Joshua

INTRODUCTION

1. Background

The Pentateuch provides the background both historically and theologically for the book of Joshua. The call of Abraham was God’s initial response to the predicament of humankind as portrayed in Ge 1–11. God was preparing a people through whom the Messiah would come. As part of that preparation, he promised to give them a land of their own (Ge 12:7; 13:14–17; 15:7; et al.). The fulfillment of that promise is the primary focus of the book of Joshua. The author has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the work of Moses and the work of Joshua are related to each other as preparation and fulfillment.

The book of Joshua is closely related to the book of Deuteronomy; even the language is similar. Deuteronomy seeks to prepare Israel for entry into the Promised Land; Joshua describes that entry. In other words, in Exodus, Moses was called by God to mold the people into a mighty nation and to lead them out of slavery. The central feature of his leadership was the mediation of the law as the guide for Israel. Now Joshua has been appointed as Moses’ successor. Like Moses, his position involved him as the religious, military, social, and civil leader. He had been prepared for the various aspects of this role during the forty years that Israel was in the desert (see Ex 17:8–16; 24:12–13; Nu 13:1–25; 32:28–29; Dt 31:1–8).

The date of the Conquest continues to be debated. The traditional date (c. 1400 B.C.) is based on 1Ki 6:1, which specifies that the fourth year of Solomon’s reign was the “four hundred and eightieth year” after the Exodus. It is fairly well established that the fourth year of Solomon’s reign was around 966 B.C. This would put the Exodus at about 1446 B.C. and the Conquest forty years later. These figures appear to be corroborated also by the total number of years that the various judges ruled. Other evangelical scholars, however, argue for the thirteenth century B.C., based on the Rameses of Ex 1:11 being the city named for Rameses II (who lived around 1290 B.C.). They argue that the 480 years in 1Ki 6:1 represent twelve generations (12 generations times 40 years in a traditional generation); if an actual generation is closer to twenty-five years, then the number of years before Solomon’s reign was 300, making the Exodus in 1260 B.C. and the Conquest in 1220.

2. Authorship

In the Talmud Joshua is named as the author of the book of Joshua. This view is appealing because the book bears his name. Furthermore, it lends more credibility to the narratives if they are the report of an eyewitness. Those who hold this view attribute to Eleazer or Phinehas the account of the death of Joshua and other short passages that Joshua could not have written. The book itself does not specify who the author was, nor is the author named anywhere else in the OT.

The name of the book is derived from the principal character, Joshua, whose name means either “Save, Yahweh!” or “Yahweh saves” (see comment on 3:13). It is an appropriate name for the man the Lord chose to lead his people triumphantly into the Promised Land. The Grecized form of Joshua is “Jesus.”

3. Date

If Joshua was the author, then the date of writing the book is a fairly simple matter: it must have been written before his death and after the last event narrated in the book. Joshua was 110 years old when he died (24:29). If Joshua was nearly the same age as Caleb, then his death and the writing of the book would have taken place about thirty years after the Conquest began. This would have been around 1370 B.C. according to the earlier dating. Other evidence, however, suggests a later date.

The phrase “to this day,” which occurs frequently (4:9; 5:9; 6:25; et al.), indicates the passing of time between the event and the recording of the event. In 6:25 the statement that Rahab “lives among the Israelites to this day” suggests that Rahab was still living at the time of writing, but it probably refers to her descendants.

4. Occasion and Purpose

Apparently the author had two complementary purposes in writing: (1) to show that God had been faithful in fulfilling his promise to Abraham to give the land of Canaan to him and to his descendants; (2) to demonstrate that the covenant-keeping God is also righteous and that he would bless his covenant people only if they were obedient to his word.

5. Theological Values

The book of Joshua, like all other books of the Bible, is primarily a book of theology. Through it God has revealed himself in various aspects: (1) God is the God of Israel. In giving Israel the land, he was fulfilling the promises that he made to Abraham and which he reaffirmed to the people of Israel at the time of the Exodus. Thus he entered into covenant with some human beings, but not all. Here we see elements of a doctrine of election.

(2) God is holy. He does not tolerate wickedness and rebellion. The Canaanites are driven out because of their sin and wickedness; God treats the Israelites according to the same principle (cf. ch. 7; cf. also Dt 28–29).

(3) God is gracious. All who are willing to turn from their pagan ways and acknowledge him are spared (e.g., Rahab, the Gibeonites).

(4) God is the God of creation. All creation is subject to his sovereign control, and he therefore can work mighty miracles in nature (such as those recorded in this book: 3; 6; 10:9–14; et al.).

(5) God is a God of the entire universe. He can choose to accept into his people the prostitute Rahab upon her testimony of his universal reign (2:11). The land is his, and he can give it to whomever he chooses.

(6) God is a man of war. He fought for Israel by commanding the attack, providing the strategy, assisting with supernatural acts, and giving the victory to Joshua.

6. Special Problems

The single greatest problem in the book of Joshua is the extermination of the Canaanites. Men, women, and children were included among the things that were to be “devoted [GK 3051] to the LORD” (6:17; cf. NIV note). This was not the first instance of the practice in Israel. In Nu 21:2–3, the Israelites vowed to “totally destroy” the cities of the Canaanites in the Negev if God would give Israel victory over them. But how can we justify this seeming mass slaughter of humanity?

God was careful to point out that he was not arbitrarily destroying the Canaanites just to give the land to Israel. The wickedness of the Canaanites was the reason God was removing them; and if Israel proved unfaithful, she too would be removed from the land (as happened in the Exile; cf. Ge 15:16; 2Pe 2:9).

The extermination of the Canaanites is but one of the many evidences in the Bible that evil is real and that the Devil exists. That struggle actually took the Son of God to the cross, and only by his suffering and death has God overcome evil once and for all. Those who choose not to be separated from their sin by repentance will be destroyed with their sin (cf. Jn 8:24). Thus God’s severity in his treatment of sin and of sinners is but the obverse side of his grace and love. Sin and evil destroy the people he loves and prevent the full establishment of his glorious kingdom. In the Wisdom of Solomon it is stated that God chose to annihilate the Canaanites little by little rather than all at once in order to give them a chance to repent.

The most difficult thing to understand is the slaughter of innocent children. But we must remember that death is not the ultimate destiny of the human race, nor is it the greatest evil. Someday God will give a full explanation of his actions, which is something that only he can do.

EXPOSITION

I. Conquering the Promised Land (1:1–12:24)

A. A New Leader for Israel (1:1–18)

1. Joshua’s commission (1:1–9)

1 Moses’ death separates the book of Joshua from the Pentateuch, for, obviously, Moses’

leadership had ended. However, everything Joshua accomplishes is the fulfillment of what God had begun with Moses. Observe the many links between Moses and Joshua in this chapter alone (vv.1, 3, 5, 7–8, 13–15, 17).

“Servant [GK 6269] of the LORD” is a title of honor used most frequently of Moses (Ex 14:31; Nu 12:7–8; Dt 34:5; and 13 times in Joshua). With the words “The LORD said to Joshua,” leadership is transferred from Moses to Joshua. Joshua is called the “son of Nun” ten times in this book, but nothing is known about his father. Already in the Pentateuch Joshua was called “Moses’ aide” (Ex 24:13; 33:11; Nu 11:28). Only at the end of his life was he too honored with the title “servant of the LORD” (24:29).

2–3 Moses’ death was the occasion for God to renew his command for Israel to enter the land. The crossing of the Jordan marked Israel’s entrance into the Promised Land. Flood conditions made this a formidable undertaking. The promise of the land, which was first given to Abraham in Ge 12:7, is a major theme throughout patriarchal history. The fulfillment of that promise is one of the major themes in Joshua.

4 The promise in Dt 11:24 (cf. Dt 1:6–8) is reiterated here, although the territory that Joshua and Israel actually conquered was not nearly so vast. The literal and complete fulfillment of this promise was not experienced by Israel until the reigns of David and Solomon (see 1Ki 4:21, 24) and then once again in the time of Uzziah and Jeroboam II. The word “desert” refers to the Negev in the south, and “Lebanon” (lit., “the Lebanon”) refers to the Lebanese mountains. Palestine was referred to as “the Hittite country” by both Egypt and Babylonia even after the Hittites had withdrawn from the area (cf. Jdg 1:26). “The Great Sea” is the Mediterranean.

5 Israel’s failure to observe the conditions for the promise, “No one will be able to stand up against you” (vv.6–9), caused their humiliating defeat at Ai (7:1–5). God’s promise, “I will be with you” (cf. Dt 31:6–8), was the secret of Moses’ success and would be the secret of Joshua’s success also (cf. Mt 28:19 20). The conditions for this promise are found in vv.7–8 (cf. 7:12). The statement “I will never leave you nor forsake you” is an example of the doubling of synonyms for emphasis, a common feature in this chapter (cf. vv.7–9, 18).

6 The command to be “strong [GK 2616] and courageous [GK 599]” is repeated three times in God’s charge to Joshua (vv.6–9) and again in the people’s reply to Joshua (v.18). Perhaps Joshua was intimidated by the greatness of his predecessor Moses and the awesomeness of his own responsibility. For this reason courage is emphasized in the Lord’s charge to him. This passage introduces the two major parts of the book: the conquest of the land (chs. 1–12) and the division of the land (chs. 13–21).

7 “The law my servant Moses gave you” was probably some part or all of the book of Deuteronomy (cf. Dt 1:5; 31:9–13). The many parallels that the book of Joshua has with Deuteronomy show that the author of Joshua was familiar with the latter’s contents. The covenant relationship between Israel and God was contingent on Israel’s obedience to the law. The expression “to the right or to the left” shows that no deviation would be permitted.

8–9 Verse 8 is the theme verse of Joshua. The phrase “from your mouth” refers to the custom of muttering while studying or reflecting. “Meditate” (GK 2047) literally means “mutter.” When people continually mutter God’s word to themselves, they are constantly thinking about it. But knowledge of God’s law is not enough; one must also “be careful to do” what it commands. “Everything written in it” must be observed, because obedience to certain parts only is no obedience at all (cf. Jas 2:8–13).

2. Joshua’s orders to the officers (1:10–11)

10–11 Joshua had a well-organized chain of command by which orders could quickly be passed to the people. The supplies would have included the manna that God continued to provide until Israel crossed into the land of Canaan (5:12). Each man was responsible for his own supplies since there was no regular quartermaster’s corps. Once the Israelites were in the land, they found a ready food supply standing in the fields, for the invasion was begun during the harvest season (3:15). “Three days” simply means “the day after tomorrow” or “in a few days” (2:16, 22; 3:2; 9:16).

3. Joshua’s orders to the Transjordanian tribes (1:12–15)

12 Throughout the book special attention is given to “the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh” (4:12–13; 13:8–32; 22:1–34). Although their territory was included in the larger boundaries promised to Israel (1:3–4), the narrative at times seems to place the two and one-half tribes outside the Promised Land (cf. 22:19).

13–15 Moses’ command referred to here is recorded in Dt 3:18–20 (cf. Nu 32:20–22). “Rest” (GK 5663) implies secure borders and peace; it is an important concept in the OT (cf. Ru 1:9; 3:1 NIV note; Heb 4:1–11).

The phrase “all your fighting men” presents some difficulty, for Nu 26:7, 18, 34 indicates that these tribes had as many as 110,000 men capable of bearing arms. Yet Jos 4:13 states that only 40,000 warriors from the two and one-half tribes entered Canaan. Perhaps only the ablest fighting men participated in the Conquest while the others cared for the women, children, elderly, and domestic animals (cf. 22:8). For the return of these tribes to their own land, see 22:1–4. The account of Moses’ assigning Transjordan as their inheritance is in Nu 32.

4. Joshua confirmed as leader (1:16–18)

16–18 This paragraph apparently deals with all Israel, not just the Transjordanian tribes. The people pledged to Joshua the same allegiance that they had shown Moses. The words “may the LORD your God be with you” seem to be a condition for their allegiance rather than a prayer, as if they were saying: “We will follow your leading so long as there is evidence that you are being led by God.” The severity of the punishment threatened in v.18 was in keeping with the military situation where strict discipline was required. This punishment was actually carried out in the case of Achan (ch. 7).

B. Gaining a Foothold: Jericho and Ai (2:1–8:35)

1. Rahab and the spies (2:1–24)

a. Sending the spies (2:1–7)

1 Joshua was determined to keep the spy mission secret from the Israelites, perhaps because a negative report (cf. Nu 13–14) might again demoralize the people. The sending of spies was not an act of unbelief, for the promise of divine aid never rules out human responsibility. Apparently Joshua sent spies before every major battle (cf. 7:2). The words “especially Jericho” indicate that this espionage mission was focused on Jericho, a formidable fortress guarding the pass leading westward. Jericho was particularly important as the scene of Israel’s first military engagement in the Promised Land.

The house of the prostitute Rahab was the only place where the men could stay with any hope of remaining undetected and where they would be able to gather the information they were seeking. Moreover, her house afforded an easy way of escape since it was located on the city wall (v.15).

2–3 For the most part the towns of Palestine were independent city-states, and their rulers were called kings. The spies had failed in their attempt to remain undetected. The report that “some of the Israelites have come” was the worst news conceivable, for the citizens of Jericho were in terror of the Israelites (see vv.9–11; cf. Ex 15:15c). The word “tonight” must refer to late afternoon, because the spies would not have been able to enter the city after dark. The king would naturally have assumed that the spies were staying with Rahab. In antiquity prostitutes frequently were involved in intelligence activities. The king expected Rahab to do her patriotic duty and turn the spies in.

4–5 Rahab lied as much in what she did by hiding the spies as in what she said. Deception is an important strategy in warfare. By hiding the spies, Rahab was siding with Israel against her own people. It was an act of treason! Rahab told the king’s men to “go after them quickly,” making it clear that if they tarried, the spies would escape. She could not risk having her house searched, because she knew that anyone suspected of collaborating with the spies would be put to death.

6–7 The flat-roofed houses of that era were suitable for drying grain or stalks. Rahab used her flax stalks to good advantage. The road mentioned here led from Jerusalem to Jericho and then eastward across the Jordan River. The “fords” were places where the river was normally shallow enough to cross on foot. Though the river was at flood stage, the spies were able to cross without a miracle. When the pursuers went out, “the gate was shut”; i.e., it was closed again (see v.5), underscoring the predicament of the spies who were trapped inside the city.

b. Rahab’s covenant with the spies (2:8–21)

8 The spies may have intended to “[lie] down for the night,” but before they settled in for the night and went to sleep, their rest was interrupted by Rahab.

9 It is truly remarkable how much Rahab knew about Israel’s history and God’s plans for Israel’s future. Rahab spoke of the takeover of the land as if it were an accomplished fact. What God had done for Israel in Egypt and in Transjordan convinced her that God was able to give Israel this land, too. The “great fear” that had fallen on all the people had been predicted in Ex 15:15b–16.

10 On the Lord’s drying up the “Red Sea,” see Ex 14:21–31. For “Sihon and Og,” see Nu 21:21–35. “Amorites” is a general term designating the inhabitants of the mountainous regions on both sides of the Jordan. “Completely destroyed” renders the Hebrew word herem (GK 3049); the ancient practice of completely destroying the spoils of warfare was a way of devoting them to a deity (cf. 6:17).

11–12 Morale is always a major factor in warfare. Fear is contagious and can even cause the defeat of an army that is superior in all other respects. Rahab’s confession of her faith is remarkable for a pagan and is evidence of her conversion to faith in Israel’s God (cf. Heb 11:31). “Kindness” (GK 2876), often translated “love” in the NIV, designates a reciprocal relationship of caring. In delivering the spies from the king’s officers, Rahab risked her life and set herself against her own people. In return for this, she deserved to be assured of her own safety and the safety of her family.

13 When Rahab requested that the spies “spare the lives” of her family, she may have been asking no more than that they be taken alive as prisoners. Eventually, however, they were assimilated into the nation (6:25). In Scripture salvation is frequently a family matter (Ex 12:3; 24:15; cf. Ac 16:31). The family members would demonstrate their personal faith by gathering in Rahab’s house and remaining there.

14–15 In the statement “If you don’t tell” the pronoun is plural: Rahab and her entire family would have to guard this secret. Houses, such as Rahab’s, constructed within the wall have been discovered by archaeologists in the ruins of ancient Jericho.

16 Undoubtedly the conversation in vv.16–21 occurred before Rahab lowered the spies to the ground. For “three days,” see 1:11. The hills to the west of Jericho are a barren wasteland. The king’s officers had gone in the opposite direction.

