A Unified View of Herem in the Conquest

Chapter 1: Defining Herem

Lexical and Philological Concerns

Defining herem is itself a difficult task. There is no single all-encompassing word in English that covers the wide diversity in usage and theological weight attributed to herem in Scripture. A brief survey of Old Testament scholars is necessary to ascertain a working definition from which to build a theology.

At the core, herem is often translated with the concept of “devoted” in mind. The following are renderings of herem from popular Bible translations: NRSV – “devoted to the Lord for destruction;” NIV – “devoted to the Lord;” NJB – “devoted to Yahweh under the curse of destruction.”[1] Other translations emphasize “destruction,” or being “under the ban” as descriptors of “herem.”[2] Conservative scholar Eugene Merrill expounds upon these traditional definitions stating, “that persons or things that come under herem … are either destroyed totally or surrendered over to the Lord for his own use.”[3] Commentator Robert Hubbard Jr. argues persuasively for herem as “utter destruction” and “plunder” by focusing on the nature of an object being devoted to God.[4] When an object or person enters herem, it is permanently removed from the realm of human use and transferred to YHWH’s realm.[5] Thus, objects are either destroyed or used in the temple, and people are either dedicated to YWHW or put to death. These definitions and interpretations are typically used to argue for a literal interpretation of the herem conquests in Joshua.

Simply defining the word herem lexically does not necessarily give one a philological understanding. The best place to begin developing the relationship of herem to other words in the Hebrew language is Deuteronomy 7:1-2, which ties herem to the following: “possess,” “drive out,” “delivers … over,” “no treaty,” and “no mercy.”[6] Possession of the land and driving out enemies are the primary focuses of Deuteronomy 7:1. As such, the concept of herem should be seen as playing a subordinate or assisting role to those themes.[7] Philip Stern, who wrote his dissertation on herem, argued that this rearrangement of herem under the concept of the conquest of the land allowed for the redefinition of herem to encapsulate “the struggle for land and an ordered existence.”[8] However, the textual presence of a possession/driving out agenda does not negate the presence of herem in verses that explicitly endorse the general slaughter of all inhabitants. For example, Joshua 8:24, which states that “Israel had finished killing everyone in Ai,” can be directly linked to herem in Joshua 8:26, which emphasizes that Joshua did not stop the attack until the citizens of Ai were “completely destroyed.”[9] Thus, though philological inquiry lends evidence for a more peaceful interpretation of herem, it is impossible to pull the word from its violent roots.

Extra Biblical Inscriptions

From scholarly definitions, it is easy to pick up on the tension between wanting to hold to a literal interpretation of herem for reasons of maintaining textual reliability and wanting to provide a definition of herem that is not morally reprehensible to the modern reader. In order to come to a better understanding, it is important to analyze how other cultures understood herem.

Mesha Inscription

Though most cultures did not have an understanding of herem that relates to the Biblical use, a few did, especially Israel’s cousin Moab.[10] In the 9th century B.C., King Mesha of Moab had a stele constructed that detailed his victory over Israel and the house of Omri. The pertinent portion of the Mesha Inscription reads: “I attacked the city and I seized it and I slaughtered all the peo(ple of) the city — satiation for Kemosh and Moab … So I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) — seven thousand m( e ) n, b(o)ys, ladies, girls, and maidens — for the warrior Kemosh I devoted them.”[11] The word “devoted” is herem and, as in Deuteronomy 7:1-2, it is linked to killing, possession of land, and expulsion from land. Additionally, killing takes a prominent spot in Mesha’s herem, as he asserts that he “devoted” through death seven thousand people of all ages and genders to his gods. These associations strengthen the definitions of herem found from lexical and philological investigations.

