worthy of brimstone?

So the question is for each of us, do you trust Him and His judgment? (Called "faith")

I personally find it somewhat amusing when someone suggests they think God to have done something evil, especially if they claim to know Him.

Sounds about like this...

Matthew 12:24
Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”

OT nations God wiped out deserved what they got. No one will convince me otherwise, no more than they would convince me of this nonsense the Pharisees were saying about Christ.

Just like Abraham said, far be it from God to do such a thing as put the righteous to death with the wicked.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Ultimately this issue boils down to trusting God when things look off.

I believe that you have too easily concluded that because it is in The scriptures it is automatically something that God Himself said.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But... if the early church fathers made such wide use of allegorical reading -- so everyone took for granted that that was a good thing to do with Scripture -- is it possible that the author(s) of Joshua intended to be doing allegorical writing? That's how I see the early chapters of Genesis, after all. If Joshua is meant as a mythological description of the battle between good and evil, rather than being about the slaughter of humans, that changes many things. This is a wilder approach than the most liberal of my commentaries, but, as you say, the church fathers offer a precedent. I'll have to go look into the recent scholarship of Joshua.

That's perceptive and theologically grounded. It is rightly observed that the Church Fathers — Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine among them — frequently employed allegorical interpretation, recognising Scripture as possessing multiple layers of meaning beyond the literal.

However, it is important to distinguish between allegorical reading and allegorical intention. The Fathers did not necessarily assert that the human authors of Scripture intended allegory in every instance. Rather, they affirmed that Scripture, having both a human and divine author, could bear spiritual meanings intended by God, even if not consciously intended by the human writer. In this light, the interpretation of Joshua as a mythological portrayal of the cosmic struggle between good and evil is not unfounded, it is consonant with a tradition that acknowledges the spiritual senses of Scripture.

The Catholic Church affirms this multi-layered approach. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, particularly paragraph 117, outlines the four senses of Scripture — literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical — all of which contribute to a fuller understanding of the sacred text. Furthermore, the comparison with the early chapters of Genesis is apt; the Church acknowledges the use of figurative language in those passages (cf. CCC 390), allowing for theological depth without requiring a strictly historical reading.

Pursuing recent studies on the Book of Joshua would be a useful next step.

 

[Zceptre]

I believe that you have too easily concluded that because it is in The scriptures it is automatically something that God Himself said.

If that is the accusation I stand guilty.

I'll take that all the way to judgment day.

To each their own, I will be judged for me.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:21
for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[PloverWing]

It's sort of difficult for me to see Joshua (or Exodus for that matter), as merely specialized, Hebrew allegories, prepared for Christians to read in later times.

No, I'm not looking for that option either. The only possibility I'm entertaining here is that the author wrote them as allegories to be interpreted as such by the Israelite/Jewish community in which the author lived. The author wouldn't have had in mind a far-future Christian audience.

However, it is important to distinguish between allegorical reading and allegorical intention. The Fathers did not necessarily assert that the human authors of Scripture intended allegory in every instance. Rather, they affirmed that Scripture, having both a human and divine author, could bear spiritual meanings intended by God, even if not consciously intended by the human writer.

Alas. If the author has allegorical intention, then I'm interested. But if it's just an allegorical reading of a text in which the author did not have allegorical intention, then we're back to the problem of inventing meaning for the text that the author didn't intend. Thanks for the careful clarification, though.

Well. I did say that it's dangerous to grab onto a theological solution that says exactly what you want to hear. Back to the drawing board.

Pursuing recent studies on the Book of Joshua would be a useful next step.

Additionally, for me to get around the appearances of genocide in the Bible and to ameliorate their psychological impact, I have to put on my philosopher's goggles and take up modern texts like Michael Ignatieff's (2001), "Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry," in order to denude whatever modern day assumptions I might be inclined to harbor from my having been born and raised in the present day West.

I've got some scholarly reading to do.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If that is the accusation I stand guilty.

I'll take that all the way to judgment day.

To each their own, I will be judged for me.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:21
for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

I like to read what the verses say. It helps with avoiding errors.

 

[BPPLEE]

That's all fine and dandy, but the issue isn't whether or not someone today can think its "just" to apply ancient Israelite law and thereby commit genocide. No, the issue here is whether or not the commands given by God to Israel---precisely and only to the Israel of the late Bronze Age and Iron Age---are [were] "just."

Can we agree that in that set of contexts, and in those contexts alone, that it was 'just' of God to command the removal of pagan, competing nations at that time in the ancient past? I can. I might cringe when I acknowledge this, but I can do so today and do so without then taking Old Testament passages out of their ancient contexts and attempting to gerrymander them into my present day view of humanity that is defined through the person of Jesus Christ.