17–21 The spies laid down three conditions: (1) the scarlet cord must be placed in Rahab’s window; (2) Rahab’s whole family must stay in her house; and (3) the covenant between Rahab and the spies must be kept secret. These were practical ways for Rahab and her family to demonstrate their faith. The “scarlet cord” would identify Rahab’s house. The spies no doubt anticipated a house-to-house battle in which the Israelites would have been instructed to spare the house so marked. The statement “his blood will be on his own head” means that all who disobey the instruction to stay in the house will be responsible for their own death.

Since the spies did not know at this time that God would use a miracle to capture the city, they may have arranged a plan for Rahab to deliver the city into Israel’s hands. This could be the secret that Rahab was not to tell anyone. The statement “she tied the scarlet cord in the window” forms a fitting conclusion for this section because it points to Rahab’s faith in action.

c. The report of the spies (2:22–24)

22–24 It is remarkable that the spies trusted Rahab so implicitly as to follow her instructions. Since the spies told Joshua “everything,” we must assume that v.24 is only a summary of what they said. The narrative ends triumphantly. The spies learned two important facts: God had been faithful to his promise, and the inhabitants of the land were totally demoralized.

a. Instructions for crossing (3:1–13)

1–3 The journey from Shittim to the Jordan (c. ten miles) must have taken the better part of the day. “After three days” is a Hebrew idiom meaning “on the third day” (see 1:11). The presence of the “ark of the covenant,” which symbolized God’s presence among his people (cf. Ex 25:10–22), indicates that the crossing of the Jordan was a religious procession. When it was carried across the Jordan by the priests, the Lord was marching in to claim his land. “From your positions” refers to the specific locations assigned to the various tribes whenever they set up camp (cf. Nu 2).

4 The people, warned to “keep a distance” of about “a thousand yards” from the ark while crossing the Jordan, would have had to cross one-half mile upstream or one-half mile downstream. Perhaps they maintained this distance only until the priests were stationed with the ark in the middle of the river.

5 The people were to be holy because God is holy, the ark was holy, and the event itself was holy. Consecration involved bathing, washing one’s clothing, and abstinence from sexual activity (cf. Ex 19:14–15). “Amazing things” means miraculous things.

6 The priests were commanded to take up the ark and cross over but were not told how they would be enabled to cross the river, which was overflowing its banks (v.15). God often waits for us to step out in faith before he opens the way for us.

7–8 The appointment of Joshua as leader of the people would now be confirmed in action. One major reason for the great miracle was to demonstrate that God was with Joshua as surely as he had been with Moses. The command “Go and stand in the river” builds the suspense. There is still no indication how the people would get through the water.

9–10 In the phrase “the living God” emphasis is on the fact that Israel’s God is living (GK 2645). Joshua is affirming that the God who marches with Israel is able to act and to perform mighty deeds in contrast to the pagan gods that have eyes but cannot see, etc. (cf. Ps 115:3–7). Either “Canaanites” or “Amorites” can be used to designate the whole population of Canaan. Strictly speaking, however, the Canaanites were the people living in the lowlands of the sea coast and the Jordan valley (Nu 13:29), while the Amorites lived in the mountainous areas. For “Hittites” see 1:4. The “Perizzites” lived in the central highlands in the time of Abraham and Jacob (Ge 13:7; 34:30). The “Gergashites” are mentioned here although they are not always included in the lists of the Canaanite populations. The “Jebusites” inhabited Jerusalem (15:63), which was formerly called Jebus. Jebusites lived also in the hill country of northern Palestine (11:3).

11 The way the people would cross the Jordan still had not been revealed. The ark would go before them, which signifies that God would go with them and prepare the way.

12 The command to “choose twelve men” interrupts the flow of the narrative, and there is no explanation here of why they were to be chosen or what they were to do. Perhaps this verse indicates when the men were actually selected, and 4:2–3 (where the command is repeated) is the point in the narrative where the mission of the twelve was carried out.

13 In the phrase “the LORD —the Lord of all the earth,” the first occurrence of “lord” is printed with one large and three small capitals, representing the sacred name “Yahweh” (GK 3378). The Jews, out of reverence for God’s holy name, regularly substituted the Hebrew equivalent for “Lord,” “Adonai” (GK 123), when they came to the name “Yahweh” in the Scriptures. The second occurrence of “Lord” actually means “lord,” “ruler,” or “owner.” One of the great themes in the Exodus and the Conquest is that Israel’s God is the Lord of all the earth (cf. Ex 9:29). This gave Israel the right to take over the land.

Here finally we are told how the people would be able to cross. The regular flow of the river would be cut off upstream, where the waters would collect in a heap.

This is the OT site where Jericho stood, viewed from the west and looking east across the Jordan River.

b. Crossing on dry ground (3:14–17)

14–16a After the Israelites “broke camp,” the priests led the way bearing the ark of the covenant. That the Jordan was at “flood stage” builds the suspense by suggesting the natural impossibility of what was about to happen. The statement that “as soon as . . . their feet touched the water’s edge, the water . . . stopped flowing” may be an example of narrative heightening to convey a true sense of wonder at the great miracle that was taking place. The flow of the water had to have stopped upstream prior to the moment that the priests approached the river, or else it would have taken time for the water to flow away downstream after they stepped into the river’s edge.

16b–17 The waters began to collect “in a heap” upstream. “Adam” was a city located about twenty miles upstream from where the Israelites crossed the Jordan. The water stopped too far upstream for the Israelites to have seen it; so the timing had to be perfect for the waters to be exhausted at the precise moment that the priests stepped into the river. “The Sea of the Arabah” is the Dead Sea. With the water from upstream “completely cut off,” the water flowing downstream was soon emptied into the Dead Sea. “Dry ground” does not mean that the riverbed was powdery dry but simply that it was no longer covered with water.

c. Memorials to the crossing (4:1–24)

1–3 The frequent repetition of the phrase “the LORD said to Joshua” emphasizes the fact that everything was done in obedience to God’s commands. If the narrative followed a strict chronological order, it would mean that these men crossed all the way over and were then sent back into the riverbed. The command was actually given, however, before the people began to cross; and it is recorded here at the point in the narrative when the men actually picked up the stones on their way across the river (see 3:12). Stones taken from the middle of the riverbed were remarkable evidence that the river had actually stopped flowing to allow Israel to cross over.

4–6a The twelve men found their stones near the place where the priests carrying the ark were standing. The stones were “to serve as a sign” for future generations (v.6a).

6b–9 Raising stones as a memorial is common in the OT (cf. 7:26; 24:26–27; Ge 28:18–22; 31:45–47; 1a 7:12). These memorials were intended to provoke questioning so that the story of God’s miraculous interventions might be told over and over. Remembering was a way for future generations to participate in the great acts that God had done for Israel.

10–11 The statement “just as Moses had directed Joshua” reminds us again that Joshua’s ministry was subservient to that of Moses. There is no record of Moses giving Joshua explicit instructions for crossing the Jordan, although such a crossing is implied in Dt 31:7. “The people hurried over” because the river was stopped for a limited time only. It is clear that the priests did not march out of the river until after the people had crossed over.

12–13 Again we see how important it was to our writer that the Transjordanian tribes had a primary role in the conquest of the land of Canaan (cf. 1:12). They went ahead of the other Israelites. For “forty thousand,” see comment on 1:14. They were “armed for battle” and thus were prepared in the event that the inhabitants of the land should attack while Israel was crossing the river.

14 “The LORD exalted Joshua” as he had promised (3:7). Joshua was now firmly established as leader in the place of Moses (cf. Ex 14:31).

15–18 The following order is customary in Joshua: The Lord told Joshua, Joshua told the people, and the command was obeyed. Clearly obedience is the prerequisite for God’s blessing. “Dry ground” here refers to the river bank as distinct from the riverbed (cf. 3:17). The miraculous element is heightened by stressing that the waters were cut off just long enough for Israel to cross over, and then they “returned to their place.”

19–20 The parallels between Moses and Joshua are obvious (cf. both crossed a body of water on dry ground, and both gave commands on “the tenth day” of the first month; cf. Ex 12:3). “Gilgal” was a strategically located town. The Jordan provided security on one side, and the open plain prevented any surprise attack from the other side. An abundant water supply was provided by the river. Joshua may have piled the stones in a heap (cf. 7:26) or he may have placed them in a circle (Gilgal sounds like the Hebrew word for circle).

21–23 Joshua foresaw the importance of these stones for future generations, as a memorial to the miraculous crossing. Again the term “dry ground” is mentioned to emphasize the supernatural aspect of the crossing. The crossings of the Red Sea and the Jordan were mighty miracles that were to be celebrated by Israel forever (cf. Ps. 114). They marked Israel’s exodus from the land of bondage and entrance into the Land of Promise. They were a sign of Israel’s transition from slavery to freedom.

24 This verse gives two additional reasons for this great miracle: to impress the power of Israel’s God on the nations and to confirm Israel’s reverence for their God.

It is possible that a landslide caused by an earthquake stopped the flow of the Jordan River. Landslides are common in the soft clay banks of the Jordan. At least two such landslides, each of which resulted in a damming of the river, are recorded in history: in A.D. 1267 and again in 1927. In the latter instance the slide occurred near the town of Adam (cf. 3:16), and the flow of the river was interrupted for about twenty-one hours. The Jordan Valley lies along one of the major faults on the earth’s surface. Evidences of earthquake activity have been found in the excavations of Jericho. Moreover, there are indications in the Bible that earthquakes accompanied Israel’s march into the Promised Land (Jdg 5:4–5; Ps 114:3–4, 7). If an earthquake was responsible for stopping the Jordan River, it was still a miracle. The discovery of secondary causes only serves to explain how God did what he did, and only God’s intervention can account for the miraculous timing.

3. Renewing the covenant with Israel (5:1–15)

a. The covenant sign (5:1–9)

1 This transitional verse sums up the effect that the miraculous crossing of the Jordan had on the inhabitants of Canaan and explains how Israel could have been secure enough to observe the covenant ceremonies that follow. News traveled fast, even in those times (cf. 2:9–10). “Their hearts melted” with fear, but this did not result in their conversion (cf. 2:9–11; 9:9–11):

2–3 This was the Bronze Age, when bronze implements were common; yet Joshua was commanded to make “flint knives.” Religious ceremonies tend to preserve ancient customs. When God reaffirmed his covenant with Abraham, promising him the land of Canaan, he warned him that anyone who was not circumcised would be violating the covenant (Ge 17:7–14). Consequently, Israel could not claim the covenant land until the sign of the covenant had been restored (cf. Ex 4:24–26). In the instructions God gave Moses for the Passover meal, no uncircumcised males were allowed to participate (cf. Ex 12:48–49). Circumcision may have been a puberty rite in some nations, but for Israel it marked one’s entrance into the covenant community. Joshua was reinstituting circumcision after it had been neglected during the forty years in the desert.

The name “Gibeath Haaraloth” has a rather grotesque meaning: “the hill of the foreskins.” Throughout the Promised Land there were monuments and place names that served to remind Israel of their history.

4–6 It is strange that none of the males who were born in the desert was circumcised. The fact that Israel was always on the move is not an adequate explanation. Perhaps the sign of the covenant had been suspended while a whole generation rejected the covenant in disobedience and unbelief. Israel had disobeyed the Lord thirty-eight years earlier when they stood on the southern border of the Promised Land (Nu 13–14). The stereotyped phrase “a land flowing with milk and honey” describes the fruitfulness of the land (cf. Dt 11:9–12).

7 God was fulfilling his promise in Nu 14:31. This was a new beginning for the nation: The crossing of the Jordan symbolizes death and rebirth, and the renewal of circumcision constituted Israel anew as the people of God.

8 The Conquest had to be delayed until the men recovered, for the Israelite warriors were temporarily rendered helpless by circumcision (cf. Ge 34:25). That circumcision had to be performed at this crucial moment shows how foundational the covenant relationship was between God and Israel. It is, of course, possible that a few males were living who had been circumcised in Egypt and who were under the age of twenty at the time of Israel’s disobedience (cf. v.6).

9 Since the Egyptians practiced circumcision, “the reproach of Egypt” probably means that the Israelites, now reestablished as the covenant people in the Land of Promise, had been delivered from their national disgrace of enslavement and homelessness, not that they had been unable to practice this rite in that land (cf. v.5). The name “Gilgal” sounds like the Hebrew word that means “to roll” (cf. 4:20). There are other instances in Scripture where a certain locality was given the same name on more than one occasion (cf. Ge 21:31 with Ge 26:33; Ge 28:19 with Ge 35:14–15).

b. The covenant meal (5:10–12)

10 It was the first month (cf. 4:19); consequently “the fourteenth day” was the official day for observing the Passover (see Ex 12:2, 6, 18). Though the Passover had been observed at Sinai (Nu 9:1–5), it had been neglected during the years of rejection and wandering, just as circumcision had been.

11 Another sign of a new beginning was that “they ate some of the produce of the land.” “Unleavened bread” was prescribed for the entire week following the Passover (Ex 12:14–20). They had no leaven anyhow, since for nearly forty years they had been living on manna and quail.

12 Since it was no longer needed, “the manna stopped.” Extraordinary means are only temporary. Now the Israelites would experience the miracle of regular harvests in the land of milk and honey.

c. The true leader of the covenant people (5:13–15)

13 On the eve of Israel’s attack on Jericho, Joshua personally surveyed the area surrounding the city and inspected the fortifications. The words “he looked up” convey the element of surprise. “A man” is what Joshua thought he was seeing, but subsequent events reveal that it was no ordinary man. The man’s “drawn sword” was symbolic of God’s participation in the coming battle. Seeing the man standing there ready for combat provoked Joshua to inquire whether he was friend or foe.

14 The stranger’s response put everything in proper perspective: God is sovereign. The stranger came as “commander of the army of the LORD”; Joshua was to be subservient to him. Though he does not reappear in the story of the Conquest, the stranger was a heavenly being who fought behind the scenes in the spiritual realm. His presence was a sign that the Lord was the real military leader of the Conquest. Many identify this person as “the angel [GK 4855] of the LORD (cf. Ex 3:2–4:17; Jdg 6:11–23; et al.) The army of the Lord was an angelic host, and they assured victory to Israel if Israel was obedient (cf. Ge 32:1–2; 2Ki 6:17).

Though “Joshua fell facedown,” we cannot be sure that he realized he was in the presence of a supernatural being. In that culture persons would prostrate themselves before anyone in authority. Moreover, when Joshua said “Lord,” he did not use the divine name “Yahweh,” which is rendered “LORD” (see comment on 3:13). The purpose of this encounter was to inspire Joshua with humility and reverence and to instill in him the confidence that God was with him and was in control (cf. 1:9).

15 The command “Take off your sandals” does not indicate that this incident occurred at an ancient shrine. Rather, any place where God reveals himself is hallowed by that revelation (cf. Ge 28:10–22; cf. also Moses’ experience in Ex 3:1–6). The events of this chapter are further evidence that the Conquest was to be accomplished by God’s power. From a human point of view, it would seem to have been wiser to fulfill the rituals of circumcision and the Passover on the other side of the Jordan. But celebrating them in the Promised Land symbolized that the covenant relationship between God and Israel was a prerequisite for possessing the land.

4. The conquest of Jericho (6:1–27)

a. The Lord’s instructions (6:1–5)

1 The inhabitants of Jericho were paralyzed by fear of the Israelites and of Israel’s invincible God (cf. 2:9–11; 5:1). Fear of infiltration or trickery by the enemy kept them from allowing anyone to enter. That no one was let out indicates how desperate the situation was. It was not uncommon in a time of siege to send warriors out to harass the enemies or to engage them in battle. Sometimes a small party was sent out secretly in search of help or supplies.

2 With the words “I have delivered Jericho,” Joshua was reminded that victory comes only from the Lord (cf. Ps 108:12–13). Moreover, the tense of the verb indicates that the battle had already been won (cf. 2:9). The conquest of a walled city was a major challenge. The Israelites had not encountered walled cities before; and after their many years of wandering in the desert, they were not equipped for such an undertaking. High walls had discouraged the spies forty years earlier (Nu 13:28).

3 The command to “march around the city once” seems senseless and required faith that God would keep his promise to deliver the city into their hands (Heb 11:30). The stratagem of waiting seven days has a number of biblical parallels (cf. Ex 24:16; 1Ki 20:29; 2Ki 3:9; et al.)

Inside Jericho all routine pursuits had been given up, and every effort was aimed at defense. When the armed men of Israel merely marched around the city day after day, the vigilance may have relaxed. On the other hand, this senseless marching may have completely demoralized the defenders, who would have been totally confused about what was going on. The march around the city too was another expression of God’s grace, giving the people one last opportunity (an entire week) to repent. Only “the armed men” were involved.

