The Bible, Atrocities, and Category Errors:
Descriptive vs. Prescriptive
(for Skeptics and Christians Alike)
When “atrocity texts” are thrown around in debates, two sloppy moves recur:
◉ Treating descriptions of brutality as if they were commands (a skeptic misread).
◉ Treating commands of brutality as if they were merely descriptions or “not really meant” (a Christian misread).
The cure is simple: before you argue from a verse, classify it. Is the text descriptive (reporting or foretelling what happens) or prescriptive (commanding, legislating, or norming what is to be done)?
Quick examples that set the frame
✓ Descriptive: Nahum 3:10—infants “dashed in pieces” as part of a judgment oracle recalling Assyrian-era warfare. It describes what happened to Thebes/No-Amon; it does not instruct Israel (or anyone) to do it. (Bible Gateway)
✓ Prescriptive: 1 Samuel 15:3—Saul is ordered to “totally destroy” Amalek, explicitly including “men and women, children and infants.” That is a command text, not a mere report. (Bible Gateway)
Skeptics cannot treat Nahum 3:10 like 1 Samuel 15:3. Christians cannot treat 1 Samuel 15:3 like Nahum 3:10. Full stop.
Catalog of commonly invoked passages, correctly sorted
A. Descriptive (narration or prophetic foretelling of violence; not an instruction to the audience to perform it)
- Nahum 3:10 — Assyrian conquest brutality (“infants dashed in pieces”), narrated as part of judgment oracles. (Bible Gateway)
- Psalm 137:9 — An exilic lament’s vengeful line (“happy is the one who dashes your infants”); imprecatory poetry, not a law. (Bible Gateway)
- Judges 19 — The Levite’s concubine is raped and dismembered; the text reports a vile episode to show Israel’s chaos, not a command. (USCCB)
- 2 Kings 15:16 — King Menahem “ripped open” pregnant women at Tiphsah; a king’s atrocity recorded, not prescribed. (Bible Hub)
- 2 Kings 8:12 — Elisha foretells Hazael’s atrocities (“dash their little ones… rip open pregnant women”); prediction, not a directive. (Bible Gateway)
- Isaiah 13:16 — Oracle against Babylon: “infants dashed,” “wives ravished.” It forecasts what invaders will do; it does not command the audience to do it. (Bible Hub)
- Lamentations 2:20 — Siege cannibalism lament (“Should women eat their children?”) describing catastrophe. (Bible Hub)
- Jeremiah 19:9 / Deuteronomy 28:53-57 — Cannibalism under siege is threatened/foretold as covenant curse; again, description of outcome, not a manual for action. (Bible Gateway)
- 2 Kings 2:23-24 — Bears maul youths after Elisha’s curse; a narrative of judgment, not a standing instruction. (Bible Gateway)
B. Prescriptive (commands/norms to carry out violence, often in the context of “ḥērem”—ban/devoted-to-destruction warfare or legal penalties)
- 1 Samuel 15:3 — Command to annihilate Amalek, including noncombatants. (Bible Gateway)
- Deuteronomy 20:16-18 — “Save alive nothing that breathes” in specified Canaanite cities (paradigmatic ḥērem text). (Bible Hub)
- Deuteronomy 7:2 — “Utterly destroy… show them no mercy” regarding named nations. (Bible Hub)
- Joshua 6:21 — Jericho “devoted to destruction” per prior divine command. (Bible Hub)
- Deuteronomy 13:12-16 — Apostate Israelite town to be “put to the sword,” city burned, never rebuilt (internal, intramural ḥērem). (Bible Gateway)
- Numbers 31:7-18 — War on Midian executed “as the LORD commanded,” with explicit kill/captive instructions. (USCCB)
- Numbers 15:32-36 — Sabbath-breaker stoned “as the LORD commanded Moses” (legal penalty text). (Bible Gateway)
- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 — Rebellious son to be stoned (legal penalty). (Bible Gateway)
- Deuteronomy 22:23-24 / Leviticus 20 — Capital punishments by stoning or burning for specified sexual/contractual offenses. (Bible Gateway)
On ḥērem (the “ban”)
If you cite conquest texts, know what the word denotes. Ḥērem/“devoted to destruction” is a technical category in ancient Israel’s war and consecration vocabulary and figures centrally in Deuteronomy and Joshua. It is not a synonym for “any violence,” and it is not merely narrative; it is a normed practice in specific contexts. (For concise reference and debates about scope/literalness, see overviews.) (Wikipedia)
Where skeptics go wrong (with examples)
✓ Conflation: Citing Nahum 3:10 or Psalm 137:9 as if they are divine commands and then condemning “the Bible” for ordering baby-killing. These are descriptive or poetic/ imprecatory lines, not legal directives. Treating them as prescriptive is a category error. (Bible Gateway)
✓ Global overgeneralization: Arguing that because some prescriptive commands exist (Deut 20; 1 Sam 15), “the Bible” thereby endorses genocide for all times. The texts are situated in covenantal, geographic, and ritual frames; you can critique them, but you don’t get to erase their genre and scope markers. (Bible Hub)
✓ Ignoring prophecy/narrative voice: Treating prophetic foretellings of brutal outcomes (Isa 13; 2 Kgs 8:12; Hos 13:16) as if the audience is being commanded to do them. These are announcements of what invaders or history will do, not marching orders to the prophet’s hearers. (Bible Hub)
Bottom line: if your critique depends on pretending a report or oracle is actually a law, your argument collapses once genre is restored.
