Southern Heights Baptist Church

The Book of Joshua

Hearing the Message of Joshua

Book of Joshua, Pastor Otha Aden, Tuesdays at 5:00-6:00 4001 S. Anthony Blvd., Fort Wayne, Indiana 46806 260-744-9307 “Let Us Sing the Books of the Bible.” Please bring your Bible with you. January 20- May, 2010

Joshua gives the account of Israel’s taking possession of the land promised by God, the division of the land among the tribes, and finally a renewal of the covenant at Shechem (Josh. 24).
Hearing the Message of Joshua
The book may be divided into four sections:
*1. Entry to the land (1:1-5; 12),
*2. Its conquest (5:13-12:24),
*3. Its division among the tribes (13:1-21; 21:45),
*4. And the worship of Yahweh in it (22:1-24;33).
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, General Editor, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treire, and N. T. Wright Associate Editors, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, pgs.. 404-408 SPCK Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2005, Joshua, Book of by J. G. McConville, SBTS 8. Eisenbrauns, 2000; Younger, K. L. Ancient Conquest Accounts. [Permission is granted for short theological articles by the publishers].
Critical interpretation, no longer looking for Christian doctrine, saw the book rather as evidence of the historical emergence of Israel. Because Joshua relates the taking of the land that was promised in the Pentateuch (Exod. 23:20-33: Deut. Passim), early critics thought that the sources they found in the Pentateuch could be traced into Joshua, within a so-called Hexateuch [“the first six books of the Old Testament”] (von Rad 296-305; Fohrer 197). The strength of this view is its recognition of Joshua’s continuities with the Pentateuchal books prior to Deuteronomy (e.g., Num. 13-14; 34:17). This kind of approach found links with Israel’s actual early history, for example, in memories of conquest kept alive at the sanctuary at Gilgal (Fohrer 200-201). Joshua was seen first, “as the figure was readily taken as a type of Christ (Heb. 4:8-11) the “rest” into which Joshua led Israel is seen as temporary and inferior to the “rest” that still awaits God’s people in Christ.” Joshua was seen secondly as Allegorical readings persisted into the medical times (Saebo 184). Thirdly, In the Reformation it was read with the perspective that God’s historical dealings and covenant with Israel were both preparatory for and analogous to his dealings with the Christian church and Christian nations (O. ‘Donovan and O’Donovan 715). Joshua’s action in Canaan could them be exemplary for contemporary rulers (86, 605).
Fourthly, recent critical study has placed Joshua within the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy- Kings; Noth).
This Book of the Law: This view rightly observes close affinities between Deuteronomy and Joshua, for example, in the “Deuteronomic” terms in which Joshua succeeds Moses, especially the importance there of “the Book of the Law” (Josh. 1:1-9, cf. Deut, 28:61; 31:26), and also in specific correspondences between the two books (e.g., Deut. 27 and Josh. 8:30-35). Yet there are also contrasts between Deuteronomy and Joshua and, conversely, continuities with Numbers. For example, Joshua has a larger role for the priest than Deuteronomy (Josh. 4:10, cf. Num. 4:1-15). Noth’s answer to this was to postulate priestly additions to the Deuteronomistic work. But this underrates the extent to which Joshua follows Numbers as well as Deuteronomy. The role of Joshua himself is prepared for throughout Exodus-Deuteronomy (Exod. 33:11; Num. 27: 12-23; Deut. 3:23-29; 31:1-8, 23; 34:9).
Leadership Development:
Smend’s reading of Josh. 1:1-9 found evidence of an exilic “nomistic,” or conditional, redaction (1:7-9) of the basic Deuteronomistic account, which had stressed complete victory. A different line derives from the now-dominant view that the basic Deuteronomistic edition stems from the time of Josiah. Here, Joshua is deliberately portrayed as a type of Josiah, and the issue in the book is the need to affirm Yahwistic faith in context of religious pluralism in late monarchic Judah; this is the condition of Josiah’s expansionistic policies (Nelson 21-22).
Form-critically, Joshua has been compared with ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts. Younger has shown that Joshua broadly fits within patterns of such accounts from 1300 to 600 BCE. However, the book may also include other forms, such as toponym lists and boundary descriptions (cf. Nelson 9-11).
