Theological Interpretation of Joshua Paper and God's Covenant in It

The Conquest Account in Joshua

Joshua chapters six through eleven tell the account of the Israelites taking the land God promised to them through the Abrahamic covenant, beginning with the destruction of Jericho. God tells Joshua that He has delivered Jericho and all of its men unto him and that he should not fear. Joshua and the Israelites march around the city of Jericho for six days. On the seventh day they shout, and the walls protecting the city tumble. The Israelites kill everyone in the city except Rahab and burn it to the ground- cursing the city so that no one will ever attempt to rebuild.

During this time, God commands Joshua and the Israelites not to take holy things to keep for themselves, but Achan from the Tribe of Judah disobeys. This infuriates God, and many Israelites perish during the first attack of Ai. God commands that Achan, his family, and all of his belonging are to be burned, so the Israelites stone and char him and his family. God is no longer angry because of their sanctification of the covenant.

God is with Joshua and allows the Israelites to take down Ai in the same fashion as Jericho. The Gibeonites are fearful after hearing of the attack and deceive Joshua into forming a protection treaty with them. Joshua finds out about the trickery but decides to spare them. King Adoni-Zedek hears of the treaty and calls on the five Amorite Kings to help take down the Gibeonites, who reach out to Joshua for help. The kings flee when they see the Israelites; Joshua and his men annihilate many with swords while God hurls rocks down to kill the others.

Following this event, Joshua and the Israelites execute many more,” ...destroying all who breathed, as the Lord God had commanded” (Josh 10:40). An army so large it could not be counted comes against Joshua and the Israelites. God delivers these people yet again to Joshua, and he brutally slaughters them all, including the Kingdom of Hazor who the largest kingdom of that time was. He bequeaths the realm to Israel as is laid out in the Abrahamic Covenant, and the land has great peace.

Summary of Theological Interpretation

The theological problem that many find within these chapters in Joshua can be posed as a question- “How can the good and just God that is seen in the New Testament be the same God that endorsed genocide throughout Joshua?” Scholars have over time come up with answers to this difficult question.

A justification given by Hubbard is that Biblical times and customs are not the same as they are now. Possessing new land by killing was a “normal” practice at that time, but things would not be done in the same way now. A second position, taken by Pitkanen, is that the Israelites enacted genocide because the ultimate goal was to secure the territory of the new land, form a clean slate, and start a new and perfect society under God. They were to inherit this land from God and live in the Abrahamic covenant, and in order to do this, they had to take possession of land and wipe out all evil previously inhabiting it. A final stance taken by McConville discusses further that Joshua was a teaching moment. This point of view puts emphasis on the Israelites’ disobedience which lead to the inability to dwell in the promise land. Further, this warns that stripping others of their land in the Lord’s name should never be done.

This text has been used to justify many genocides throughout history, one of the most well-known being the Holocaust. This was where Nazi viewpoints were to rid the land of Jews, who were seen as impure by Hitler and his followers. Hitler believed that he could rid the area of “uncleanliness” and start what he believed to be a new and perfect nation. This can be paralleled to the Israelites wanting to have a clean slate in their land by killing off those inhabiting it and starting fresh with Godly rule. Both of these people believed in their cause and that they were doing the right thing.

Personal Theological Reflection

In terms of my beliefs regarding the justifications mentioned above, I would agree with Hubbard’s view of different cultures at different times. Many beliefs that we have today as a Christian society would be frowned upon in those days and vice versa. Different time periods and different cultures give way to new ways of thinking and new sets of rules regarding how one should live.

In that time period, the way to gain control of new land was by conquering those dwelling there and taking possession by force. In today’s age, we simply purchase land with no killing involved. The same goes for every other custom in our society. The difference in thinking is what causes many to be so concerned over the theological question of a just God. A point that Pitkanen brings up is that many put emphasis on God’s judgement in the Old Covenant and his compassion in the New Covenant when really both traits were shown throughout the whole Bible. In the New Covenant, nonbelievers were still judged and sentenced to punishment thus showing that both halves of the Bible are not as different as they first seem.

Another idea heavily mentioned throughout Joshua is the “dispossession of land.” In modern days, this practice would be frowned upon, but there are justifications when correlated with Joshua. God commanded Joshua many times to take over these kingdoms and wipe out these people. A strong belief held by many Christians is that when God commands something, obeying is the right thing to do. A passage from chapter eleven discusses how God brought these kingdoms to Joshua with the key intention of him destroying them, that they “…might receive no mercy, but be exterminated just as the Lord had commanded”. 

This passage illustrates that all along God had a plan and was steering the situation, which is what makes me believe that the actions presented in the text were justified. For the same reasons, if the situation were repeated today it would be justified because of the same explanations given above.