What made YHWH carry out judgement against the Canaanites?

The Canaanite extermination is inarguably one of the most difficult passages in the Scriptures, and while there have been many debates surrounding this biblical event, what exactly made YHWH carry out judgement against the Canaanites commanding their complete annihilation? In this inquiry paper, I explore a number of perspectives on the Canaanite annihilation from different authors and theologians across history rather than attempting to arrive with a single, definitive answer to the question. I must mention, however, that I am a believer. Throughout the paper, I choose to refer to the Hebrew God as YHWH despite my belief that the God of the Hebrew Bible is the same God I worship today, and that which I do not personally call YHWH or Yahweh. The decision to refer to the Hebrew God in this paper as YHWH is my attempt to create distance between this persona and the personal God I worship so as to, at my best efforts possible, prevent my personal biases from surfacing in the writing. As an additional and more technical note, the Hebrew name YHWH is the name of God revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus, which is historically closer to the setting and timeframe of what this paper discusses.

Schlimm’s framework in his article entitled “Noah’s Inebriated Curse” is to add exegetical support through the provision of literary context to Noah’s speech and actions in Genesis 9:20-24. Noah had drunk too much wine and had fallen asleep naked in his tent when his son Ham saw him, who then told his two brothers that their father was naked. His brothers then laid a piece of cloth to cover Noah, and when Noah awoke and discovered “ what Ham had done to him,” he cursed Canaan, Ham’s son, in Genesis 9:25:  

“Cursed be Canaan!

   The lowest of slaves 

                will he be to his brothers.”

       Canaan is regarded as the progenitor of the Canaanites. On the basis of this narrative, Schlimm discusses a critical review of scholarly proposals of Ham’s specific actions and why Noah curses Canaan rather than Ham. At first glance, I wondered why Noah would even curse in such a grave manner given that he was accountable for his state of being naked at the time Ham saw him. However, Schlimm (2025, p. 183) pointed out that the author of the text may have employed euphemism, using the phrase “Ham saw” for a possibly more severe offense, with many writers thinking it to be sexual in nature. Still, in this passage, one can see that it wasn’t an entire people group that was cursed – it was just Canaan. Thus, if Noah’s curse were the reason for YHWH’s judgement, the Canaanites should not be blamed for the annihilation since they were only under a “primordial imprecation,” much like the concept of original sin from the actions of Adam and Eve in the garden. Noah makes no prophetic declaration of the annihilation of Canaanites, and even so, these words were not divinely sanctioned; YHWH Himself did not declare a curse on Canaan or the Canaanites. While it naturally seems incomprehensible and beyond cruel on why a grandfather would curse his grandson, it would make sense when Schlimm mentioned that when Noah awoke, he was still showing clinical signs of drunkenness such as disinhibition, sleepiness, confusion, aggressiveness, and emotional instability (Schlimm 2025, p. 194).

       Schlimm (2025, p. 183) also makes mention of certain chapters in Leviticus (18:3, 24-25, 27) showing how the Canaanites were associated with incest, and still other books such as Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Exodus implying the involvement of Canaanites in cultic practices and the worship of other gods. Although the most extreme decree against the Canaanites was reflected in Deuteronomy, which required the Israelite nation to completely exterminate the Canaanite population under the ban, the execution of this was actually done in the book of Joshua. Other conquest laws were found in the book of Exodus, and while there is no requirement to wipe out the population, the reason for these laws was still grounded in the cultic practices of the people. This then gives rise to another conception: the Israelites were motivated to resist such pagan threats for the sake of holiness. However, what if the command to annihilate the Canaanites was not mainly based on their cultic practices, but rather more so based on the identity of Israel as the chosen nation and must thus be protected from external pitfalls?

            Kaminsky, in his work entitled “Did Election Imply the Mistreatment of Non-Israelites?” intended to show that the ancient Israelite concept of election was far more complex than how its contemporary critics recognize. He divided the discussion into two separate sections, with the first one dedicated to the treatment of the anti-elect and the second section to the treatment of the non-elect based on historical passages in the Bible. According to Kaminsky (2003, p. 398), Cott and Schwartz both argue that “identity” was like a finite territory where groups engage in acts of violence in guarding it against an identified “other.” In their previous works, Cott argues how there is a biblical problem in the concept of election while Schwartz highlights the dangers of monotheism. With regards to election theology, Kaminsky (2003, p. 398) mentions that the main issue with Cott’s proposition is the assumption that election theology naturally leads towards the destruction of those not part of the elect group. Cott argues that the slaughter of the Canaanites as part of the tradition of conquest is the ultimate culmination of the Israelites’ election or their “being chosen.” However, this fails to recognize that the exclusivism shown in ancient Israel did not inherently indicate that all those part of the excluded group should be annihilated. If it were merely on the basis of election, how come some Israelites got swept away with the destruction and some Canaanites were saved?