However, there is another side to the story of the Mesha Inscription which follows more closely to the idea that herem was “taken on to keep Israel morally pure and [was] a precondition to entering the land.”[12] After devoting the Israelites to his gods, Mesha reports that he “rebuilt … the walls … gates … tower … palace … [and] cistern[s],” because the area was in ruins.[13] Additionally, he mentions the removal of objects dedicated to YHWH. These statements reinforce the idea that, without Moab and its gods, the land of the Israelites was in chaotic ruin. Only through the purging of the people and religion could moral order be restored and a new “world” created. This new world would be represented by proper protection and basic quality of life advancements. This view of herem is supported by the texts in Deuteronomy that advocate for the advancement of the foreigner through a better way of living (see Deut. 15; 21;10-14; 24:17-18).[14]

Ugaritic Text – “An Incantation Against Infertility”

Another ancient text that links herem to killing and annihilation is the Ugaritic text titled “An Incantation Against Infertility.” The important portion of the text reads, “May the Damsel bear (a bull to Baal) Devote to destruction In(?) two days, Annihilate in(?)(three) days. Go, kill in (fo)ur days….”[15] The term herem or “devote to destruction” is directly related through parallelism to annihilation and killing. This text does not leave much room for herem to be interpreted in a watered-down manner. The text clearly indicates that killing and death were the primary means of devoting people to destruction under the herem ban.

The Idi-Sin Inscription

Another inscription dating from the Early Babylonian Period is called the Idi-Sin Inscription. The pertinent section reads, “Adad, Ishtar and Nishba lent an ear to his word. He destroyed the city and dedicated it to those gods. He set up an offering table of Ishtar, his mistress.”[16] In this inscription, herem is linked to the destruction of the city through dedication to the gods. This reinforces the definition of herem as meaning to “consecrate through destruction.”[17]

The Unified Definition

Through the prior investigations into the definition of “herem,” two lines of reasoning become apparent. First, when relating to conquest, herem necessarily involves putting large numbers of people to death. Second, the death required is not arbitrary; it fits into a context of purification of the land as a pre-requirement for possession by the people of God. In light of these streams of thought, the unified definition of herem is the one that comes closest to capturing the full meaning of the word. Old Testament Professor Kyle Dunham provides a useful statement of the unified definition saying that herem is “a ritual act of divine judgment enacted militarily by Israel in the promised land as indicative of the inviolable relationship between God, the provider of the sacred land, and his covenant people in the land, so as to restore order, render justice, remove abomination, and re-establish holiness.”[18]

The next section will examine how the unified definition is demonstrated throughout the herem texts of the Deuteronomy and Joshua.

Chapter 2: Contextual/Theological Framework of Herem

Herem as a Covenantal Sacrifice

To understand herem as a covenantal sacrifice it is necessary to examine priestly sections of Scripture and how they convey the concept. Though the following verses do not discuss herem in a warlike context, they highlight the sacrificial nature of the ban.[19] Leviticus 27:28 reads, “Nothing that a man permanently sets apart to the Lord from all he owns, whether a person, an animal, or his inherited landholding, can be sold or redeemed; everything set apart is especially holy to the Lord.”[20] In this case, objects under herem are things that could be used for personal gain. Objects banned included property, animals, and persons. Verse 29 states that “no person who has been set apart for destruction is to be ransomed; he must be put to death.”[21] People were the highest and most prized resource in ancient times.[22] To put them to death required great sacrifice on the part of the people and great dependence on God for provision.

This idea of sacrificial dependence is carried through to herem in conquest, with the battle and victory at Jericho being the perfect example. In Joshua 6:18-19, everything that is under herem is considered holy and the people of Israel must be kept apart from it. This language is reminiscent of the requirement that the people of Israel maintain a healthy distance from the ark of the covenant due to its holy and sacred nature. By placing earthly or material things under herem, these items have taken on a sacred sacrificial nature and cannot ever be used for human purposes.[23] At Jericho, God uses herem to further drive the Israelites into dependence on Him through sacrifice. The devotion or destruction of “every ox, sheep, and donkey” forces the Israelites to rely on Him for their sustenance rather than on the spoils of conquest. Having just come from 40 years of wandering in the desert, this level of trust in God was exceptional as the Israelites had virtually nothing of their own.

Jericho’s destruction is further supported by archaeological evidence. Upon excavation, archaeologists found “unusually large stores of carbonized grain” which was odd because “grain was a valuable commodity almost always plundered by conquering forces.”[24] This is yet another example of how herem was a call to sacrifice. Additionally, Deuteronomy 13:17 describes the burning of a city as “whole-offering,” further stressing the idea of herem as sacrifice.[25] The sacrifice of the material goods at Jericho is reminiscent of the near-sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. Even as He began to fulfill His promise, God demanded a sacrifice so that the promise would not supplant Him in the Abraham’s heart.