4 Seven is the number of divine perfection or completeness. The emphasis on the number seven (fourteen times in this chapter), the use of ceremonial trumpets (made from ram’s horns), the presence of priests, and the prominence of the ark all indicate that the conquest of Jericho was more than a military campaign; it was a religious event. Israel must always remember that the land was God’s gift to them.

5 “A long blast” was a signal distinct from the continual blowing of the trumpets. The phrase “all the people” means “the whole army,” excluding women and children. The “loud shout” was a war cry intended to encourage their fellows and intimidate the enemy. In v.10 we are informed that Joshua had ordered the people to be silent during all the marching up to this point. The way that God would give them the city is now revealed: “The wall of the city will collapse.” That “every man [went] straight in” means that from their positions all around the city, the Israelites were able to go directly in—though not necessarily in a perfectly straight line—so that the city would be attacked in every quarter at the same time.

b. The attack on Jericho (6:6–21)

6–7 Though repetitious, the account is not tedious. The suspense builds until it reaches its climax in v.20. The orders Joshua passed on to the people are summarized here (cf. vv.2–5). Separate orders were given to the priests and to the people.

8 The phrase “before the LORD” is a vivid reminder that the ark symbolized God’s presence. The parallel statement in v.4 says that the seven priests were to carry seven horns before the ark.

9–10 The presence of warriors before and behind the ark indicates that the Israelites would have to fight. Perhaps the “armed guard” mentioned here consisted of the two and one-half tribes from Transjordan (cf. 4:12–13). Because of the privileges granted them, they were to lead the others into every battle. Joshua’s instructions here recall the orders he had given earlier (vv.6–7.; cf. v.5).

11 No details are given as to how the march was conducted. Jericho occupied only about five or six acres of land. Even though the Israelites must have maintained sufficient distance from the city to be safely beyond the range of enemy arrows, it is possible that the head of the column had arrived back at the camp before the last of the rear guard left.

12–14 This repetitious narrative conveys something of the tedium of marching around the city day after day for six days.

15 On the seventh day the Israelites set out “at daybreak” because of all that needed to be accomplished that day. Considering the size of Jericho and the number of Israelite troops, it is likely that when “they circled the city seven times,” the column doubled over on itself again and again until the city was surrounded many columns deep.

16–17 The eagerly awaited command to shout was given. Before telling us what happened, details are inserted (vv.17–19) concerning commands that Joshua must have given earlier (vv.6–7). “Devoted” represents the Hebrew word translated “completely destroyed” in 2:10 (see comment on 2:10). Jericho was Israel’s first conquest in the land of Canaan, a kind of firstfruits; therefore everything in it was holy—humans, animals, and property—and was to be consecrated to the Lord (cf. Ex 23:31–33; 34:11–14; Dt 2:32–35; 3:3–7; 20:16–18; et al.).

Rahab’s profession continues to be mentioned here and in vv.22 and 25 to emphasize that she was a trophy of God’s grace. Her hiding of the spies is stated as the reason for her deliverance (cf. Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25). The themes of judgment and salvation often appear side by side in Scripture (cf. Ge 6–8; 19:1–29; see also Jn 3:16–21).

18–19 Joshua had made it plain that the whole nation could be devoted to destruction through the action of a single person. This verse prepares us for the story of Achan (ch. 7). Metals are not destroyed by fire. They had to be removed from common use by being placed in the treasury of the sanctuary to provide for the necessities of the sanctuary and the priests.

20–21 The narrative, which has been interrupted by the instructions concerning the things devoted to destruction, is now resumed. To emphasize the divine intervention, no secondary causes for the collapse of the wall are mentioned. The destruction of the defenders of the city together with their women and children involved the Israelites in hand-to-hand combat. Their enemies were not able to fight effectively because they were demoralized, outnumbered, and taken by surprise. Everything in the city was devoted to the Lord.

c. Rahab rescued and Jericho cursed (6:22–27)

22–23 Evidently the part of the wall where Rahab’s house was located was miraculously preserved. Rahab and her family were put in “a place outside the camp” as a kind of ritual quarantine. The camp of Israel was holy, and nothing unclean could be allowed to enter (cf. Lev 13:46; Nu 5:3; 31:19; Dt 23:3, 14). After the passage of time and the observance of appropriate rituals, they were received into the congregation (see v.25).

24–25 The term “the LORD’s house” is generally applied only to the temple, though the Bible often applies later terminology to an earlier institution. The statement “she [Rahab] lives among the Israelites to this day” most likely means that Rahab lived on in her posterity, not that this account was written during her lifetime. Thus concludes the two themes of ch. 2: the capture of Jericho and the salvation of Rahab.

26 The city of Jericho was to remain an object lesson of God’s great victory in Israel’s very first battle. Though the city was soon resettled (18:21; Jdg 3:13–14; 2Sa 10:5), the curse uttered here was not fulfilled until the time of King Ahab, when Hiel, a resident of Bethel, rebuilt the wall around Jericho to make it a fortress once again (see comment on 1Ki 16:34).

27 Joshua was firmly established as leader in Israel (cf. 1:1–9; 2:9–11; 4:14; 5:1–3). The statement “The LORD was with Joshua” marks the climax of his rise to leadership, fulfilling God’s promise in 1:5. The people had pledged their loyalty to Joshua on the condition that the Lord would be with him (1:17). This triumphant summary statement in no way prepares us for the disaster in ch. 7.

5. The conquest of Ai (7:1–8:29)

a. Achan’s sin (7:1–26)

1 Israel’s sin, a violation of their covenant with the Lord, was serious. Though the crime was committed by one person, the whole nation was considered guilty and was charged with the punishment of the offender (cf. 1Co 5:6–13).

However unfair it may seem, experience shows that the wrongdoing of a single individual has adverse effects on others (cf. Dt 5:9). Moreover, this was a time of war, and strict discipline had to be maintained. God’s judgment on sin was viewed as a result of his anger (cf. Ro 1:18–32). His judgment on the Canaanites was not arbitrary; it was the consequence of their sin, and now, when God’s chosen people sin, they too must be judged.

2 “Ai” (GK 6504) means “a ruins.” This may not have been the name of the city, since it is a term that could be applied to any ruins; to specify which ruins is meant, the text states that it was near Bethel (cf. 12:9). “Beth Aven” means “house of wickedness” (cf. Hos 4:15; 5:8; 10:5). Joshua confined most of his military exploits to the mountainous areas where the inhabitants were unable to use chariots. The conquest of Ai and Bethel seems to be part of a strategy to divide the central mountains in the middle and thus prevent any united defense.

In planning his attack, Joshua sent out spies as he had done earlier at Jericho. This was the first time in the Conquest that Joshua did anything on his own initiative, and it was doomed to failure. It is ominous that nothing is said about Joshua seeking guidance from the Lord. The great victory at Jericho made him overly confident of God’s help.

3 The total population of Ai was estimated to be about twelve thousand (8:25). With armies of equal size, the defenders inside the city walls would have a considerable advantage. The confidence of the spies was inspired by their memory of Israel’s great victory over Jericho and of God’s intervention. The climb to Ai was 3,300 feet.

4–5 In spite of Joshua’s sending the larger number of troops suggested by the spies, the Israelites suffered a humiliating defeat. While thirty-six casualties out of three thousand troops is not a great loss, it was symbolic of Israel’s resounding defeat. In the type of warfare that was fought in those days, it was not uncommon for the victor to have no casualties at all (cf. Nu 31:48–49). The very same words that Rahab had used to describe the demoralized population of Jericho (2:9, 11; cf. 5:1) are here applied to Israel.

6 Joshua and the elders went into mourning, expressing great grief at Israel’s defeat. Joshua immediately turned to God. He was able to approach the ark more freely than the high priest (cf. Lev 16:2). He, not the high priest, was responsible to intercede for the people. The actions of Joshua and the elders were not indications of repentance; they were expressions of anger, frustration, and distress.

7–8 Joshua addressed God in a reverent manner, but that did not keep him from arguing with God. If victory was to be attributed to God’s help, then defeat must come from God’s failure to intervene. Joshua accused God of wanting to destroy his people. He was struggling here as a man of faith who was brutally honest with God and was seeking answers to his urgent questions. Yet his comment about Israel being content to dwell on the east of the Jordan (cf. Ex 16:3) came dangerously close to the way Israel had reasoned at Kadesh Barnea (Nu 14:1–4). Had he forgotten that God himself had commanded them to cross over into Canaan? In self-pity Joshua charged God with capriciousness. He believed that the defeat of Israel meant the end of his leadership.

9 Joshua was well aware that the report of Israel’s victories had demoralized and immobilized the people of Canaan. The worst part of their defeat was that Israel had lost this great advantage; now their enemies would be encouraged to fight back. Moreover, if Israel was destroyed, God’s name would be disgraced. In OT times a “name” (GK 9005) was more than just an identity. It stood for one’s person and reputation. This was not special pleading; Joshua was showing genuine concern (cf. Ex 32:12–13; Nu 14:13–19; Dt 9:26–29).

10 The Lord’s command for Joshua to “stand up” was not a rebuke but a response to an honest and reverent prayer. This was no time for self-pity; it was time for action.

11 Since the gift of the land was part of God’s covenant with Israel, Joshua should have known that defeat was not due to any fickleness on God’s part but had been caused by Israel’s failure to be faithful to the covenant. In God’s eyes the whole nation was implicated in the sin of Achan; his crime was their crime: “they have lied.” They had taken as their own things that had been dedicated to God.

12 God’s warning had come true (see comment on 6:18); now the Israelites themselves must be devoted to destruction. No more dreadful threat is imaginable than that God would no longer be with Israel (cf. climax of chs. 1–6 in 6:27), but that is exactly what is being threatened here. If, however, the people will take action to “destroy whatever among you is devoted,” they will demonstrate their innocence and preserve their relationship with God (cf. 2 Co 7:5–12).

13 The people had to be consecrated again (cf. 3:5)—an act that was necessary whenever God was going to act in some special way. Now he was coming in judgment to remove the defilement from his people.

14 The people were to present themselves to the Lord by appearing before the sanctuary by family units. There is no specific statement as to how the Lord would single out the culprit (cf. 1Sa 10:19–24; cf. 14:36–43), but presumably it was by lot. The decision was placed solely in the hands of God (cf. Pr 16:33).

15 Though corporate responsibility was stressed, individual responsibility and guilt were not overlooked: The culprit “shall be destroyed,” absolving the nation of guilt. The death penalty here was made even more offensive by burning the offender’s body (cf. Ge 38:24; Lev 21:9). “All that belongs to him” is ambiguous; in v.24 both persons and possessions are included.

16–18 In the selection process each tribe, clan, and family was represented by a single individual. To us the procedure seems to leave everything up to chance. For them it left everything in the hands of God, and, in the final analysis, the right person was chosen.

19 Though Joshua deals gently and fairly with Achan, some indignation and vindictiveness are apparent in v.25. The expression “give glory [GK 3883] to the LORD” is an appeal for an honest confession (cf. Jn 9:24). Confession of sin is a way of honoring God. Joshua did not rely solely on the selection by lot. Personal confession and the gathering of evidence were also required (vv.22–23).

20 Achan confessed his sin but was not forgiven because he did not confess willingly (cf. Ps 32; 1Jn 1:9). His silence during the long process of casting lots gave evidence of the hardness of his heart.

21 Achan called what he took “plunder” (GK 8965)—as something customarily divided among the victors. “Shekel” denotes a measure of weight, not a coin. “Wedge” indicates an ingot or a bar. Coveting is often the beginning of a sinful action. The same three verbs “I saw,” “I coveted,” “I took” are found in the story of the Fall (Ge 3:6; cf. Jas 1:13–15). Achan hid the things he took because he knew he had sinned.

22–23 The messengers located the hidden booty, brought it to Joshua, and spread everything “before the LORD,” i.e., at the Tent of Meeting (cf. v.14), because God is the final Judge.

24 Representatives of the entire nation participated in punishing Achan to remove the guilt from all the people. Apparently Achan did not have a wife at this time. The punishment of children for the sin of their father is an offense to our sense of justice, but Achan’s family was implicated in his crime because he could not have hidden his loot under his tent without their knowing it. Moreover, this punishment is an example of the severe discipline necessary in time of war. Judging by his possessions, Achan had little need for what he stole. “Achor” (a pun on Achan’s name; cf. 1Ch 2:7) means “disaster.”

25–26 Once again “all Israel” refers to representatives from the whole nation, acting in accord with their promise to Joshua in 1:18. Achan and his family were stoned and burned, and stones were heaped on them. After Achan’s sin had been judged, “the LORD turned from his fierce anger,” and Israel was restored to favor (cf. also Ac 5:1–11 and comments).

b. The second attack on Ai (8:1–29)

1 Now that the sin of Achan had been dealt with, God reassured Israel of his presence and help (cf. 1:9). But Joshua would still have to use common sense and the best military strategy. It is not clear how many men constituted “the whole army” (cf. the numbers in vv.3, 12). Perhaps the 30,000 in v.3 is the size of the whole army whereas the 5,000 in v.12 is the number of troops in the ambush. The rest of the army would have been held in reserve.

2 Only the king and the people were to be devoted to destruction (see comment on 6:17); the plunder and livestock from Ai and all subsequent cities could be kept by Israel and would be their means of support throughout the years of conquest. God explicitly commanded Joshua to “set an ambush.” Surprise is a necessary strategy in warfare. “Behind the city” probably means behind it from the standpoint of Israel’s base of operations (on the west, v.12). This would be the least suspected area from which to stage an attack.

3 Most likely only five thousand constituted the actual ambush (v.12). It would be difficult even for a detachment of that number to avoid detection between Ai and Bethel. Presumably vv.10–13 report the carrying out of what was commanded in vv.3–9. The movement of troops “at night” was one of Joshua’s successful strategies (cf. 10:9).

4–5 Joshua’s men were to be ready to move at a moment’s notice. Israel’s new strategy required careful coordination and quick action. By drawing a sufficient number of the defenders away from the city, they could make its capture relatively easy. This involved a great risk, however, because a fleeing army was far more likely to suffer casualties.

6–7 The ruse depended on making the attack appear similar to the previous one. The troops waiting in ambush were to move in when the defenders were drawn from the city. Verses 18–19 suggest that the troops waited for a signal from Joshua.

8 The troops in ambush were to “set it on fire” to notify Joshua and the Israelites that the city had been taken. This would demoralize the enemy. With their wives and children killed and their homes destroyed (cf. v.28), what would they have left to fight for? This time the Israelites must “do what the LORD has commanded.”

9 Joshua set up the ambush “between Bethel and Ai” to avoid the main route between the two cities. He did not try to prevent Bethel from assisting Ai, because any engagement with the army from Bethel would have exposed the ambush. Joshua spent the night with the main army.

10–13 It was night when “they set up camp” (cf. v.3); so the army’s presence was not detected until the next morning. Though the numbers are difficult to harmonize, v.12 repeats the action described more fully in vv.3–9. Joshua went into the valley when everything was ready. Apparently he spent the night scouting the valley in preparation for battle the next day (cf. 5:13–15).

14–15 Eager for victory and overly confident, the king of Ai “hurried out.” The “Arabah” is a desert area (this word commonly refers to the Jordan Valley). “Toward the desert” likely refers to a road leading from the vicinity of Ai (or Bethel) to Aphek.

16–17 The proximity of Bethel may have encouraged that army to come to the aid of Ai. Thus, the Israelite ambush had to be hidden from the main road to keep the troops coming from Bethel also from discovering them. In their confidence of an easy victory, “they left the city open” without anyone there to defend it.

18–19 Joshua’s use of the javelin is another indication that God was directing the army of Israel (cf. Ex 17:8–12); Joshua did not bring his hand down until the victory over Ai was complete (v.26). This action symbolizes that victory comes from the Lord. Apparently holding out the javelin was a prearranged signal. The men in ambush would not have been able to see it, but they could have had scouts posted.

20–21 The statement “they had no chance to escape in any direction” suggests that the men of Bethel and Ai lost their will to fight when they saw that their families and possessions were gone. The smoke rising from Ai was the signal to Joshua that the ambush had been successful.

22–23 No distinction should be made between “survivors” and “fugitives.” The key captive, “the king,” was not killed in the battle but was taken to Joshua.

