Devoted to Destruction
In the Hebrew Bible, the directives for Israel’s taking of the land of Canaan are not found in a single manual or battle code, but are woven into a long narrative stretching from the wilderness traditions through the conquest stories and later theological reflections. These passages combine promise, command, warning, and interpretation, and they are framed as acts of covenant obedience rather than simple military expansion.
The story begins with the promise of land to the ancestors. In Genesis, God promises Abraham and his descendants a land already inhabited by other peoples. At this stage, however, there is no command to seize it by force. Instead, the text stresses patience and divine timing. In Genesis 15, God tells Abraham that his descendants will not take possession until “the iniquity of the Amorites is complete,” suggesting that the later conquest is understood as a form of divine judgment rather than ethnic aggression.
The explicit instructions appear most clearly in the books associated with Moses, especially Deuteronomy. As Israel stands on the edge of the land, Moses delivers speeches that interpret the coming conquest theologically. In Deuteronomy 7, Israel is commanded to “devote to destruction” the peoples of the land, listing groups such as the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, and others. The rationale given is not racial superiority or territorial ambition, but religious fidelity. The inhabitants are portrayed as practicing idolatry that would lead Israel away from exclusive loyalty to the LORD. The command to destroy altars, sacred poles, and idols is emphasized alongside the command to eliminate the peoples themselves, showing that the primary concern is the eradication of rival worship.
Deuteronomy 20 provides a more nuanced set of instructions. Cities outside the land may be offered terms of peace and subjected to forced labor if they surrender, but cities within the land promised to Israel are treated differently. For these, the text commands that “nothing that breathes” is to be left alive. Again, the explanation is theological: the danger is that these peoples would teach Israel to follow their gods and practices. The violence is framed as preventative, aimed at preserving covenant faithfulness.
The book of Joshua narrates the carrying out of these commands. The conquest stories, such as the destruction of Jericho in Joshua 6, explicitly describe the city being “devoted to the LORD,” with men, women, children, and animals killed, and valuables placed in the treasury of the sanctuary. The language used here reflects the concept of herem, or total dedication to God, which includes destruction. Other campaigns in Joshua are summarized in sweeping statements that entire regions were struck down and left without survivors, reinforcing the impression of complete obedience to the divine command.
At the same time, the narrative itself introduces tensions. Rahab and her family are spared at Jericho, and later groups such as the Gibeonites survive through deception and treaty. These episodes complicate the absolute language of destruction and show that mercy and incorporation are possible, even within the conquest framework.
The book of Judges then reflects on Israel’s failure to complete the conquest. Repeatedly, it states that Israel did not drive out certain peoples and instead lived among them. This failure is presented as the root cause of later religious compromise and social chaos. The theological lesson is clear: incomplete obedience leads to idolatry and judgment.
Later biblical books reinterpret these conquest traditions. Prophets often allude to the Canaanite practices to explain Israel’s own judgment. The same logic once applied to the inhabitants of the land is now turned against Israel itself when it adopts similar behaviors. This suggests that the conquest was never meant as a blanket endorsement of violence, but as a specific, time-bound act of divine judgment within a covenantal framework.
Taken together, the Hebrew Bible presents the taking of the Holy Land as a sacred drama rather than a military handbook. The commands to kill the inhabitants are grounded in theological concerns about holiness, idolatry, and covenant loyalty, and they are narrated as acts initiated and justified by God, not by human ambition. At the same time, the broader canon reflects on these events critically, using them to teach later generations about obedience, judgment, and the dangers of assimilating destructive religious practices.