Joshua 11
Literary Considerations
Figure 1: Structure of the Book of Joshua
I. Conquering the Land (chs. 1-11)
A. Introductory Scenes (1:1- 5:9)
B. Cities for the Lord (5:10-8:35)
C. Taking the Inheritance (9:1-11:23)
D. Summary of Conquered Kings (ch. 12)
II. Dividing the Land (chs. 13-24)
C'. The Tribes' Inheritance (chs. 13-19)
B'. Cities from the Lord (chs. 20-21)
A'. Final Scenes (chs. 22-24)
Appropriately, Section C concludes with “And the land had rest from war.” Interestingly, this identical statement appears only one other place in the book, near the start of Section C' (14:15), forming another symmetry between the first and second halves of Joshua. Also, this final verse in Joshua notes that all the conquered land was intended “for an inheritance to Israel according to tribal allotments.” And that allotment will be the sole subject of the last half of the book, as evidenced by the fact that the word “inheritance” occurs over forty times in Josh. 13-24 as the major theme of the second half.
By contrast, Butler sees the “rest theology” of the book announced in 1:12-18 ending the first major section with ch. 12, and summarized in 21:43-45. He states that “the entire book is to be read in light of these [latter] verses.” In fact, as I have said above (in agreement with Boling and Wright), it is more precise to state that this theme finds its more explicit statement at 11:16-23, rather than with ch.12.
As for the three separate sections constituting Section IC, Figure 2 demonstrates their parallel nature as seen in their respective opening statements.
Figure 2: Structure of Joshua 9-11
1. The Treaty with the Gibeonites (ch. 9)
“When the kings [of the seven Canaanite nations] heard of this, they gathered together...to fight Joshua and Israel.”
2. Defending the Gibeonites (ch. 10)
“When ...king of Jerusalem heard..., he...sent to [four other kings] saying, "Come up...and let us smite Gibeon; for it has made peace with Joshua and with the people of Israel. Then the five kings...gathered their forces, and went up with all their armies and encamped against Gibeon...”
3. Defeating the Kingly Coalition (ch. 11)
“When...king of Hazor heard of this, he sent to [various kings and the seven Canaanite nations]...And all these kings joined their forces and came and encamped together...to fight with Israel.”
Moving through these three subsections, there is a progression of sorts with the three sets of challenges becoming more and more overwhelming. Also note the important fact that in each conflict, it is Israel's enemies who make the first move. That may be considered as a somewhat mitigating factor lessening the impression of the Israelites as bloodthirsty conquerors.
Gray notes: “The pattern of this account [i.e. ch. 11] is the same as in ch. 10, a native coalition (vv. 1-5; cf. 10:1-5),...a sudden and decisive attack (vv. 7-9; cf. 10:9-14), the over-running of the country and the general destruction of certain towns under the ban (vv. 10-15; cf. 10:28-39) in the convention of the Holy War.”
Woudstra adds, “Each account speaks of a single instigator of the coalition: the king of Jerusalem in ch. 10, and the king of Hazor in ch. 11.”
That brings us to the organization of Joshua 11 itself. And here, the picture is not quite as clear. For example, my review of five modern English translations shows that no two agree exactly as to where the division points in the chapter lie. However, one may accept the structure in Figure 3 as a rough approximation in which at least the sections endings at verses 9, 15, and 20 are accepted by the majority of the versions.
Figure 3: Structure of Joshua 11
1. Introduction: Enemies Assemble Against Israel (vv. 1-5)
2. God Hands Them Over (vv. 6-9)
3. Towns and Kings Taken (vv. 10-15)
4. Land Taken (vv. 16-19)
2'. God Hardens Enemies' Hearts (v. 20)
3'. The Anakim Taken (vv. 21-22)
1. Conclusion: Israel Has Rest (v. 23)
Throughout these battles, it is obviously Yahweh who is not only winning the battles, but also the one who ultimately initiated the conflicts. God's actions in those two respective regards are specifically mentioned in the parallel sections 2 and 2'. That latter fact also can be seen in the similar closing statements shown in the diagram below at verses 9, 12, 15 and 23. Actually, the only failure recorded is when the Israelites contravened the letter of the law by sparing the Gibeonites, much as Rahab and her family were spared in a previous section.
Sometimes confirming and other times supplementing the above symmetries based on topical considerations are the following mirror-image constructions present in the text which are based on repeated language:
Israel (6a)
I will hand over (6b)
struck them down (8a)
the LORD handed them over (8b)
Israel (8c)
-----
by the sword (10a)
struck their kings down (10b)
utterly destroyed (11b)
took (12a)
utterly destroyed (12b)
by the edge of the sword (12c)
struck them down (12d)
-----
took (16)
Israelites (19)
Israel (20a)
utterly destroyed (20b)
utterly destroyed (21a)
Israel (21b)
Israelites (22)
took (23)
And a final way in which the text is tied together comes from the exact number of times certain key words are repeated, keeping in mind that “seven” and “ten” represent completion or perfection in Hebrew symbology while 6 = imperfection Thus, Joshua 11 contains:
“all” – 17x=10+7 (As Younger points out, “The word all characterizes these verses, emphasizing the totality of the conquest.”)
“no/none/nothing/not any – 7x
YAHWEH – 10x if “I” in v. 6 is included
Joshua – 14x=2x7
lands in the “hill country” – 6x=7-1
Problem Areas
Historicity of the Account
Blair talks about the excavations made by Y. Yadin since 1995: “Yadin found conclusive evidence that Hazor was destroyed about the middle of the 13th century BC, and attributed this destruction to Joshua. Of special interest are the remains of a Canaanite temple and objects of worship, which reveal that the religion of Hazor involved the worship of the sun-god in association with a bull.”
