In Joshua 11, readers are provided a general summary of Israel’s victories over the peoples across the Jordan (Josh 11:16–23).
1The author explains that none of the nations in the land of Canaan pursued peace with Israel with the sole exception of the Gibeonites. The narrator then provides a behind-the-scenes look at the reason for this near-universal hostility towards Israel: “For it came from YHWH to harden their heart to meet Israel in battle, so that they might exterminate them,
2so that mercy might not be theirs, but that they might destroy them just as YHWH commanded Moses” (Josh 11:20).
The statement reveals that the combative stance adopted by these Canaanite nations resulted from God’s own influence upon their hearts.
3Nevertheless, the author seems to imply that the Canaanites were culpable for the actions they undertook when he says,
1 J. G. McConville and Stephen N. Williams, Joshua, Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 58.
2 Scholars disagree regarding the meaning of the verb םרח. Some argue that, like its nominal counterpart, the term includes religious connotations and should therefore be translated “devote to destruction” or “place under the ban.” So for instance, while he acknowledges that the verb is sometimes used without its sacral overtones, Lilley argues that verb םרח means “uncompromising consecration without possibility of recall or redemption.” J. P. U. Lilley, “Understanding the Herem,” TynBul 44, no. 1 (1993): 177; see also Leon J. Wood, “םרַחָ,” in TWOT, 324. More recently however, Arie Versluis has sought to challenge this popular viewpoint. On the one hand, Versluis agrees with most interpreters that as a noun, םרח refers to objects that occupy a sacred space similar to (though distinct from) objects that are
“holy” (שדק) or “clean” (רהט). On the other hand, Versluis posits that the verb form occupies a different semantic space, as it “almost always belongs to the semantic domain of destruction and devastation.” Arie Versluis, “Devotion And/or Destruction? The Meaning and Function of םרח in the Old Testament,” ZAW 128, no. 2 (2016): 236. While Versluis does note two exceptional uses of the verb םרח (namely, Lev 27:28 and Josh 6:18), he points out that these share a common feature: both texts use the verb in a subordinate clause with the noun םרח. The implication seems to be that these two texts need not undermine the general finding that as a verb, םרח belongs to the domain of destruction rather than to the domain of the sacred.
Arie Versluis, The Command to Exterminate the Canaanites: Deuteronomy 7, OtSt (Leiden, Netherlands:
Brill, 2017), 47n98.
3 As Dozeman states, “The reason for the universal opposition is the divine influence on the enemy kings: Yahweh hardened their hearts.” Thomas B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, AB (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2015), 479. Yet, the acknowledgement of YHWH’s supremacy over the Canaanites should not be read as a denial of their responsibility. See Thomas R. Schreiner, The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 111; Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, vol. 2, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 2:178–79.
122
“There was no city that sought to make peace with the sons of Israel” (Josh 11:19a).
4Furthermore, the text openly declares the reason God hardened the hearts of the Canaanites: the Lord intended to destroy these nations and to prevent them from receiving mercy, which they may have received had they approached Israel in different manner (as Rahab and the Gibeonites could attest).
5Given these observations, it seems warranted to conclude that Joshua 11:20 presents readers with a case of DRA.
Though sparse in detail, Joshua 11:20 allows one to make a few conclusions regarding its characterization of DRA. First of all, the use of hardening language
attributed to YHWH and the lack of any mediating agents suggests that the author intends to describe immediate and active DRA. Furthermore, since eternal destinies are nowhere discussed in the text, the hardening should be understood as a form of non-eternal DRA.
While these aspects of the description of DRA seem relatively clear, the matter of God’s motivations behind the hardening of the Canaanites remains contested.
Several commentators suggest that God’s hardening activity was an act of retribution against the Canaanites.
6Some ground their reading in the distinction made
4 The statement should probably be read as an indictment against the Canaanites for their stance against Israel. Otherwise, it is difficult to account for why the author includes the comment.
