ENTRANCE INTO THE PROMISED LAND

The Promised Land

The struggle for a land has always been one of the most powerful drives in the national
history. This is obviously true, for instance, in the case of the United States. In story and song,
Americans rehearse the stirring epic of immigrants who landed on the Atlantic seaboard and, at the
cost of great hardship and often fierce warfare, pushed the frontier to the shores of the Pacific. The
tragic side of the story, of course, is that the native Indians, who had developed their own culture on
the land, were dispossessed and almost exterminated. Nevertheless, in times of thanksgiving
Americans affirm their belief that, despite the sordid aspects of injustice and violence, the hand of
God was guiding the “pilgrim feet”- to echo the words of the patriotic song “America, the Beautiful”-
“whose stern, impassioned stress, a thorough fare for freedom beat, across the wilderness”.

From earliest times the Fertile Crescent was the scene of a fierce struggle for land. As we
have seen, this coveted area periodically was invaded by peoples from Arabia, Asia Minor, the
Caucasian highlands, or Egypt- people who sought a strip of the good earth to call their own or who
fought to expand their territory, at the expense of others. Palestine was, by virtue of its geographical
location, inevitably drawn into the incessant conflict. This little country was the place where small
nations rudely and brutally fought for living space, and where big nations fought their wars of empire.

Into this dynamic arena came the Hebrews. Like other ‘Apiru in the ancient world, they were
at first a landless people. They belonged to a floating population, the unsettled elements of society.
But these wanderers were seeking a land, in order that they might participate fully in society and
fulfill their historical destiny. Their struggle to obtain land entailed much suffering and bloodshed,
and the slaughter of many Canaanite natives. But it was their firm conviction that Yahweh, their God,
was with them in the rough-and-tumble of the conflict, leading them victoriously into the land.

Conquest of Canaan

If one were to summarize the life of the Hebrews so far, it may be said that during the days of
the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob they were a family or a tribe. During their sojourn in Egypt,
they were simply an “organized mob of slaves”. However, during their years of wandering in the
desert, Moses began to mold them into a nation- in fact, a chosen nation by God.

At this point in their history, the Israelites [now known as such for it is as such that they are
known as a people and perhaps at this time in their history] were convinced that it was God’s plan and
will that they be given a land of their own, and that land was Canaan [or Palestine as later it will be
called].

When Israel later considered the events of her history and compared her lowly origin with the
greatness of the empires of the world, it was indeed no small claim to make for God that he has thus
cared for them.

Canaan and the Canaanites

The land of Canaan had been occupied for centuries before Israel’s entry into it. There is
evidence of settlement in the Stone Age, but of much greater interest to us in antiquity of such a city
as Jericho, already a well-fortified center some thousands of years before the Israelite conquest. By
3000 B.C. many cities existed in Canaan and in the period between then and the rise of Israel to power
great developments of civilization and religion took place. The two most important were the
invention of the alphabet and the development of Canaanite religion reflected in the great epic poems
which have been discovered at Ras Shamra (the ancient city of Ugarit on the coast, in which is now
the state of Syria.) The origin of the alphabet is probably to be sought in the Canaanite area, which
was rich in literary activity and by 1500 B.C. had several different writings systems in use. The city
of Byblos in Phoenicia has given its name, via the Greek Biblion (book), to the Bible. The Alphabeth
of Canaan spread westward into Greece and then into all western lands, it spread also different forms
to be used for the Semitic languages and those are India and elsewhere.

