Short Answer

From a Bible study perspective, the best starting point is the passage’s own setting. The commands are tied to particular peoples, particular moments, and particular covenant concerns, especially idolatry, land, and judgment.

A key Hebrew idea behind these texts is often rendered “devote to destruction” or “the ban” (herem). That term is part of the interpretive tension: some translations keep the severity visible, while others translate more technically or interpretively, which can change how readers hear the passage.

The Passage in Context

The main destruction texts are not all the same, even though they are often discussed together. Deuteronomy 20 gives Israel war instructions for the conquest of Canaan; Joshua narrates the conquest itself; and 1 Samuel 15 describes Saul’s commission against Amalek.

Here is the core wording of Deuteronomy 20:16-18 in the WEB:

“Only of the cities of these peoples, that Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, as Yahweh your God has commanded you; that they not teach you to do after all their abominations, which they have done to their gods; so would you sin against Yahweh your God.”
— WEB, Deuteronomy 20:16-18

The context in Deuteronomy is covenant identity. Israel is not told to destroy nations because they are outsiders in general, but because the text presents these commands as a response to entrenched practices the passage calls “abominations.”

Joshua 6 places similar language inside the story of Jericho. The narrative also includes Rahab’s rescue, which is important because it shows the chapter is not simply “everyone dies no matter what.” It is a judgment narrative with an exception built into the story.

“They utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.”
— WEB, Joshua 6:21

1 Samuel 15 is different again. Amalek is singled out because of its earlier opposition to Israel after the exodus, and Saul’s failure to carry out the command becomes the chapter’s major theological issue. The text even turns later toward obedience, not sacrifice, as the heart of the problem.

“Thus says Yahweh of Armies, ‘I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way, when he came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing baby, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
— WEB, 1 Samuel 15:2-3

Why This Passage Feels Difficult

These passages are hard because they do not sound limited or symbolic at first reading. They seem to include noncombatants, which raises obvious moral questions for modern readers.

They are also difficult because many people read them alongside other biblical claims about God’s compassion, patience, and concern for justice. The tension is not just emotional; it is theological. Readers ask how a good and holy God can command violence of this kind.

Another difficulty is historical distance. Ancient Near Eastern warfare, covenant identity, and land promises are far removed from modern American assumptions about war, nationhood, and morality. That gap makes it easy to flatten the text or misapply it.

What Most Christians Agree On

Most Christians agree that these passages are among the hardest in the Old Testament. They should not be minimized, and they should not be used as if the difficulty is imaginary.

Many Christians also agree that these texts are not a standing permission for modern holy war. Whatever someone concludes about the original commands, the New Testament does not hand the church a conquest program.

There is also broad agreement that the passages need context. Reading one sentence in isolation usually produces a worse interpretation than reading Deuteronomy, Joshua, 1 Samuel, and the rest of Scripture together.

Major Interpretations

Christians have not explained these passages in only one way. Several major interpretations are common, and some readers combine more than one.

  1. Judgment in history.
    Many interpreters say the passages present God as the judge of entrenched evil. In this view, the commands are not random violence but a severe form of judgment tied to the moral state of the nations and to the danger of Israel adopting their practices.

  2. Ancient warfare language may be hyperbolic.
    Some scholars and Christians point out that ancient war accounts often use totalizing language, such as “all,” “none,” or “left no survivor,” even when later texts show survivors or ongoing presence. On this reading, the language is still serious, but it follows a conventional ancient style rather than modern literal military reporting.

  3. Progressive revelation and covenant history.
    Others stress that these commands belong to a unique stage in redemptive history. Israel is not the church, the conquest is not repeated, and later biblical revelation narrows rather than expands the use of force.

  4. Accommodation or historical-theological reading.
    Some Christians and scholars think the text reflects ancient Israel’s way of understanding God’s action in history, shaped by real events, ancient idiom, and the theology of the time. This view does not dismiss the text, but it does raise questions about how directly every command should be mapped onto modern moral reasoning.

