Thoughtful Christians and many atheists have found certain passages in the Old Testament (OT) very problematic. Among the most difficult to reconcile with our moral sensibilities are passages in the OT that seem to teach that Yaweh not only permitted genocide, but that He commanded it to be done in certain situations. This, it is said, is the “plain” literal reading of the passages involved.
These sorts of problems have a long and distinguished history in OT criticism, but in recent times we find a resurgence of the issue in philosophical journals.
So how do we deal with these sorts of criticisms? We should take a look at some of the more important literature on the subject, fortunately several of the important essays can be found on the on-line portion of this site. By reading and interacting with the literature on both sides of the argument we think you’ll find two major ways believers have responded to these issues.
One way this has been defended is to bite the bullet and take the literal reading of the passages and plead a special case. That is, it has been argued though this is not His normal way of doing things, at that time and in those unique circumstances, God was justified in calling for the eradication of entire villages. Presumably this included men, women, children (and animals) as a judgement for their past sins, which it is argued, had reached a critical point; and further, it was to serve as a protection from cultural and religious contamination for the Jews at a most critical time in their history. Understanding the context it is argued is key to defending God’s goodness with his apparent command for genocide.
Another way of defending this has been to call into question that literal reading and suggest that God’s call for their extermination was not to be taken literally, but rather metaphorically. That is, the passage is to be read something like this: God was using the language of “take no prisoners” in a way that a coach of a basketball or football team might use hyperbolic language to inspire his team to “kick”--but not literally kick-- the hindquarters of the opposition. Of course we must think, the coach didn’t mean that literally, but he does mean metaphorically for them to fight hard to win handily. In a similar way it has been argued, some of the language in the OT was hyperbolic and not intended to be literally obeyed...which it wasn’t anyway.
We want to encourage you to take a hard look at the critical literature and decide what options are the best in terms of a sufficiently satisfying response. You can also ask, is there a third way to answer this question?