24–27 We are surprised to learn that there were still survivors in the city. Evidently the troops in ambush had not destroyed all the inhabitants of the city before setting it on fire. The chapter is silent about what happened to the army from Bethel, though they must have also been destroyed (cf. 12:16; “destroyed,” the same word as used in 6:17; see comment on 2:10). Joshua was careful to do everything in conformity with God’s commands. Clearly the Lord was in control this time.

28 “Heap” (GK 9424) refers to a particular kind of mound formed by the ruins of a walled city. The phrase “to this day” indicates that Ai had not been rebuilt at the time the narrative was composed. Apparently it was never rebuilt, though Joshua did not pronounce any curse against Ai as he had Jericho (6:26).

29 The king of Ai was not executed by hanging, yet his body was impaled on a tree or pole to add to his disgrace. To display the lifeless body of the king whom they had feared was another way of bolstering the morale of the Israelites. They were forbidden to leave a body hanging overnight because it would desecrate the land (Dt 21:23). This law required also that the body be buried the same day. The king of Ai’s body was entombed in a pile of rocks so that it might serve as a vivid object lesson for future generations.

6. Covenant renewal at Mount Ebal (8:30–35)

30 By building the altar and offering sacrifices on it, Joshua acknowledged the Lord as the source of every victory and blessing and claimed this territory in the name of the Lord. It was an appropriate time to worship now that Israel had established a foothold in the central highlands. Mount Ebal became the place of worship at this time in Israel’s history.

Because the narrative says nothing about any Israelite conquest of the area around Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, perhaps the inhabitants were friendly to Israel, or it is possible that the battle of Ai is symbolic of the conquest of the entire mountainous area in central Palestine. The Israelites could celebrate this ritual of covenant renewal in peace because God had placed the fear of Israel in the hearts of the natives.

31 The use of “uncut stones” in constructing the altar (cf. Ex 20:25) is either a reaction to pagan culture or another example of the conservatism of religion (see 5:2), since the use of iron tools was a recent innovation.

32 The law “copied on stones” (special stones covered with plaster that Moses had commanded to be prepared for this purpose; Dt 27:4) was to be the basis of Israel’s life in the land. The people’s faithfulness to this law would determine their fortunes.

33 From the time of the Exodus, aliens who chose to live and worship with Israel were assimilated into the nation (cf. 1Ki 8:41–43), and they participated in the covenant renewal. “The ark of the covenant” was placed in the center of the assembly as a symbol of God’s presence. Everything was done as Moses “had formerly commanded” (cf. Dt 11:29; 27:11–26). The emphasis here is on the positive blessings, even though Moses’ command included both blessing and cursing (cf. v.34).

34–35 The public reading of the law had both a practical and a ceremonial function. It impressed the people with their responsibility to obey. The Israelites were always to be considerate of “the aliens who lived among them” because they too had been aliens living in slavery in Egypt (Ex 22:21; 23:9; Dt 24:17–22).

C. The Southern Campaign (9:1–10:43)

1. The Gibeonite deception (9:1–27)

a. The treaty with Israel (9:1–15)

1–2 All the city-states in mountainous regions of southern Palestine joined forces against Joshua. No longer would he be able to conquer one city at a time. No longer would the reports of earlier victories lead them to suppose that Israel was invincible. In resisting Israel, however, they were resisting God. Their stubborn rebellion was eloquent testimony that the sin of the Amorites had reached its full measure (cf. Ge 15:16).

3–5 Gibeon (see 10:2 for its importance) and several other cities (see v.17) joined together and spared no effort in trying to deceive and convince Joshua and Israel that they lived in a faraway country. Somehow they must have known that God had forbidden Israel to make any treaties or to save alive any of the inhabitants of the land (Dt 7:1–3; 20:16–18). “Dry and moldy” bread probably means” dry and crumbly,” since dry bread is not likely to become moldy.

6 “Gilgal” is where Israel had had its base of operations since first entering the land (4:19). It is surprising that Joshua continued to use this as his base camp even after he had established a foothold in the mountainous region at Ai because of the arduous climb from Gilgal to the central mountain range. Perhaps Gilgal provided a more secure place for their families and livestock. The phrase “men of Israel” refers to the same group of officers who are called “leaders of the assembly” in vv.15 and 18 and “elders” in 8:33.

7 The narrator identifies the inhabitants of Gibeon as “Hivites.” This was one of the nations God had promised to drive out of the land before Israel (3:10). The leaders’ question—“perhaps you live near us”—indicates suspicion.

8 When the Gibeonites said, “We are your servants,” they were offering to become Israel’s vassals. In return they expected Israel, the stronger party, to protect them from their enemies (cf. 10:6). Their offer provoked Joshua to ask, “Where do you come from?” Joshua and the leaders were persistent in their attempt to carry out the Lord’s command, even though they did not seek the Lord’s guidance.

9–10 The Gibeonites’ statement that they had come “because of the fame [or “name”; GK 9005] of the LORD your God” is the key statement. Though the incident is filled with tension and contradiction, the Gibeonites were drawn by the great name of the Lord and were spared. They admitted that God’s mighty acts on behalf of Israel had made his great name known far and wide (cf. 2:9–11). Just as Rahab had done, the Gibeonites believed the reports about the God of Israel; and fear drove them to seek to come under his protection and to scheme in order to escape annihilation at the hand of the Israelites. In rehearsing the mighty acts of the Lord, the Gibeonites carefully omitted recent events that they would not have known about had they really come from a far country. Yet the matters they omitted were the very things that motivated them to seek a treaty with Israel (cf. v.3).

11–13 The Gibeonites spoke of their “elders,” but not their king—possibly because they did not have a king. They presented their contrived evidence to the Israelites to prove that they had come a very long way.

14 Strangely, the Israelite leaders “sampled their provisions” in spite of the fact that they were dry and moldy. Eating together was often a part of making a treaty (cf. Ge 31:54). How tragic that the leaders were so impressed by the Gibeonites’ stale provisions that they (including Joshua!) failed once again to seek God’s guidance! Joshua especially should have known better. He had gone up the mountain of revelation with Moses (Ex 24:13–14); and in his preparation for leadership, he had been trained in the use of the Urim and Thummim for determining the will of God (Nu 27:18–21). How easy it is even in the service of the Lord to take God’s guidance and blessing for granted!

15 Joshua made an alliance with the Gibeonites and concluded a treaty with them to protect their lives. This treaty committed Israel to more than simply sparing the Gibeonites’ lives. They would have to come to their defense in all kinds of danger. This treaty was not valid until “the leaders of the assembly ratified it.”

b. The ruse discovered (9:16–27)

16 Scarcely had the treaty been concluded when the Israelites learned that they had been deceived. As their “neighbors,” the Gibeonites were some of the very people whom Israel had been commanded to exterminate and with whom they were to make no treaties, lest they be tempted into idolatry (Dt 7:1–6; 20:16–18).

17 Some of the Israelites were intent on violence against the cities in league with the Gibeonites, but they were restrained by their leaders (v.18).

18 “The whole assembly grumbled,” possibly because they were resentful of the plunder that had been denied them. On the other hand, they may have been fearful of another judgment like that at Ai, because they had failed to keep God’s command.

19 The “oath” (GK 8678) was made in the name of the Lord. Consequently fidelity was owed, not to the Gibeonites, but to the Lord. The form of the oath called on the Lord to punish the Israelites if they failed to keep their agreement (cf. vv.18–20). This explains why Israel felt bound to the treaty even though it had been made under false pretenses (cf. Ge 27:35; Ps 15:4).

20 The word for “wrath” (GK 7912) usually has the idea of divine retribution that inevitably follows the violation of some divine decree (cf. 22:20; Nu 1:53; 18:5). Many years later God’s wrath did fall on Israel when King Saul violated this treaty (2Sa 21:1–9).

21 The Gibeonites were reduced to menial service as “woodcutters and water carriers” (cf. Dt 20:10–15; cf. Jos 16:10; 17:13; et al.). There is some confusion whether they were to serve “the entire community” or to serve “the house of my God” (see v.23); in v.27 both ideas are combined. Possibly they were to cut the wood and draw the water needed for the temple ritual, a duty that normally fell to the community.

22–23 At first Joshua’s question seems humorous, if not ridiculous. Obviously the Gibeonites did what they did to save their lives! Even Joshua’s curse of subservience does not seem to be serious, since the Gibeonites had escaped the sentence of death. For pagans to come and serve at the Lord’s sanctuary is surely a blessing (cf. Ps 84:10).

24–25 The Gibeonites did not anticipate the degrading sentence imposed on them, but they preferred to live. As in the case of Rahab, fear led to their salvation. The statement “Do to us whatever seems good and right to you” was not simple resignation on the part of the Gibeonites. They knew the Israelites would be duty bound to treat them kindly.

26–27 Joshua, being a leader of integrity, accepted the Gibeonites’ surrender. Worship was to be limited to one central sanctuary as a testimony to the fact that there was only one Lord (Dt 6:4) and in order to preserve the unity of the nation. This central sanctuary was located successively at Shechem, Shiloh, and Gibeon. Ultimately, of course, the site of the one sanctuary would be located in Jerusalem.

The Gibeonites, who became “water carriers” for the Israelites, were known for their excellent wells, which are being excavated today.

2. Israel’s victory over the southern coalition (10:1–43)

a. The rescue of the Gibeonites (10:1–15)

1 One of the principal kings in the south gathered the whole region together to fight against Israel. News of Israel’s victories at Jericho and Ai, with the extermination of all their inhabitants, struck fear into the heart of Adoni-Zedek (whose name means “Lord of Righteousness”). “Jerusalem,” formerly called Jebus (Jdg 19:10), was a stronghold of the Jebusites, one of the seven nations the Israelites were to drive out of the land (3:10). Though the king and his army were killed by Joshua and Israel, the city itself was not captured until after Joshua’s death (Jdg 1:8; cf. 2Sa 5:6–9).

2 The defection of the Gibeonites was cause for great alarm for three reasons: (1) it was discouraging to see such a large city with an excellent army surrender to the enemy, (2) without Gibeon the southern coalition was severely weakened, and (3) they constituted a fifth column that would fight with Israel in time of war. Gibeon was obviously a strong and influential city-state (cf. 11:12).

3–5 The kings of four other cities south and west of Jerusalem joined forces with Adoni-Zedek to attack the traitor city of Gibeon. They had to be punished to prevent any further defections to Israel and to eliminate the threat of their siding with Israel in time of war.

6 The Gibeonites turned to Joshua for help because the treaty of peace (9:15) obligated Joshua to defend them as his vassals.

7–8 The march from Gilgal to Gibeon involved an ascent of 3,300 feet. It is not clear whether “all the best fighting men” is descriptive of the whole Israelite army or only a special division of elite troops. The Lord assured Joshua that victory would be theirs.

9–10 A forced march under the cover of darkness was another of Joshua’s well-planned strategies. The march, which covered a distance of about twenty miles, would have taken eight to ten hours. Joshua took the enemy by surprise, and the Lord used this to create disorder. Again human efforts and divine intervention worked hand in hand. The pass at Beth Horon, about five miles northwest of Gibeon, was an important point of access to the hill country and to Jerusalem.

11 Joshua pursued his enemy along the ancient road that went from Lachish to the Valley of Aijalon. In disarray the enemy fled down from the mountains through the pass at Beth Horon and headed south. God then intervened on behalf of his people with “large hailstones,” a miracle that dwarfed the accomplishments of Israel’s army. It was the Lord who won the victory. The Canaanites, who worshiped nature deities, must have thought that their own gods were aiding the Israelites.

12 This miracle is often called “Joshua’s long day.” It is the third and last great miracle in the book and the most bewildering. The NIV is correct in arranging vv.12b–13 a as poetic, and they must be interpreted accordingly. The Hebrew word translated “stand still” (GK 1957) is often translated “be silent.” Joshua may have been requesting that the sun not shine with its normal brightness and heat. Joshua desired favorable conditions so as to be able to make the most of the victory. After an all-night march, the sun’s heat would have sapped the strength of the weary Israelites; and relief from that heat would have helped just as much as extended daylight. (At a certain time of the month the moon is visible in the daytime. Its mention here provides a poetic parallel to the sun.)

13 The Hebrew word for “stood still” (GK 1957) was used in 3:16 to say that the waters of the Jordan “stopped flowing.” In a poetic passage like this, it could mean “stop moving” or even “stop shining.” “The Book of Jashar” (i.e., “the book of the righteous”) is mentioned also in 2Sa 1:18. Like other ancient books (cf. 1Ki 14:19, 29), this bit of ancient Hebrew literature has been lost. All of vv.12–15 may have been quoted from that source. The final statement in this verse does clearly favor the interpretation that the sun stood still or that it slowed down in its course across the sky.

14–15 “There has never been a day like it before” (cf. 2Ki 18:5; 23:25) shows something very spectacular occurred that day that elevated Joshua as a man of God: his prayers were unusually effective. This episode reminds us again that Israel was not winning

the land by their own strength; God was giving it to them.

Verse 15 seems out of place here. The events of vv.16–27 are part of the battle, and it is very unlikely that Joshua returned to Gilgal in the middle of it all. There are two plausible suggestions: (1) This verse may conclude the quotation from the Book of Jashar. (2) Verses 7–14 may describe the battle in terms of the supernatural assistance, and vv.16–42 may go over the same ground supplying details about the fate of the various kings and their cities. In this case v.15 and v.43 describe the same event.

b. The execution of the five Amorite kings (10:16–28)

16–18 “The five kings” are named in v.3. “Large rocks” were placed at the entrance of the cave to prevent the kings who “had been found hiding” there from escaping and thus to free the warriors to pursue the enemy.

19–20 The warriors were encouraged to fight hard, “for the LORD your God has given them into your hand.” As many as possible of the enemy were to be slain in the open fields, because it would be nearly impossible to capture them once they had reached their fortified cities. There were indeed a few survivors who managed to get to the cities, but by and large the enemy was totally annihilated.

21 The statement that “The whole army then returned safely” implies that the Israelites suffered no casualties. Apparently the campaign took longer than this abbreviated account might lead one to suppose. The observation that “no one uttered a word” provides another parallel in the careers of Moses and Joshua (cf. Ex 11:7).

22–24 Joshua did all he could to bolster the morale of his troops, so he humiliated the five kings before they were killed. When the officers placed their feet on the necks of these great kings (a widespread practice in ancient times; cf. 1Ki 5:3; Ps 110:1), they recognized that they were frail human beings like everyone else.

25–26 The words “be strong and courageous” remind us of ch. 1 (vv.6–7, 9, 18). The bodies of the kings were hung on trees to make them an example and to add to their humiliation (see comment on 8:29).

27 The bodies of the kings were taken down “at sunset” to keep from defiling the land (cf. Dt 21:23). The cave provided a convenient place for their burial. Piling large rocks at the entrance, the Israelites created a memorial to keep alive the memory of another victory God had given Israel.

28 “That day” most likely means “at that time.” For “totally destroyed” see comments on 2:10; 6:17. This comparison with the king of Jericho is strange because no details were given as to how Joshua treated him (cf. 6:20–21, 24).

c. The completion of the southern campaign (10:29–43)

29–30 Libnah, Makkedah, and Debir were not included in the coalition. Joshua was beginning to secure the foothills before invading the mountains. Joshua devoted the entire population to God by destruction (cf. v.28; 2:10).

31–33 The words “On the second day” suggest that the campaign in the south continued for several days or weeks. “Gezer” is near the entrance to the Valley of Aijalon, about a day’s march north of Lachish. Joshua destroyed the king and his army, though he did not follow through to capture the city itself (cf. 16:10).

34–39 Leaving the foothills Joshua moved into the highlands and captured the two principal cities with their surrounding villages. By this time Hebron may have already enthroned a new king (cf. vv.25–26). Joshua “totally destroyed it and everyone in it.”

40 This comprehensive statement of Joshua’s victories in the south demonstrates that the accounts of the capture of a few cities is only a sketchy summary of the more important victories in an extensive campaign. “The hill country” is the central mountain range principally in Judah and Ephraim. “The Negev” is the desert in southern Palestine. “The western foothills” is the area between the hill country of Judah and the coastal plain. “The mountain slopes” refers to the steep descent from the mountains to the Jordan Valley. Neither Jerusalem (Jdg 1:8) nor Jarmuth were conquered at this time, but the Conquest was extensive enough to give Israel control of the area. Probably the expression “all who breathed” did not include the livestock, which the Israelites were permitted to take as booty.

41–43 The phrase “from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza” denotes a large area in southern Palestine. We have no way of determining the length of this “one campaign,” but it must have taken a considerable amount of time. Victory in the south clearly demonstrated that “the LORD, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.” The Israelites did not occupy these cities immediately. Instead they returned to their families and livestock in their base camp “at Gilgal.”