The religion of Canaan was highly developed, and the people worshipped great gods and
goddesses, thinking of them particularly as givers of life and well-being, and looking to hem for
victory in war and for plenty in their harvest. The title Baal, lord or master, given to one of the gods
who plays a prominent part in Canaanite myths, has come down to us in the Old Testament as a term
to describe the alien gods to the inhabitants of Canaan. But when Israel first settled, it was quite
natural for this title to be applied by them to their own God Yahweh, and we find a man such as Saul
giving several of his sons names which included the form Baal as title for Yahweh. [One was called
Ishbaal, and thus the name appears in 1 Chronicles, where the original form is preserved; in the book
of Samuel this was changed to Ishbosheth, the word Bosheth, ‘shama’, being substituted for Baal ].
The period which followed the conquest of Canaan was one of struggle between the religious ideals of
Israel and those of Canaan. Canaanite religious poetry, Canaanite religious festivals and sacrificial
practices were taken over by Israel and transformed; but only gradually did the distinctive faith
appear, sharply and transformed; sharply contrasting with the religion of other communities.

From the political point of view it was the achievement and maintenance of unity which
ultimately gave the Israelites greater strength than the more civilized Canaanites, and made possible in
later years the establishment of an Israelite Kingdom in which many Canaanite elements were
incorporated. The earlier life of Canaan- often under the domination of great power outside- had one
of disunity. Small city-states situated especially in the valleys were often at war with one another. In
the time of the Israelite conquest we hear of alliances of such small states in various parts of Israelites
occupation were mainly in the hill country remote from the strong Canaanite cities. At an earlier
period, in the times of the patriarchs, it had been possible similarly for semi-nomadic shepherds like
Abraham and Jacob to range with some freedom within the Canaanite area without very much contact
with the city-states which controlled the rich cultivated valleys. Egyptian rule in Canaan was firm
during the XVIIIth dynasty [about 1550 to 1300 B.C.] especially under Thothmes III in the fifteenth
century. From about 1400 B.C. onwards, however, control weakened, and there was much warfare
between the cities.

Dating the Conquest of Canaan

This divided land was now to be invaded by the Israelites, and it is probable that the main part
of the invasion took place about a century after these letters were written. During the early years of
the thirteenth century there was warfare through Canaan between Egypt and the Hittite Empire of
Asia Minor, then brought to an end by an ‘eternal treaty’ in about 1200 B.C. The Israelite tribes, from
their center at Kadesh-barnea, were compelled to journey around Edom and Moab to the east, and to
invade across the Jordan near Jericho; this indicates a period when the two lands of Edom and Moab
were fully settled, which does not seem to be earlier than the thirteenth century. A number of cities
mentioned in the conquest stories- for example: Bethel, Lachish, and Debir- appear to have fallen in
this century into Israelite hands, so that the main invasion may well belong to this period.

Other cities mentioned create difficulty. The date of the fall of Jericho, so crucial to the
invasion across Jordan since it guards the entry into the central hill country, has often been thought to
belong to the previous century; but the evidence is insufficient to establish a precise date for its fall.
Ai, describes as taken by Israel [Joshua 6], means ‘ruin’ and had been a ruin for many centuries
before Israel invaded; this suggest that either a story of its capture had been transferred to the period
of Israel’s invasion, although strictly it did not belong there, or that in this story, there is concealed
record of the conquest of the nearby flourishing city of Bethel, which must have fallen to the Israelites
[cf. Judges 1:22-26]. As with Exodus events, the conquest period has not naturally attracted to itself
other stories and traditions which may not all belong to one short period of time.
Stories of the Conquest [1]

We may not conveniently distinguish two main types of tradition concerning the conquest.
On the one hand, there are stories dealing with the settlement of isolated tribes, giving an impression
of disunity and independence of action. On the other hand, there are firm statements of complete and
unified conquest:

“So Joshua defeated the whole land… he left none remaining but utterly destroyed all that
breathed…” [Jos. 10:40].

The historians preserved all these materials, and we cannot reconstruct now the order of
events with any certainty. But we can see the elements of truth on both types of traditions.

The opening chapter of Judges preserves some old material pointing to the incompleteness of
the conquest, noting the places which were not taken and the position of some of the tribes as minority
groups amid larger Canaanite population. Thus:

“Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron… but the Canaanite dwelt among them,
and became subject to forced labor.”

