How should Christians interpret the morality of warfare in Joshua 10:20? Canonical Text “Joshua and the sons of Israel had finished inflicting a very great slaughter on them until they were destroyed, and the few survivors who remained fled into the fortified cities.” — Joshua 10:20 Immediate Narrative Setting After the miraculous hailstones and the lengthening of the day, the coalition of five Amorite kings is routed. Joshua 10:20 reports the climactic moment when Israel’s forces complete the field engagement and the remnant manages to escape behind city walls. The verse is a summary statement, bridging the open-field battle (vv. 10–14) and the subsequent sieges (vv. 21–27). Original Language Insights • “Finished” (כִּתּוֹתַם, kittotam) carries the sense of accomplishing a divinely sanctioned task, echoing the imperative “devote to destruction” (ḥērem, cf. Deuteronomy 20:17). • “Very great slaughter” (מַכָּה גְדוֹלָה מְאֹד, makkāh gədōlā məʼōd) highlights magnitude, not gratuitous violence. • “Destroyed” (כַּלּוּת, kallût) can mean “brought to an end.” The verse itself shows that total biological extermination is not implied, because “survivors” (שְׂרִידִים, śəridîm) remain. Covenantal and Theological Rationale 1. Divine prerogative of judgment. Genesis 15:16 foretold that Israel would not return from Egypt “until the iniquity of the Amorites is complete.” Joshua 10 records the moment that measure is full. Deuteronomy 9:4–5 clarifies Israel’s victory is not due to its righteousness but to Canaan’s persistent evil (child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, Leviticus 18:24–30). 2. Holy-war uniqueness. The ḥērem commands are restricted to the theocratic conquest period (Joshua 6–11). Post-conquest Israel never receives a standing order to exterminate nations; instead God raises foreign powers as corrective rods (Isaiah 10:5). 3. Protection of messianic lineage. By preserving covenantal purity (Deuteronomy 7:3–4) God safeguards the redemptive line culminating in Christ (Galatians 4:4). The moral calculus includes future global salvation (Genesis 12:3). Historical and Archaeological Corroboration • Lachish Level III burn layer, massive arrowhead concentration, and Egyptian reliefs from Ramesses III’s Medinet Habu depict siege ramps consistent with Joshua 10:32. • Tel Hazor’s upper-city destruction stratum shows a violent conflagration dated to the Late Bronze Age I/II transition; clay tablet fragments bear royal titles paralleling Joshua 11:10. • Ceramic absence and scarab finds at Jericho’s City IV (Bryant Wood) match a 1406 BC fall, aligning with an early Exodus (1 Kings 6:1 + Usshur’s chronology). • The Amarna Letters (EA 270, 286) cry for help against the Ḫapiru in Canaan, an external witness to a nomadic Semitic force overtaking city-states, matching the Joshua narrative. Moral Objections Addressed 1. “Genocide” claim. The text places emphasis on driving out rather than annihilating (Exodus 23:27–30). Persistent Canaanite pockets (Judges 1) prove total genocide was not mandated nor achieved; the goal was the removal of militant opposition and idolatry. 2. Alleged contradiction with “love your enemies.” Jesus’ command (Matthew 5:44) presupposes the completed atonement. Pre-Calvary, God uses temporal judgments as pedagogical shadows (1 Corinthians 10:11). Justice and mercy cohere in His unchanging character; the cross unites them definitively (Romans 3:25-26). 3. Corporate accountability. Scripture consistently treats nations as moral agents (Isaiah 13-24). Modern jurisprudence likewise sanctions collective military responses to systemic aggression (e.g., Allied action against Nazi Germany). God, as omniscient judge, applies this flawlessly. Progressive Revelation and Christological Fulfillment Joshua’s name (Yehoshua, “Yahweh saves”) foreshadows Jesus. Physical conquest prefigures Christ’s cosmic victory (Colossians 2:15). Under the New Covenant, believers wage “not against flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6:12) but demolish ideological strongholds (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). The typology shifts warfare from temporal to spiritual realms. New Testament Affirmation of Old Testament Justice Hebrews 11:30-34 commends Joshua’s campaign as an act of faith. Acts 7:45 notes God “drove out the nations” (ἐξώρισεν). The NT neither apologizes for nor revises the historicity; it upholds God’s right to judge and Jesus’ final return “in blazing fire” administering justice (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). Ethical Framework for Contemporary Christians 1. Just-war principles derive from biblical themes: legitimate authority (Romans 13:4), just cause (Psalm 82:4), right intent (Proverbs 21:2). Joshua’s campaign meets all three as a unique, divinely commissioned event. 2. Prescriptive vs. descriptive hermeneutic. Narrative description is not moral permission for modern holy war. Without a theocratic mandate and in the absence of new revelation, Christians default to evangelistic mission, not crusade (Matthew 28:18-20). 3. The state’s restrained sword (Romans 13) is provisional and answerable to God. Church and state remain institutionally distinct; the church conquers by witness, service, and sacrifice. Practical Discipleship Applications • Revere God’s holiness; sin warrants judgment (Hebrews 12:28-29). • Proclaim grace with urgency; the window of mercy (2 Peter 3:9) closes at Christ’s return. • Submit personal vengeance to divine justice (Romans 12:19). • Engage culture through love, truth, and reason, dismantling idols as Israel did geographically, yet now spiritually (1 John 5:21). Summary Joshua 10:20 portrays a decisive but situationally bound act of divine justice within salvation history. Far from moral incoherence, it showcases God’s consistent attributes—holiness, patience, justice, and redemptive purpose—culminating in Christ. Christians interpret the warfare as historically grounded, theologically justified, ethically non-normative for the church militant, and instructive for understanding both the gravity of sin and the grandeur of grace. |
    |