D. The Northern Campaign (11:1–15)

1. The northern coalition formed (11:1–5)

1 “Jabin” may have been a dynastic name assumed by all kings of Hazor (cf. Jdg 4:2). “Hazor” was by far the most imposing city in all of Palestine, covering about two hundred acres (cf. the five or six acres of Jericho). With its allies and armaments, Hazor confronted Joshua and Israel with their last and most awesome challenge.

2 The cities named in v.1 were south of Hazor, but Jabin also summoned “the northern kings.” The thirty-one kings named in 12:9–24 are probably only the more important ones. Jabin assembled the kings of the Jordan Valley (“the Arabah”), the area around the Sea of Galilee (“Kinnereth”), and the coastal plain south of Mount Carmel (“Naphoth Dor”).

3 Since “Canaanite” was a generic term for all who lived in the lowlands, “the Canaanites in the east” must refer to the people living in the Jordan Valley (cf. Nu 13:29). The Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, and Jebusites lived in the hill country. The inhabitants of Jerusalem were Jebusites. Joshua destroyed the army of the “Jebusites” (10:9–14) and killed Adoni-Zedek their king (10:22–27), but he did not capture their city. Possibly survivors from the southern campaign rallied to the support of the northern coalition. “Hermon” is the highest mountain in the Anti-Lebanon range.

4–5 Though Palestine at this time was made up of independent and hostile city-states, the presence of a common enemy caused them to rally to Jabin’s call. The northern coalition was Israel’s most formidable foe. “Horses and chariots” posed an awesome challenge to the Israelites, whose army was made up solely of foot soldiers. All previous battles had been on terrain where the use of chariots was not feasible. The kings apparently gathered in the mountainous area of Wadi Meiron (4000 foot elevation) to develop their strategy, not to do battle.

2. The major battle (11:6–9)

6, 9 Before this last and most challenging battle, Joshua did not fail to consult the Lord. Disabling the horses and burning the chariots showed disdain for modern weaponry; Israel’s confidence was to be in God alone (cf. Ps 20:7). Early Israelite tradition is consistently negative toward the use of horses and chariots (cf. Dt 17:16; 2Sa 8:4; Isa 31:1).

7–8 Joshua again resorted to a surprise attack (cf. 10:9). The enemies were caught unprepared and were driven into the mountains where chariots could not be used. Once again victory was God’s gift to Israel. The defeated enemy fled in a northerly direction. Sidon is on the Phoenician coast north of Mount Carmel. “The Valley of Mizpah” must have been in the north in the vicinity of Sidon and Misrephoth Maim.

3. The capture of the northern cities (11:10–15)

10 The phrase “at that time” may denote the same day or later. After he defeated the combined armies, Joshua “turned back” from pursuing his enemies in the north and concentrated on individual cities, beginning with the city of Hazor. The execution of the king, as usual, is mentioned separately. Perhaps the kings were killed with some special ceremony as in 10:22–27.

11 Joshua faithfully carried out the command that all the inhabitants of the land be devoted to the Lord by totally destroying them (cf. comments on 2:10; 6:21). As in 10:40, “anything that breathed” refers only to human beings. Archaeological excavations indicate that Hazor was destroyed sometime in the late fifteenth century B.C. and was not rebuilt until the time of Solomon (cf. 1Ki 9:15).

12–15 Following Moses’ command, Joshua took the “royal cities,” i.e., city-states each of which had its own king (cf. 10:2). The burning of the cities had not been commanded by God (cf. Dt 7:1–6; 20:16–18); consequently, they were ready immediately for reoccupation by Israel. As the Lord had promised, the Israelites would live in cities they did not build and would have food that they had not worked for (Dt 6:10–11).

Once again we are reminded that victory and blessing are the outcome of obedience. Joshua had done everything the Lord commanded Moses. The writer uses extravagant language—“he left nothing undone”—to celebrate Joshua’s obedience and Israel’s great victories even though he does not hesitate in succeeding chapters to indicate that the Conquest was still incomplete (cf. 13:1–5, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12).

E. A Summary of the Conquest (11:16–23)

16–17 Joshua gained control of the whole region even though he did not take every individual city. The last of the Canaanites were not subjected to Israel’s authority until the reign of David. The author describes in great detail the geography of the Promised Land that Joshua had captured—from north to south and from east to west. The western coastal plains where the Canaanites were able to use their chariots are not mentioned (cf. 9:1) because Joshua did not conquer those areas (cf. 17:16; Jdg 1:19). The southern coastland was the stronghold of the Philistines, who continued to harass Israel until they were finally subdued by David.

18 Though creating the impression of a lightning-quick campaign, the Conquest really took “a long time” (cf. God’s statement to Moses in Ex 23:29–30). Undoubtedly the Conquest involved many battles not mentioned.

19–20 The surrender of the Gibeonites was one small exception to the general rule of totally annihilating the population of Canaan. God hardened the Canaanites’ hearts, not to keep them from repenting, but to prevent them from surrendering to Israel in unrepentance. The examples of Rahab and the Gibeonites demonstrate the unchanging purpose of God that “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Ro 10:13). God was patient as long as there was any hope of repentance (Ro 2:4), but the sin of the Amorites had reached its full measure (Ge 15:16). The annihilation of the Canaanites was the only way that God’s gracious purpose could be fulfilled.

Conquest of Canaan

21–22 The report of Anakites in the land had earlier discouraged Israel from entering while they were encamped at Kadesh Barnea (Dt 1:19–33). Now, in summarizing the victories of the Israelites, they triumphed over these very people. Joshua as leader of the army is credited with the accomplishments of his subordinates (cf. 15:13–14, 17–19). “Gaza, Gath and Ashdod” were three of the five Philistine cities that were located in the southern coastal plain. This verse places that whole region outside Israelite territory.

23 On the statement “Joshua took the entire land,” see comment on v.16. “He gave it as an inheritance” is a transitional statement: with the Conquest completed (chs. 1–12), the author turns to the division of the land (chs. 13–19).

“Then the land had rest from war” is a profound declaration and a fitting conclusion for the first section of the book. It is prophetic of the “rest” that will come when all evil has been conquered and Christ is made King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 11:15; 19:16).

F. A List of Defeated Kings (12:1–24)

The Conquest is summarized by listing the kings that Israel defeated. East of the Jordan there were only two kings, each of whom ruled a wide area with many cities. The land west of the Jordan was divided into individual city-states. Israel’s conquests on both sides of the Jordan are mentioned together here to emphasize the unity of the nation. The conquests summarized in this chapter do not begin to reach the boundaries stated in 1:4. Consult the map for the exact location of the territories taken.

1. Kings whom Moses defeated (12:1–6)

1 East of the Jordan River, the Israelites, led by Moses, took all the land from the Arnon River, which enters the Dead Sea at about its midpoint, to Mount Hermon in the north. “The Arabah” refers to the Jordan Valley.

2–3 Most of that territory is either mountainous or high plateau; accordingly the inhabitants are called Amorites (cf. 3:10). Sihon and Og are called the two kings of the Amorites (2:10;9:10). The defeat of Sihon is recorded in Nu 21:21–31 and Dt 2:26–37, and his territory from the Arnon River on the south to the base of the Sea of Galilee (Kinnereth) on the north, from the Jordan River on the west to slopes of the Abarim mountains on the east was taken. It was from the slopes of Pisgah that Moses was permitted to view the Promised Land (Dt 34:1).

4–5 Israel’ victory over Og is recorded in Nu 21:33–35 and Dt 3:1–11. “Bashan” is the rich pastureland east of the Sea of Galilee, bordered by the Yarmuk River on the south, Mount Hermon on the north, and Salecah on the east. Og was one of the last of a race of giants called “Rephaites” (cf. Ge 14:5; Dt 3:11).

6 Moses is mentioned at the end of vv.1–6 and Joshua at the beginning of vv.7–24 to place them side by side and highlight the way the work of Joshua complemented the work of Moses.

2. Kings whom Joshua defeated (12:7–24)

7–8 The boundaries of the territory that Joshua conquered are mentioned here. All this territory is west of the Jordan River. Consult a map for what is covered in this land. For “Hittites” et al., see 3:10.

9–24 This is a catalog of the kings killed by Joshua. The ones referred to in vv.6–13 a are those mentioned in chs. 6–10. The kings and armies of Jerusalem, Jarmuth, and Gezer were killed, but the cities were not captured. This may have been true of other cities also (cf. Jdg 1:27). The necessity to specify that Ai was “near Bethel” (v.9) suggests that there were other ruins with this same name. “Hormah” (v.14) means “destruction”; this name was given to a number of cities that had been destroyed (cf. Nu 14:44–45; 21:1–3; Jdg 1:16–17).

Regarding Bethel (v.16), the army of Bethel participated in the battle of Ai (cf. 8:17), but the account does not record the killing of either king or army. The conquest of Bethel is reported in Jdg 1:22–26. As we have seen, however, some cities were conquered more than once. With the name of Bethel, the list turns to cities in the central and northern parts of Palestine.

“Tirzah” (v.24) was the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel until the time of Omri (1Ki 14:17; 15:21, 33; 16:6–24).

II. Dividing the Promised Land (13:1–21:45)

A. The Command to Divide the Land (13:1–7)

1 Perhaps Joshua was about the same age as Caleb, whose age is given as eighty-five years in 14:10. This notice concerning Joshua’s advanced age is evidence that the Conquest took a long time. The Lord had to remind Joshua of his unfinished task. The division of the land (v.7) was a part of his original commission from the Lord (1:6; Dt 31:7), and it had to be completed before Joshua died.

2–5 A description follows of large areas that remained unconquered along the coast and in the far north (the many cities scattered here and there that had not been captured are not taken into consideration here). “The regions of the Philistines and Geshurites” is the southern coastland along the Mediterranean Sea. The Philistines continued to oppress and harass the Israelites throughout the period of the Judges and the reign of Saul, until they were subdued by David. “Shihor” refers to the River of Egypt, which flows from the Sinai Peninsula into the Mediterranean Sea about forty-five miles southwest of Gaza and marked the boundary between Egypt and Palestine.

“Ekron” was the farthest north of the five major Philistine cities; it was regarded as “Canaanite,” for although the Philistines were not Canaanite, they had taken this area from the Canaanites. Gaza, Ashdod, and Ashkelon were near the coast, whereas Gath and Ekron were farther inland. “Canaanite” refers here to any people, irrespective of origin, who lived in the lowlands. “Sidonian” here includes all the residents of the northern coastal plains.

6–7 The Lord reaffirmed his promise to drive out the inhabitants of the land (cf. 3:10). From this point on, however, further conquests would be the concern of the individual tribes. Moreover, the promise was conditional and was never completely fulfilled because Israel was disobedient to the command of the Lord (cf. v.13).

Joshua was to divide all the land promised to Israel, whether or not Israel possessed all of it at this time. The word translated “allocate” (GK 5877) refers to the casting of lots. The use of lots placed everything in the hands of God and freed Joshua and the elders from any possible charge of favoritism. The concept of “inheritance” (GK 5709) was very important in Israelite society. One’s inheritance was a piece of real estate that was the inalienable possession of one’s family. A large portion of OT legislation is dedicated to regulating and protecting the rights of inheritance (cf. 17:3–6).

B. Division of the Land East of the Jordan (13:8–33)

1. Introduction (13:8–14)

8 The Transjordanian tribes receive a disproportionate amount of attention in this book that records the Conquest and division of the land west of the Jordan (cf. 1:12–15; 4:12; 12:1–6; 13:8–33; 22:1–34). The author was eager to uphold the unity of the Twelve Tribes in spite of the geographic separation.

9–13 The author describes the land east of the Jordan River that became the inheritance of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. It covered all the land that had been ruled by “Sihon king of the Amorites” (see 12:2–3) and Og king of Bashan (see 12:4–5). The area stretched from the Jordan to the mountainous plateaus to the east. For Moses’ victory over Og and Sihon, see Nu 21:21–35; Dt 2:26–37. Though this book celebrates God’s great promises and Israel’s mighty victories, it does not conceal the fact that sometimes the fulfillment of the promises was limited by Israel’s failure to obey fully the command of the Lord.

14 The Levites had been set apart for the service of the tabernacle and the altar (Ex 32:29; 38:21; Nu 3:45; see comment on 14:3–4 for how this affected the numbering of the twelve tribes).

2. The inheritance of Reuben (13:15–23)

15–21 Beginning with Reuben in the south, a slightly more detailed description is given of the inheritance of each of the two-and-a-half tribes. The distribution “clan by clan” is in agreement with the principle laid down that the larger tribes were to receive a larger territory (see Nu 26:52–56). “Bamoth Baal” (v.17), near Medeba, was one of the places from which Balaam attempted to curse Israel (Nu 22:41). Sihon fought with Israel at “Jahaz” (v.18; cf. Nu 21:23; Dt 2:32).

“Beth Peor” (v.20) was another place from which Balaam tried to curse Israel (Nu 23:28). It was here that the Israelites engaged in sexual immorality with Moabite women and in idolatry (Nu 25:1–3). This was the place Moses delivered his farewell address to Israel (Dt 3:29), and he was buried nearby (Dt 34:6). The defeat of the “Midianite chiefs” (v.21) is recorded in Nu 31:8, where they are called “kings.”

22–23 When the Israelites were traveling north from the desert into Transjordan, Balaam was hired by Balak king of Moab to curse them. Each time he tried, the Lord made him bless Israel instead (Nu 22–24; cf. Jos 24:9–10). Balaam’s death is reported in Nu 31:8. Though the OT does not give the reason why Balaam was slain, Rev 2:14 makes him responsible for the sin of Israel recorded in Nu 25.T–5 (cf. Dt 23:4–5; Ne 13:2; Mic 6:5). The word “villages” (v.23) often refers to unwalled settlements outside a fortified city. Few cities in Transjordan had walls; therefore it is more likely that it refers to land around the city that was under cultivation or was used for raising livestock.

3. The inheritance of Gad (13:24–28)

24–28 Gad received the central region in Transjordan. “Jazer” became a Levitical town (21:39). Since the Israelites had been forbidden to take any of the Ammonite territory (Dt 2:19, 37), “half the Ammonite country” may refer to land first taken from the Ammonites by Sihon and then taken from Sihon by the Israelites. “Rabbah” (v.25) was the principal city of the Ammonites. “Mahanaim” (v.26) is on the Jabbok River on the border between Gad and Manasseh (see v.30); it was there that Jacob was met by two angels on his way back from Paddan Aram to Canaan (Ge 32:2). At the River Jabbok Jacob wrestled with God (Ge 32:22–30). “Sea of Kinnereth” (v.27) is the Sea of Galilee.

4. The inheritance of the half-tribe of Manasseh (13:29–31)

29–31 The territory allocated to the half-tribe of Manasseh is the northern part of Transjordan and is not described in as much detail as the territories of Reuben and Gad. Here the name “Makir” is used to designate the tribe of Manasseh (cf. Ge 50:23).

5. Summary (13:32–33)

32–33 Verse 32 brings down the curtain on the account of the distribution of the land east of the Jordan. Verse 33 repeats the statement in v.14, because of its importance.

C. Division of the Land West of the Jordan (14:1–19:51)

1. Introduction (14:1–5)

The amount of space devoted to the description of the territory of each of the tribes and the order of presentation correspond to the importance of each particular tribe in Israel’s history. Accordingly, Judah—the tribe of David, Solomon, and their successors—is treated most thoroughly. Then the tribes of Joseph are considered, who so predominated the northern kingdom that Ephraim became one of its names. The third and last tribe to be given special treatment is Benjamin, the tribe of Saul, Israel’s first king.

1 Only the territory west of the Jordan was called the land of Canaan. Though at times the dimensions of the land promised to Israel are described as reaching from the River of Egypt to the river Euphrates (e.g., 1:4), there is a strong, persistent tradition that the Promised Land was much more restricted. “Eleazar the priest” was to assist Joshua in dividing the land. As priest he was the one who wore the ephod with the Urim and Thummim by means of which the will of God was determined (Nu 27:21). “The heads of the tribal clans” had been chosen by Moses, as commanded by the Lord, to help in the division of the land (Nu 34:17–29).

2 The land was to be “assigned by lot [GK 1598].” Presumably the priest Eleazar employed the Urim and Thummim (cf. Nu 27:21; 34:17). For Israel the use of lots left the choice completely in the hands of God (see 7:14). The old refrain “as the Lord had commanded through Moses” is repeated again to drive home the point that obedience is the key to God’s blessing.