The sacrificial nature of herem is also demonstrated in its high regard for human life. The one universal requirement of the ban in conquest is that the people of a city or region are preferentially devoted to destruction (see Deut. 2:34-35; Deut. 3:6-7; Joshua 6:17-21; Joshua 8:2, 24-28; Joshua 10:28-40; Joshua 11:11,14). Human life was the most precious resource of the ancient era and “in giving humans to God, the Israelites [were] not saving the best booty for themselves.”[26] There would have been clear temptation to bolster their numbers, gain slave labor, and have more warriors in the army. But through herem, God kept Israel’s dependence and focus on Himself not on Israel’s own strength. Under herem, “the options of enslavement and treaty” were not possible.[27]

Herem as the Justice of God

One of the clearest theological uses of herem is as an execution of the justice of God. The Israelites receive the sternest judgments associated with herem; if they fall into idolatry of any kind, they also fall under the herem ban. In Deuteronomy 13, herem is to be executed if people are saying “Let us go and worship other gods.”[28] If the matter was found to be true, the Israelites were to “strike down the inhabitants of that city with the sword. Completely destroy everyone in it as well as its livestock with the sword. You are to gather all its spoil in the middle of the city square and completely burn up the city and all its spoil for the Lord your God.”[29] In this case, herem is a severe punishment for idolatry and is just as thorough as herem in any other case, perhaps more so. God could not allow impurity to exist within His relationship to His chosen people.

Upon other nations, herem was typically not executed solely for worshipping false idols. Instead, herem was invoked by God for human-human moral failures. For example, Leviticus 18 sets the stage for the types of rampant immorality of the Canaanite lands, stating that they frequently engage in incestuous sexuality, bestiality, and child sacrifice.[30] If the Israelites exhibited any of the behaviors of the foreign nations, they would be “vomited out” of the land and “cut off from his people.”[31] The punishment is applied to the peoples of Canaan as early as Deuteronomy 9:5, where God asserts that the Israelites are not being given the land because of their inherent goodness; rather, the Canaanites are being driven out “because of their wickedness.”[32] Deuteronomy 18: 9,12 further emphasize judgment as the foundation for herem by declaring that “the Lord is driving out the nations before [Israel] because of these detestable things.”[33] By linking the wickedness of the nations to the detailed versions in Leviticus, it is clear that abject moral failure on the part of the nations is one of the main driving forces behind herem. Additionally, even though herem is used as a means by which Israel can reclaim the Promised Land, God does “not evict [the Canaanites] until their immoral ways justify such a punishment.”[34] In this way the justice, promises, and plans of God align with each other in the herem.

The justice of God is also seen in the story of Achan. With superficial examination, Achan’s sin does not seem to merit the potential destruction of all Israel that is decreed in Joshua 6:18. However, in Joshua 7:11, the act of judgment through herem is justified.[35] God emphatically states that “Israel has sinned. They have violated My covenant that I appointed for them.”[36] For Israel, this violation was a direct act of bringing that which was holy and sacred, “devoted to God,” into their midst. In doing this, they not only violated their agreement with God, but they demonstrated that their hearts were not truly with the Lord and would be swayed by idols, false promises, and the shiny things of other nations.[37] Additionally, they unwittingly brought themselves into the presence of a holy God who, under the theology of devotion detailed in the Torah, would require that what was devoted to the Lord would be free of sin.[38] For humanity, that meant death.[39]

Thus, this was not a simply case of theft. This was a direct attack against God’s covenant and as such required God’s justice through herem. Similarly, when Achan was judged under herem he was not only stoned and put to fire, but so was “the silver, the cloak, and the bar of gold, his sons and daughters, his ox, donkey, and sheep, his tent, and all that he had.”[40] Simply returning the stolen goods to God would not be enough. He took them and by the justice of God, he and his house now fell under the same herem as the people of Jericho, for sin had to be rooted out.[41]

