§ 1. From the Death of Moses to the Conquest of Jericho
Moses was not permitted to lead his people into the promised land. Very shortly before his death he had consecrated Joshua, one of the heads of the people (Numbers 13:2-3), his truest disciple and help (Exodus 24:13, Exodus 33:11; Numbers 11:28), to this office. When Joshua is called “the servant of Moses,” this is not equivalent to his attendant, but rather his right hand, the man of action, as Moses was the man of counsel. Moses changed the original name Hosea into Joshua, the salvation of God, because he was to be the mediator of God’s salvation to Israel. As a general and a reconnoitrer he had already given proofs of his resoluteness in the service of the Lord, of his wisdom and his courage; comp. Exodus 17 and Numbers 14. His task was very clearly defined: he was to be the minister of divine justice to the Canaanites, and at the same time an instrument of mercy to Israel; for the possession of the land was the presupposition and fundamental condition of the complete realization of the preparation given to him by God through Moses. For the realization of this task there was no spirit equal to that of Moses in its independence, depth, and originality. But it also required what Joshua possessed, a spirit of unconditional surrender to the Lord and an energy sanctified by living faith. The time to enter Canaan had now come. The first thing which the Israelites had to do was to cross the Jordan. If this were accomplished, it would be a matter of great importance for them to take the fortified town Jericho, because it was the principal fortress at the entrance of what was afterwards the wilderness of Judah, and opened up the way into all the rest of the country. According to Josephus, the city lay 60 stadia from the Jordan and 150 from Jerusalem. The surrounding country was an oasis in the midst of the wilderness, bounded on the east by the waste and unfruitful Valley of Salt, which lay north of the Dead Sea; and on the west by the stony, rocky wilderness. Surrounded by the first chalk mountain of the Judaic chain as by a continuous wall, and watered by rich springs, it formed a fruit-garden, in the time of Josephus, 70 stadia long and 20 wide, in which the choicest productions of the earth were cultivated. The task of Israel was a very difficult one. The Canaanites stood at that time in their most flourishing condition. They were skilled in the art of warfare, had horses and chariots, and a multitude of fortified places. (The world now presents an analogy in the sphere of science.) Moreover, knowledge of the locality was in their favour; and Israel had nothing to place in opposition to all this, but their God and their faith. Only by these could they overcome the world. Joshua’s greatness consists in the superiority of his faith over that of the nation—he set them an example.
After Joshua had been strengthened in faith by an immediate divine revelation (that mention is here made of an immediate revelation appears from the analogy of Joshua 6:2, where it is related how the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joshua), after he had exhorted the people, had told them of the coming passage over the Jordan, and had received from them the unanimous assurance of faithfulness, he made all necessary preparations for the passage, and for the attack on Jericho. He had already sent two spies from his camp to Jericho; for he combined human wisdom with the firmest trust in God. It is evident that the spies had been sent before Joshua told the people of the passage across the Jordan, which was to take place in three days; though many have maintained the contrary, from the fact that the business of the spies, who, according to Joshua 22, only kept themselves concealed for three days in the mount of Jericho, could not have been accomplished in so short a time. After the spies had executed their commission, and had sufficiently ascertained the position and state of the city (that they did this appears from the account which they give to Joshua), they took refuge in the house of the harlot Rahab. Since very early times this has been a stumbling-block; hence every expedient has been tried to turn the harlot into an innkeeper. The Chaldee renders זונה by a word corrupted from the Greek πανδοκεύτρια. And even Buddeus is not averse to this explanation. But it cannot be verbally justified; and there are no real arguments for the rejection of that which is verbally established. Above all we must maintain that Joshua, in choosing the spies, did not look only to subtlety, as Michaelis maintains, but at the same time to an earnest and pious mind. Like Moses, he never sacrificed the higher view to the lower; he never lost sight of the fact that the warfare which he waged was holy. But it is impossible to see why, for the attainment of their good object, the spies should have repaired to a house to which others resorted for sinful purposes. Whether hotels were at that time general, is very doubtful. It appears that in this sinful city houses of entertainment were all at the same time houses of bad repute: infamous houses had usurped