3–4 Once again material about the two-and-a-half tribes is repeated (cf. 1:15; 12:6; 13:8–32). Since “the Levites” had been set apart to serve in the tabernacle (Nu 35:1–8), Ephraim and Manasseh were treated as separate tribes to preserve the full number twelve (cf. Ge 48:5). They were to be apportioned towns and agricultural lands throughout the territories of all the other tribes (ch. 21).

5 Typical of OT narrative style, the introduction ends in a statement summarizing what the following account relates in detail.

2. The inheritance of Judah (14:6–15:63)

a. Caleb’s inheritance (14:6–15)

6 Caleb and Joshua were the two faithful spies who believed God was able to give Israel the land of Canaan (Nu 14:6–9, 30). The receiving of their inheritances frames the story of the dividing of the land among the nine-and-a-half tribes, with Caleb’s at the beginning and Joshua’s at the end (19:49–50). Caleb and Joshua are living examples of God’s faithfulness in fulfilling his promises made more than forty years earlier.

In Ge 15:19 the Kenizzites are listed as one of the pagan nations whose land God was giving to Israel. When Caleb is called a Kenizzite, it may mean no more than that one of Caleb’s ancestors was named Kenaz (cf. 15:17; 1Ch 4:13, 15). This title “man of God” is ascribed to Moses also in Dt 33:1; Ezr 3:2, and in the title of Ps 90. For what God said to Moses about Caleb and Joshua, see Nu 14:30.

7–9 The spy mission Caleb participated in is recorded in Nu 13. Caleb’s report was characterized by bold confidence in God (Nu 13:30; 14:6–9). The statement that Caleb “followed the LORD my God wholeheartedly” is found three times in this brief passage (vv.9, 14). It describes him as one who really lived out the theme of this book and is the reason he was still alive and would inherit part of the land (cf. Dt 1:36).

10–11 Of all who were twenty years and older when Israel left Egypt, only Caleb and Joshua lived to enter the Promised Land. Caleb was now “eighty-five years old.” From this passage we can calculate the approximate number of years involved in the Conquest. Forty years old at the time of the spy mission plus thirty-eight years of wandering leaves seven years for the Conquest.

12 The “hill country . . . Anakites . . . cities . . . large and fortified” are the very things that the ten faithless spies used to discourage the Israelites from entering the Promised Land (Nu 13:28–29). Caleb viewed them as a challenge. By faith Joshua and Caleb triumphed over the formidable foe who intimidated the unbelieving Israelites.

13–15 Some believe that when Joshua blessed Caleb, he bestowed on him the spiritual qualities needed for this dangerous venture. For “Then the land had rest from war,” see 11:23. In Jdg 1:9–l 0 the conquest of Hebron is credited to the men of Judah. Hebron is only one of many cities that had to be captured more than once (e.g., Jerusalem; see comment on 15:63).

b. The borders of Judah (15:1–12)

1 Judah, the tribe of the great Davidic dynasty, was the first tribe to receive its allotted territory in Canaan. God had commanded that when the land was divided the size of the territory should correspond to the size of the respective tribe or clan (Nu 33:54). In the process of carrying out the command, Joshua gave Judah a territory larger than her numbers merited (19:9). The “territory of Edom” was east of the Arabah. Here, however, Edom may refer to Amalekites living in the Sinai Peninsula and the southern Negev (cf. Ge 36:12). “The Desert of Zin” is around Kadesh Barnea (see Nu 20:1). Judah’s lot was “in the extreme south.” The description of Judah’s southern boundary is in close agreement with the southern boundary of Canaan as described in Nu 34:3–5.

2–5 The word “bay” here refers to the extreme northern and southern ends of the “the Salt Sea” (i.e., the Dead Sea). “Zin” and “Kadesh Barnea” are both localities within the Desert of Zin. The latter would have been the staging point for the Israelite’s invasion of the land of Canaan had they trusted in God (cf. Nu 13:26–33). “The Wadi of Egypt” is the River of Egypt that flows from the Sinai Peninsula into “the sea” (i.e., the Mediterranean Sea). “The northern boundary” of Judah corresponds to the southern boundaries of Benjamin (18:14–19) and of Dan (19:41–46).

6–7 The expressions “go up” and “go down” are used in the OT with reference to the elevation of the land. Here the border of Judah ascends from the Valley of Achor, which borders on the Dead Sea. “Gilgal” is a different Gilgal from the one on the plains of Jericho which Joshua made his base of operations when he entered Canaan (4:19).

8–11 “The Valley of Ben Hinnom” is the wide, deep valley on the south and east of the old city Jerusalem. “The Valley of Rephaim” is west of Jerusalem. The border around Jerusalem is described in greater detail, perhaps to make clear that Jerusalem was not included in the territory of Judah. “Mount Seir” (v.10) was on the west side of Jerusalem (not to be confused with Mount Seir in Edom); “Mount Jearim” is about ten miles west of Jerusalem. “Ekron” is one of the cities of the Philistines (see 13:3).

12 “The Great Sea” is the Mediterranean. With the Mediterranean as her western boundary, Judah’s allotment included Philistine and Geshurite territory that had not been conquered yet (cf. 13:1–3). This was in conformity with the Lord’s command (13:6) that the entire land of Palestine be allotted in the confidence that some day all would belong to Israel.

c. The inheritance of Caleb’s daughter (15:13–19)

13 God promised Caleb that he would inherit the land he had explored (14:9; Nu 14:24). In the providence of God, this area fell within the borders of his own tribe.

14–17 The “three Anakites” (cf. Nu 13:22) were living in Hebron at the time of the first spy mission; there are three accounts of their defeat (11:21–22; 14:10–15; 15:13–14). Caleb led the attack on Debir, but Othniel captured it. As in the case of Hebron, this victory is also credited to Joshua as commander-in-chief (10:36–39). It was not uncommon to offer special incentives for acts of bravery (cf. 1Sa 17:25; 18:17, 25; 1Ch 11:6). Othniel later became one of the judges of Israel (Jdg 3:7–11). The phrase “Caleb’s brother” can refer to any male member of the same clan or tribe. The word “brother” (GK 278) can mean simply “relative” or “ally”; but Jdg 1:13; 3:9, where Othniel is called “Caleb’s younger brother,” seems to favor the idea of “blood brother.”

18–19 The word “a special favor” (GK 1388) is commonly translated “blessing.” Perhaps Caleb’s daughter was asking her father for a wedding gift. She needed “springs of water.” Land in the Negev is of little value without water, but it is very productive when irrigated. Othniel recognized the validity of her request.

d. The towns of Judah (15:20–63)

20 Possibly the list of towns assigned to Judah comes from an administrative register where the southern kingdom of Judah was divided into twelve districts for such purposes as taxation and military conscription. The towns of Judah made up ten and one-half districts and the towns of Benjamin made up the other one and one-half (cf. 18:11, 21). This list described the homeland that God had given to the tribe of Judah. It is another evidence of the historical, down-to-earth nature of God’s redemptive program (cf. Jn 1:14).

21–32 “The southernmost towns” are mostly in the Negev (esp. those in vv.26–32)—towns that are also ascribed to Simeon in 19:1–9. There it is stated that the territory given to Judah was “more than they needed” (19:9). Consequently some of it was reassigned to Simeon. The distribution of the land was not all completed at once; rather it took place over an extended period of time (see 18:1–10). Thirty-six towns are named here. Even if some of the names are combined or accounted for in other ways, it seems impossible to reduce the list to “twenty-nine towns.” The solution to the problem is not clear.

“Ziklag” (v.30) is the town that Achish, king of Gath, gave David as a place for him and his men to live during his time of exile from King Saul (1Sa 27:6). This was therefore one of the towns that was assigned to Judah but not occupied by them until years later.

33–47 “Zorah” is the highest point in the Shephelah. This town and Eshtaol were the scenes of some of Samson’s exploits (Jdg 13:25; 16:31). “Lachish” and “Eglon” were the main towns of two of the southern kings allied with Adnoi-Zedek (see 10:1–5). “Beth Dagon” (v.41) means “house of Dagon,” the god of the Philistines (see 1Sa 5:2–7).

“Ekron,” “Ashdod,” and “Gaza” (vv.45–47) were three of the five major Philistine cities (see comment on 13:1–5). Though assigned to Judah, these three were not possessed until many years later. The style of these three verses differs markedly from all the others in this list of towns assigned to Judah, both in the inclusion of the phrase “its surrounding settlements and villages” and in the omission of the concluding statement that gives the total number of cities.

48–60 The cities in this section were located in the vicinity of Hebron (cf. 10:3–5, 36, 39; 14:13–15). Hebron became a city of refuge (20:7) and a Levitical town (2 1:11). “Carmel” (v.55) must not be confused with Mount Carmel on the Mediterranean seacoast. It is seven and one-half miles south-southeast of Hebron. Nor should “Jezreel” (v.56) be confused with the town of the same name in the Valley of Esdraelon.

61–62 “The desert” refers to the desert area on the eastern border of Judah along the shore of the Dead Sea. In the title of Ps 63, it is called “the Desert of Judah” (cf. 12:8). “The City of Salt” may be Khirbet Qumran, the center of the Essene community made famous through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. “En Gedi” is near the midpoint of the Dead Sea.

63 The statement “Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites” is strange because Jerusalem was part of the territory assigned to Benjamin (18:28), and the description of the northern border of Judah so carefully excludes Jerusalem (see comment on vv.8–11). Judges 1:8 records that the men of Judah did capture the city. Then in v.21 we have the same statement as here, only it states that Benjamin did not capture Jerusalem. The final conquest of Jerusalem was accomplished under the direction of King David (2Sa 5:6–10). Some cities seem to have changed hands several times before they were securely in Israel’s control. The admission that Judah was unable to dislodge the Jebusites is strange in a book that exalts the supernatural power of God, who gave victory to his people over all their enemies. Joshua records a remarkable mixture of miracle and human effort—a combination of divinely aided victory and of failure that resulted from Israel’s disobedience and unbelief. Thus God is revealed as sovereign. He responds to the needs of his covenant people but is not subject to their whims.

3. The inheritance of the Joseph tribes (16:1–17:18)

a. Introduction (16:1–4)

1–3 “The allotment for Joseph” was divided between the tribe of Ephraim (vv.5–10) and the half-tribe of Manasseh (17:1–13; for the other half-tribe of Manasseh, see 13:8–13). The importance of the tribe of Joseph is reflected in their lot being drawn second and in the comparatively large amount of space devoted to the description of their territory. The southern border of Joseph is actually the northern borders of Benjamin (18:11–14) and Dan (19:40–48). “The Jordan of Jericho” designates the Jordan near Jericho. Jericho itself was in the allotment of Benjamin (18:12), as was Bethel (18:22).

Nothing is known about the “Arkites” (v.2) except that David’s counselor Hushai was from that clan (2Sa 15:32; 16:16). The “Japhletites” (v.3) were another non-Israelite clan about which nothing is known (but cf. 1Ch 7:32–33). “The Sea” is the Mediterranean.

4 The order in which “Manasseh and Ephraim” are mentioned is the actual order of birth. The order in which their respective territories are described reflects the ascendancy of Ephraim (cf. Ge 48:12–20). The descriptions of the inheritances of the Joseph tribes contain no lists of towns.

b. The inheritance of Ephraim (16:5–10)

5–9 Although much space is devoted to Ephraim and Manasseh, the description of their territories is fragmentary and difficult to follow. Apparently vv.5–6a are a severely abbreviated restatement of the southern boundary. Then, beginning at “Michmethath,” the point farthest north, the boundary is traced east and south until it joins the southern boundary forming the eastern border. Beginning again at the far north, the northern boundary is followed to the Mediterranean Sea, which formed the western border.

10 On Israel’s failure to “dislodge the Canaanites,” see comment on 15:63. The king and the army from “Gezer” were defeated by Joshua (10:30). Many natives of Canaan who survived were conscripted as “forced labor” for Israel (Jdg 1:28–30, 33, 35). The commands of God allowed Israel to subject the people from cities outside Palestine to forced labor, but the population of the cities inside the Promised Land were to be put to death without pity and without exception (Dt 20:10–18). Because they failed to do so, the Israelites were corrupted by intermarrying with these pagans and engaging in their perverse and idolatrous worship (Jdg 2:1–3; 3:5–6; 10:6).

LAND OF THE TWELVE TRIBES

© 1994 The Zondervan Corporation.

c. The inheritance of Manasseh (17:1–13)

1–2 Manasseh was “Joseph’s firstborn” son (Ge 41:51). “Makir” is called “Manasseh’s firstborn” when, as it appears, Makir was Manasseh’s only son (Ge 50:23). At times Makir’s name is used to designate the half-tribe of Manasseh that settled east of the Jordan.

From the records we have (Nu 26:29–34; cf. 1Ch 7:14–19), it is difficult to unravel the genealogy of Manasseh. The phrase “the rest of the people of Manasseh” (v.2) designates the half-tribe that did not receive its inheritance in Transjordan. “Male descendants” are specified because the following paragraph deals with the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad.

3–6 “Hepher” (cf. 12:17) and “Tirzah” (cf. 12:24) were also the names of Canaanite towns whose kings Joshua killed. The presence of those same names in the genealogy of Manasseh gives evidence that Canaanites were assimilated into Israel.

In the four instances in this book where Joshua and Eleazar are mentioned together, Eleazar is always named first, perhaps out of respect for his crucial role as high priest (see 14:1; 19:51; 2 l:l). The daughters of Zelophehad based their claim on what “the LORD commanded Moses.” An unusual privilege and a remarkable measure of equality were granted to these women. On brothers, see comment on 15:14–17. The “ten tracts” (v.5) are one each for five of Gilead’s sons and one each for the five daughters of his sixth son.

7–13 The description of “the territory of Manasseh” is very confusing. It provides little more than a clearer definition of the border with Ephraim. “Shechem,” between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerazim, is mentioned frequently in the patriarchal stories in Genesis. It was chosen to be a Levitical town (21:21) and one of the cities of refuge (20:7). Joshua gathered all Israel in Shechem for his farewell address and covenant renewal (ch. 24).

“Tappuah” (v.8) was one of several towns within the boundaries of Manasseh that belonged to Ephraim (cf. 16:9). For “bordered Asher on the north,” see 19:24–31; for “Issachar on the east,” see 19:17–23. While Manasseh’s northern boundary was the Valley of Esdraelon, a few of their towns lay “within Issachar and Asher.”

d. The complaint of the Joseph tribes (17:14–18)

14 The relative sizes of the various tribes as recorded in Nu 26 indicate that Ephraim and Manasseh should have qualified for one allotment each. However, considering the relative size of the territory granted to each tribe, it becomes apparent that the first two lots in the territory west of the Jordan were disproportionately large (i.e., Judah and Joseph). Moreover, their land was the most fertile in all Palestine. The Joseph tribes had little reason to complain.

15 Joshua was certainly justified in resisting their request. He challenged them instead to occupy the area already assigned to them. “The hill country of Ephraim” is the central mountainous region. The “Rephaites,” like the Anakites, were a people of unusually large stature (cf. 12:4). As Caleb defeated the Anakites, so, with God’s help, a great tribe like Ephraim should be able to conquer the Rephaites.

16–18 The Joseph tribes’ response shows that their difficulty was not the size of the allotment nor the forested condition of the highlands; it was the presence of other inhabitants in the plain whom they felt unable to drive out because of their “iron chariots” (actually constructed of wood with iron points and iron reinforcements). In response, Joshua again reminded them that they were “numerous and very powerful” and able to provide for their needs within the area already assigned to them.

4. Division of the rest of the land (18:1–19:51)

a. Joshua’s rebuke of the seven tribes (18:1–10)

1 “The whole assembly” refers to the seven tribes who had not yet received their specific inheritance (cf. v.3). The Tent of Meeting, mentioned explicitly only twice in Joshua (cf. 22:19), had been moved from Gilgal to Shiloh. This transfer was symbolic of the completion of the Conquest, for Shiloh was in the center of Canaan; it now became the center of national life, and here the final allotments of land were made. Yet even though the Israelites had the land “under their control,” they still did not possess it all (cf. 13:1–5; Jdg 1:30–36).

The expression “in the presence of the LORD” occurs a number of times (e.g., vv.6, 8, 10) and means “before” or “near the ark of the covenant,” which was housed in the “Tent of Meeting.” When the Israelites moved the Tent of Meeting to Shiloh, they moved the ark of the covenant there, too, which remained there until it was captured by the Philistines (1Sa 4:1–11).

2 The statement “there were still seven Israelite tribes who had not yet received their inheritance” implies that a significant amount of time had elapsed. Apparently the remaining tribes had grown complacent. They were satisfied with nomadic life in the fertile land of Ephraim and Manasseh and were not eager to be involved in the warfare required to claim their own territory.