Herem as the Means of Purifying and Securing the Promised Land

At the forefront of herem is the fulfillment of the promise of God to bring Israel into the Promised Land. Deuteronomy 9 sets the stage for the fulfillment saying that Israel will “drive out nations,” “the Lord your God drives them out before you,” and that this driving out is done “to keep the promise He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”[42] Deuteronomy subjugates herem to the possession of the land by placing “drives out” and “possess” in a place of first importance and relegating herem to the method by which they are to drive out and possess.[43] The removal of the prior peoples signified that “a new world [was] created and consecrated” to the Lord for the His chosen people.[44] The resettlement of the Israelites in the Promised Land could not have taken place without herem, because without it, they would have simply melded in with the inhabitants, lost their nationhood, identiy, and God.[45]

Herem also was God’s way of providing for the Israelites once they had entered the land. God promised Israel in Deuteronomy 6:10-11 and reminded Israel in Joshua 24:13 that He gave them “a land on which [they] had not labored, and cities which [they] had not built.”[46] Whereas standard conquest may have left a haphazard smattering of half destroyed cities and towns, through herem, God ensured that things like cisterns, vineyards, and olive trees would be present for Israel as an infrastructure that would ensure economic prosperity and healthy living.[47] This emphasizes the second main point of herem: the new created order was not a materialistic cleansing and renewal, but a moral one.

A second and equally important aspect of herem is the purification of the land. It was not enough for Israel to simply inhabit the land. If the Canaanites were still there, existing side by side with the Israelites, the people of God would surely fall into idolatry and moral depravity.[48] This is illustrated by verses which state that if Israel makes a “treaty” with a foreign nation, or takes “their daughters for your sons” (intermarriage), the other nations will surely “turn your sons away from Me to worship other gods.”[49] Thus, the land had to be purified from idolatry. When nations were placed under “herem,” Israel was to “tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, cut down their Asherah poles, and burn up their carved images” as those things would be snares for Israel.[50] It seemes that Joshua faithfully carried out God’s version of herem, as he left “nothing undone of all that the Lord had commanded Moses.”[51] However, the land was not fully taken, and near the end of his life, Joshua gives a stern warning that intermarriage will lead to the Lord’s wrath falling on Israel, presumably due to idolatry. It is worth noting that the Lord placed an intermediary step between expelling the Israelites and their idolatry. First, as a warning, Joshua said that God would, “not continue to drive these nations out before you.”[52] In other words, God would only drive them out if Israel remained distinct from them.

Additionally, the land had to be purified of improper moral practices related to how people interacted with each other. For example, in Deuteronomy 18, God issues an explicit instruction not to “learn [or] imitate the detestable ways of the nations” in the lands that they will take over.[53] But this time the injunction does not concern idolatry, but rather, “sacrifice[ing] their son or daughter in the fire,” and practicing “divination or sorcery.”[54] Leviticus 18 also lists a substantial number of sexual practices that Israel was forbidden to engage in, including sexual relations with relatives and child sacrifice. Again, the Lord’s command to the Israelites was to “not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them,” because if they did they would be driven from the land.[55] Thus, it was not simply the removal of the Canaanites and installation of the Israelites that was important, but the removal of Canaanite practices and the installation of moral righteousness. This understanding has contributed to the theory that herem was about restoring order to the Promised Land.

Finally, herem is also used to purify the tribe of Benjamin of its sin and restore it to its inheritance. The poison of sin began when a small group of men from the city of Gibeah raped and murdered a fellow Israelite’s concubine. This merited punishment against the city which included putting the men to death and “eradicating evil from Israel,” essentially placing the city under herem.[56] In this way, the sin would have been cut off and no further action would need to have been taken. However, by siding with the men of Gibeah, the entire tribe of Benjamin essentially harbored what was under the ban and therefore they too became sinful and subject to destruction. So, the Lord told the men of Israel to attack the Benjamites. However, herem did not stop there; at the end of the chapter the author records that “The men of Israel turned back against the other Benjaminites and killed them with their swords—the entire city, the animals, and everything that remained. They also burned down all the cities that remained.” (Judges 20:48) At this point, herem has been enacted in full and evil would have been purged from the land. After the destruction of the Benjaminites, the Israelites also enacted herem against Jabesh-Gilead for breaking the covenant and not coming to the assembly at Mizpah. From them they took unmarried women to give to the tribe of Benjamin so that it would not be wiped out. These two incidents are prime examples of herem being enacted to purge sin and purify the land.

