How does the absolute obedience in Joshua 11:12–15 align with prior instructions about sparing certain peoples? Background and Context Joshua 11:12–15 describes how Joshua subdued multiple Canaanite kings and cities with decisive thoroughness: “Joshua captured all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He completely destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds, except Hazor alone, which Joshua burned. The Israelites took for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but they put all the people to the sword until they had destroyed them all; they spared no one who breathed. Just as the LORD had commanded His servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did just as he had been told.” These verses highlight Joshua’s unwavering commitment to the instructions given through Moses, and by extension, the directives that came from the Lord. The perceived tension arises when comparing these orders to passages where certain groups or individuals were spared (e.g., Rahab in Joshua 6:22–25; the Gibeonites in Joshua 9). To understand how these elements align, it is helpful to examine the broader commands in Deuteronomy, the specific treatment of different groups in Joshua, and the biblical principle of obedience to divine instruction. Overview of God’s Instructions in Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy 20:10–18, two categories of warfare instructions appear: 1. Cities Far Away: Verses 10–15 speak of offering terms of peace to distant cities. If such a city submitted, it would serve Israel; if not, Israel would besiege it. 2. Cities Within the Land: Verses 16–18 specifically single out the cities in the land promised to Israel, emphasizing complete destruction of the inhabitants due to their pervasive idolatry and moral corruption. The rationale for total destruction within the Promised Land ties back to the spiritual danger these nations posed. Deuteronomy 20:18 underscores this risk: “Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the abominations they practice in serving their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.” Thus, the directive to destroy certain Canaanite groups was both an enactment of divine judgment and a preventative measure against assimilating harmful practices. Meanwhile, sparing other groups (outside the borders or those who submitted) was also part of the Mosaic instructions. Analysis of Joshua 11:12–15 The passage in Joshua 11 follows the pattern set in Deuteronomy for cities within the conquered territory. These adversaries resisted Israel and aligned themselves against the purposes of God. Since these were specifically among the territories the Israelites were to possess, the command was to devote them to destruction. Joshua 11 refers primarily to kings and peoples who rallied in military alliance against Israel (see Joshua 11:1–5). They were not seeking peace but were actively waging war. The text highlights how Joshua did precisely “as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded” (Joshua 11:15). Moses earlier relayed God’s instructions that the tribes inhabiting the land of Canaan were not to be spared (Deuteronomy 7:1–2), as they were under divine judgment. Obedience in these circumstances necessitated total defeat of the hostile forces to prevent continued warfare and the spread of idolatrous customs. Prior Instructions about Sparing Certain Peoples Certain exceptions exist within the narrative. For example: 1. Rahab and Her Family (Joshua 6:22–25): Despite living in Canaan, Rahab acknowledged the God of Israel and abandoned her former allegiances (Joshua 2:9–11). She placed her faith in the Lord and helped the Israelite spies. In response, she was shown mercy and incorporated into Israel. 2. The Gibeonites (Joshua 9): While the Gibeonites’ treaty arose from deception, Joshua had sworn an oath that Israel would not destroy them. Though the Gibeonites lived among the Canaanite peoples, Israel honored this oath, making them servants rather than subjects of wrath. These instances of sparing came either from a direct confession of faith (Rahab) or from an oath that, once sworn, had to be upheld (the Gibeonites). They do not contradict the instructions God gave. Rather, they illustrate that divine commands against certain peoples were aimed at unrepentant idolatrous nations determined to hold fast to their rebellious practices. If individuals within those nations turned in humility to the God of Israel, they found mercy. Consistency of Judgment and Mercy The biblical text demonstrates that the primary standard in warfare was covenant obedience. Where the people displayed persistent idolatry and hostility, destruction was prescribed (Deuteronomy 20:16–18). Yet, in the few documented cases where genuine faith or the sanctity of an oath was involved, mercy was shown (e.g., Rahab, Gibeon). This underscores the moral and spiritual dimension behind the conquest narrative: • The instruction to destroy certain communities was never indiscriminate. • The possibility of grace remained for those who repented or submitted (though rare). Joshua 11:12–15 thus stands in harmony with prior commands because these conquered peoples had refused to surrender or acknowledge the authority of the Lord, unlike figures such as Rahab or the Gibeonites. Archaeological and Historical Corroboration Archaeological surveys of ancient Canaanite city-states reveal widespread destruction layers in sites such as Hazor, which Joshua 11:13 notes Joshua burned. Excavations led by Yigael Yadin in the mid-20th century uncovered fierce layers of burn strata dated to a period that many scholars align with the biblical timeline for the Israelite conquest. This archaeological evidence supports the historical plausibility of the text’s claim that these cities, especially Hazor, underwent a catastrophic defeat consistent with the biblical record. Additionally, historical parallels from surrounding ancient Near Eastern cultures confirm that subjugation of hostile nations often resulted in wholesale destruction when treaties or pleas for peace were not accepted. Thus, the depiction in Joshua reflects an authentic cultural and historical context, further aligning with the biblical narrative. Implications and Reflection 1. God’s Righteous Judgment: The command to destroy certain peoples is presented as an expression of divine judgment on cultures practicing egregious idolatry, child sacrifice, and other perversions (e.g., Leviticus 18:24–25). 2. Obedience and Faith: Joshua’s actions exemplify a willingness to trust God’s wisdom in commanding difficult tasks. The text upholds total obedience as a covenant requirement, especially within the specific context of claiming the Promised Land. 3. Mercy Extended to the Repentant: Biblical examples clarify that those turning to the God of Israel in faith could avert destruction and be grafted into the community, highlighting that divine mercy and grace transcend ethnicity or background. 4. Fulfillment of Command: Joshua 11:15 emphasizes that Joshua followed the mandates delivered through Moses, aligning this conquest with prior instructions. Any perceived divergence dissolves upon examining the difference between communities that accepted God’s supremacy vs. those that persisted in active rebellion. Thus, the absolute obedience in Joshua 11:12–15 aligns with prior instructions about sparing certain peoples by resting on the principle that destruction was commanded for those who remained defiantly hostile, while mercy was available to those who humbled themselves before the Lord or were spared by oath. Conclusion Joshua’s actions in subduing Canaanite kings and cities remain consistent with the earlier mandates in Deuteronomy. Cities determined to resist the God of Israel were fully devoted to destruction, in keeping with divine justice and the preservation of Israel from corrupting influence. Meanwhile, individuals like Rahab—and even entire groups like the Gibeonites who came under covenant protection—stand as testimonies to the fact that divine mercy was equally present for those who would turn to the Lord or be bound to Israel by oath. The overarching narrative shows no conflict between these events; instead, it demonstrates God’s sovereignty in executing both judgment on hardened rebellious nations and benevolence toward those who acknowledge His rightful dominion. |
    |