3 The word “Israelites” here refers only to those tribes who had not received their land. Joshua reproved them for the ingratitude and unbelief manifested in their failure to take what God had already given to them. Joshua was eager to complete his commission, which included the division of the land among the tribes.

4–5 The appointment of “three men from each tribe” was part of a new system devised for dividing the remainder of the land. The phrase “according to the inheritance of each” means that the land was to be divided into equitable portions that could then be assigned by lot. Those portions that were already assigned (to Judah and to Joseph) were to stand.

6–7 The casting of lots was done under Joshua’s authority, though Eleazar actually did it (14:1–2; 19:51; cf. Nu 27:21). On casting lots “in the presence of the LORD,” see comment on v.1. Joshua repeats the information about the Levites and the two-and-a-half tribes (cf. 13:8–32; 14:3–4). The two-and-a-half tribes from east of the Jordan must have become impatient to have the division of the land completed so that they could return home to their families and possessions.

8–10 The men were to describe each area “town by town” because the number and nature of the towns were more important to them than the precise borders or the number of square miles. Once again “Israelites” refers only to the seven tribes who as yet had not received any inheritance (cf. v.1). For a quick perspective on where these territories were, consult the map of the land of the twelve tribes.

b. The inheritance of Benjamin (18:11–28)

11 Benjamin was not the largest of the seven tribes receiving their allotments; yet theirs is described in greater detail than most others. Perhaps the author had more information about Benjamin. If these lists came from an administrative register (see comment on 15:20), that in itself might account for the amount of detail.

12–13 “The north side” of Benjamin corresponds to the southern border of Ephraim (16:1–3). Beth Horon belonged to Ephraim.

14–20 “Along the western side” means the western boundary of Benjamin. “The southern side” of Benjamin was the northern boundary of Judah (15:5–9). Many of the places mentioned here are referred to in 15:5–8 (see comments).

21–28 The towns allotted to Benjamin are divided into two lists. The first records twelve cities in the east (vv.21–24); the second, fourteen cities in the west (vv.25–28).

22–28 Many of these cities lie between Bethel to the north (see 7:2; cf. Jdg 1:22–23) and Jerusalem (also called “the Jebusite city”; see 15:8, 63) to the south.

c. The inheritance of Simeon (19:1–9)

1 All the towns allotted to Simeon had been given first to Judah. The text clearly states (v.9) that because Judah’s portion was too large, some of the towns were reassigned to Simeon. According to the blessing Simeon and Levi received from Jacob shortly before his death (Ge 49:7), their descendants were destined to be scattered among the other tribes as punishment for their violent revenge against the Shechemites (Ge 34).

2–6 The first group of the towns of Simeon (thirteen in all) are in the Negev. “Beersheba” was an important fortress on Judah’s southern border in the time of the divided kingdom.

7–8 In the second group of the towns of Simeon (four in all), two are in the Negev and two in the foothills (see also 15:28–32).

9 All the towns assigned to Simeon were located within the borders of Judah; thus the tribe of Simeon was soon assimilated by Judah. Apparently 1Ki 19:3 reflects a period when the assimilation was complete, because Beersheba is called Beersheba in Judah.

d. The inheritance of Zebulun (19:10–16)

10–16 Though Zebulun was the younger brother of Issachar, he received his inheritance first (cf. 17:1). Their cities are in the vicinity of Nazareth (in Galilee) and Mount Tabor. “Bethlehem” (v.15) is Beth Lahm east of Mount Carmel and should not be confused with Bethlehem in Judah. To arrive at a total of “twelve towns,” some of the towns named in defining the border of Zebulun would have to be included.

e. The inheritance of Issachar (19:17–23)

17–23 No description of the borders of Issachar is given, only a list of towns. Their inheritance lay mostly in the plain of Jezreel and was bounded on the west by Zebulun, on the north by Naphtali, on the east by the Jordan River, and on the south by Manasseh. “Beth Shemesh” (v.22) is to be distinguished from Beth Shemesh in Judah (15:10) and Beth Shemesh in Naphtali (v.38).

f. The inheritance of Asher (19:24–31)

24–31 Asher’s territory was located primarily on the western slopes of the mountains of Galilee and bordering on the Mediterranean Sea.

g. The inheritance of Naphtali (19:32–39)

32–39 The territory given to Naphtali lay between Asher and the Jordan. Its southern tip lies at the foot of Mount Tabor (where Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali came together). “Kinnereth” (v.35) is on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee. Naphtali reached almost to Mount Hermon in the north.

h. The inheritance of Dan (19:40–48)

40–48 The inheritance of Dan lay between the inheritance of Judah and that of Ephraim. To form this territory Judah gave up some of its northern towns (e.g., “Zorah” and “Eshtaol”; see 15:33), and Ephraim gave up some of its southern towns. Dan’s allotment overlapped Philistine territory, a situation that is reflected in the Samson stories. “Leshem” is also known as Laish (Jdg 18:29). The rather gruesome tale of the capture of this town by men from the tribe of Dan is related in Jdg 18.

5. Joshua’s inheritance (19:49–51)

49–50 The description of the inheritances allotted to Caleb (14:6–15) and Joshua provided a framework within which land was allotted to the nine-and-a-half tribes. They were men of faith; therefore this arrangement symbolizes the spiritual truth that the gift of the land to Israel is predicated on faith. The words “as the LORD had commanded” must be a reference to Nu 14:24, 30.

51 The dividing of the land among the various tribes was complete. All that remained was to designate the cities of refuge (ch. 20) and the Levitical towns (ch. 21). This summary is similar to the introduction in 14:1, with which the division of the land began.

D. The Cities of Refuge (20:1–9)

1. The rationale (20:1–6)

1–2 Murder is regarded as a very serious crime in the OT (Ex 20:13; Dt 5:17). Capital punishment is prescribed in all cases of murder to uphold the sanctity of all life (Ge 9:4–6). The land itself is defiled whenever murder goes unpunished (Nu 35:33). Blood vengeance can be traced back to Cain, who expected to be killed in revenge for the murder of Abel (Ge 4:13–14). The provision of “cities of refuge” was without parallel among the civilizations of the Near East. The provision was made to distinguish between murder and accidental killing (manslaughter) and to grant the right of trial to suspected murderers.

3 God’s law distinguished between willful murder and manslaughter (Nu 35:6–34; Dt 19:1–13). In either case one had to leave his family and possessions and go immediately to the place of asylum to avoid being killed without a proper hearing. The elders of the cities of refuge were to provide protection and a trial for such people (Nu 35:25). Even though the law made provision for a strong centralized government to enforce the laws, at various times in Israel’s history this was lacking. Thus the responsibility to protect rights to property or to avenge a murder fell to the victim’s closest relative, who was called “the avenger of blood.” Vengeance was to be a deterrent to murder.

4 The city gate controlled all traffic in or out of the city and thus facilitated its defense. Normally there were benches where the elders would sit to adjudicate cases of various kinds (cf. Ru 4:1–12). The accused had to “state his case,” for sanctuary was not granted indiscriminately. A person was to be regarded innocent until proven guilty, and a minimum of two witnesses was required to condemn one accused of murder (Nu 35:30). The elders of these cities must “admit him . . . and give him a place to live,” and presumably also a means of livelihood.

5 The command “they must not surrender” indicates that the accused murderer must be assumed to be innocent. The goal of the trial was to determine if the killing was intentional or “without malice aforethought.”

6 Protection from the avenger of blood was promised only so long as the accused remained in the city of refuge (Nu 35:26–28). Even if he was only guilty of manslaughter, he had to remain in the city “until the death of the high priest.” One who killed another accidentally was held responsible and had to forfeit his freedom for a period of time. It is difficult to understand why the “death of the high priest” was chosen as the time for the sentence to be ended. This may have been a time of general amnesty. The words “then he may go back” suggest that his old situation awaited him on his return. Nothing is said about what would be done for his family and his possessions while he was detained.

2. The selection (20:7–9)

7 Three cities of refuge were selected in the territory west of the Jordan. They were strategically located so that a person would have ready access to one of them. “Kedesh” (see 12:22) is in the north, “Shechem” (see 8:30; cf. 8:33; Jdg 9:7) in the center, and “Kiriath Arba” or Hebron (see 14:15) in the south. The last one was given to Caleb as a reward for his unwavering faithfulness (14:6–14). In 21:12 we are told that the agricultural land and the villages remained in Caleb’s possession. Perhaps he shared the city with the Levites (see 21:1).

8 The cities of refuge in Transjordan had already been selected (Dt 4:41–43). This passage may refer to the implementation of Moses’ selection. This time the three cities are named from south to north (cf. Dt 4:43). “Bezer” was in the south; “Ramoth in Gilead” was in the center; “Golan” was in the north.

9 Asylum in the cities of refuge was offered to “any alien” living within the borders of Israel. This provision is based on the memory of Israel’s many years as aliens in Egypt and is a testimony to God’s concern for all humanity. Though the Israelites stood against the pagan societies around them, their hearts were to be open to receive any foreigner who would adopt their religion and their customs.

E. Towns for the Levites (21:1-42)

1. Assignment of the towns by lot (21:1-8)

1–3 With the land apportioned to the various tribes, “the family heads of the Levites” felt it was time for them to be given towns to live in, as they had been promised (see comments on Nu 35:1–8). Apparently they would live in them without actually owning them, because their inheritance was to be the service of God (cf. 14:4). Thus they approached Eleazer (he is again named before Joshua here) at “Shiloh” (see comment on 18:1). “The heads of the other tribal families” complete the group of elders entrusted with this important task.

Some towns were assigned to the Levites even though they were still held by the Canaanites. Joshua assigned many portions of unconquered land, apparently confident that God would give Israel possession of these areas also. Four towns from each tribe were set apart for the Levites with the exception that only three were from Naphtali and nine were from the combined territories of Judah and Simeon. Though Levitical towns were selected from every tribe, they were not evenly distributed but seem to have been clustered on the frontiers and in other endangered areas.

4–8 The will of the Lord was determined by lot (see 7:14; 14:2). The “descendants of Aaron” mentioned here are the “Kohathites” (the family of the high priest). Because the temple would be built in Jerusalem, their towns were located in the territories of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin. The number of towns set apart for the descendants of Aaron is indicative of God’s providence. At the time of selection, there were only three or four generations of the descendants of Aaron; they would scarcely have needed thirteen towns. The number of towns for each of the Levite clans (thirteen, ten, thirteen, twelve) was cleverly arranged without dividing the towns from any one tribe other than Manasseh, which had already been divided into two half-tribes.

2. The towns of the Kohathites (21:9–26)

a. Towns of the descendants of Aaron (21:9–19)

9–19 “The first lot fell” to the descendants of Aaron, presumably through the providence of God. There was no question in the minds of the Israelites that God controlled the outcome of the casting of lots. The cities of this clan were located in Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin. On the inheritance of Caleb, see 14:6–15. The “villages” were the small settlements outside the walls of the towns.

b. Towns of the remaining Kohathites (21:20–26)

20–26 The towns for this part of the clan of the Kohathites were found in the territory of Ephraim, Dan, and the western half of Manasseh.

3. The towns of the Gershonites (21:27–33)

27–33 The towns of the Gershonite clan of the tribe of Levi were located in the eastern half of Manasseh and in Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali.

4. The towns of the Merarites (21:34–40)

34–40 The towns of the Merarite clan of the tribe of Levi were located in Zebulun, Reuben, and Gad; that is, most of them were east of the Jordan.

5. Summary of the Levitical towns (21:41–42)

41–42 No new information is given in this summary of the preceding verses.

F. God’s Promises Fulfilled in the Division of the Land (21:43–45)

43 The statement “the LORD gave Israel” emphasizes God’s sovereign action, but Israel’s obedient participation was essential. All Canaan was not yet in Israel’s possession, nor were all the enemies destroyed; nevertheless Israel was in control of “all the land.” God’s oath to Abraham had now been fulfilled.

44 The “rest” that “the LORD gave them” was a cessation of hostilities, with the result that the people dwelt securely and serenely in the land (cf. Dt 12:9–10; cf. Heb 4:1–11). “Not one of their enemies withstood them” is a generalized statement. The Gibeonite deception and the existing pockets of resistance do not contradict the fact that Israel was victorious over every enemy that they faced in battle. God had not promised immediate destruction of the Canaanites but only their gradual extermination (Ex 23:30; Dt 7:22).

45 On this note of victory and celebration, the story of the Conquest and the division of the land is completed.

III. Preparation for Life in the Promised Land (22:1–24:33)

A. The Eastern Tribes Return Home (22:1–34)

1. The dismissal of the eastern tribes (22:1–9)

1 The role played by the eastern tribes in the Conquest and their place in the nation and in the worship of the Lord are prominent concerns throughout the book of Joshua. The Jordan River was a formidable natural barrier that isolated the two-and-a-half tribes from the rest of Israel, which would later prove to be a serious threat to the political and religious unity of the nation. Seeds of disunity are already apparent in this chapter.

2–3 The phrase “Moses the servant of the LORD” recalls 1:1–2, and 7. Joshua’s words “you have obeyed me” show that they had accepted him as Moses’ rightful successor (cf. 1:16–18). Joshua commended these tribes for the great sacrifice they had made, having been separated from their families and unable to work on their newly acquired lands. Their help of their fellow Israelites was regarded as “the mission . . . God gave you,” i.e., as service to God.

4 “Rest” means the freedom to live in one’s own land without the fear of war (see comment 21:44). “Your homes” (lit., “tents”; GK 185) has a broad usage; when the Israelites settled in the land, they began to live in houses.

5 This is the key verse in this chapter. In order to urge the Transjordanian tribes to continue to be faithful, Joshua reminded them of the way God had rewarded their faithfulness during the Conquest. The “law that Moses . . . gave you” is probably all or part of the book of Deuteronomy (see comment on 1:7). The emphasis here on loving the Lord, walking in his ways, and serving him “with all your heart and all your soul” recalls Dt 6:1–5. This is not legalism (which is rigid obedience to law for its own sake). The law is an expression of God’s will for his people and must be obeyed with wholehearted devotion (cf. Jn 14:15).

6 Ritual blessing was an effective means of guaranteeing the well-being of another. The one pronouncing the blessing was acting on behalf of God.

7 The reference to the two divisions of the tribe of Manasseh is strange here. Apparently the circumstance of a tribe being given land on both sides of the Jordan was unusual enough to merit special mention. Perhaps the shorter form “Reubenites and Gadites” (vv.25, 32–34) is a more convenient way of referring to the two-and-a-half tribes.

8 The Israelites had been enriched with the spoils taken in battle. The command “divide with your brothers” probably means they were to share the booty with those who had remained in Transjordan to guard the women, children, and elderly and to care for the livestock (see 1:14; cf. Nu 31:27; 1Sa 30:23–25).

9 “Shiloh” (see comment on 18:1) was in the hill country of Ephraim; it had been selected as the place of worship. The name “Gilead” designates all Israel’s land east of the Jordan. “Israelites” here means, as it does elsewhere, a major portion of the Israelites as distinguished from some smaller portion (see comment on 18:3). Joshua emphasized once again that their land had been given to them by the Lord.

2. The altar of witness (22:10–34)

a. The crisis (22:10–14)

10 At “Geliloth” (either the name of a place or a reference to Galilee or Gilgal), the two-and-a-half tribes built an enormous altar, large enough to be seen easily. Its function was to be a witness, not a place for sacrifice.

11–12 We do not know how much time elapsed before “the Israelites heard” about this project, but the warriors had sufficient time to complete the altar and return to Gilead (v.15). Representatives of the nine-and-a-half tribes gathered at “Shiloh,” the political and religious center of the nation. The whole assembly was ready immediately “to go to war.” They were not unmindful that the Transjordanian tribes had served them at great personal sacrifice; nevertheless, they would not tolerate what appeared to be a flagrant act of apostasy. They expected dire consequences for the entire nation (vv.17–20; cf. ch. 7) if they did not obey Moses’ command to deal severely with any such acts (cf. Lev 17:8–9; Dt 13:12–15).