The Greater and Lesser Herem

Another puzzling aspect of herem is that it seems to vary in degree. For example, Jericho receives the highest, most thorough form of herem in that “God commands Israel to destroy everything.”[57] Yet, in Ai, Israel was allowed to “plunder its spoil and livestock.”[58] (Joshua 8) The same was true for Hazor and the surrounding cities.[59] While some have had difficulty addressing why herem was enacted differently in different places, a few possibilities have the potential to make sense of the situation. First, the primary difference between Jericho and the cities of Ai and Hazor is that Jericho was the first city to be conquered in the Promised Land. Thus, Jericho would have received the most severe form of herem as “a form of firstfruits offering.”[60] Understanding herem in this context allows for greater theological and practical implications. This would have encouraged Israel to remain completely dependent on God for sustenance, places to live, and economic prosperity. By dedicating the first of the spoils to God, Israel solidified their trust in God through Joshua’s generation. Additionally, by dedicating the first of the conquest to God, Israel acknowledged that it truly was God fighting their battles and winning their victories. The only other place “absolute herem” was executed was “apostate Israelite cities,” which seems to indicate that this form of herem was reserved for “morally depraved populations of a particularly egregious sort.”[61]

There are two lesser forms of herem, the first of which is where the city was to be destroyed and never rebuilt, but spoils could be taken. Both Ai and the cities of Hazor fall under this type of herem. Reasons for this only amount to speculation, but it would not be hard to see those cities as being especially depraved to the point that inhabitation would have led Israel into apostacy simply due to the architecture and structures set up there. The final and most lenient form of herem involved the preservation of the cities. This form of herem was required by God’s own promise that he would hand over cities for them to live in that they did not build.[62] Even though the spoils were not always destroyed, it is important to note that in all situations of herem the total destruction of the people was called for.

Investigation into the theological and practical aspects of herem reveals a purpose similar to the definitions provided from lexical and philological examination. Herem is a sacrificial act whereby Israel would dedicate the spoils of their victory to God. People placed under herem were not sacrificed in a traditional sense, but put to death according to God’s divine judgment against their sin. God also used herem as a means of providing Israel the land that He promised to give them. Thus, it was used to cleanse and purify the land of sin. This understanding of herem directly plays into the modern accusation against the ban, namely, that it is an immoral genocide. However, as will be outlined later, genocide is the least likely understanding that applies to the concept of herem.

Chapter 3: Herem and the Conquest: Literal, Hyperbolic, or Something In-between?

Herem is not Genocide

In order to understand whether or not biblical herem was genocide, it is important first to come to a clear definition of what genocide actually is. The United Nations’ definition of genocide is as follows:

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”[63]

Unfortunately, this definition does not encompass everything needed to declare an act is genocide. For example, under this definition, the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be considered genocidal acts and thus evil. Those acts were “committed with intent to destroy … in part … a national … group.” Non-military targets comprised the preponderance of people who died in those events.

This definition does not account for justification or true intention. In order to maintain that the biblical herem was genocide, some scholars purposefully cut out justification and intention. For example, T. Lemos, in his article comparing the Rwandan genocide to herem, argues that terms like “ethnic cleansing” should not be synonymous to genocide because they carry the idea that genocide has to be carried out with nothing but ethnicity in mind.[64] This is exactly the problem with the current definition. Without ascribing intent, genocide can be expanded to fit the killing of any group of people as long as they coincidentally happen to share “ethnical, racial, or religious” characteristics.

Greg Koukl argues along these lines in his analysis, stating that the conquest narratives cannot be genocide, because “God cared nothing about skin color or national origin.”[65] He goes on to cite that if the conquest truly was about genocide then saving Rahab and her house would have been antithetical.[66] The stories of the acceptance of Naomi and Ruth into the Messianic line would also have been antithetical. In fact, God made multiple provisions for foreigners and others who were in the land — so much so that to say that the Israelites exterminated everyone in the land due to nationality does not make sense.[67] So if people were not being killed for their ethnicity, then what were they being killed for?