Furthermore, the author has already highlighted the combative disposition of the Canaanite nations in earlier chapters. This is seen, for instance, in his description of the response of the southern nations to news of the treaty between Gibeon and Israel. The fact that this episode follows the account of the Gibeonites seems to set the southern nations’ actions in contrast to those of the Hivites of Gibeon; so also William A.
Ford, “What about the Gibeonites?,” TynBul 66, no. 2 (2015): 202. In addition, it is striking that the southern nations do not view the treaty of Gibeon as an encouragement to explore peace with Israel;
instead, these nations respond immediately by banding together to attack Gibeon (see Josh 10:1–5).
Moreover, as Lawson G. Stone has insightfully shown, the transitional statements in the book of Joshua (2:10–11; 5:1; 9:1; 10:1; and 11:1–5) function structurally to contrast the response of the kings of Canaan with that of Rahab and the Gibeonites. See Lawson G. Stone, “Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies in the Redaction of the Book of Joshua,” CBQ 53, no. 1 (1991): 32. Thus, the text in its final form highlights the culpability of the Canaanites for their aggressions towards Israel. See also John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of Joshua, trans. Henry Beveridge, vol. 4, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 174.
5 For a similar reading, see John Bright and Joseph R. Sizoo, “The Book of Joshua,” in vol. 2 of The Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), 613–14.
6 Other scholars have discussed God’s motivations for hardening in Josh 11:20 without
123
between the kings of the land and the Gibeonites: if the Canaanites had responded by seeking peace with Israel instead of acting aggressively, the Lord would not have hardened them.
7However, this explanation seems to put the cart before the horse since the aggressiveness of the Canaanites is said to have been the result of divine influence; as such, the kings’ antagonism towards Israel (which came about due to DRA) cannot have also been the reason for DRA. Some defend a retributive reading of hardening in Joshua 11:20 on the basis of Genesis 15:16, which testifies that God’s judgment on the
Canaanites will be retributive.
8But these commentators overlook the fact that Genesis 15:16 does not speak to the matter of hardening; as such, it does not clarify God’s motivations in moving the Canaanites towards war against Israel.
9Still others maintain the retributive view on a more theological or philosophical basis.
10So for instance, Adolph Harstad posits that since God’s antecedent will is always directed towards
addressing whether or not his actions were retributive. So for instance, Butler hypothesizes that God moved the Canaanites to war against Israel in order to facilitate Israel’s obedience to his command to wipe out the nations in the promised land. In other words, had God not acted in such a manner, Israel may have pursued peace with the Canaanites as they did with the Gibeonites. See Trent C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, WBC (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), 130. Hawk reads matters similarly, as he believes that Josh 11:20 may suggest that Israel lost its resolve to execute God’s command to destroy the inhabitants of the land. As such, divine hardening would have been God’s means to ensure the fulfillment of His directive. L. Daniel Hawk, Every Promise Fulfilled: Contesting Plots in Joshua (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 49–50; see also L. Daniel Hawk, Joshua, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 174n21. For others who take a similar approach, see Versluis, Command to Exterminate, 254; Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 479.
7 So David M. Howard Jr., Joshua, NAC (Nashville: B & H, 1998), 274; Marten H. Woudstra, The Book of Joshua, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 196–97. In light of his work on the
hardening in Exodus, Ford should probably be understood as adopting this view as well (see Ford,
“Gibeonites,” 214).
8 Howard, Joshua, 273–74; Woudstra, Joshua, 196.
9 Moreover, Gen 15:16 can itself be read in a manner consistent with non-retributive DRA. See John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King, vol. 4, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 419–20.
10 Some scholars also adopt a retributive view of hardening without arguing for the point. See Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 523.
124
salvation, the hardening of the Canaanites must have been an act of his consequent will in response to their own wickedness.
11But Harstad does little to show how the text of Joshua supports this reading. Furthermore, Harstad simply states his presuppositions without adequately defending them, nor does he address the fact that a significant stream of Christian thinkers throughout church history have affirmed the reality of non-
retributive forms of DRA.
12A more plausible defense for the retributive position may be built upon God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites in the book of Deuteronomy. As others have rightly observed, the theology of Joshua is closely connected with that of Deuteronomy.