13–14 The zeal of the Israelites for the honor of God and the purity of his worship might have ended in terrible disaster had they not obeyed God’s command to always investigate carefully before taking action (Dt 13:14). In this episode Phinehas is the central figure. He had already distinguished himself as a zealous defender of true worship at Peor (Nu 25:6–18; Ps 106:30), and he could be trusted to confront these tribes. With him went a representative of each of the other tribes, because the investigation and any subsequent action were concerns for the whole nation.

b. The confrontation (22:15–20)

15–16 Building this altar had been viewed as an act of unfaithfulness to God. When the nine-and-a-half tribes pressed for repentance and reconciliation before declaring war, it gave the two-and-a-half tribes an opportunity to explain. Tragedy was averted by the willingness of both sides to dialogue. They did not accuse these men of turning away from the Lord to serve other gods but of deviating from the revealed will of the Lord. Even sacrifices offered in the name of the Lord were viewed as acts of rebellion when they were offered on an unapproved altar (cf. 1Ki 12:26–30).

17–18 The delegates appealed to the mistakes of the past (cf. also v.20). The “sin of Peor” had drawn some Israelites into pagan worship and immorality, and about 24,000 died in a plague that the Lord sent as judgment (Nu 25). “We have not cleansed ourselves from that sin” means that its consequences continued to be experienced. Israel had to struggle continually against idolatry among her own people (cf. 24:23). Any such rebellion would have dire consequences for the entire nation.

19 The word “defiled” (GK 3238) refers to ritual uncleanness and does not necessarily imply anything inherently evil or sinful. The delegates insinuate here that perhaps Transjordan lay outside the sphere of the Lord’s blessing and that the two-and-a-half tribes were building this altar to offer sacrifices and to sanctify it. When the nine-and-a-half tribes called Canaan “the LORD’s land,” it is clear that they did not regard Transjordan as part of the Promised Land. The presence of “the LORD’s tabernacle” was further evidence that the land west of the Jordan was especially blessed. Their willingness to “share the land” reveals a beautifully generous spirit and is proof of the sincerity of their concern for orthodox worship.

20 For “the devoted things,” see comments on 2:10; 6:17. The Israelites, fearing that the sin of a few would bring judgment once again “upon the whole community,” manifested a strong sense of corporate responsibility. If the unfaithfulness of a single individual such as Achan had such dire consequences (7:5, 24–26), what would happen if the two-and-a-half tribes rebelled?

c. The explanation (22:21–29)

21–22 The warriors from Transjordan appealed to God as their witness, using a name that emphasized his omnipotence and sovereignty (cf. Ps 50:1). The repetition of this solemn name indicates how serious they considered the situation to be. If they were guilty, they would not object to being punished.

23–25 The Transjordanians agreed that any departure from the pure worship of the Lord deserved severe judgment; however, they fervently rejected the idea that they had built an altar as a rival to the one at Shiloh. Joshua had expressed fear that the isolation caused by the Jordan might lead to the Transjordanians’ turning from the worship of the Lord (v.5). Now they were afraid that this isolation might cause their descendants to be rejected by the rest of Israel.

26–27 In the estimation of the two-and-a-half tribes, the very presence of the altar would be a silent “witness” (GK 6332) to those on the west side of the Jordan that the Transjordanian tribes had every right to be included in the people of Israel and the worship of the Lord (cf. 24:27, where a stone serves as a witness).

28–29 The altar was a “replica” of the Lord’s altar because its shape was an integral part of its witness, linking it to the true altar at the Tent of Meeting. Apparently the design of an altar indicated what deity was worshiped at that altar (cf. 2Ki 16:10–16; 2Ch 28:22–25).

d. The resolution (22:30–34)

30–31 The Israelites “were pleased” when they realized that no bloodshed would be necessary, which proves that they were not motivated by a vengeful spirit but were distressed by what appeared to be a flagrant act of apostasy. The faithfulness and unity of God’s people were taken as evidence of God’s presence and blessing.

32–33 No doubt the leaders of Israel returned from their Transjordanian meeting with joy in their hearts, eager to inform the rest of the community of the good news. Not only were the people “glad to hear the report,” they also “praised God.” All talk of war ceased.

34 This altar was to be a witness that the Lord was the God of the Transjordanian tribes and the rest of Israel and that they shared a common form and place of worship. Later history reveals that the Israelites in Transjordan were subject to repeated attacks by enemy armies and that they were tempted to worship foreign deities. Ultimately their land was taken from them and their few survivors were assimilated into the rest of Israel.

B. Joshua’s Farewell to the Leaders (23:1–16)

1. God’s blessing: the reward for faithfulness (23:1–11)

1 Apparently the words “After a long time” mean a long time after Joshua had assumed leadership in Israel. The events of chs. 23–24 probably occurred shortly prior to his death at the age of 110 (24:29). At least twenty-five years had passed since the end of the Conquest because Joshua was the same age as or younger than Caleb (see 14:10).

“Rest” (GK 5663)), a common theme in Joshua, was the goal of the Conquest. It was realized when the major battles were ended and Israel was at peace with “all their enemies,” even though all those enemies had not yet been driven out (cf. vv.4–5).

2 In ch. 22 (v.12; cf. v.16) “the whole assembly of Israel” designated representatives of the nine-and-a-half tribes. Joshua could hardly have addressed the whole nation at one time. Most likely 22:1–8 was Joshua’s farewell to the Transjordanian tribes. Here the words “all Israel” refer only to those tribes living west of the Jordan. Perhaps the leaders, judges, and officials were subdivisions of the elders (cf. 24:1). The place of assembly is not stated. Joshua’s advanced age was his reason for delivering his farewell address at this time.

3 The Israelites had been eyewitnesses of God’s mighty acts (cf. 24:31). The theme of Joshua’s address is a call for loyalty to the Lord because of all he had done for Israel. Ultimately it was the Lord who had defeated and dispossessed the Canaanites. In this holy war the Israelites did participate with sword and shield; nevertheless the victory was credited to God alone (cf. Dt 1:30; 3:22; 20:4).

4–5 In 13:1–7 the Lord commanded Joshua to divide all of Canaan among the nine-and-a-half tribes (his remarks are limited to the land “between the Jordan and the Great Sea”), even though much of it was yet to be conquered. Israel’s lethargy in driving out the last of their enemies is difficult to understand, but it contributed to the fulfillment of God’s promise to drive them out “little by little” (Ex 23:30).

6 The command “Be very strong” recalls the words of encouragement directed to Joshua in ch. 1 (vv.6–7, 9, 18). The exhortation to courage and obedience to the Book of the Law in 1:7 is repeated here almost word for word. God’s promise was not unconditional; Israel’s faithfulness was required.

7 Because Israel replaced a people whose culture was advanced beyond their own, the temptation to worship the pagan gods of the Canaanites must have been overwhelming. Yet if the Israelites adopted any of their wicked practices, they too would be subject to punishment (Dt 8:19–20). God does not show any partiality.

8 The word translated “hold fast” (GK 1815) is used in Ge 2:24 to describe the intimate and binding relationship between husband and wife. Here it is used to describe a close relationship between Israel and God (cf Dt 4:4; 10:20; 11:22; 13:4). In spite of occasional lapses, Israel’s behavior was characterized as holding fast to the Lord.

9–11 The motive for faithfulness to the Lord was that he was the God who had given Israel the land. The statement “no one has been able to withstand you” seems to overlook the Israelite defeat at Ai. This, however, was not due to the superiority of that army but to Israel’s unfaithfulness. As long as Israel was faithful, the Lord would continue to fight for them. The command to “love the LORD” that was given to the Transjordanian tribes in 22:5 is repeated here for the rest of Israel.

2. God’s judgment: the consequences of unfaithfulness (23:12–16)

12 The danger of apostasy was Joshua’s great concern here. Thus the people must not “ally” (GK 1815; cf. v.8) themselves to any pagan nations. Alliances with other nations frequently involved intermarriage (cf. Ge 34:9–10) and respect for their gods (cf. 1Ki 11:1–6). Because of the great danger involved in intermarriage, it was strictly prohibited for Israel (Ex 34:12–16; Dt 7:1–6).

13 Just as faithfulness had been essential for Israel to acquire the land, so now it was indispensable if they were to continue to live in the land (cf. Ex 23:30–33; 34:11–12; Nu 33:55).

14 “The way of all the earth” emphasizes the universality of death in human experience (cf. 1Ki 2:2; Ro 5:12). “All the good promises” of the Lord had indeed come true. Israel’s victories had been so all-pervasive that pockets of resistance remaining in the land did not detract from their appreciation of God’s faithfulness.

15–16 God’s faithfulness to his promises meant that he would keep his threats as well. Israel should not suppose that being the recipients of God’s blessings made them immune to his judgment. The threats contained here were fulfilled in the Babylonian exile.

Although the concept of a “covenant” (GK 1382) between the Lord and Israel is foundational to the book of Joshua, it is not explicitly referred to often (cf. the ark of the covenant in chs. 3–4; 6; the covenant rites of circumcision and Passover in ch. 5; the ceremony of covenant renewal in 8:30–35). Chapter 24 contains a final ritual of covenant renewal. All this indicates that the Conquest was a religious event and not simply a military exploit.

C. The Covenant Renewed at Shechem (24:1–28)

There are three important elements that are new in this chapter and have no counterpart in ch. 23: (1) the review of Israel’s history from the call of Abraham to the present; (2 the responses by the people with their solemn pledge to be faithful to the Lord; (3) the covenant that Joshua drew up for the Israelites. This ceremony of covenant renewal is similar in form to the suzerainty treaties that were common in the ancient Near East (cf. comment on Dt 1:1–5).

1. A recitation of Israel’s sacred history (24:1–13)

1 “Shechem,” located in the hill country of Ephraim, was one of the towns of Ephraim that were given to the Levites (21:21); it was also a city of refuge (20:7). Shechem may have been chosen as the site for Joshua’s last great act of covenant renewal because of its illustrious history (cf. Ge 12:6–7; 35:4).

2 “The River” is the Euphrates, but precisely where the forefathers lived is not indicated (Ge 11:31 specifies Ur in Chaldea). Genesis is strangely silent about the existence of any pagan gods (except for Laban’s “household gods” [Ge 31:19]); so it comes as a surprise when we are told they “worshiped other gods.”

3–4 Abraham was brought up in pagan idolatry. We know nothing of his conversion to the Lord. Abraham’s call required that he go “from the land beyond the River” to “Canaan.” Abraham was constantly on the move in that land, where all he ever possessed was the Cave of Machpelah, which he bought as a place of burial (Ge 23). Land and “many descendants” were the major elements in God’s promise to Abraham (Ge 15:5, 7, et al.), but neither materialized for several generations. Isaac’s son Esau was given a land of his own (the mountains of Seir, south of the Dead Sea), while Jacob and his sons left the land they expected to possess and went into bondage in Egypt.

5–6 Moses and Aaron were the principal figures in the deliverance from Egypt (Ex 3:1–4:17). The second person pronoun “you” is surprising. Though some of his audience may have experienced the Exodus, most had not. In the very next sentence the reference is changed to “your fathers.” A bewildering oscillation between second and third persons follows until the climax is reached in the words “you saw with your own eyes” (see comment on v.7). The “sea” is the Red Sea (lit., “the Sea of Reeds”; see comment on Ex 13:17–18).

7 Most of those listening to Joshua had not seen these things. The alternation of pronouns from second to third person expresses Joshua’s conviction that all Israel participated in every crucial event in their national history, whether or not they had actually been present. The events during the forty years of wandering are covered in a single sentence: “you lived in the desert for a long time.”

8–10 For the defeat of the Amorites, see Nu 21 and Dt 2 and 3. Balak did not actually fight with Israel; the only resistance he offered was the hiring of Balaam to curse them (Nu 22–24; Dt 23:4–5).

11 That the “citizens [GK 1251] of Jericho” (likely a reference to the landowners) had fought against Israel is not reported in ch. 6. The list of these seven nations (see comment on 3:10) stands in apposition to “the citizens of Jericho.”

12–13 Possibly the hornet is the terror that the Lord sent to demoralize and immobilize the enemy (cf. 2:9–11, 24; 5:1; see also comment on Ex 23:27–30). The two Amorite kings are examples of those who were driven out by the hornet. The statement “you did not do it with your own sword and bow” does not mean that they did not do any fighting (cf. v.1l). Their efforts alone, however, would not account for the victory—it was a gift from God. Verse 13 is clearly the fulfillment of Dt 6:10–11.

This excavation is of biblical Shechem; the altar in the foreground may be that of Jos 24.

2. Joshua’s charge and the people’s response (24:14–24)

14 At this point the Lord’s message (cf. “I” in vv.3–13) to Israel has ended. Joshua challenges the people to “fear [GK 3707] the LORD.” Fear may be either destructive or saving (cf. Heb 12:28–29). The very first commandment is “You shall have no other gods before me” (Dt 5:7). Hence, we are shocked to read that Joshua had to command the Israelites to “throw away the gods” of their ancestors (see v.2; cf. Eze 20:7; 23:3, 8). Apparently the Israelites were still worshiping idols in spite of experiencing so many of the Lord’s great miracles and victories. Joshua called the people to give undivided loyalty to the Lord as the only way to experience his presence and blessing in the future.

15 Joshua wanted Israel to be honest with themselves and declare their allegiance. Though he said, “Choose” (GK 1047), he did not intend to encourage idolatry but was confident that the very thought of making a commitment to an idol would be so abhorrent to them that they would take a stand against all such worship. Joshua left no doubt as to the choice he had made for him and his household (cf. Ac 16:31).

16–18 Joshua’s appeal produced the effect he was looking for: “Far be it from us” was a response involving both the will and the emotions. In denying the charge of idolatry, the Israelites asserted that the Lord had always been and always would be the object of their worship. The people added their personal affirmation to Joshua’s recitation of the mighty acts God had done for them. With the words “brought us and our fathers” they identified with their fathers in God’s saving purpose.

19–20 Joshua’s response is unexpected. After encouraging the Israelites to make a commitment to the Lord, he told them they would be unable to keep it. His purpose was not to discourage them but to lead them to count the cost and to mean what they said (cf. Lk 14:25–35). They did serve God faithfully for many years (cf. v.31). Of course, they were only able to do this by the grace of God. To be God’s people they too must be holy (GK 7705; see Lev 11:44). Because the Lord “is a jealous God,” he would not tolerate any rival deities or condone any apostasy (Ex 20:5; 34:14; Dt 5:9). Joshua wanted to caution the people not to speak carelessly, because God would hold them accountable.

21–22 When the people said, “No! We will serve the LORD,” Joshua could see that his exhortation was producing the desired result. The people’s own words would condemn them if at any time in the future they turned from the commitment they had made that day.

23–24 Joshua called for action to substantiate the Israelites’ commitment to the Lord. Nothing could be tolerated that might lead to their return to idolatry. The outward expression of discarding their idols was essential, but it had to be accompanied by loyalty from their hearts.

3. Sealing the covenant (24:25–28)

25–26 The covenant that Joshua made was likely a copy of the law of Moses (1:8; 22:5; 23:6). Since commitments are easily forgotten, Joshua memorialized this important transaction in both the written word and a visible object to preserve the memory for future generations. “The Book of the Law of God” was a collection of the laws and regulations that Joshua delivered to the people and as such was distinct from “the Book of the Law of Moses” (1:8 et al.). The reference to “the holy place” suggests that they had erected the Tent of Meeting here temporarily for this very occasion.

27–28 The stone Joshua set up would be a constant reminder (“witness”; GK 6338) of the covenant promises made by Israel that day. It may have borne some appropriate inscription.

D. Three Burials in the Promised Land (24:29–33)

29–30 For the first time the title “the servant of the LORD” was granted to Joshua, elevating him close to the stature of Moses (see comment on 1:1). At his death, Joshua was ten years younger than Moses, thus indicating that he never became fully equal to Moses. A certain style of leadership also came to an end at that time. The words “in the land of his inheritance” present an important contrast with Abraham and Jacob, who possessed nothing more than a few burial plots in a land where they lived as aliens. Now the Israelites lived in a land of their own.

31 That the people were faithful “throughout the lifetime of Joshua” is eloquent testimony to the power of Joshua’s influence. The memorials, confessions, and rituals of covenant renewal were designed to keep the people loyal, but these were not adequate forever (cf. Jdg 2:10–15).

32 The burial of “Joseph’s bones” symbolized the completion of an era and the fulfillment of God’s promises to the patriarchs. When he gave instructions for his remains to be buried in Canaan, Joseph manifested great faith in the promises of God (Ge 50:24–25; cf. Ex 13:19; Heb 11:22). The burial of Joseph’s remains provides a fitting conclusion to the long saga that began with the call of Abraham.

33 When “Eleazar son of Aaron died,” the whole generation of those who had left Egypt came to an end. In the Hebrew text, “Gibeah” is literally “Gibeah of Phinehas” and may be the full name of the town (cf. “Gibeah of Saul,” 1Sa 11:4).