“Asher did nto drive out inhabitants of Acco… but the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites,
the inhabitants of the land; for they did not drive them out” [Judges 1:30-32].

Elsewhere in Numbers 14:39-45, a story is preserved of an attempted conquest of Canaanite

from the south, which failed. This follows on the story about the spying out of the land which twelve
representatives, one from each tribe, were sent into Canaan. They brought back a report of a rich
land, but one difficult to conquer.

“We came to the land to which you sent us; it flows with milk and honey… Yet the people
who dwell in the land are strong and the cities are fortified and very large” [Num. 13:27-28].

The dismay of the people was countered only by Joshua and Caleb among the spies; these two
maintained their faith and their confidence that God would enable them to conquer. Joshua is the great
leader of the conquest stories; but Caleb has a special place in the spy story, and it seems possible that
there were traditions as to the effect that Caleb had been a real leader of the conquest, like Joshua. In
Judges 1 some part of this story is preserved, and the taking of Debir, attributed to Joshua in Jos.
10:38ff., is here attributed to Caleb. Similarly the taking of Hebron is associated in Judges 1 with the
tribe of Judah, but it is also ascribed to Joshua.

The record in Numbers 21 of a successful attack on Hormah in the south together with the
conquest of the south by Judah and Simeon described in the opening verses of Judges 1, seems to
point to an invasion from that direction, independent of the Joshua traditions, and to some extent
overlapping them. We should perhaps allow for this lack of unity and reckon with the possibility of a
number of separate stages in the conquest of the land.

That the conquest was not a complete one is also shown by the indications of peaceful
settlement and intermarriage. The Gibeonites are described as resorting to an ingenius rush to avoid
the ferocity of the Israelite attack, distinguishing themselves as ambassadors from a distant country in
order to conclude an alliance Joshua, and then revealing that they had in fact many indications of
intermarriage between Israelites which make it clear that the older population was not wiped out, but
eventually absorbed into Israel. The bond of unity for Israel was, however, her faith in the God who
had delivered her from Egypt; and it is a witness to the strength of that faith that in the process of
mingling of Israel and Canaan, one faith was not lost, but ultimately became dominant.
Stories of the Conquest [2]

The other picture of the conquest describes Israel under Moses marching from Kadesh-barnea
around the areas occupied by Edom and Moab, and defeating the two kings and Og to the east of
Jordan. In this area, beyond Jordan, a few of the Israelite clans settled. At the death of Moses, Israel
stood on the threshold of the promised land.

“And Moses went up from the plane of Moab to Mount Nebo to the top of Pisgah, which is
opposite Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land… And the Lord said to him, “This is
the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ‘I will give it to your
descendants’. I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there” [Deut.
34:1,4].

The actual invasion is described in the opening chapters of the book of Joshua. The Jordan
was crossed miraculously as an act of divine protection like the crossing of the sea; Jericho fell again
by divine rather than human power. The country was conquered in a series of swift campaigns. In the
later chapters of the book of Joshua, lists of places are provided which indicate tribal boundaries,
through they do not conceal the fact that all the land had not yet been occupied. But it is emphasized
that all really belong to Israel, and those area which were only subsequently taken into occupation are
included in the allocation of territory, providing the picture of a completed conquest.

Clearly, the stories have been gathered around the figure of Joshua, the great deliverer, who
succeeded Moses in the leadership of Israel. Equally clearly, an ideal is here being expressed, the
ideal of a complete repudiation of the ways of Canaan, even to the utter destruction of its inhabitants.
This repudiation of Canaan expresses the protest of those who saw in Canaanite life, and especially in
Canaanite religion, the greatest threat to Israel and her faith. Israel must not make any compromise
with the alien faith. The ideal of complete and unified conquest is an expression of the conviction that
the occupation of the land was not simply a matter of battles and storming of cities; it was part of
God’s purpose, by which His people was brought into the place where they would express their
obedience to Him. It is the conviction of the psalmist whose words we quoted earlier:

“…Not by their own sword did they win the land… but Thy right hand, and Thy arm…”
[Psalms 44:3].