           Achan and his family, an Israelite household, were treated as if they were part of the anti-elect when they transgressed the rules of YHWH concerning warfare, as stated in Joshua 7. On the other hand, Rahab and her family, a Canaanite household, were saved from the fall of Jericho. Apart from this, Frankel (2020, p. 20) raises an interesting case in Genesis 14:18-20, when Abram met with the Canaanite priest Melchizedek: 

“Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, ‘Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.’ Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.”

         Here, the phrase “God Most High” translates to El Elyon, a Canaanite god. While the deity El Elyon may be interpreted as YHWH in this passage, Melchizedek is a Canaanite priest and therefore, a priest of El Elyon by formality. Still, he is one of the few non-Israelite figures in the Old Testament that is portrayed in a positive light. Frankel's “Israelites and Non-Israelites in the Land of Promise – Use of Biblical Models in the Construction of a Jewish Theology Coexistence” aims to demonstrate a variety of biblical attitudes concerning the coexistence of the Israelites and Canaanites by relativizing problematic texts with other contravening passages. Thus, Frankel (2020, p. 20) said that the author of the passage may be implying that the Canaanite worship of El the Creator could be a legitimate expression of worship of the Lord of Israel, even if it were not by the name of YHWH, allowing Melchizedek to be blessed. This perspective would pose a challenge to claims that the annihilation of people groups for a divine purpose or herem is solely due to the cultic practices of the Canaanite population.

In order to further understand how the Israelites treated the Canaanites, it is likewise important to acknowledge the position with which the Israelites operated in. Lukin (2025, p. 48 & p. 53) mentions authors such as Ronald Hendel and David Jayaray to explore the theological connection between the motif of remembrance and the command to exterminate the seven Canaanite nations. Hendel asserts that the remembrance of the past is crucial to the development of Israel’s national identity while Jayaray demonstrates the particularism of herem policy in the seventh chapter of Deuteronomy. The obedience to the covenant is considered as a feature of divine behavior that honors God by remembering His works. These “works” refer to the manifestation of power by YHWH in Egypt when He delivered the Israelites from slavery as well as the exodus when they were journeying to the land of promise. Thus, Lukin (2025, p. 58) mentioned that the Israelites were not coerced into obeying, but rather the synchronization with Him in the act of extermination is indicative of Israel’s devotion for YHWH given that the premise was remembrance of His covenant, past miracles, and future promises (Exodus 19:5-6): 

“Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation…” 

        Under this covenant, it can be perceived that the land of the Canaanites was Israel’s “national property,” therefore giving them the right to displace its inhabitants. This can be seen as more relevant in terms of the fulfillment of Israel’s destiny, since there is a deep need for an exclusive connection between the Jewish people and the land, especially in the national-religious sphere. Does this then make the Israelite conquest of Canaan easily pardonable, simply because it is their right? Frankel (2020, p. 6) would argue that the conquest of Canaan may be justified when Israel is accused by saying that all land belongs to YHWH, and thus it is He who has bestowed the land unto His chosen people. It should be noted that this notion only forms a part of the entire biblical testimony since it runs the risk of reducing the narrative to a simple discrimination toward the “other” within the land, which was not so, as seen in the exception of Rahab’s extended family in the fall of Jericho where they were spared. Still, according to Mina Glick, it is part of the responsibility of the Israelites to protect their status as YHWH’s chosen people and honor the covenant by showing loyalty to Him, even if it be through the execution of herem, placing emphasis on its legal and ritual dimensions rather than treating the narrative as lucid cruelty (as cited by Lukin 2025, p. 53).

In summary, there are numerous lenses with how theologians throughout time have interpreted the reason behind the annihilation of the Canaanites, such as Noah’s inebriated curse, the concept of Israelite election, their right to land, and their loyalty to YHWH and the covenant. However, this narrative has been utilized dangerously in the ancient world to justify slavery and genocide; thus, my analysis paper would delve into the concept of whether this decree by YHWH meant the rationalization and validation for mass violence and in what instances this account has caused a detrimental impact in the world outside the context of the conquest of Canaan. 

References: 

Frankel, David. 2020. “Israelites and Non-Israelites in the Land of Promise - Use of Biblical Models in the Construction of a Jewish Theology Coexistence.” Jewish Studies 55:1-44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27014979.

Kaminsky, Joel. 2003. “Did Election Imply the Mistreatment of Non-Israelites?” Harvard Theological Review 96, no. 4 (October): 397-425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816003000506.

Lukin, Volodymyr. 2025. “The Relationship between the Motif of Memory/Remembrance and One of its Aspects Concerning the Command to Exterminate the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7.” Theological Reflections Eastern European Journal of Theology 23 (1): 46-63. https://doi.org/10.29357/2789-1577.2025.23.1.3.

Schlimm, Matthew. 2025. “Noah's Inebriated Curse (Gen 9:20-27).” Harvard Theological Review 118, no. 2 (July): 181-202. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816025100655.

Timmer, Daniel. 2015. The Non-Israelite Nations in the Book of the Twelve: Thematic Coherence and the Diachronic-Synchronic Relationship in the Minor Prophets. N.p.: Brill.