The answer is in many of the texts cited previously. First and foremost is Deuteronomy 9:5, which sets the Canaanite’s destruction firmly in their own hands due to their “wickedness.”[68] Irrespective of the fact that the removal of the Canaanites also correlated with the deliverance of Israel into the Promised Land, the justification for the extermination of the Canaanites is explicitly stated as coming from their depraved immorality. This is the point at which modern scholars diverge; many take a “certain ‘whatever that’s about’ dismissal … of ‘ancient evils’ … as a way of coping with [their] denial” of how bad these nations really were.[69] The nations were not being judged for simply worshipping other Gods, although that is often used as explanation because their evil essentially stemmed from the gods they worshipped. Rather, rampant incest, temple prostitution, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality were not only commonplace, but celebrated enthusiastically.[70]

The argument then is that genocide is what the name implies: killing of people because of their genetic or ethnographic markers. What happened under herem was the killing of people because of their sin. It was a holy judgment by a holy God and Israel itself would not escape that judgment if it engaged in the same activities.

Against Hyperbole

One way that scholars have attempted to get around the mass killing aspect of herem is to declare that all of the texts saying that everyone was put to the sword and utterly destroyed are simply hyperbolic. Paul Copan is a primary proponent of this view. His first line of reasoning concerns the fact that at multiple points in both Joshua and Judges, there are seemingly contradictory statements about whether or not a people group was actually exterminated.[71] For example, in Joshua 10:39, the author reports that they “completely destroyed everyone in [Debir], leaving no survivors,” but Joshua 11:21 reports that Joshua later “proceeded to exterminate the Anakim from the hill country” which included Debir.[72]

On the surface, it seems as though there is either a plain contradiction or a massive hyperbole. However, by examining a similar account that contains this apparent contradiction within one verse, a solution becomes apparent. Joshua 10:20 reads, “So Joshua and the Israelites finished inflicting a terrible slaughter on them until they were destroyed, although a few survivors ran away to the fortified cities.”[73] The verse begins with the typical assertion of complete destruction of a group of people, but then pivots to the fact that there were survivors who fled to other cities. Copan uses this verse and others like it saying, “when a city is in danger of falling, people do not simply wait there to be killed; they get out.”[74] However, that assessment gives one the impression that upon threat of invasion, the majority of people and armies fled. This flight is directly contradicted by verses that talk about how God hardened the hearts of some of these people groups. For example, Joshua 11:20 declares that “it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy.”[75] Rather than take a weak look at these verses, scripture itself seems to indicate that the killing was severe enough to have enacted full judgment against a people group due to their sins, but also not total enough to require the full extermination of every person. In other words, complete destruction is an adequate phrase to describe what happened even though there were a few survivors.

The second argument raised by Copan is that examination of the extreme sayings of the destruction of the Canaanites in the context of ancient near east history, causes them to take on a ritualistic and normative use.[76] Phrases like “cut down with the sword and not one escaped” are argued to be similar to other phrases used in ancient inscriptions that talk of victories in battle.[77] He also argues that these phrases were used historically by the victors as a way of saying that they attained total victory and domination of their enemies.[78] All of these ideas are most likely true, but it is a straw man argument to say that the losses on the enemy’s side were not substantial in order to avoid accusations of genocide. The comment is simply that the statements are hyperbolic, but how hyperbolic are they? At what point does the killing not count as genocide? Contrariwise, at what point does the lack of killing deny the justice and judgment of God for a people’s sins? Copan has made a good point that the language of totality is hyperbolic, but has not proved that it was hyperbolic to the point that genocide is off the table.

Against Hyper-literalism

On the other side of the coin of herem is the statement that the destructions recounted in Joshua are literal to the letter, that every last person of every last conquest was killed. This argument fails quickly, as referenced above there are numerous situations in which a population was said to be “utterly destroyed” and yet survivors are accounted for later. Some further examples of this are found in Joshua 11:21 as compared to Joshua 15:13-14, and Joshua 11:23 as compared to Judges 2:21,23.

Toward a Unified View

In summation, the biblical data, lexical data, philological data, theological data, and apologetic data all point to a view of herem that satisfies both the justice of God and accounts for the necessity of making the Promised Land a home for the Israelites. First and foremost, herem is a judgment against any people, be they an individual family all the way to a full nation who disobeys the commands of God by worshipping false idols and engaging in debasing sexual immorality and child sacrifice. Second, it was the process by which God evacuated the Promised land, yet leaving enough cities and agriculture so that the people of Israel could establish themselves quickly. Finally, it was also God’s means of creating a new world order in which a chosen people could be a righteous beacon to the surrounding peoples, demonstrating the existence and proper worship of the one true God.

Bibliography

Anderson, Gary A. “What About the Canaanites.” In Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham, edited by Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2011.

Ashley, Scott, and Jerold Aust. “Jericho: Does the Evidence Disprove or Prove the Bible?” Bible and Spade (Spring 2003). Accessed September 26, 2017. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/01/Jericho-Does-the-Evidence-Disprove-or-Prove-the-Bible.aspx.

Boda, Mark J. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Copan, Paul, and Matthew Flannagan. Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014.

Creach, Jerome F. D. Violence in Scripture. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013.

Dunham, Kyle C. “Yahweh War and Herem: The Role of Covenant, Land, and Purity in the Conquest of Canaan.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 21 (2016): 7–30.

Earl, Douglas S. “Holy War and Herem: A Biblical Theology of Herem.” In Holy War in the Bible, edited by Heath A. Thomas, Jeremy Evans, and Paul Copan. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Gangloff, Frederic. “Joshua 6: Holy War or Extermination by Divine Command (Herem)?” Theological Review 25, no. 1 (2004): 3–23.

Howard Jr., David, M. Joshua: An Exegetical Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Vol. 5. The New American Commentary: New International Version. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1998.

Hubbard Jr., Robert L. The NIV Application Commentary: Joshua. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.

Jones, Clay. “We Don’t Hate Sin So We Don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites: An Addendum to ‘Divine Genocide’ Arguments.” Philosophia Christi 11, no. 1 (2009).

Koukl, Greg. “The Canaanites: Genocide or Judgement?” Enhanced Solid Ground: A Foundation for Building Ambassadors (February 2013).

Lemos, T.M. “Dispossessing Nations: Population Growth, Scarcity, and Genocide in Ancient Israel and Twentieth-Century Rwanda.” In Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible: New Perspectives, edited by Saul M. Olyan. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2015.

Lilley, J.P.U. “Understanding the Herem.” Tyndale Bulletin 44, no. 1 (1993): 169–177.

Merrill, Eugene. Everlasting Dominion. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006.

de Moor, J.C., and K. Spronk. “A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit.” Semitic Study Series 6 (1987).

Niditch, Susan. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Stern, Philip D. The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991.

“Analysis Framework.” Office of the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (OSAPG), n.d. Accessed September 27, 2017. http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf.

[1] Joshua 6:17 (NRSV); Joshua 6:17 (NIV); Joshua 6:17 (NJB).

[2] Joshua 6:17 (NASB); Joshua 6:17 (NLT); Joshua 6:17 (NKJV).

[3] Eugene Merrill, Everlasting Dominion (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 111.

[4] Robert L. Hubbard Jr., The NIV Application Commentary: Joshua (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 198.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Deuteronomy 7:1-2 (HCSB).

[7] Philip D. Stern, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), 47.

[8] Ibid, 49.

[9] Joshua 8:24,26 (HCSB).

[10] Douglas S. Earl, “Holy War and Herem: A Biblical Theology of Herem,” in Holy War in the Bible, ed. Heath A. Thomas, Jeremy Evans, and Paul Copan (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 155.

[11] Stern, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience, 55.

[12] Jerome F. D. Creach, Violence in Scripture (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013), 101.

[13] Stern, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience, 55.

[14] Creach, Violence in Scripture, 104.

[15] J.C. de Moor and K. Spronk, “A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit,” Semitic Study Series 6 (1987): 58-59.

[16] Stern, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience, 39.

[17] Ibid, 16.

[18] Kyle C. Dunham, “Yahweh War and Herem: The Role of Covenant, Land, and Purity in the Conquest of Canaan,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 21 (2016): 28.