Contra Yadin's assertion, however, Boling and Wright state: “It has been plausibly argued that the destruction of Hazor in the late thirteenth or earlier twelfth century [B.C.] can be as readily traced to the Sea Peoples.” But those same two authors admit that the lack of evidence for any other widespread destruction at that time is perfectly understandable: “The forts and villages were in fact so small that a serious military blow might very well not show in the form of a 'destruction layer.”
Holy Wars
Probably the greatest barrier people today have when they read passages like this is the apparently inordinate amount of bloodshed the conquering Israelites caused, especially in light of the fact that God hardened the enemy's heart. This is too large a topic to completely discuss here, but here are a few relevant comments from scholars:
The Jerusalem Bible: “Cf. Dt 7:2f and 20:16-18 where reasons for this massacre are given: the conquest is a holy war, the land of Yahweh must be purified of its pagan inhabitants, Israel is holy and therefore a people apart, Deut 7:6ff; it must use no half-measures or its faith will be compromised. This did not in fact happen...the reason for failure (the sins of Israel) and why God allowed it (to test his people) are explained in Jg. 2:20-3:4 (see Jg. 2:6ff).”
“Deuteronomy commanded Israel to obey God, destroy the inhabitants, have no mercy, make no covenant, make no marriages (7:1-3). Such a command had a divine purpose. It removed the temptations to follow other gods. From the days of the Judges and especially from the period of Solomon onward, the great temptation was to make political alliances through covenants and political marriages between royal families (1 Kgs 11:1-8; 16:31; 20:30-43).” (Butler)
Why Were the Horses Mutilated?
Woudstra states, “In view of what was said above [i.e. “Israel knew that reliance on chariots and horses was vain (see Ps. 20:7)], the command to hamstring the horses in order to render them unusable for further combat can be easily understood...Israel is to rely on the Lord, although the more common forms of combat are not thereby ruled out (see also v. 7; cf. 10:9).”
Freedman adds that hamstringing horses made them still “employable for domestic occupations.”
Why Did God Take Away the Enemy's Free Will?
“To protect Israel against the major sin of idolatry, God commanded her to show no mercy to the enemy. To enable her to keep the commandment, God caused her enemies to fight her rather than seek mercy and peace.” (Butler)
“This destruction of the Canaanites is due to God's hardening them, but this in no way exonerates the Canaanites. The other way was open, as is shown by what the Gibeonites did.” (Woudstra)
“God is not the author of evil. There is no suggestion that he violated the freedom of Pharaoh's will or that he manipulated Pharaoh in order to heap further vengeance on the Egyptian people. God is not opposed to the cooperation of pagan monarchs. Pharaoh could have cooperated with God just as Cyrus did in the Babylonian exile...It is Pharaoh, not God, who is to be blamed for the hardening of his own heart. Note that this same topic is raised again in Deuteronomy 2:30, Joshua 11:20 and 1 Samuel 6:6. While these allusions are briefer, one can be sure that the process of accountability and human responsibility was just as fair as in the case of Pharaoh.” (Kaiser)
Joshua and the Pentateuch
Schaeffer sates that “Chapter 11, like the earlier chapters insists on the continuity of the law of Moses...(Josh. 11:15,23). This insistence is important because liberal theologians try to drive a wedge between the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible. It cannot be done. The rest of the Bible, beginning with Joshua, stands in total continuity with the Pentateuch. Joshua was acting on the basis of God's revelation through Moses.”
Who Conquered Hebron?
A note in the Jerusalem Bible on Joshua wiping out of the Anakim in v. 21 states, “This observation of the editor's does not square with Jos 15:13-14 where it is Caleb who conquers Hebron.” But as Lilley rightly replies, “This doubtless refers to Caleb's successes, here attributed to Joshua as overall leader.” He goes on to explain: “The Anakim were a symbol of terror to the early Israelites (Num. 13:13; Dt. 9:2). They may well have been foreign warlords, but the origin of the name is still a mystery.”
Why Was Hazor Singled out for Destruction?
Blair admits, “The utter destruction of Hazor was exceptional, perhaps because of its size and importance; other cities that stood on mounds (Heb. tel) were not destroyed. Perhaps now that the Israelites were established in the land these were no longer a danger, but rather an advantage to settlers.”
“The burning of Hazor was an exception [as a example to others]. Other cities that stood on their mounds were not burned (v. 13). This seems to mean, among other things, that the Israelites took possession of the other cities and lived in them. Such a procedure would bear out the truth of the promise made in Deut. 6:10, where Israel is said to be living in cities they had not built.”
And Younger points out that “Hazor, the most important northern city, is totally destroyed by burning just like Jericho and Ai (cf. 6.24; 8.8,19). Jericho and Hazor frame the 'conquest' of the land of Canaan.”
Was There Really “Rest in the Land”?
It has been rightly pointed out that even in the time after this statement in v. 23, much fighting continued in the effort to totally conquer Canaan. But Woudstra responds: “The enemy's chief resistance had been broken, though much work remained to be done (13:1). For purposes beneficial to Israel, the driving out of the Canaanites was meant to take along time (see Exod. 23:29-30; Deut. 7:22; but cf. Judg. 2:20-23 for a different application of the same thought).”
Blair: “The land had rest from war in the sense that no more pitched battles were required. But the completion of the campaign took 'a long time' (v. 18), and even at the end of Joshua's life there remained 'very much land to be possessed' (13:1). To deal with the parts of the country still unsubdued was now to be the responsibility of the individual tribes.”