Why did God command the destruction of entire cities, including women and children, in Joshua 10:28? Text In Focus “On that day Joshua captured Makkedah and put it to the sword, together with its king. He devoted to destruction everyone in it, leaving no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.” (Joshua 10:28) The Meaning Of Ḥerem (“Devoted To Destruction”) The Hebrew term ḥerem does not mean random slaughter; it is a legal-covenantal concept signifying a judicial offering to God (Leviticus 27:28–29). Anything placed under ḥerem became God’s alone—people, livestock, or goods—because it was irredeemably corrupt or a direct threat to covenant faithfulness (Deuteronomy 7:2; 20:16-18). Far from capricious violence, ḥerem is portrayed as the divine court’s sentence on cultures that had filled up “the measure of their sins” (Genesis 15:16). Moral Background Of The Canaanites Excavations at Gezer, Carthage-Tophet parallels, and Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.14; 1.17) document infant sacrifice, ritual bestiality, and cultic prostitution. The Mari tablets (ARM 1.109) and later Phoenician inscriptions list child burnings to Molech—precisely what Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 12 condemn. God delayed judgment for over 400 years (Genesis 15:13-16), providing “ample patience” (2 Peter 3:9). The conquest, then, was not ethnic cleansing but capital punishment on a civilization whose depravity was archaeologically and textually evident. Judicial, Not Genocidal The commands target specific city-states (Jericho, Ai, Makkedah, etc.), not an entire ethnicity. Canaanites outside military strongholds could live (Deuteronomy 20:10-15; Joshua 11:19). Rahab and her family (Joshua 6), the Gibeonites (Joshua 9), and later repentant Canaanites (2 Samuel 24:18) demonstrate that mercy was available to any who turned to Yahweh. God’s criterion was allegiance, not ancestry. Corporate Identity & Representation Biblically, parents represent offspring in covenant blessings (Exodus 20:5-6) and judgments (Joshua 7). Canaan’s children inhabited and relied on the very structures soaked in bloodshed; their inclusion in judgment reflected the communal nature of ancient Near-Eastern life. The same principle operates positively in Noah’s household salvation (Genesis 7:1) and negatively at Sodom (Genesis 19). Children, Eternal Justice & Divine Mercy Scripture affirms God’s righteous character (Deuteronomy 32:4). Physical death is not ultimate annihilation (Matthew 10:28). The Judge who knit every child together (Psalm 139:13-16) is competent to receive them into His eternal justice and mercy. From an eternal perspective, ending temporal life may spare them deeper moral corruption (cf. Isaiah 57:1). Protection Of The Messianic Line The conquest functioned as moral quarantine. Canaanite assimilation would have extinguished Israel’s call to bring forth Messiah (Genesis 12:3). Subsequent history proves the danger: limited toleration of Canaanite religion produced cycles of idolatry (Judges 2). The severity of Joshua 10 guarded the redemptive lineage culminating in Christ’s resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Typological Foreshadowing Of Final Judgment Joshua’s name (Yehoshua) means “Yahweh saves,” prefiguring Jesus (Yeshua). The temporal judgment on Canaan anticipates the universal judgment Christ will execute (Acts 17:31; Revelation 19). The conquest is thus a historical parable: repentance brings rescue; stubborn rebellion invites ḥerem. Archaeological Corroboration • Jericho’s fallen-wall debris forming a ramp (Bryant Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?,” BAR 16:2) matches Joshua 6 precisely. • A deep burn layer and toppled palace at Hazor (Amnon Ben-Tor, Israel Exploration Journal 55) align with Joshua 11:10-13. • Makkedah’s cave complex in the Elah Valley revealed Late Bronze sling stones and charred grain, consistent with Joshua 10:16-27. These data affirm the conquest as genuine history, not myth. Philosophical & Ethical Coherence Objective moral values require a transcendent Lawgiver. If God exists and is holy, He has both the authority and the epistemic right to terminate life (Job 1:21). Human objection presupposes an absolute moral standard, inadvertently affirming the very God whose judgment it questions. Practical And Evangelistic Implications The same God who judged Makkedah extends grace today. Just as Rahab’s scarlet cord pointed to Christ’s blood, every reader faces a choice: remain under judgment or accept the redemption secured by the risen Lord (John 5:24). The conquest urges urgency in proclaiming the gospel. Summary God’s command in Joshua 10:28 was a judicial, time-bound act against a uniquely depraved culture, executed after centuries of patience, aimed at preserving redemptive history, and historically verified by archaeology and manuscript evidence. Far from undermining God’s goodness, it showcases His simultaneous justice and mercy, ultimately fulfilled at the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. |
    |