The survival of the Israelites had to be ensured because without them there would be no Savior born. We may not understand why genocide was commanded but it was crucial to the survival of the people from which our Savior would come
I would not judge God, his actions are just some of them are just hard for us to understand

 

[John Robie]

That's strange, because the more I read, the more complexity and complication there is in holding together my faith. Of course, then again, I read more than just the Bible alone.

But by the Grace of God, there I go..............

I read more than just the Bible alone as well. So I’m not sure what your point is.

 

[John Robie]

I can tell you why I voted false. it comes down to how you read those commands to wipe out entire nations. is it OK to demand genocide? because even if at The time those commands were given and even if killing all your enemy's children and women, was a way of preventing them ever reforming as a nation to kill you in return. there is still no moral justification for genocide from The 21st century Christian perspective that I occupy. in short, I will not allow a particular perspective on a Book and its contents to make me behave badly towards other people. and if I were to say that it was fully justified to commit genocide in 1000 BC, because God said so, or more accurately, because one of God's prophets said so. what possible justification could I give if I were to refuse to engage in genocide when somebody claimed to be speaking for God, especially if their claim was credible. and they demanded genocide. It seems to me that there is something more fundamental than any particular interpretation of what Holy Scripture says. And that more fundamental thing is the knowledge of Christ and the teaching he gave, about loving our enemies. praying for those who persecute us and doing what is good and Right; keeping his commandments- Love one another as I have loved you. I am sure that many will object to the reason I've given.

---

Why You Ought Not Apply the Genocidal Passages of the Old Testament Today: A Catholic Perspective​

As one seeking to understand and live according to the Catholic faith, you are called to interpret Scripture not in isolation, but within the living Tradition of the Church, guided by the Magisterium and illuminated by Christ, who is the fullness of divine revelation. The so-called “genocidal passages” of the Old Testament—such as those found in Deuteronomy 7, Joshua 6–11, and 1 Samuel 15—must be approached with theological, historical, and moral discernment.

1. Scripture Is Progressive Revelation, Not Static Law​

You must recognise that divine revelation unfolds gradually. The Old Testament records the history of a people being formed in covenant with God, often through culturally conditioned narratives of warfare and conquest. These texts reflect the ancient Near Eastern milieu, where divine favour was often expressed in military terms.

• The Church teaches that Scripture is “without error” in what God wills to reveal for our salvation (cf. Dei Verbum §11), not necessarily in every historical or moral detail.
• You are not bound to imitate every action described in Scripture, especially those that conflict with the fullness of revelation in Christ.

✝️ 2. Christ Is the Fulfilment and Corrective of the Old Law​

As a follower of Christ, you are called to interpret the Old Testament through the lens of the New. Jesus explicitly rejects violence as a means of establishing the Kingdom of God.

• He commands you to love your enemies (Matthew 5:44), rebukes violent retaliation (Luke 9:55), and reveals God’s mercy as central to divine justice.
• The Catechism affirms that “the Gospel has brought to light the incompleteness of the Old Law” (CCC §1963).

Thus, any interpretation that justifies genocide or ethnic cleansing is incompatible with the Gospel.

3. The Church Condemns All Forms of Genocide​

You are morally obligated to reject genocide in all its forms. The Church has consistently condemned such acts as grave violations of human dignity.

• Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes (§27) declares that “whatever is opposed to life itself… genocide… all these and the like are infamies indeed.”
• The Catechism (§2313) reiterates that “non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.”

To apply ancient conquest narratives as moral justification today would be a profound distortion of Catholic teaching.

️ 4. Allegorical and Typological Readings Are Preferred​

You are encouraged to read difficult passages spiritually rather than literally. The Church Fathers often interpreted the wars of Israel as allegories for spiritual struggle.

• Origen and Augustine saw the destruction of enemies as symbolic of the soul’s battle against sin.
• The conquest of Canaan prefigures the Church’s mission to overcome evil—not through violence, but through grace.

This hermeneutic protects you from misusing Scripture to justify immoral acts.

️ 5. You Must Uphold the Dignity of All Peoples​

Catholic social teaching affirms the universal dignity of every human person, created in the image of God. You are called to be a peacemaker, not a warrior of vengeance.

• The Church’s mission is evangelisation, not domination.
• Any theology that seeks to revive Old Testament violence as normative is contrary to the Church’s understanding of divine mercy and justice.

---

In sum, you must not apply the genocidal passages of the Old Testament as moral or theological justification for violence today. To do so would be to misread Scripture, ignore the corrective light of Christ, and violate the core of Catholic moral teaching. You are instead called to interpret these texts within the fullness of divine revelation, always guided by love, mercy, and the dignity of the human person.