13Moreover, the theme of God’s animus towards the Canaanites uniquely links both
books.
14Given this thematic connection, one might argue that Joshua 11:20 assumes the teaching of texts like Deuteronomy 9:4–5, 18:12, and 20:17–18, which designate the wickedness of the Canaanites as a reason for their expulsion from the land.
15Thus, one may plausibly argue that Joshua 11:20 portrays hardening as the means by which God brings about His just verdict against the Canaanites. Though I believe the appeal to Deuteronomy provides a strong argument for a retributive view of DRA in Joshua 11, reasons still exist to doubt whether this explanation can account for all the facts. First of all, the text of Joshua makes no mention of retribution as being the reason for divine
11 He does acknowledge a second divine motive for the hardening, which was to prevent Israel from making peace with the Canaanites, thereby protecting them from corrupting influences. See Adolph L.
Harstad, Joshua, ConcC (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2004), 467–69.
12 See chap. 2, s.v. “Predestination.”
13 See especially Gordon Wenham, “The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua,” JBL 90, no. 2 (1971): 140–48.
14 Andrew C. Tunyogi argues that the extermination of the Canaanites is a theme that unites Deuteronomy to Josh 1–11. See Andrew C. Tunyogi, “The Book of Conquest,” JBL 84, no. 4 (1965): 376–
78.
15 See Versluis, Command to Exterminate, 187–89.
125
hardening. In view of the emphasis placed on God’s desire to completely destroy the Canaanites, one may perhaps be excused for expecting such a statement had the author intended to argue that hardening was an act of retribution.
16Second, the use of hardening language may have been meant to link God’s influence on the Canaanites with his
treatment of Pharaoh and the Egyptians.
17If this were so, it would suggest that retribution was not among God’s motivations.
18Third, the connection between Deuteronomy and Joshua may actually weaken the case for retributive DRA. Given the strong similarities between the theology of Deuteronomy and of Joshua,
19one could argue that the latter’s perspective on hardening should be viewed similarly to the former’s. I have already argued that divine hardening in Deuteronomy 2:30 is non-retributive and that there are no clear instances of retributive DRA in Deuteronomy. If this is the case and if Joshua’s theology is in fact consistent with Deuteronomy, then one would expect Joshua 11:20 to posit a non-retributive form of DRA. Lastly (and perhaps most importantly), a retributive perspective does not explain the case of the Gibeonites. Being Hivites (Josh 9:7; 11:19), the inhabitants of Gibeon fell within YHWH’s decree of extermination (Deut 7:1; cf. Josh 9:24) and were guilty of the same wickedness that warranted expulsion from the land (Deut 20:17–18). Furthermore, the book of Joshua (and the OT as a whole) provides no
16 The use of the compound preposition תאמ with YHWH as its object indicates that the hardening of the hearts of the Canaanites originated from the Lord. The rest of the statement emphasizes God’s destructive desire through repeated purpose clauses. The text states that God hardened the Canaanites to meet Israel in battle “so that (ןעמל) they might exterminate them, so that no (יתלבל) mercy might be theirs, but (יכ) so that (ןעמל) they might destroy them just as YHWH commanded Moses.”
Moreover, the addition of יכ, whether understood adversatively or asseveratively, adds further force to an already emphatic statement.
17 So also McConville and Williams, Joshua, 59; J. Alberto Soggin, Joshua, OTL
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 140. Ford makes the same point, though his reading of Exodus leads him to the opposite conclusion. See Ford, “Gibeonites,” 214.
18 See my discussion on the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in chap. 3, s.v. “DRA in Exodus.”
19 See Wenham, “Deuteronomic Theology of Joshua,” 140–48; Tunyogi, “The Book of Conquest,” 376–78.
126
reason to believe that the Gibeonites differed significantly from the other Canaanite nations in terms of their religious or ethical practices.
20In fact, even when seeking peace with Israel, the Gibeonites resort to abject deception in order to secure self-preservation.
