Joshua Renews the Covenant

What are the very real risks and consequences of assigning such violent activity to God?

Commentary on Joshua 24:1-15 [16-26]

Arthur Wright

For preachers and congregations following the Narrative Lectionary week by week, this passage marks a significant leap forward. After spending two weeks in Exodus, we skip past the arrival to—and subsequent conquest of—the Promised Land. Joshua’s speech and the people’s commitment to the covenant in this reading are a climactic moment in the book of Joshua. It offers an opportunity to reflect on God’s faithfulness and an invitation for communities of faith to respond. At the same time, it demands serious consideration of the violence and bloodshed that have preceded this moment in the book.

Joshua gathers the entire people of Israel to Shechem (verse 1), an early religious and political center. He then begins to recount God’s activity and faithfulness on their behalf, from the call of Abraham, to God’s partnership with Moses and Aaron to save the Hebrew people from the Egyptians (verses 2–7). Notice the abundance of “I” language for God in this section: “I took …” (verse 3), “I gave …” (verse 4), “I sent … I plagued … I did … I brought …” (verse 5), and so forth. God is viewed as the primary agent of these events, and the passage emphasizes God’s agency on behalf of God’s people.

Joshua then describes how God brought the Hebrews to the territory of the Amorites, Moabites, and other native people, where once again God is the primary actor who “handed them over to you” and “destroyed them before you” (verses 8–13). This theological reflection erases virtually all involvement of the Hebrew people in the conquest of the land: “I gave you a land on which you had not labored and towns that you had not built, and you live in them; you eat the fruit of vineyards and oliveyards that you did not plant” (verse 13). Overwhelmingly, the emphasis is on God’s agency in these events.

This emphasis gives shape to the two movements of this passage: First, Joshua recalls God’s faithfulness to the covenant (verses 1–13). Then, Joshua invites the people to respond by recommitting themselves to the Lord (verses 14–15). They must do so twice (verses 16–18, and 21). These repeated declarations of commitment may reflect the anxiety and threat of idolatry and religious pluralism (and the perceived failure of the covenant) during the exile or postexilic period when this passage likely took final form.

On the one hand, this recollection of God’s faithfulness on behalf of the people (verses 1–13) and their response (verses 14–15) offers a positive image for pastors and congregations to consider today. The call of Abraham, the exodus, and the conquest of the land are important origin stories for the Jewish people. They are retold in various ways and with various theological emphases throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.

This passage offers us an opportunity to remember the histories of our own faith communities and reflect on the ways in which we’ve seen God’s faithfulness toward us along the way. Retelling our own “origin stories” can reveal our core values and key commitments as people of faith, remind us of our own courage and calling, and invite us to recommit to following God’s purposes in our lives. They are important to retell, to continue passing the torch, so to speak, from generation to generation, as Joshua does with this new generation of Israelites that has arrived in the Promised Land after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness.

On the other hand, this passage glosses over the highly problematic violence, conquest, and even genocide in the book of Joshua. It dehumanizes the native people who already lived in the land of Canaan, reducing them entirely to “the other,” and the text gives little moral consideration to their utter destruction (Hebrew: ḥerem). There is great risk in ignoring this aspect of the passage, especially given the history of colonization and violence in the United States, Israel, and elsewhere in our world. The book of Joshua seems to glorify violence in the name of religion, even imagining war and conquest as holy actions. Worse still, this passage imagines that God is the one who commits these acts of violence and genocide.

At a moment in time where nationalism—and especially in the United States, Christian nationalism—continues to be ascendant, it is important to draw attention to these features of the book of Joshua without simply minimizing or explaining away its violence. There is a tragic irony to the covenant history of the Israelite people as imagined by Joshua: God’s call to Abram and Sarai includes a promise that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). Yet it is virtually impossible to reconcile that call with the violence of the book of Joshua, which views violence and ḥerem as faithfulness to God’s purposes.

In the conquest of the Promised Land, Israel resorts to the same imperial violence they once experienced themselves in Egypt. God’s liberating activity in Egypt (which also included divine violence) has, tragically, not liberated God’s people from an imperial worldview in which power and might justify conquest and domination. The oppressed have become the oppressors, and have in turn dehumanized others in the same way that they themselves once were dehumanized.^[1]

As interpreters, we must ask: Why does this text assign so much agency to God? Do we really believe that it affirms something true about God’s heart and God’s activity in the world? Is this history remembered, or is it a theological account that reflects particular concerns of the later community? Why does it minimize human agency with respect to violence and warfare? What are the very real risks and consequences of assigning such violent activity to God, and how have people of faith used texts like these to justify violence against others throughout Christian history? Who is “othered” in our own world, and how does that “othering” lead to or justify violence today?

This is a text that demands a choice. For the Israelites in the narrative, they must choose whether to be faithful to God and the covenant. For readers today, it demands we choose between a God of conquest and violence, and a God who intends to bring divine blessing to the entire world. Perhaps we should read this passage as a mirror that reflects back to us our own—and all of humanity’s—propensity toward violence. At its best, this text might challenge us to recognize the violence in our own histories and call us to recommit ourselves to be a blessing to the world. Choose this day whom you will serve.

Notes

Note: Many scholars point to a dearth of historical and archaeological evidence for the conquest and contend that the people of Israel actually emerged over time from within Canaanite society. Regardless of one’s perspective on the historicity of the conquest, Joshua’s account of this history is certainly shaped by the theological perspective of this text, which is often considered a part of the Deuteronomistic History and thus reflects the theological orientation of Deuteronomy.

PRAYER OF THE DAY

God of deliverance, you saved the people of Israel and chose Joshua to lead your people to the Promised Land. Choose us, and equip us to live with faith and peace. We pray these things in the name of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Amen.