Regarding historicity, it is widely argued that Joshua’s account of the conquest does not match what is known from archaeology about the patterns of occupation and destruction of the cities in Canaan, such as Ai (Jericho is less of a problem in this respect than sometimes claimed [Mazar 283]). Conservative explanations for these disharmonies include redating the conquest from the generally accepted thirteenth century to the fifteenth century BCE (Bimson), reexamining the identifications of cities in the account (including Ai), and exegetical strategies (e.g., Joshua may not always imply the total destruction of a city; Hess 141, cf. 158-59). In general, the provisional nature of archaeological results is stressed, “etiological” explanations of traditions avoided, and the basic historicity of the text affirmed.
Modern literary approaches draw attention to the dangers of oversimplified readings. Most significantly, a tension is perceived between the claims in the text that Joshua conquered the entire land (11;23; 21:44-45) and the perspective that, even in Joshua’s old age, much of the land remained to be conquered (13:1) and certain enclaves still held out (15:6). It is the latter perspective that gave credence to Smend’s nomistic redactional layer. The literary approach tends to see the discrepancy as having a function in the meaning of the book, such that, for example, Israel is depicted as undeserving and yet taking the land (Polzin 90).
Hearing the Message of Joshua
The book may be divided into four sections:
*1. Entry to the land (1:1-5; 12), *2. Its conquest (5:13-12:24), *3. Its division among the tribes (13:1-21;45), *4. And the worship of Yahweh in it (22:1-24;33).
The opening verses of Joshua announce that the time has come for the promises made to Israel through Moses to be fulfilled. The words “After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD” (1:1) not only function as a structural marker of a new beginning, but also recall that Joshua, not Moses, would lead Israel into the land (Deut. 3:23-29). The vision of the land that awaits is reaffirmed (1:4; cf. Deut. 11:24), God’s promise of his presence is transferred from Moses to Joshua (1:5), and Joshua is called to “be strong and very courageous” (as Moses had already commissioned him; Deut. 31:7). This courage is to be directed in two ways: first to the battles ahead (v.6), and second to the keeping of God’s commandments, in the form of the “Book of the Law” (1:7-8), which thus stands over the whole action of the book. Joshua is both like and unlike Moses. With respect to God’s call and enabling, he is like Moses in taking responsibility to put Israel in possession of the promised land (Moses had begun this with the settlement of the Transjordanian tribes; Deut. 3:12-17). And in his loyalty to Yahweh alone and his obedience to the “the book of the Law” Joshua is unlike Moses in that he is not himself lawgiver (but see Josh. 24:24-26), and that his leadership is specifically orientated to the task of land possession. His role as successor to Moses is thus limited, since in a certain sense Moses is succeeded by the “Book of the Law” itself (the written form of his spoken words), and in another sense by the “leaders of the congregation,” who make decisions alongside Joshua concerning the status of the Gibeonites (Josh. 9:15, 18 NRSV; see also 23:2). The succession to Moses as prophet (Deut. 18:15-18) is not directly raised in Joshua.
The first section of the book (1:1-5:12) focuses on the crossing into the land. The mission of the spies (ch.2) recalls a previous, unsuccessful mission & Num. 13-14), but here the cooperation of the Canaanite Rehab and her confession of faith give hope of a better sequel. The crossing of the Jordan (Josh. 3-4) has echoes of that of the Red Sea at Exodus (Exod. 15). The first Passover in the land (5:10-12) signals the completion of the journey from Egypt to Canaan. Passover structurally marks the departure and the arrival, and theologically the passage from slavery to freedom.
The freedom has yet to be realized in the conquest itself, however. The narrative of this follows in 5:13-12:24. The taking of Jericho furnishes the paradigm for the conquest of a city within the promised land, with the destruction of every living creature in it (6:21), in accordance with the law of Deut. 20:16-18. That this is a victory of Yahweh alone is emphasized by the means by which the city falls. The qualifications of totality in this action are, first, the sparing of Rahab, in fulfillment of the spies’ promise to her (2:14), and second, the offense against the ritual proscription of the goods of the city by Achan, which is then nullified by his execution along with his family.
