Psalm 106:34–35 suggests Israel did not fully conquer or destroy surrounding nations—how does this align with biblical passages that claim they subdued the land completely? Psalm 106:34–35 in Context Psalm 106:34–35 reads, “They did not destroy the peoples as the LORD had commanded them, but they mingled with the nations and adopted their customs.” At first glance, this appears to conflict with Joshua 11:23, which states, “So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had told Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war.” Similarly, Joshua 21:43 affirms, “So the LORD gave Israel all the land He had sworn to give their fathers, and they took possession of it and settled there.” The question arises: If Israel did not destroy all of the peoples in the land, how do we reconcile that with the claim that Israel received “all the land” and had “rest from war”? The discussion below addresses this apparent tension in a thorough review of biblical statements, the historical drama unfolding in the times of Joshua and the Judges, and the broader theological context. Nature of “Complete” Conquest Throughout Joshua, phrases like “the land had rest” (Joshua 11:23) and “So the LORD gave Israel all the land” (Joshua 21:43) describe the successful campaign to subdue the major powers of Canaan. These statements summarize the broad victory the Israelites experienced under Joshua’s military leadership. However, “all the land” should be understood in the sense that the main Canaanite kings and formidable city-states had been subdued and no longer posed an organized threat. The dominant battles were won, effectively establishing Israel’s occupation of the land God promised to their fathers (Genesis 12:7; Genesis 15:7–21). Joshua 13:1 clarifies that some pockets of resistance remained: “When Joshua had grown old, the LORD said to him, ‘You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land remains to be possessed.’” This verse demonstrates that even with the decisive victories, the conquest was not absolutely total in eliminating every last Canaanite settlement. Gradual Occupation and Tribal Responsibility After Joshua’s overwhelming military successes, each tribe was expected to finish clearing its assigned territory (Joshua 13–21). In Judges 1, the Israelites’ tribes are depicted as taking up that responsibility, but Judges 1:27–36 reveals that many of them failed to drive out the remaining inhabitants. In line with Psalm 106:34–35, these inhabitants later influenced Israel, leading them to worship false gods and adopt sinful customs. The sin was not merely in failing militarily but in compromising spiritually by mingling with pagan nations. Explanation of the Conquest Language Many ancient Near Eastern writings, including parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, use comprehensive-sounding language (e.g., “all the land,” “destroyed all the people,” etc.) in a summary fashion, describing the decisive outcome rather than insisting no individuals remained anywhere in the region. Similar expansive language can be seen in ancient inscriptions from other cultures of the time, such as Egyptian victory inscriptions praising Pharaoh’s “complete” domination of vast territories. Scriptural accounts reflect this contemporary style of describing significant triumph in sweeping terms. Reconciling Psalm 106 with Joshua 1. Complete in Principle, Progressive in Practice Israel’s conquest was “complete” in the sense that foundational victory over major powers was achieved, enabling the people to settle the land. Yet, God had instructed Israel to destroy remaining enemy enclaves to avoid corruption (Deuteronomy 7:1–5). Psalm 106 underscores Israel’s failure to finish this task, choosing instead to “mingle with the nations” (Psalm 106:35). 2. Spiritual Consequences The Israelites’ failure to drive out the remaining inhabitants had severe consequences: idolatry and syncretistic practices entered the community (Judges 2:10–13). Psalm 106 highlights the internal heart issue—disobedience led to spiritual decline, which stands as a lesson for believers throughout Scripture. 3. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility The LORD provided the overarching victory (“So the LORD gave Israel all the land,” Joshua 21:43), but Israel’s ongoing faithfulness was part of their calling. Their neglect in fully removing pagan influences was not a failure of God’s promise but a failure of Israel’s follow-through. Archaeological and Historical Corroborations 1. Settlement Patterns in Canaan Archaeological surveys of Canaanite tell sites (mound-like remains of ancient cities) show a change from large Canaanite city-states to smaller Israelite settlements during the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age transition. This points to an upheaval consistent with widespread conquest, followed by incomplete population displacements. 2. Evidence of Gradual Dominance Documents such as the Amarna Letters (circa 14th century BC) reference turmoil in Canaan. Although not an explicit proof of Israelite conquest, they do hint at city-states destabilized by invading groups—a plausible background for Israel’s settlement. 3. Historical Patterns of Language Much like Joshua’s record, other contemporary Egyptian records describe “total victory,” yet it is known from extrabiblical sources that some adversaries survived. Thus, literary parallels support how Scripture’s sweeping language about conquest can coexist with remnants of resistance still present in the land. Theological and Moral Dimensions 1. Holiness and Separation God’s command to utterly destroy pagan peoples (Deuteronomy 7:2–4) was fundamentally about preventing idolatry rather than mere ethnic hostility. Psalm 106:34–35 vividly shows the danger: Israel’s intermingling became their downfall. 2. Disobedience as the Real Issue Israel’s failure was not that God failed to give them the land; it was that they disobeyed God’s command to cleanse the land of idolatrous practices. The fuller biblical narrative emphasizes that incomplete obedience often has generational consequences. 3. Lessons for Today Psalm 106 stands as a warning. It challenges readers not to adopt the world’s idols or customs. The lesson transcends the ancient context, reminding believers of the importance of faithful devotion to the LORD, the seriousness of spiritual compromise, and the responsibilities that accompany receiving God’s promises. Summary and Conclusion Psalm 106:34–35 does not contradict the broader claims of the Israelites’ successful conquest under Joshua. The term “complete conquest” in Joshua refers to the overarching military and strategic subjugation of Canaan, enabling Israel to possess the land. Yet, individual tribes did not fully carry out God’s directives to remove pagan practices and destroy formidable enclaves that lingered. This partial disobedience allowed pagan influences to remain, fulfilling the Psalmist’s lament about how the people “mingled with the nations.” Both sets of passages—those attesting to a complete conquest and those confirming that remnants of the folks remained—are in harmony once the historical, literary, and theological context is understood. Israel’s failure points not to a shortcoming in God’s promise but to the moral and spiritual failure of the nation to maintain the holiness God required. Thus, rather than an irreconcilable contradiction, Psalm 106:34–35 and the passages in Joshua together illustrate a robust portrayal of human responsibility, partial obedience, and the dire spiritual consequences that result from failing to follow God’s commands fully. |
    |