the place of houses of entertainment; and even supposing that there were hotels in Jericho, they were not adapted for the aim of the spies. In the house of Rahab they might at least hope to remain unnoticed, for it was situated in a retired part of the town, immediately beside the town-wall, or rather on it, so that the wall of the town formed the back wall of the house. The argument which has been drawn from the fact that Rahab was afterwards received among the covenant-people, and gave proofs of a living faith, has already been excellently refuted by Calvin: “The circumstance that the woman who formerly sacrificed herself for the sake of shameful gain, was soon afterwards accepted among the chosen people, places the mercy of God in a clearer light, since it penetrated into an unchaste house, to save not only Rahab, but also her father and her brothers,” Just as ill applied is the trouble which many have given themselves to justify the lie by which Rahab deceived the ambassadors of the king. Buddeus maintains that since Rahab, by her faith in the God of Israel, was incorporated into His nation, and was thus freed from her obligations to the king and the citizens of Jericho, who were in opposition to God’s counsel respecting her, the king of Jericho had no right to demand the truth from her. But at the basis of this view lies a false theory of the duty of truthfulness. We should speak the truth, not because any one has a right to demand it from us, but because we are called to imitate God, who is a God of truth. There is, therefore, no doubt that Rahab made use of bad means for the furtherance of a good end. We cannot listen to arguments such as that of Grotius: “Ante evangelium mendacium viris bonis salutare culpae non esse ductum.” The other question is more difficult, whether Rahab did right in assisting the Israelites, to the injury of her native town. But here the question can only be how, not whether, the act is to be justified; for the faith of Rahab, and the act to which it gave rise, are commended in two passages in the Holy Scriptures, Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25. The remark by which Buddeus tries to justify Rahab against the former objection, applies better here. The belief that the God of Israel was the true God, that the possession of the town belonged to His people and would accrue to them, released her from obligations from which no human argument can ever release, since she was already spiritually accepted by this faith. Her act cannot be condemned unless the bestowment of the land of Canaan on the Israelites be regarded as an error. If this be established, she did nothing further than assent to the divine decree. In this, indeed, there might have been a mixture of sinful self-seeking, without which it might not have happened. As to the faith of Rahab, extolled by the apostles, Calvin has already well shown how it revealed itself. Fear of the Israelites, produced by the account of their wonderful passage through the Red Sea (comp. Exodus 15:14 ff.), and by their victories over the kings beyond the Jordan, in which the Israelites had shown that the servile and cowardly spirit which they had brought with them out of Egypt had now quite left them (comp. Numbers 22:2; Joshua 2:10-11), was common to Rahab with her people. But she differed from them in this respect, that while they made impotent resistance, she on the other hand grasped the only expedient, calm and joyful submission to the decree of God. Her people might conclude from what had occurred, the truth of which they could not deny, that the Israelites were favoured by a God of exceptional power; but she rises above these polytheistic notions: for her the God of Israel is the only and almighty Ruler of heaven and earth. Her companions put their trust in the strong and lofty walls of Jericho: Rahab in faith rises above the visible; she sees the walls already thrown down, the Israelites masters of the town. With reference to this narrative, we must remark in passing, that Luther is quite correct in his opinion that the spies were concealed under flax-stalks. The opinion of many, that the text refers to cotton, which ripens about the time at which the spies came to Jericho, and whose capsules were laid on the roof to dry, is now acknowledged to be erroneous; comp. Keil on Joshua 2:6. They were flax-stalks (in those districts flax attains a height of more than three feet, and the thickness of a reed—hence tree-flax), which were piled up on the flat roof, to be dried by the hot sun-rays. The mountain in which the spies concealed themselves is probably that situated to the west, near Jerusalem, where none would look for them, because it lay deeper in the land. From here they could return in safety to Joshua, after the space of three days, when all search for them had been relinquished and they were believed to be far beyond the Jordan. Joshua now advanced with the Israelites to the Jordan. This happened, as we learn from Joshua 3:2, three days after the summons to the people to prepare for crossing the river. On the evening of the same day on which they arrived at the Jordan—and not, as