HistoricalChristian.Faith

Do the patristic defenses answer the moral problem of the ḥerem?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: contested — a serious, historically dominant Christian answer, genuinely disputed by ancient and modern moral critics; the two classic strategies (Origen's allegory, Augustine's divine-command / just war) are strong on their own terms yet pull in different directions and leave the sharpest form of the objection standing · advanced by Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo

A different axis from the rest of this page. Every other argument here asks whether the conquest happened — whether a synchronism or a date holds. This one asks a moral and theological question that arises whether or not the events are historical: the book of Joshua has God command the ḥerem, the "ban" or devotion-to-destruction of the Canaanite cities — "thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deuteronomy 20:16–17; cf. Joshua 6:21; 10:40; 11:11–14). Can that command be reconciled with a good God? The two most influential Christian answers were given early — Origen's allegorical reading and Augustine's divine-command / just-war reading — and they are weighed here on their own merits. This argument is kept off the historicity timeline for exactly that reason: it does not bear on whether the campaigns occurred, only on what to make of them morally.

The objection

The objection is as old as the Christian use of the Old Testament. Marcion (c. 144) concluded from the conquest wars, among other texts, that the Creator God of the Hebrew scriptures was a lower, warlike deity, not the Father of Jesus — and cut the Old Testament loose accordingly. A century and a half later the Manichaean bishop Faustus pressed the same charge against the catholic church that kept both Testaments: the "wars of Moses" and Joshua show the God of the law to be cruel and bloodthirsty, unworthy of worship. It is Faustus's attack that Augustine sets out to answer in Book 22 of the Reply to Faustus the Manichaean (Contra Faustum), quoting the objection and taking it point by point.¹ Origen, a generation before, had faced the pagan philosopher Celsus and the Marcionites on the same ground. The modern form of the objection is the same complaint stripped of Marcion's two-gods metaphysics: that a command to exterminate a population — children included — is monstrous, and "God ordered it" does not soften but sharpens the difficulty. The interpretation assessed here is the historic Christian reply that it can be answered, in one or both of the two classic ways.

Origen's answer: the war made spiritual

Origen's Homilies on Joshua (delivered at Caesarea, c. 249–251) do not defend the literal slaughter so much as dissolve it. His hinge is a fact of language: in Greek the name of Joshua son of Nun and the name of Jesus are one and the same word, Iēsous. So the whole book, Origen says, is less about its ostensible subject than about Christ:

the book does not so much indicate to us the deeds of the son of Nun, as it represents for us the mysteries of Jesus my Lord.

— Homilies on Joshua 1.3 (trans. Barbara J. Bruce).² On this reading the taking of the land becomes the Christian's interior warfare, from baptism to resurrection; the Canaanite kings and nations are read as the sins, passions, and hostile powers "within us." Christ, Origen preaches, "casts out of their cities, that is, out of our souls, those who used to occupy them. And he destroys the kings who were rulers in our souls 'that sin may no longer reign in us.'"³ Origen is explicit that the spiritual sense is the whole reason the church reads these violent books at all:

Unless those physical wars bore the figure of spiritual wars, I do not think the books of Jewish history would ever have been handed down by the apostles to the disciples of Christ, who came to teach peace, so that they could be read in the churches.

— Homilies on Joshua 15.1.⁴ The literal massacre is thus transposed into a nonviolent register: the only killing the Christian is called to is the killing of sin in himself. It is a powerful answer to Faustus — it removes the offense entirely — but note what it costs: it answers the objection by declining to affirm the literal event as the reader of a history would take it.

Augustine's answer: the just, commanded war

Augustine takes the opposite road: he defends the literal command as righteous, and in doing so lays the cornerstone of Western just-war theory. His governing principle is authorization. Just as the binding of Isaac is "shocking madness" if Abraham acts on his own but "faithful and submissive" obedience when God commands it, so the "act, the agent, and the authority for the action are all of great importance."⁵ On that principle the conquest wars are not cruelty but obedience:

in wars carried on by divine command, he showed not ferocity but obedience; and God in giving the command, acted not in cruelty, but in righteous retribution, giving to all what they deserved, and warning those who needed warning.

Augustine then relocates the real moral weight of war away from killing as such and onto the interior dispositions of the heart:

What is the evil in war? Is it the death of some who will soon die in any case, that others may live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like.

— Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 22.74. Legitimacy, he adds, turns on proper authority: "the natural order which seeks the peace of mankind, ordains that the monarch should have the power of undertaking war"; and "when war is undertaken in obedience to God… it must be allowed to be a righteous war."⁶ The two moves — that the deepest evil of war is a disposition of the heart, not the death of the body, and that a war is just when it is rightly authorized and rightly intended — became foundational for the whole later tradition of just-war reasoning, from Aquinas to modern international law.⁷

Adversarial assessment

What holds. These are not evasions; both are serious, coherent answers that shaped Christian thought for centuries. Augustine's core distinctions — that killing is not by itself the worst evil of war, and that the moral quality of a lethal act depends on its authority and intention — are genuine philosophical contributions, not special pleading, and survive well outside the biblical case (they underwrite most non-pacifist ethics of war to this day). This wiki does not treat a command as unjust merely because it issues in death, nor rule out a priori that God may righteously give and take life that is His to give and take; on that premise, a divinely authorized judgment on entrenched wickedness is a coherent position, and "no human ruler may licitly order this" is not itself a refutation of "God may." Origen's reading, for its part, is not a late apologetic dodge: it is early, it is the dominant patristic way of reading Joshua, and it fits the New Testament's own peace ethic and its habit of reading the conquest typologically (Hebrews 4; 1 Corinthians 10:11).

What the answers do not settle. Three things keep the interpretation short of secure. First, the two strategies pull against each other: Origen answers the objection by not affirming a literal extermination, while Augustine answers it by affirming the literal extermination as righteous — so "the patristic tradition answered it" names two different, partly incompatible answers, and the allegorical one gives the historicity-minded reader (the reader this whole page is written for) no help with the events as events. Second, the sharpest edge of the modern objection is not blunted by either: the death of non-combatants, above all children, to whom neither "righteous retribution" for their own guilt nor "they will soon die anyway" applies without strain — the point at which the divine-command defense looks, to its critics, to concede the deed and relocate the justification to sheer authority (the Euthyphro-shaped worry that whatever God commands is thereby good). Third, the strongest contemporary defenses of the ḥerem largely leave the patristic ground: the "hyperbole" reading (the ban-language is Ancient Near Eastern battlefield convention, not a literal body-count), and the argument that the targets were combatant strongholds rather than civilian towns, do real work the Fathers did not do — which is itself a sign that Origen's and Augustine's answers, taken alone, were not felt to be sufficient.⁸ That God could justly command such a judgment does not by itself establish that the command, as the text frames it, raises no moral difficulty; possibility is not the same as vindication.

Assessment

Contested. The historic Christian reply to the moral problem of the ḥerem is a genuine, weighty, and still-live position, not a weak one: Augustine's authorization-and-intention framework is a permanent contribution to ethics, Origen's spiritualizing reading is the mainstream patristic handling of Joshua and coheres with the New Testament, and the wiki does not count the divine-command defense out on the naturalistic premise that God cannot righteously command death. But it is genuinely disputed and falls short of settled: the two classic answers are in tension with each other, the allegorical route sidesteps rather than defends the literal history, and the divine-command route leaves the hardest case — the killing of the innocent on the authority of the command — where its critics, ancient and modern, still press. A serious defense that holds by one discipline's lights and is contested by another's; strong enough to take seriously, not strong enough to call the matter closed. (Distinct from the historicity question: the moral verdict does not turn on the archaeology, and vice versa.)

Sources