It is the conviction expressed in the confession of faith:

“…He brought us into this place…” [Deut. 26:9].

In the end, what mattered to Israel was not so much the precise details of the conquest of
Canaan; it was this conviction that here was another great moment of her history, when God
had given deliverance and protection to His people. The faith in God’s saving power would
outlast political success.

The Israelite Conquest

In spite of the signs of telescoping and exaggeration, there is good evidence for the central
claim of the book of Joshua, that in the thirteenth century the warlike Israelites- probably spearheaded
by the Joseph tribe and the tribe of Benjamin- were victorious in wresting in good part of the central
hill country from the Canaanites. Moreover, deeply in Israel’s memory was the conviction that these
victories were not achieved by mere military power or strategy. In those stirring events the Israelites
recognized the active presence and guidance of Yahweh, who had delivered them from Egyptian
bondage and in marvelous way had led them into a land where they could fulfill the historic role for
which they had been called. It was their faith in the God who actively took part in the historical
struggle that unified them and inspired them with tremendous zeal. Against these invaders from the
desert, the Canaanites, split up into city-states, divided by the hills and valleys, and lacking a dynamic
religious faith, were unable to stand.

God and War: Was the Wholesale Destruction Necessary?

“How could a God of mercy, justice and love tolerate or even encourage such violent and
seemingly senseless killings?”

In order to have a better grasp of the moral problem, first we have to understand the dominant
theological perspective of the book of Joshua. This is the “deuteronomic view of history” which
dominates the books from Joshua to Second Kings. According to this view, obedience to God’s laws
leads to reward of victory and prosperity; and disobedience to God’s laws leads to punishment,
suffering and failure. This was emphasized in the instructions of God to Joshua. It is the key and the
condition of their success.

Secondly, let us consider the fact that the land was promised by God to them; by all means,
they had to occupy it at all cost. All obstacles had to be overcome even though this would mean
destruction of people and properties just so God’s promise could be fulfilled. Indeed, God’s promise
was fulfilled! Because of this, says Anderson, “the historical realities of the conquest are made to
appear much simpler than they actually were”. More and more, biblical scholars and historians tend
to believe that:

That the conquest was not a decisive assault but a gradual infiltration , in which
initial guerilla warfare was superseded by settlement in the midst of the Canaanites and by
intermarriage with them. The tribes did not in unison under the single command of Joshua :
rather individual tribes won victories independently during the lifetime of Joshua and later
[Anderson, p. 81] .

The biblical proof for this is found in the book of Judges where there is frank admission that the
Israelites were unable to expel the Canaanites from the land. Thus, Judges 1:1 says: “After Joshua’s
death, the people of Israel asked the Lord, “Which of our tribes should be the first to go and attack the
Canaanites ?”

Thirdly, we have to reckon with the wickedness of the Canaanite culture. Wright and Fuller
claim that Canaanite civilization and religion were one of the weakest, decadent, and most immoral
culture of the civilized world at that time. In that situation, therefore, Israel was God’s agent of
destruction against this sinful civilization, for in the moral order of God, civilization of such flagrant
wickedness must be destroyed. Of course, God has a purpose in His choice of Israel and in giving
them the land, a purpose reiterated in the promises of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the book of
Genesis. All this does not mean that Israel as God’s agent is free of responsibility. In other words,
God’s has a purpose of universal redemption in the midst of and for the sinful world. He makes even
wars and fightings of men to serve His end. In the case of Israel, his purpose as expressed in the
patriarchal promises coincided at the moment of the conquest with the terrible iniquity of Canaan. It
was a great thing for Israel that she got her land; it was also a sobering thing because with it went the
great responsibility and the danger of judgment.