21And yet, Joshua 11:19 suggests that they were not the objects of DRA.
22If hardening in
20 One scholar who disagrees with this reading is William Ford. According to Ford, God’s displeasure at Saul’s slaughter of the Gibeonites in 2 Sam 21 suggests that, unlike the other Canaanites, they were not a threat to Israel’s devotion to YHWH. In his words, “If the Gibeonites had become a snare for Israel it seems inconceivable that YHWH would act in such a way.” Ford, “Gibeonites,” 212. Ford’s argument is tenuous however, as the text explicitly says that God was displeased because Saul violated the oath Israel made to the Gibeonites; see Robert Polzin, “HWQYʻ and Covenantal Institutions in Early Israel,” HTR 62, no. 2 (1969): 227–29. As such, 2 Sam 21 provides no indication that YHWH approved of the Gibeonites’ character or their worship. Moreover, Ford assumes that God would undoubtedly have annihilated the Gibeonites had he considered them a corrupting influence on Israel. However, the book of Judges demonstrates that this is not necessarily so. In fact, Judges tells readers that YHWH allowed the Canaanites to remain among the Israelites despite His negative assessment of these nations and their practices (see Judg 2:1–5; 2:20–23; 3:1–6). Thus, Ford’s argument at this point simply fails to persuade.
21 Ford protests that since deception was the only avenue available for the Gibeonites, their response to Israel and to YHWH should be understood positively (see Ford, “Gibeonites,” 202–6). To bolster his argument, he notes that there is no clear censure of the Gibeonites’ behavior and that their confession in Josh 9:9–10 and in 9:24 expresses a conviction similar to Rahab’s. However, there are several reasons to challenge this reading. First of all, Rahab and the Gibeonites are not the only ones who are said to fear the Lord. In fact, the Canaanite kings themselves are also said to be terrified of him (Josh 2:9–11;
5:1; see also Walter R. Roehrs, “The Conquest of Canaan according to Joshua and Judges,” CTM 31, no. 12 (1960): 746). Thus, the Gibeonite response in 9:24 is not by itself evidence of true worship of YHWH.
Second, the statement in 9:24 suggests that the Gibeonites were motivated by self-preservation rather than by genuine allegiance to Israel’s God. Ford himself acknowledges that “the Gibeonites seem to be motivated by a desire to save their own skins rather than anything nobler” Ford, “Gibeonites,” 204. Given this observation, it seems suspect to claim with confidence that readers should view the Gibeonites as sincere worshippers. Third, while the narrator does not explicitly censure the Gibeonites actions, he also refrains from making any positive statements about them. Moreover, a positive reading becomes more unlikely given the fact that the Israelites cursed the Gibeonites. Thus, at best, Ford argues from silence when he says that “arguably the Gibeonites are portrayed more positively than the Israelites.” Ford,
“Gibeonites,” 206. Lastly, the case of Rahab sits in tension with Ford’s statement that deception was the Gibeonites only resort. Josh 2 seems to suggest that she was rightly spared by Israel for her confession of allegiance to the Lord and for her willingness to serve Israel’s cause at Canaan’s expense. If this is so, perhaps readers are supposed to assume that the same exception from the command to exterminate the Canaanites would apply to others who adopted the same posture as Rahab. In any event, since Rahab was spared without deceiving Israel, Ford cannot say that deception was Gibeon’s only resort. For these reasons, Waltke is probably closer to the mark when he says, “The Gibeonites, unlike Rahab, seek to effect a treaty with Israel by subterfuge, and because of their unethical means, are put under a curse to become Israel’s slaves in I AM liturgy.” Waltke, Old Testament Theology, 521.
22 Given that divine hardening in this instance led specifically to an inability to seek peace with Israel (Josh 11:19–20), Gibeon’s actions in Josh 9:3ff are explicable only on the assumption that they were not hardened. Eslinger rightly makes the same observation, but he draws the unwarranted conclusion that this was an oversight on YHWH’s part. Overall, I find little merit in Eslinger’s argument that the narrator