The taking of Jericho is followed by further victories over cities both north and south, these victories being specifically over kings (Josh. 12:7-24). In this way a triumph is suggested, not only over enemies as such, but also of a new kind of society over one based (like Egypt) on tyranny. This is another example of the full circle from the Exodus.
The account of the conquest is presented first as a clean sweep (11:23), but then as an ongoing work, likely to overspill Joshua’s own life (13:1; cf. Judg. 1:1). In the account of the division of the land that follows, there are several indications that this corresponds to reality (15:63; 16:10; 17:12). The stage is thus set for a continuing struggle.
The third section relates the division of the land among the tribes (13:1-21; 45). An exception is made for the Levitical (priestly) tribe, who receive towns within the other tribes’ territories (14:3-4; ch. 21), following the principle in Deut. 18:2 that “the LORD is their inheritance” (where “inheritance” otherwise entails territory). In practice, they would have towns and land, and in that limited way hold property. But their particular role in relation both to Yahweh and to Israel as a whole is highlighted by this special treatment.
Finally, the commitment to Israel to worship Yahweh alone is reaffirmed, first in a charge by Joshua to “all Israel,” represented by its elders, judges, and officers (23:2; cf. Deut. 16:18), then in a formal covenant renewal at Shechem (Josh. 24). This follows a reaffirmation of the obligation of Israel to worship Yahweh alone, including the tribes who had settled in Transjordan (Josh. 22). The people are unified within one land, and the unrivaled place of Yahweh in it was symbolized by the acknowledgment of only one place of worship, at this stage Shiloh, by virtue of the presence of the tabernacle there (18:8).
Can this story of Israel’s liberation into its own land have relevance today? The answer lies neither in treating the book’s message in a purely spiritualizing way (where, for example, crossing the Jordan is a metaphor for death) nor in finding direct mandates for the warlike behavior of contemporary nations. If there is a mandate for godly nationhood in Joshua, what form does it take? A reading of the NT, with its proclamation of the gospel to all nations, apparently precludes the application of Joshua narrowly to historic Israel and the land it once occupied.

Joshua and Theology

Joshua continues, in one sense, Deuteronomy’s blueprint for nationhood. This consists in an ordering of people under Torah, which is in turn given by God. Joshua himself is called to show the right attitude toward this Torah (Josh. 1:7-8), in terms similar to those required of the king (Deut. 17:18-20). And when he comes to pass on responsibility for leadership to “elders and heads, their judges and officers,” he urges them in turn to adhere rigorously to it (Josh. 23:2, 6 NRSV). In the covenant renewal at Shechem, Joshua establishes a “statute and ordinance” with the people (24:25 AT; cf. Deut. 5:31), and then writes in the “Book of the Law [Torah] of God” (v.26). This suggests that the “Book of the Law” is open to allow reaffirmations of Israel’s allegiance to God to be added to it (this in qualification of Deut. 4:2). Joshua shows that Torah always informs the people’s true leadership.
It is Torah obedience, furthermore, that legitimates the people’s possession of territory. The close connection of law and territory is established in Deuteronomy, in which the gift of land is consistently predicated on the people’s obedience to Torah (Deut. 17:14-20 is an example). The same connection is made at the outset of Joshua, when Joshua is exhorted to “be strong and courageous” in respect of both law-keeping and land-possession (Josh. 1:6-9). The book of Joshua, therefore, enacts in principle the concept of a people living in a territory, subject to a law that operates within its borders.
Such possession, however, must be legitimate. An important function of Joshua is to demonstrate the legitimacy of Israel’s possession of the land of Canaan. The issue is confronted directly, because the land to be possessed is no “land without a people.” On the contrary, it is inhabited by peoples who are firmly bedded down in their own places, and who base their own claims, we suppose, on their actual possession, their culture, and their religion. The claim to legitimate possession entails the assertion of the right to take and keep by force, and in principle the need to press the claim against others. This is what is asserted in Yahweh’s victory, but also an act of judgment, a claim that it is right that Israel and not others should possess this land. The nature of the war against the Canaanites as a judgment is signaled in several texts outside Joshua (Gen. 15:16; Lev. 20:23; Deut. 9:4-5), and in the frequent characterization of them as acting abominably in God’s eyes (Deut. 12:29-32). (For the nexus of victory, judgment, and possession, see also O’Donovan 36-45)
The confrontation between Israel and the nations, therefore, is between a nation that lives under Yahweh in obedience to Torah and others that do not. This fundamental difference between Israel and the Canaanite nations is fully present in Joshua only by virtue of the knowledge that Deuteronomy and the Pentateuch generally lie behind it. But it appears at certain points, one hint being in the categorization of the Canaanite enemies repeatedly as “kings” (Josh. 12), a feature that seems to pitch the type of power in the city-states against the kingship of Yahweh, much like the power of Pharaoh in Exodus.