I never said anything about applying genocidal passages to today. It wasn’t even implied. But the genocidal passages in the OT were just for that time.

 

[John Robie]

I'm afraid I'm more like @2PhiloVoid . Reading and studying the Bible over the years has given me a better understanding of the whole sweep of the Bible's redemptive story, from the patriarchs to Israel to post-exilic Judaism to the Christian church to the world. But it's also made me look hard at some of the morally difficult passages. I confess I wrestle even more with the goodness of God than I used to when I was younger. Faith is harder, not easier, these days.

Who defines morality?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I read more than just the Bible alone as well. So I’m not sure what your point is.

I appreciate the sentiments you've given in your OP, John. I think the expression of what seems to be tension with your OP by some here likely comes in its timing, in that with all that is going on in the world right now involving human rights questions, especially but not only regarding what has been transpiring in the Gaza Strip, even the tiniest allusion to the fact that we find, as you said, "commands of wiping out entire nations" in the Old Testament, there are those here who are going to have a conscious knee-jerk reaction to your OP.

It's not that there's something wrong with your OP per say. It's just the timing of it all and the fact that we have been living in a post-holocaust era since the end of World War 2.

Anyway, I understand your OP and I can empathize with it, even if I don't think I carry the sinfulness of a Canaanite or Amorite or Amalekite.

 

[PloverWing]

Who defines morality?

Ah, for that we really are going to have to call on the philosophers.

As Christians, we believe that God is the creator of all things and the source of all goodness. In that sense, God is the one who defines goodness and light and beetles and oak trees and everything else.

But we have to be careful when we say this. If we define "morally good" to mean "whatever God does", then the sentence "God is morally good" will have no content. Since we've made the sentence true by definition, it thus asserts nothing about God's character.

I don't have a perfect answer for you, but I have misgivings about Divine Command Theory.

 

[John Robie]

I appreciate the sentiments you've given in your OP, John. I think the expression of what seems to be tension with your OP by some here likely comes in its timing, in that with all that is going on in the world right now involving human rights questions, especially but not only regarding what has been transpiring in the Gaza Strip, even the tiniest allusion to the fact that we find, as you said, "commands of wiping out entire nations" in the Old Testament, there are those here who are going to have a conscious knee-jerk reaction to your OP.

It's not that there's something wrong with your OP per say. It's just the timing of it all and the fact that we have been living in a post-holocaust era since the end of World War 2.

Anyway, I understand your OP and I can empathize with it, even if I don't think I carry the sinfulness of a Canaanite or Amorite or Amalekite.

FWIW, my op had nothing to do with current events. It was just something I came across, and I thought it would make an interesting discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

FWIW, my op had nothing to do with current events. It was just something I came across, and I thought it would make an interesting discussion.

I know, and it is an interesting discussion. I'm not attempting to put a damper on it but rather to explain why some folks will have a knee-jerk reaction to it when they see you saying that "the commands of wiping out entire nations" is/was morally just.

While I do cringe at the idea, I also understand the existing underlying reason (or complex of reasons) why the command is presented as being morally just from within the early Hebrew/Mosaic perspective of the Old Testament books.

Some of this knee-jerk reaction today comes about because when some folks think of the Canaanites, Amorites or Amalekites in their minds, they fancy pictures of their peaceable next-door neighbors rather than an early form of a blood spattering, child-sacrificing, be our slaves or die Nazi style set of national cultures.

And who knows for sure the extent to which those ancient cultures were warlike and morally demented, ... or not?

What we do know for sure is that when we watch the news coming out of that part of the world today, we're appalled by what we see.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've got some scholarly reading to do.

If you do, let me know how it goes. Also, if you haven't already noticed, Michael Ignatief's book isn't a Christian book and is actually a political science / philosophical forum on a complex topic, bringing in a few other political commentators to critique his analysis. Don't let the title, which is click-bait, scare you away from it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

FWIW, my op had nothing to do with current events. It was just something I came across, and I thought it would make an interesting discussion.

Has it born the fruit you expected?

 

[PloverWing]

FWIW, my op had nothing to do with current events.

I believe you. I was uncomfortable with parts of the Old Testament long before the current war in Gaza started. You should hear some of the discussions that we've had in our church's lector team meetings when the sacrifice of Isaac comes up in our lectionary.

Our lectionary handles Joshua by skipping most of it. That's one approach...

[ For non-Episcopalians: Each Sunday, the Scripture readings assigned by our lectionary are read by lay members of the church, called "lectors". Our parish has regular meetings in which we discuss the passages we're going to read, and how to read them well, led by one of our members who has a background in theatre. For the Genesis passage, what tone of voice do you use for God as you read? for Abraham, for Isaac? It's worth reading the passage aloud a few times, and sitting with it. ]