Was Israel’s Conquest of Canaan Morally Justified?

I am examining whether the biblical conquest of Canaan can be morally justified simply because it is presented as God’s command. Canaan was already inhabited by established communities, and Abraham himself bought land there rather than seizing it. Some respondents argue that ancient warfare allowed stronger nations to take territory, that God owns the world, or that the Canaanites were wicked and should have surrendered. But these arguments explain how conquest was understood in that era; they do not necessarily prove that dispossessing or killing a population was morally right. I also question whether a covenant between God and Abraham obliged Canaanite communities to surrender their homes, whether every targeted city attacked Israel first, and whether divine command automatically makes an act good. A claim of divine authority still requires a reliable basis for determining who truly speaks for God. My central question is simple: if a foreign army came to Nigeria claiming that its god had promised it our land, would that claim justify taking our homes or killing those who resisted? If not, why should the moral standard change because the account appears in the Bible?

Use The App To Win ₦1m

Stories are shared by community members. This article does not represent the official view of NaijaWorld — the author is solely responsible for its content.