It is against this background that we have to consider the greatest stumbling block for modern readers of Joshua, notwithstanding the rationale just offered. This is the “ban of destruction,” or the kherem, the command from God to put the inhabitants of Canaan to the sword (6:17). In modern commentary it is common to explain this command as a metaphor for rigorous adherence to Yahweh and separation from other forms of religion (Moberly). This is supported by the historical assessment that in all probability Israel never did to Canaan what the book of Joshua depicts it as having done. The language of kehrem was borrowed from the conventions of ancient Near Eastern religious war (also known from the famous ninth-century BCE Moabite Stone, on which the Moabite King Mesha claimed to have put Israel to the kherem).
The problem with a metaphorical understanding is that Joshua speaks about real peoples, land, and politics. The plain force of the language has been felt by those in every age who have used the conquest of Canaan as grounds, by identifying themselves with Israel, for their own subjugation of peoples by war in order to possess land (Collins). The use of a warlike metaphor to speak of a God who abhors war would have to be regarded as a failed strategy!
The issue must be approached differently, by asking whether the book of Joshua as a whole really portrays Israel as matching the criteria of legitimate possession. We have begun to see that the story of the book is not as straightforward as it appears at first glance. Israel permits first Rehab (Josh.2) and then the Gibeonites (Josh. 9) to live alongside themselves in the land. And the picture of total possession is called in question by the perspective that possession remains to be accomplished (13:1), and has in some cases been frustrated. There are thus questions as to the people? As Hawk (xxii-xxiii) has put it, outsiders (Rahab, Gibeon) become insiders, while insiders (Achan’s family) become outsiders. And even the geographical boundary of the Jordan is put in question by the issue of the settlement of some tribes in Transjordan, producing the conflict related in Josh. 22 (Jobling).
On this view the careful constructions of Israelite identity are not finally affirmed in Joshua, but precisely put in question. While the building blocks for a national identity may be put in place here (and thus for nations generally, not just Israel), the picture of Israel in Joshua is part of the wider portrayal in Genesis-Kings of a people that fails to become what it is called to be. Joshua proclaims at Shechem: “You cannot serve the LORD” (24:19NRSV), a jarring note that corresponds to Deuteronomy’s view (9:4-7), ensuring that the story of Israel’s possession becomes a critique of the violence that subjugates others without rightly possessing a mandate to do so. In Israel’s failure to occupy the land of Canaan in obedience lies the warning that none might claim to make war and dispossess others in the name of God. In Hawk’s words: “Joshua should be studied, not shunned, precisely because it holds the mirror up to all who regard themselves as the people of God” (xxxii). Joshua is the counterpart of the prophetic vision for Israel, which consistently resists the identification of “Israel” with an ethnic people and with power that relies on force (see also Jewett and Lawrence). The legitimate possession of warrants to be a nation depends not on unbreakable historic guarantees, but on ongoing commitment to true freedom from tyrannies and idolatries of whatever kind. Joshua, as a document for Israel in its own place and time, offers a remit for peoples today to conceive them specific traditions of culture and place anew, in light of God’s law of liberty.
In the NT, Israel finds its true self in Christ (O’Donovan and O’Donovan 131), and so in the supranational church. This does not mean that God’s action of judgment on the nations is revoked, nor the enactment of judgment within political structures (Rom. 13:1-5), both of which can be said to be proposed by the book of Joshua, the latter with warrants that extend to all political authorities. But it does mean the renunciation of all claims to be the people of God in ways that equate with ethnic or national entities.