Wright and Fuller continue their questioning in terms of whether God actually told Jushua to
carry out such terrible slaughter. Involving even the defenseless element of the population. While it is
difficult to give a clearcut answer to such a question, nevertheless we can agree with Wruight and
Fuller:

In the context of human sin, wars and conflict occur. But God has not withdrawn from the
world to heaven. He is not defeated by human sin; even this he uses for his own ends. Unless
he did we would have nothing in this earth for which we hope. Yet to say that God is in
control, even of wars and cruelty, does not mean that he is responsible for the way in which
 men carry them on. It is God’s fault that the Americans drooped the atomic bomb on
Hiroshima. Yet no Christian can assume that God had no interest whatsoever in how the last
war was to turn out. Two things must be held together in tension here: one is god’s control
and direction of history to his ends, and the other is the terrible sin of man for which he is
responsible. If we view the conquest in light, then the Christian may say that God was
fighting for Israel, though his own purpose was larger than Israel understood at the moment.
The sovereign goodness of God and the freedom of man must both be affirmed in a biblical
understanding of theism. God is thus not responsible for man’s atrocities.

Shechem Convocation and the Formation of the Tribal Confederacy

The last two chapters of the book of Joshua [23-24] tell us of how the Israelites were gathered
at Shechem. In this convocation, Joshua rehearsed and reviewed before the people their sacred
history. He started with the patriarchal period, the Exodus event, the story of the conquest in the
Transjordan and the Canaanites hill country. With this summary, Joshua challenged the people to
decide either to serve God in sincerity and faithfulness, or to serve the tribal gods of their ancestors.
Joshua warned that Yahweh is a jealous God who would not tolerate the worship of strange gods.
Furthermore, Joshua demanded that they put away their foreign gods.

The significance of the Shechem convocation is threefold: Firstly, this event is a ceremony of
covenant renewal which was repeated many times in Israel’s history; it was appropriate at this times
to remind the people that their victory was due to God’s power. Secondly, this event was an initiation
for the kindred tribesmen whom Joshua found in the Shechem area. Thus, the covenant community
was opened to persons who had not experienced the Exodus. We have to recall that Joshua did not
wage war in the Shechem area. Thirdly, it was an acceptance of the non-Hebrew tribes, that is, the
Rahabites, Gibeonites, etc., who were assimilated into the covenant community. In short, initiation
into the covenant community involved one’s identification with Israel’s sacred history,
acknowledgment of Yahweh as the living God, and acceptance of membership in the community [Jos.
24:14-15].

The Shechem convocation presided over by Joshua gave birth to the tribal confederacy. This
is one of the most significant feature of Israel as a covenant community its organization into twelve
tribes. This is known as amphictyony, a Greek word which literaly means “the community of those
who gather around a central religious shrine”. The bond that held the tribes together was primarily
religious. Regular festivals were celebrated at the shrine or sanctuary where the basic laws binding to
all were read and administered. This regular gathering together brought about some degree of unity in
language, moreso and political interest of the twelve tribes. But the greatest sense of unity was
aroused during military emergencies when the people ussually rallied as one community to meet their
common enemy.

_____________________________________
Sources/References :

Anderson, Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament ,

4th . , pp. 84-87; 110, 141.

Aoanan, Melanio L. , God’s Liberating Acts, pp. 49-51.

Niguidula, Lydia N. , The Heritage of the People of God.

The Holy Bible , Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges

_________________________________
Definition :

Holy war— The view of holy war expressed in the biblical traditions of the conquest of Canaan
should not be confused with modern notion of religious sanctioned warfare or even with the
fanaticism of Islamic jihad (holy war).

Holy war in the tribal period was a kind of guerilla warfare based on voluntary response to a
summons in the name of the deity, the divine warrior, to whom the tribes owed allegiance .
Religiously speaking, it is God who gives the victory: the triumph is not won by sheer military force.

One of the practices of the holy war, both in ancient Israel and among other peoples, was that of
herem or sacrificial ban, that is, the dedication of persons, booty, or cities to God. When something is
devoted to God it becomes holy and belongs only to God, having been withdrawn from common use.
The herem was practiced only in the case of resisting cities.