Buddeus and others maintain, on the evening of the following day—the Israelites were instructed by the elders how they should act on the march. They were enjoined not to approach within a certain distance of the ark of the covenant. The object of this prohibition is expressly given in Joshua 3:4. The words, “for ye have not passed this way heretofore,” show Israel how very much they were in need of this guiding-star in a way which was quite unknown to them and full of danger. In this respect the ark of the covenant performed the same service for Israel as the pillar of cloud in the march through the wilderness, which had ceased to go before them since the time of Moses. “But if the nation had followed the ark on foot, then those who were next to it would have so concealed it that those farther away from it would neither have seen it, nor have been able to recognise the way whither it led.” Joshua further commands the people to sanctify themselves, because on the following day God will do great things among them. This consecration consisted first of all in outward ceremonies, in the washing of clothes, etc., comp. Exodus 19:14. But it is clear that the proximate was not the ultimate, from the whole conception of God which is set up in the New Testament, according to which outward consecration can only be a symbol of that which is internal, and can only come into consideration as a means of exhorting to it. The passage took place, we are expressly told, at a time when the Jordan, otherwise comparatively easy to cross, was very much swollen, so that it filled its high bed, and even overflowed it, which is always the case in harvest time. The cause of this rising in the middle of April (for this is harvest time in Palestine) is probably not the melting of the snow on the high mountains of Lebanon and anti-Lebanon, but an emptying of the Sea of Tiberias, which reaches its highest level at the end of the rainy season: comp. Rob. ii. p. 506. Jesus Sirach also bears witness to this swelling when he says, chap. sir 24:36, “Knowledge has come from the law of Moses, as the Euphrates and the Jordan at the time of harvest;” comp. 1 Chron. 13:15, where it is mentioned as an act of heroism that some had crossed the Jordan at this time. The accounts of later travellers are in harmony with this. Volney says that the Jordan towards the Dead Sea is in no part more than from 70 to 80 feet wide, and 10 to 12 feet deep; but in winter it swells to the breadth of a quarter of an hour (?). In March it is at the fullest. When Buckingham passed over the Jordan in January of the year 1816, the horses waded through without fatigue. Already, in February, he found a river near the Jordan, the Hieromax or Mandhûr, far broader and deeper than the Jordan in the neighbourhood of Jericho; which was 120 feet wide when it reached the Jordan, and so deep that the horses could scarcely wade through. On this point compare Robinson, ii. p. 502 ff., who strongly opposes the false notion that the Jordan with its waters covers the whole Ghor. But he is wrong in denying that the מלאעלכלגדותיו in Joshua 3:15 means, it overflowed its banks: compare the parallel passage, Isaiah 8:7, and Keil on this passage. The overflow did not extend over the whole breadth of the Ghor, but probably that part of the shore where there was vegetation, comp. Keil. How little the passage over the Jordan can be explained from natural causes, already appears from the fact that afterwards, even at the time when the Jordan was not swollen, it was no uncommon occurrence for whole bands of enemies to be drowned in its tides, when they had to pass over it on their retreat from Jerusalem, and missed its few fords. The great aversion of rationalistic interpreters appears from the remark of Maurer, that the river had probably before that time flatter shores and less depth. Indeed, we learn from Joshua 2:7, that even in the time of the swelling the fords of the Jordan could be crossed by some at a venture, but for a whole army, a whole nation, these fords were of no avail. And the story of the miraculous passage could never have been formed and retained among Israel if a natural passage had been possible. The natural relations lay constantly before the eyes of the people, among whom faith in this miracle had the deepest root. The way in which the passage through the Jordan took place is thus given in Joshua 3:16. As soon as the priests that bare the ark of the covenant touched the water of the Jordan, the waters which came down from above stood up, not in the place where the priests stood, but far higher, at a town called Adam, not otherwise known, situated on the same side as Zarethan, which was better known at that time: הַרְחֵקמְאֹדבְּאָדָםהָעִידאֲשֶׁרמִצַדצצָֽרְתָן, where the Masoretes try to read מאדם instead of the באדם which they misunderstood. The water of the lower part of the river now flowed upwards into the Dead Sea. Thus there arose a long, dry stretch, through which the Israelites could pass in very wide columns, and therefore in a comparatively short space of time. The priests did not remain standing on the near shore, as Buddeus maintains; but as soon as the water left the place where they first touched it, they stepped into the middle of the stream with the ark of the covenant, comp. Joshua 3:17. There they served the whole nation for a northern bulwark, as it were, and did not leave this place until the whole passage was accomplished. We have still a few general remarks to make on the whole occurrence. It will not do to place it in the sphere of the impossible, for even the ordinarycourse of nature presents analogies. It is known that in earthquakes, and even apart from these—as, for example, the Zacken in Silesia, or Zinksee—rivers and seas have frequently remained standing for a time, have gone back, emptied themselves, and dried up in a short space of time. This does not indeed explain our event. The drying up would not have taken place just when the bearers of the ark of the covenant set their feet into the river, and have continued just till the whole passage was accomplished, etc. Yet the analogy shows this much, that we need have no hesitation in assuming that, by an extraordinary working of divine omnipotence, a thing happened in this case which appears elsewhere as produced by an ordinary working of the same power, provided that causes can be proved worthy such an extraordinary working of God. And this is here the case in the highest degree. Everything was intended to bring to the consciousness of the Israelites the fact that they owed the occupation of the land, not to their own might, but only to divine power. In the justification of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea, the miraculous passage across the Jordan is also justified. The former, which had taken place forty years before, had already passed very much away from the eyes of the present generation. In the face of such great and manifold dangers, they were the more in need of being strengthened in faith, in proportion to the fewness of the manifestations of divine grace during the long period which had elapsed in the dying out of the sinful generation. The object was to show the nation that God’s power was not limited to His instruments, that its operations had not ceased with the death of Moses. It was necessary to awaken them to confidence in their new leader, Joshua, in order to secure his efficacy. It was likewise necessary that the assertion of the Israelites, that God had given them the land of Canaan, should be confirmed in a solemn way. At the same time it was made impossible for insolent arrogance to excuse itself by their example. Only thus did the conquest of Canaan appear in its true light, as a divine judgment. When the passage through the Jordan had been accomplished, Joshua sought to perpetuate the remembrance of the event by a twofold memorial. Twelve men, whom he had already chosen for this object before the passage (comp. Joshua 3:12), had to bring twelve stones from the place in the middle of the Jordan where the ark of the covenant rested, and of these a monument was erected, Joshua 4:1-8. Twelve other stones were set up in the middle of the Jordan, in the spot where the priests had stood; perhaps piled one upon another in such a way that they were visible at low water-mark. Thus a new monument was added to those which had come down from the time of the patriarchs, and which the Israelites in their relation to God remembered now, immediately on reentering the land after so long an absence—a herald which, if dumb, yet none the less loudly testified that heaven and earth were subject to the God of Israel; that Israel owed their land to this God alone, and could only retain possession of it by faithful adherence to Him; and to this, the new monument urgently exhorted. It is impossible to compute the influence which must have been exercised by the fact, that gradually almost every town in the promised land brought back to the memory of the Israelites the history of former times, by the remembrance of events which happened there, by its name, or by monuments. On all sides they were surrounded by testimonies of God’s omnipotence and mercy, and of the faith of their forefathers. And just because the sacred historians recognised the importance of such a testimony, are they so careful to record the fact of any place in the promised land being hallowed in this way.
After the passage the army set up their camp in the place which was afterwards called Gilgal. Then Joshua undertook the circumcision, which had been neglected for so long a period. The cause of this omission is attributed to the fact, that Moses attached no great importance to circumcision, not to mention views which are wholly untenable, such as that of Bertheau; but the general opinion is this (comp. Clericus, Buddeus), that circumcision could not well have been performed, because they had no permanent abode, but were always obliged to break up when the pillar of cloud and fire gave the sign, and because the children, who were sick from circumcision, could not so easily be removed. But it is evident that this reason does not suffice to explain the omission, as Calvin shows very satisfactorily. However much the neglect might have been excused by circumstances, no inconvenience, no danger, could absolve from obedience to so holy a command, which had been given to Abraham with the words, “The uncircumcised soul shall be cut off from his people,” and the neglect of which, had threatened the lawgiver himself with death. Circumcision was the act by which membership in the covenant-nation was sealed, the basis of acceptance among the people of God, of participation in all their blessings. The assertion of Clericus, that circumcision was given up because it could not always be accomplished on the eighth day after birth, to which by the law it was unalterably attached, comp. Genesis 17:12, is refuted by the circumstance that Joshua now has all the Israelites circumcised, without distinction of age. From this it follows that the performance of circumcision on the eighth day was not so indispensable as circumcision itself, which is equally shown by the example of Moses’ son. Again, this view rests on the utterly incorrect idea, that during the last thirty-eight years of the wandering the Israelites were continually on the march. We have already remarked, that during nearly the whole of this period they had their headquarters in the Arabah. Calvin has apprehended the right view. When it is said that all the people born in the wilderness are uncircumcised, the short period from the exodus out of Egypt to the sinning of the Israelites is left out of account. The consequence of this sin was the rejection of the whole generation then living—they were doomed to destruction. As a sign of this rejection, Moses would not suffer circumcision to continue; the fathers were strongly reminded of their sin when they saw that their children lacked the sign which distinguished them from the heathen. The objection which has been brought against this recently by Kurtz, viz. that God still gave the Israelites other tokens of His mercy that had not yet quite departed from them, such as the presence of the pillar of cloud and fire, the manna, etc., Calvin meets by comparison with a father who wrathfully lifts his hand against his son, as if he would drive him away altogether, while with the other hand he holds him back, frightening him by blows and threats, but yet not wishing him to leave his home. And now, on the entrance into the land of promise, immediately after God had again made Himself particularly known to Israel, the act was undertaken which restored to the people their dignity as a people of God. It was a proof of living faith that Joshua and the people performed this act just at this time. This follows even from what has been said on the subject by a writer, who looks at the thing merely from the standpoint of natural, carnal wisdom. Bauer says, Handb. d. Hebr. Nation, vol. ii. p. 10: “It might have been expected that he would at once have fallen upon the terrified inhabitants; but instead of this, he occupies his army with religious ceremonies—with circumcision. During this whole time the nation was incapable of taking up arms and driving away the enemy. To what danger did Joshua expose himself and his people from holy zeal!” This must be partially conceded. The greatness of the danger appears from the narrative, Genesis 34. Circumcision could have been done much more conveniently and safely before the passage over the Jordan. But, on the other side, it must not be overlooked that there was much which had lightened this struggle of faith to Joshua and the Israelites. They had just experienced God’s miraculous power. How could they doubt that this power would protect them in a matter which they had undertaken at His command? It was not possible that God would take away beforehand the panic fear which had fallen upon the Canaanites, in consequence of the passage through the Jordan. This is expressly stated in Joshua 5:1, in order to remove the incomprehensibility of Joshua’s determination to perform circumcision. And Michaelis has observed that a part of the nation was already circumcised: all those who had been born before the ban was laid upon Israel, which only snatched away those who had been grown up at the time of the exodus from Egypt. This will teach us what estimate is to be placed on the views of Paulus and Maurer, who attack even the historical truth of the event by the remark: “The resolve to make the whole army sick at one time, and incapable of fighting, would have been impossible.” The historical truth is confirmed not only by this narrative, and by the name of the place, whose legitimate derivation even Maurer is obliged to confess, but also by the great honour which Gilgal afterwards enjoyed as a place consecrated by the memory of former times, comp. Hosea 4:15, Hosea 9:15, Hosea 12:12; Amos 4:1, Amos 4:4-5, if we follow the prevalent view, according to which the Gilgal in the passages referred to is identical with ours. Keil, in his Commentary on Joshua, Joshua 5:9 and Joshua 9:6, and on the Books of the Kings, Leipzig 1845, p. 323 ff., has combated this view. He has endeavoured to prove that our Gilgal occurs only in Micah 6:5, where the prophet alludes to this event as well-established and universally known, that it never rose to a district, and that all other passages of the Old Testament refer to another Gilgal, in the neighbourhood of Mounts Ebal and Gerizim. But against Keil there is this argument, that there is no foundation for the sanctification of his Gilgal. In the conclusion of the account of the circumcision, Joshua 5:9, we read, “This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.” These words have been very variously interpreted. The explanation most worthy of note is Spener’s, de legib. ritual. i. c. 4, sec. 4, allowed by Clericus and Michaelis. According to them, the circumcised Egyptians despised the uncircumcised Hebrews. To take away the reproach, that it might no longer be cast at them. This view is untenable, because, even granting that circumcision had already been introduced among the Egyptians, the whole nation was not circumcised, but only the priests. How then could those who were themselves uncircumcised reproach others with neglect of circumcision? The true explanation has already been given on another occasion. The reproach of the Egyptians is unquestionably what put Israel to shame in the eyes of the Egyptians, giving cause for mockery; but this mockery did not extend to neglect of circumcision in abstracto, but to the special circumstances under which this neglect took place, regarded as a real declaration by God that He had rejected His people. The giving back of circumcision is looked upon as the restoration of the covenant, and thus a setting aside of the mockery which was based upon its abolition. In this sense mockery concerning the neglect of circumcision might proceed even from those who were not themselves circumcised. Soon after the circumcision the Israelites celebrated the passover also at Gilgal. This, too, had not been observed since the passover of the second year after the exodus out of Egypt, on Mount Sinai, Numbers 9:1-2. Here also the reasons assigned by Clericus, Buddeus, and others, for the neglect are very insufficient. They suppose that the Israelites had not enough of sheep. But the close connection in which the celebration of the passover-feast stands with circumcision in the book of Joshua points to another cause. “We learn this more accurately from Exodus 12:48, where it is said, “No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.” How, and why the keeping of the passover presupposes circumcision, we have already shown. Participation in the sacrament of the passover gave those who were members of the covenant-nation a pledge of the forgiveness of their sins of weakness. How then could the passover be celebrated when there was no longer any covenant, no covenant-nation, no covenant-sign? According to this, it is apparent that the passover was not kept during the thirty-eight years, and there can be no doubt whatever as to the explanation of the circumstance. On the sixteenth day of the first month, the day following the principal day of the passover, the Israelites began to eat of the new corn of the land. Hitherto they had eaten of the older stock. This day was, to wit, that on which the Israelites were obliged by the law to present to God the first ears of corn. Leviticus 23:9 ff. They were in this way reminded to regard all natural benefits of God as products of the land of promise, as covenant-gifts from God, whose continuance was dependent on that of the covenant, which was sealed to them through the passover. They were reminded of the duty to be grateful, to repay the blessing of the covenant by faithful adherence to it. This is the ground of the union between the natural and the historical sides of the passover.
Joshua then marched upon Jericho with his army. While he was there alone, probably occupied in deliberation how the town could best be attacked; almost despairing on account of the difficulty of taking a well-fortified town, defended by a numerous nation, with a people utterly ignorant of the tactics of besieging; praying to the Lord that he would be mighty in the weakness of His people, in an ἔκστασις he had a vision. An unknown man appears to him with a drawn sword, whom at first he takes for a warrior, as we learn from his question whether he is friend or enemy, but soon becomes aware of his more than human dignity. That he could not have regarded him as a common angel, but rather as the Angel of God κατ’ ἐξοχὴν—His messenger and revealer—is most clearly shown by the circumstance that he calls himself the prince of the army of Jehovah—i.e. the prince and ruler of the angels, of the heavenly host of God, whose name Jehovah Zebaoth he bears—in contradistinction to the earthly one which Joshua commanded. The denotation has reference to Joshua’s fears and embarrassments. The courage of the earthly general is raised by the sight and the word of the heavenly General, who, with all his host, will contend for him and with him. Moreover, he commands Joshua to put off his shoes, because the place where he stands is holy; and in Joshua 6:2 he is called Jehovah. There is no doubt that the speech of Jehovah to Joshua, given in chap. 6:2 ff., was communicated to him by this angel-prince. For otherwise the apparition would have no object, the angel-prince would say nothing more than served as a preparation for a subsequent revelation, while he made Joshua acquainted with his person, and filled him with holy awe, thus securing the impression of the communications he was about to make. Even Clericus, who maintains that Joshua 6 has reference to another divine revelation, is obliged to confess: Mirum est angelum ad Josuam venisse sine ullis mandatis ullisae promissio. This false notion is due to the circumstance, that it has not been observed that Joshua 6:1 only forms a parenthesis, which explains the contrast between the visible and the divine command—a firmly-closed town was to be taken by a mere ceremony. The fact that the Angel of the Lord appears with a drawn sword, and that he calls himself the commander of the army of God, points primarily to that which he intends to do with reference to Jericho, and then generally to that character of the activity of God, which was the prevailing one in the time of Joshua, to the problem which had to be resolved in those days, giving strength in the opposition which was then directed specially against the people of God. The Angel of God with the drawn sword is the fitting emblem of the time of Joshua. This vision, in connection with that recounted in the very beginning of the book, which was granted to Joshua while he was still beyond the Jordan, and which serves to supplement this, forms the counterpart to the call of Moses on Sinai, comp. Joshua 5:15—“Loose thy shoe from off thy foot,” etc.—which agrees almost verbally with Exodus 3:5, and serves to connect the two events. The shoes are simply to be put off because they are dusty and soiled; and the artificial explanations of Baumgarten, Bähr, and Keil are already rejected, because the same custom of putting off the shoes before entering the sanctuary is found even among the heathen and Mohammedans, from whom the thought of “the impure earth lying under a curse,” which was trodden with the shoes, is far removed. The following are the commands which the Angel of the Lord gives to Joshua, after the promises contained in his appearance and name: For six days the army is to compass the city in silence, and the seven priests who precede the ark of the covenant are to play on the trumpets. On the seventh day the same thing is to be repeated seven times. After this has been done for the seventh time, the people are to raise a loud war-cry. Then the walls are to fall in. The number seven points to the fact, that the whole thing rests upon the covenant of the Lord with Israel. Blowing with trumpets is a symbolic act, consecrated by the law. In Numbers 10:9 we read: “And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the Lord your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.” According to this, the blowing with the trumpets was a signal by which the Lord’s people showed Him their need, and besought His help—a symbolic Κύριε ἐλήισον. And because the Lord Himself appointed this signal, just as certainly as they heard the sound of the trumpets so certainly might they believe that the Lord would come to their assistance. Calvin has already shown well what a great trial of faith this command was for the Israelites. To the carnal mind the thing must have appeared most absurd. It speaks in its latest representatives of “a tedious and ineffectual seven days’ marching round.” Carnal zeal must have led to impatience, since apparently nothing was done; carnal wisdom must have feared that the Canaanites, perceiving the foolishness of their enemy, and encouraged by it, would venture upon dangerous sallies. Because the Israelites followed the command absolutely, turning their gaze completely from the visible, and resisting all these temptations, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says truly, that the walls of Jericho fell down by faith. What Ewald observes with reference to this narrative, which in his opinion is traditionary, applies much better to the event itself, viz.: “The inner truth, that even the strongest walls must fall before Jehovah’s will and the fearless obedience of His people, has clothed itself in a palpable, external garment.” The event was designed to impress this truth upon the minds of Israel for all time, the truth contained in the words, “By my God I leaped over a wall,” and “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” Jericho has a symbolic signification. That which happened to the fortress commanding the entrance into the territory of the Canaanites, prefigured first of all what would universally happen to Canaanitish supremacy. In the walls of Jericho, at the last blowing of the trumpets, faith saw the overthrow of the Canaanitish power, which to natural reason was apparently insuperable. But if Jericho primarily represents the Canaanitish supremacy, it is also excellently adapted to be a type of the dominion of the world generally. We have even before us a speaking symbol of the victory of the church over all the powers of the world. The narrative has been falsely interpreted, as showing that all action on the part of Israel was absolutely excluded