Where Christians go wrong (with examples)
✓ Evasion: Hand-waving away actual commands (1 Sam 15:3; Deut 20:16-18; Deut 13:12-16; Num 15:32-36) as “only descriptive,” “hyperbole,” or “not really what it says,” without offering consistent criteria. If it legislates or commands, call it what it is and then do the theological work. (Bible Gateway)
✓ Selective hermeneutics: Treating some capital/war commands as permanently binding while quietly shelving others, or treating conquest texts as literal while recasting other hard commands as rhetorical. Consistency demands you show why one is literal-normative and the other is not (appeal to covenantal discontinuity, genre, or canonical trajectory—but show your criteria). (Background on ḥērem’s technical status helps but doesn’t make the tension disappear.) (Tyndale Bulletin)
✓ Importing later theology to nullify earlier commands: A common move is to cite later mercy themes to negate earlier prescriptions without explaining how the canon’s structure authorizes that override. If your resolution is “it was for then, not now,” you still owe a principled account of “why then?” and “why not now?” (covenant, geography, ritual, kingship, etc.). (Representative defenses and debates show how contested this is.) (Stand to Reason)
Bottom line: if your defense pretends prescriptive war/penalty texts are merely reports, you’re not engaging the material honestly.
Ambiguous edges you should flag (and not exploit)
- Prophetic judgments (Isa 13; Hos 13:16; Jer 19; Deut 28) often say “X will happen to you” (by enemies or as consequence). These are neither simple “do this” commands nor endorsements of the acts themselves; they function as threat oracles and covenant-curse warnings. Don’t cite them as if they were legal instructions; don’t whitewash them either. (Bible Hub)
- Royal atrocities (2 Kgs 15:16) are recorded, not recommended. Christians shouldn’t use them as models; skeptics shouldn’t treat them as God’s standing orders. (Bible Hub)
A compact table you can drop into your post
| Passage | Category | Why it belongs there |
|---|---|---|
| Nahum 3:10 | Descriptive | Reports Assyrian-era brutality in an oracle; no command to do it. (Bible Gateway) |
| Psalm 137:9 | Descriptive (poetic) | Imprecatory lament line, not law. (Bible Gateway) |
| Judges 19 | Descriptive | Narrative of civil horror; no divine command to imitate. (USCCB) |
| 2 Kings 15:16 | Descriptive | Records Menahem’s cruelty; not prescribed. (Bible Hub) |
| 2 Kings 8:12 | Descriptive (prophetic foretelling) | Elisha predicts Hazael’s atrocities; not an Israelite instruction. (Bible Gateway) |
| Isaiah 13:16 | Descriptive (prophetic foretelling) | Oracle of what invaders will do to Babylon. (Bible Hub) |
| Lamentations 2:20 | Descriptive (lament) | Siege cannibalism lament; grim description, not command. (Bible Gateway) |
| Jer 19:9 / Deut 28:53–57 | Descriptive (curse oracle) | Consequence-warnings of siege horrors. (Bible Gateway) |
| 2 Kings 2:23–24 | Descriptive | Narrative judgment episode; not a legal template. (Bible Gateway) |
| 1 Samuel 15:3 | Prescriptive | Direct command to annihilate Amalek, incl. infants. (Bible Gateway) |
| Deut 20:16–18 | Prescriptive | “Save alive nothing that breathes” in specific cities. (Bible Hub) |
| Deut 7:2 | Prescriptive | “Utterly destroy… show no mercy” to named nations. (Bible Gateway) |
| Joshua 6:21 | Prescriptive | Jericho under the ḥērem per divine instruction. (Bible Hub) |
| Deut 13:12–16 | Prescriptive | Apostate Israelite town to be exterminated/burned. (Bible Gateway) |
| Numbers 31:7–18 | Prescriptive | War actions “as the LORD commanded Moses.” (USCCB) |
| Numbers 15:32–36 | Prescriptive | Sabbath breaker stoned by command. (Bible Gateway) |
| Deut 21:18–21 | Prescriptive | Rebellious son stoned. (Bible Gateway) |
| Deut 22:23–24; Lev 20 | Prescriptive | Specified sexual offenses penalized by death. (Bible Gateway) |
| (Context key) Ḥērem articles | Background | What “devoted to destruction” means in law/war. (Wikipedia) |
How to call out the illogic—cleanly and directly
To skeptics (tight claims you can paste into your post):
✓ “You cited a descriptive oracle/poem as if it were a command. That’s a genre error. Argue against the commands if you like, but stop smuggling narratives and laments into the law code.” (e.g., Ps 137:9; Nah 3:10). (Bible Gateway)