[19] Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), 29.

[20] Leviticus 27:28 (HCSB).

[21] Leviticus 27:29 (HCSB).

[22] Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence, 50.

[23] David Howard Jr. M., Joshua: An Exegetical Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, vol. 5, The New American Commentary: New International Version (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1998), 181.

[24] Scott Ashley and Jerold Aust, “Jericho: Does the Evidence Disprove or Prove the Bible?,” Bible and Spade (Spring 2003), accessed September 26, 2017, http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/01/Jericho-Does-the-Evidence-Disprove-or-Prove-the-Bible.aspx.

[25] Stern, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience, 107.

[26] Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence, 35.

[27] J.P.U. Lilley, “Understanding the Herem,” Tyndale Bulletin 44, no. 1 (1993): 176.

[28] Deuteronomy 13:13 (HCSB).

[29] Deuteronomy 13:14-16 (HCSB).

[30] Leviticus 18 (HCSB).

[31] Leviticus 18:24-28 (HCSB).

[32] Deuteronomy 9:5 (HCSB).

[33] Greg Koukl, “The Canaanites: Genocide or Judgement?,” Enhanced Solid Ground: A Foundation for Building Ambassadors (February 2013), 5.

[34] Gary A. Anderson, “What About the Canaanites,” in Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham, ed. Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea (Oxford Scholarship Online, 2011), 11.

[35] Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence, 59.

[36] Joshua 6:18 (HCSB).

[37] Deuteronomy 6 (HCSB).

[38] Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 130.

[39] Exodus 33:20, Deuteronomy 5 (HCSB).

[40] Joshua 7:24 (HCSB).

[41] Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence, 60.

[42] Deuteronomy 9:1-6 (HCSB).

[43] Deuteronomy 7:1-2 (HCSB).

[44] Stern, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience, 141.

[45] Frederic Gangloff, “Joshua 6: Holy War or Extermination by Divine Command (Herem)?,” Theological Review 25, no. 1 (2004): 17.

[46] Deuteronomy 6:10-11, Joshua 24:13 (HCSB).

[47] Deuteronomy 6:10-11 (HCSB).

[48] Hubbard Jr., The NIV Application Commentary: Joshua, 199.

[49] Deuteronomy 7:2-4 (HCSB).

[50] Deuteronomy 7:5 (HCSB).

[51] Joshua 11:15 (HCSB).

[52] Joshua 23:13 (HCSB).

[53] Deuteronomy 18:9 (HCSB).

[54] Deuteronomy 18:9-12, 12:31 (HCSB).

[55] Leviticus 18:30 (NIV).

[56] Judges 20:13 (HCSB).

[57] Dunham, “Yahweh War and Herem: The Role of Covenant, Land, and Purity in the Conquest of Canaan,” 26.

[58] Joshua 8:2 (HCSB).

[59] Joshua 11 (HCSB).

[60]  Dunham, “Yahweh War and Herem: The Role of Covenant, Land, and Purity in the Conquest of Canaan,” 15.

[61] Ibid, 27.

[62] Joshua 24:13 (HCSB).

[63] “Analysis Framework” (Office of the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (OSAPG), n.d.), accessed September 27, 2017, http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf, 1.

[64] T.M. Lemos, “Dispossessing Nations: Population Growth, Scarcity, and Genocide in Ancient Israel and Twentieth-Century Rwanda,” in Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible: New Perspectives, ed. Saul M. Olyan (Oxford Scholarship Online, 2015), 4.

[65] Koukl, “The Canaanites: Genocide or Judgement?”, 7.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Deuteronomy 9:5 (HCSB).

[69] Clay Jones, “We Don’t Hate Sin So We Don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites: An Addendum to ‘Divine Genocide’ Arguments,” Philosophia Christi 11, no. 1 (2009), 54.

[70] Ibid, 53-72.

[71] Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014), 86.

[72] Joshua 10:39, 11:21 (HCSB).

[73] Joshua 10:20 (HCSB).

[74]  Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God, 86.

[75] Joshua 11:20 (HCSB).

[76]  Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God, 95.

[77] Ibid, 97.

[78] Ibid, 103.