How Different Traditions Often Read It

Different Christian traditions often overlap more than they differ on the basic point that these texts are not a model for present-day violence.

Catholic interpreters commonly read the conquest within salvation history and often distinguish the literal historical setting from the spiritual and moral senses of the text. Catholic teaching does not treat these passages as a blueprint for Christian warfare.

Eastern Orthodox readers often emphasize typology and spiritual interpretation, seeing the conquest as part of the Bible’s larger drama of judgment, purification, and deliverance. At the same time, Orthodox readings still treat the historical claim seriously.

Protestant approaches vary widely. Reformed and evangelical readers often emphasize God’s sovereignty, justice, and the historicity of the command, while also acknowledging the limits of ancient warfare language. Many mainline Protestant and Wesleyan readers place more weight on literary form, historical context, and the way later Scripture reframes the people of God and the use of force.

What This Passage Does Not Mean

This passage does not mean that Christians have a warrant to destroy enemies today. The text is tied to a specific covenant setting and a specific stage in Israel’s history.

It does not mean that all outsiders are inherently evil. The passage is about judgment in the biblical narrative, not a general rule of ethnic superiority.

It does not mean that God approves cruelty for its own sake. Even readers who take the command as historical judgment usually insist that the text should not be stripped from its moral and covenant context.

It does not mean the Bible teaches a simple “Old Testament bad, New Testament good” contrast. Both Testaments contain judgment and mercy, and the challenge is to read them together.

Common Misreadings

A frequent misreading is to treat these texts as a blanket endorsement of genocide. That conclusion can be too fast, because it may ignore covenant language, ancient war rhetoric, and the passage’s specific historical claims.

Another misreading is to say the text is only about geography or land, with no moral dimension. The passages connect land, worship, and the corruption of idolatry, so the ethical issue is part of the text’s own logic.

Some readers assume every “destroy” command must describe modern-style literal extermination. Ancient texts often use compressed and total language, so interpretive caution is necessary.

Another mistake is to use these passages as a weapon against Judaism or against any ethnic group. The text is not a license for racism, religious contempt, or political violence.

These passages are easier to study when read alongside related texts on judgment, conquest, and covenant history:

Final Thoughts

The question “why did God command destruction” does not have a single simple answer, because the Bible presents several different destruction texts in different settings. A careful reading usually starts with context, then compares the language across the canon, and then asks how major Christian interpretations handle the moral tension.

For Bible study purposes, the most responsible approach is to resist both extremes: neither flatten the passages into easy moral slogans nor explain away the difficulty with a quick answer. The texts are severe, specific, and historically rooted, which is exactly why they still demand careful reading.

FAQ

What does “devote to destruction” mean in these passages?

It refers to a Hebrew concept often called herem, where something is set apart for total judgment rather than ordinary use. Depending on the passage and translation, this may be rendered as “destroy,” “utterly destroy,” or “devote to destruction.”

Why were the Canaanites or Amalekites singled out?

The text itself gives different reasons in different places. Deuteronomy links the Canaanite commands to idolatry and moral corruption, while 1 Samuel 15 ties Amalek to its earlier attack on Israel.

Does this mean Christians can justify violence today?

No. Most Christian interpretations reject using these passages as a modern model for warfare, coercion, or religious violence. The commands belong to Israel’s covenant history, not to the church’s mission.

Was the language always meant to be taken literally?

Christians disagree on that point. Some read the commands as fully historical; others argue that the wording follows ancient Near Eastern war conventions that use sweeping language for decisive victory.

Why do translations sound different?

Because translators make different choices for the Hebrew terms and idioms. Some translations sound more direct, while others use language that highlights the technical or covenantal nature of the command.

Does the New Testament change how readers should understand these texts?

Most Christians say yes, at least in terms of application. The New Testament does not repeat Israel’s conquest commands for the church, and it reframes the people of God around Christ rather than territorial warfare.