✓ “You moved from ‘there exist command texts’ to ‘the Bible commands genocide for all times.’ That leap ignores covenant, scope, and genre. Show your bridge or drop the claim.” (e.g., Deut 20; 1 Sam 15). (Bible Hub)
✓ “You treated prophetic foretellings (what invaders will do) as if they were marching orders. That’s not what the texts say.” (e.g., Isa 13; 2 Kgs 8:12; Hos 13:16). (Bible Hub)
To Christians (equally tight):
✓ “You just called a command text ‘merely descriptive.’ It isn’t. If you want to argue covenantal limitation or hyperbole, provide principled criteria and apply them consistently.” (e.g., 1 Sam 15; Deut 13; Deut 20). (Bible Gateway)
✓ “Appealing to later themes to erase earlier prescriptions without showing a canonical rule for that override is special pleading. Do the work or acknowledge unresolved tension.” (see ongoing ḥērem debates). (Tyndale Bulletin)
A note for readers on ḥērem (so they don’t get played)
The term ḥērem (commonly translated “the ban” or “devoted to destruction”) is a specific and technical concept in the Hebrew Bible, not a casual expression of rage or hatred. It refers to the act of setting something apart for complete removal from human use—either by destruction or by dedication to God. The idea appears most clearly in Deuteronomy and Joshua, where entire cities, populations, or goods are sometimes declared “ḥērem.” Understanding this institution helps clarify both how it functioned and why misreading it distorts debates about biblical violence.
1. Meaning and Function
The ḥērem is not primarily about vengeance; it is about exclusive devotion. When a city or object was placed “under the ban,” it was viewed as belonging wholly to God—no one could profit from it. Sometimes that meant burning idols or destroying livestock; other times it extended to killing the inhabitants of a conquered city. The logic was cultic and covenantal: the removal of what was “devoted” prevented contamination from foreign gods or practices.
2. Three Core Purposes
✓ Cultic Devotion – Destruction signified consecration. A city given to ḥērem was “offered” to God, like a burnt offering on a societal scale.
✓ Anti-Idolatry Firewall – It was meant to prevent syncretism by erasing rival cults and practices.
✓ No-Plunder Rule – Israelite soldiers could not enrich themselves. Everything—gold, livestock, people—was either destroyed or placed in God’s treasury, symbolizing that holy war was not for personal gain.
3. Why It Matters for Debate
For skeptics:
Understanding ḥērem blocks the genre collapse of treating every violent passage as arbitrary sadism. It shows that these texts operate within a legal–ritual system that saw “devotion” as purification rather than casual slaughter. Recognizing that doesn’t morally justify the acts, but it prevents a simplistic reading that all biblical violence was random or unstructured.
For Christians:
The same clarity blocks the apologetic impulse to dismiss ḥērem as mere “colorful storytelling.” The texts frame these as lawful, commanded acts, not poetic metaphors. To pretend otherwise ignores the juridical and ritual vocabulary used in Deuteronomy and Joshua. The command to “utterly destroy” Canaanite cities was not literary flourish—it was codified cultic policy with explicit theological rationale.
4. The Two-Edged Implication
Thus, ḥērem cuts both ways:
- It undermines the skeptic who caricatures biblical violence as chaotic and meaningless.
- It undermines the Christian who evades moral reckoning by re-labeling normative commands as narrative hyperbole.
Recognizing the ḥērem as a defined institution forces honest interpreters on both sides to grapple with what it actually represents—a deliberate theological system in which destruction was framed as devotion, not a mistranslated metaphor or spontaneous cruelty.
Close
To reiterate, blunders occur on both sides.
◉ Skeptics treat descriptions of brutality as commands.
◉ Christians treat commands of brutality as descriptions.
If you want to argue about these texts, start by classifying them. Descriptive ≠ prescriptive. Once that’s fixed, skeptics can stop scoring easy own-goals by misreading laments and prophecies as laws, and Christians can stop ducking hard command texts by recasting them as mere reports. Everything after that is a serious discussion about covenant scope, canonical development, hyperbole claims, and theological consistency—exactly where rigorous debate belongs.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment