What is an exegetical and theological way of looking at "just war" or "holy war" in Joshua 6?
I think we like to have God’s plans and purposes fit neatly into our minds. If we can somehow categorize His thoughts, then we can find an appropriate theological stance to take on issues. As I have thought about the Christian discussion on war and warfare (i.e., “just war,” “holy war,” etc.) I have come to the conclusion (rather, confession), as in Isaiah 55:8-9, that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts nor are our ways (especially ways of thinking) are not His ways. Later, in verse 11, God declares that His word will accomplish what He what He desires and for His purposes.
I also think that our modes of thinking like continuity. When we establish a belief, we like that belief to hold some consistency and permanence. In this way, when we decide (or declare) something to be right, true, or whatever, then we want that thing to always be right, true, etc. Our minds have difficulty thinking that (as I flirt with sounding post-modern) something may be true here, but may not be true (or right) over there. If it’s true, then it’s going to be true (period).
I wonder if our thinking this way impedes our understanding of God in some things.( I am NOT speaking anything about God not being true.) What I am saying is that God is sovereign – he makes the rules and he can do what he wants. Yes, I believe he cannot go against his own character and nature nor can he act contrary to his Word. God is ordered and in control, but he is not contained.
As I fit Joshua 6 into my thinking about “just war,” I see a much broader picture than whether or not God is pleased by killing people (cf. Eze. 18:32 – He is not). I think we must keep in our minds the character and nature of God – mainly that he is holy, just, merciful, gracious, and loving. IF what the commentaries offer us is true(ish), then I think we can see how God’s character and “just war” language are not mutually exclusive. Instead, I think we can see how they are compatible in Joshua 6. What I am proposing here is that for this time, in this instance, and for God's purposes, war/conflict/death/etc. may have been God's way of enacting his will for the Isrealits (and Rahab).
Some notes regarding the exegesis of Joshua 6:
6:3 – Israel was armed for protection and conquest (cf. 5:13-14 - Even the Angel of the Lord’s army had a sword)
6:3 – There would be no war cries for 6 days
6:4 – The Ark and the priests were to be hemmed in, behind and before, by the army, symbolizing God’s presence (and, I think, protection)
6:4 – The ram’s horn is used for worship and for battle
6:5 – When the walls crumbled, it allowed Israel easy entry into the city
6:25 – Rahab (and her family) was spared
Some notes regarding the theology of Joshua 6:
I think we see a mixture of messages here. There seems to be a relationship between God and war, at least as it concerns Israel and God’s will. Dr. Coleson makes very clear here that God was communicating the fact that He was in charge, and not the Israelites. He notes, “… the way Jericho was taken, and its devotion to destruction, together undercut the two primary human motivations for war: the lust for glory in battle, and the lust for wealth in the spoils of conquest” (Joshua 6, pg. 6). Therefore, it was necessary for the Israelites to know that God for God to work, our human motivations must be eliminated.
Dr. Coleson also goes into great detail to paint a providential and merciful picture of the sacking of Jericho. The Hebrew terms for those killed in verse 21 are “are very general, and could be understood to exclude babies and young children entirely” (Joshua 6, pg. 7). He continues on by saying that, “In all likelihood, only a handful of adult men and women, who had not taken refuge with Rahab, survived to face Israel’s warriors” (Joshua 6, pg. 7). In this way, the protection of Rahab and family, the walls crumbling from the earthquake, and the ambiguity of the terms for those actually slain do give us a picture for God’s mercy and grace. We must note, however, that the protection is only offered for those who believe in God. God is just and the fact that Rahab “lives among the Israelites to this day” (v. 25), shows us the “breadth and depth of God's grace and mercy” (Coleson, Joshua 6, pg. 7).
B&W add some interesting thoughts to this discussion as well. They note S. Gevirtz’s idea that it could be that by destroying Jericho, purifying it by fire and cursing its resettlement, they were actually consecrating it to the Lord (214). B&W point out this view is lacking in a motivational factor for this place at this time. However, it is worth noting since, up to this point, there have already been events in the story that depict consecration unto the Lord (cf. 3:5, 5:8, 5:10). It is possible that we may also view the destruction of Jericho as a monument, not unlike the stones of remembrance (cf. 4:2-9, 20-24). It might be said of Jericho that God “did this so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the LORD is powerful and so that [we] might always fear the LORD [our] God" (Joshua 4:24).
Parenthetically, it is also worth noting from B&W where they add that there could also have been a water-borne parasite infecting the spring at Jericho, which is their primary source of water. They also noted research that suggests a high infant mortality rate. Could it be the total destruction of the city and its curse could be a means of protection for others (including the Israelites) by keeping them away from this town and area? We do have an image of protection, of sorts, from the procession of the Ark around Jericho. The ‘honor guard’ of the priests and the Ark are surrounded and protected by the military forces. Clearly God does not need human protection, so what is the point? It may be just the opposite where God is the central figure to the conquests. In this way, it is the army who is being protected, not the other way around. So with this in mind, it’s not too far-fetched that, if the above research would be accurate, that the destruction and curse of Jericho may have been God’s providential grace at work.
I would like to propose that God and war are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think they can be complimentary when viewed from God’s perspective. Remember, His ways are higher than our ways. Joshua 6 seems to say to us that God will accomplish His will and he will use the best means necessary to do it. It also communicates the extent to which he is faithful to those who are obedient and consecrated to Him (cf. 3:5, 5:8).
As to the total destruction of Jericho, one of the thoughts that came to mind was Mark 12:43-45:
When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, `I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.
Could it be that the destruction and curse of Jericho had spiritual implications? Jericho may have been a foreshadowing to God’s view of sin. I don’t know anything about the spiritual condition of Jericho, but what I do know is that Jericho was not inhabited by God’s people. So, where there God’s people are (in Joshua’s time), the presence of God was manifest with them through the covenant-Ark. So, it would be necessary for the destruction and curse of Jericho (and its unbelieving inhabitants) to prevent any Israelites from settling there and possibly syncretizing. God will not share his presence with sin. Therefore, either one must go…and if it (sin) must go, it will must be completely eradicated or else it will only get worse (Mk. 12:43-45). This is not the only way to look at it, but as I have been thinking about these events in Joshua 6, it may be one such way.
Just in case the song is stuck in your head too - http://youtu.be/wrZkHKANrNw