Why were the Anakim only left in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod according to Joshua 11:22? Text of Joshua 11:21-22 “Joshua went at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country— from Hebron, Debir, Anab, and all the hill country of Judah and Israel. Joshua devoted them to destruction with their cities. No Anakim were left in the land of the Israelites; only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did some remain.” Identity of the Anakim The Anakim (“long-necked,” Numbers 13:33; Deuteronomy 2:10-11) were a lineage of exceptionally tall warriors whose physical presence terrified the ten unbelieving spies (Numbers 13:28-33). Egyptian Execration Texts (c. 19th c. BC) list a group called “’Anq” living in Canaan, confirming a people whose name and locale match the biblical Anakim. Their stature is later exemplified in Goliath and his kin (1 Samuel 17; 2 Samuel 21:15-22), all linked to Gath. Geographical Setting: Gaza, Gath, Ashdod These three cities formed the southern half of the Philistine pentapolis on the Mediterranean coastal plain. Because they sat along the Via Maris—the international corridor Egypt used to reach Mesopotamia—Egypt retained keen influence there (cf. Amarna Letters). Israel’s initial allotments under Joshua focused on the hill country; thus the coastal enclaves lay outside the immediate settlement zones of Judah, Ephraim, and Benjamin (Joshua 13:1-3). Immediate Narrative Purpose in Joshua Joshua’s campaigns were designed to break organized resistance and secure the land God specifically promised for tribal inheritance (Joshua 11:23; 13:6). By eliminating the Anakim from the strategic highlands while bypassing the fortified Philistine lowlands, Israel gained uncontested possession of its core territory without prolonging warfare against Egypt-backed strongholds. Military and Strategic Realities 1. Fortifications: Ashdod’s 3-kilometre-long rampart (Iron I, uncovered by archaeologist M. Dothan) and Gath’s massive city wall at Tell es-Safi (13th–10th c. BC destruction layers) show impressive defenses. 2. Supply lines: Israel, still nomadic-agrarian, lacked the siege technology that later kings—Saul, David, Uzziah—would employ against these same cities (1 Samuel 13:5; 2 Chronicles 26:6). 3. International pressure: Egyptian Papyrus Anastasi I (13th c. BC) describes Ashdod as a border garrison. Confronting such positions would have risked direct conflict with Egypt before Israel was established. Divine Purposes Behind the Remnant 1. Providential Testing. Judges 3:1-2 states that God intentionally left certain peoples “to test Israel,” training them for war and faith. The Anakim pockets fit this divine pedagogy. 2. Foreshadowing a Greater Deliverer. Gath’s surviving giants set the stage for David’s victory over Goliath (1 Samuel 17). David, a prototype of Messiah, publicly displayed that “the battle is the LORD’s” (v. 47). 3. Progressive Fulfilment of Promise. Deuteronomy 7:22 predicted conquest “little by little.” The Anakim enclaves illustrate this incremental plan, proving Scripture’s internal consistency. 4. Demonstration of Sovereignty. Centuries later, prophetic oracles (Amos 1:6-8; Zephaniah 2:4; Zechariah 9:5) foretold the ultimate downfall of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod, underscoring that no fortress can finally resist Yahweh. Archaeological Corroboration • Tell es-Safi (Gath): Early Iron I “large-scale destruction” layer aligns with Davidic campaigns; an oversized Iron IIA gate and 2.38 m long-horned shrine fragment suggest inhabitants of unusual stature. • Ashdod’s “City X” destruction around 950 BC fits the biblical record of Uzziah’s assault (2 Chronicles 26:6). • Gaza’s continuous occupation layers reveal a major city only fully subjugated in the Hasmonean and later Roman periods, matching the prolonged biblical struggle. Theological Reflection and Application God often leaves formidable “giants” in peripheral areas of our lives not because He cannot eliminate them instantaneously, but to train faith, cultivate dependence, and set a stage for future displays of His glory. Israel’s later triumph through David points forward to Christ, who conquers the ultimate giant—death—through His bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:54-57). The leftover Anakim therefore serve as historical anchors and typological signposts directing readers to the greater victory in Jesus. Conclusion The Anakim remained only in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod for interwoven strategic, historical, and divine reasons: the immediate military priorities of Joshua, the geopolitical realities of the coastal plain, God’s stated intention to test and train Israel, and His purpose of foreshadowing a messianic victory over seemingly invincible foes. Archaeology, manuscript evidence, and the unfolding biblical narrative consistently confirm this account, underscoring both the accuracy of Scripture and the faithfulness of the God who authored it. |
    |