in the falling of the walls. We can infer only this, that the result of the action proceeded from God alone. For this reason the action itself is put quite into the background; but it is not denied by a single word. In the πεσεῖταιαὐτόματατὰτείχη of the LXX. the αὐτόματα is a pure interpolation. If it had been the author’s intention to say this, he would have said it more distinctly, as in Joshua 6:20. It is natural to the pious, thankful mind to pay little attention to the mere human element. Here, indeed, it was insignificant throughout, for in this case all human hope of success was wanting, all natural conditions were absent. By divine command, the whole town was devoted to destruction, and in destruction, to God; what could not be destroyed (metal) fell to the treasure of the sanctuary, which is already mentioned in the time of Moses (Numbers 31:54), according to which a portion of the spoil taken from the Midianites was brought into the sanctuary, no part of the booty being given to the Israelites. Joshua pronounced a curse on any one who should build up the town again. This proceeding at the conquest of Jericho, so different from that characterizing the conquest of later towns—which Ewald in vain tries to reduce to a political reason, in the spirit of J. D. Michaelis, and that a very shallow one—is explained in this way. We have already remarked, that the judgment on the Canaanites differed only from the Deluge and the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrha in this respect, that the latter took place immediately, and was totally destructive; while the former was indirect, and for the advantage of those who were the instruments of its accomplishment. This latter method caused the punitive judgment to be readily misunderstood; to guard against which misunderstanding, it was necessary that the destruction in the first conquered city should be complete. It was designed to serve as a lasting memorial of divine punitive justice. The former invariably represents the compulsory dedication to God of those who have obstinately refused to consecrate themselves voluntarily to Him: it is the manifestation of divine justice in the destruction of those who, during their existence, would not serve as a mirror for it. The curse pronounced on the Canaanites was in general directed only against those persons alone who properly formed the object of it. But in order to show that the earlier possessors were exterminated, not through human caprice, but through God’s revenge, that their land and possessions did not come to the Israelites as a robbery, but only as a God-given loan, which He now again bestowed upon another vassal, to see if perhaps this one would faithfully perform the services to which he was bound, the curse on the first conquered place extended to the city itself, and to all possessions. Again, it was necessary to awaken the Israelites to a consciousness of the fact, that the whole possession which was given to them was only a gift of the free grace of God. And how could this be done more effectually than by God externally reserving to Himself His right of property in the first town? Finally, this also was for the Israelites a trial of faith and obedience. It must have been difficult for them, after such long hardship, to destroy the houses which offered them a convenient dwelling, and the possessions which promised abundant maintenance. When Joshua lays a curse on him who would build up the town again, it is to be observed that to build a town is here equivalent to restoring it as such; fortifying it with walls and gates: for it is these which make a place a town in the Hebrew idea. Already, in the time of the Judges and of David, therewas another Jericho on the same site, which might be called a town in a wide sense: comp. Judges 3:13; 2 Samuel 10:5 Sam. 10:5. Not until Ahab’s time was the curse of Joshua literally fulfilled on Hiel, who, disregarding it, ventured to restore the town, 1 Kings 16:34. The arguments by which the fact that Joshua pronounced a curse on Jericho has been attacked in recent times, are self-condemnatory. It is said that the curse put into the mouth of Joshua bears a poetic character, as if this were not necessarily involved in the nature of the thing; and again, “It would have been unworthy a “wise man to prevent his own people rebuilding a town in a place so well situated, near the fords of the Jordan,”—an opinion expressed by Paulus, and based on a total misapprehension of the power of religion on the mind, and of the spirit which animated Joshua, and which may be considered as a recognition of the higher life prevailing in Israel, as a testimonium ab hoste. Moreover there are events externally analogous even in heathen antiquity. Curses were also pronounced on Ilion, Fidenae, Carthage: comp. Maurer, The Book of Joshua, 1831, p. 60.
Rahab, with her household, was received into the covenant-nation. The statement in Joshua 6:23, that she and her people were obliged to remain without the camp, refers only to the time before her change. She married Salma, an ancestral prince in Judah. Boaz was descended from them; and from Boaz and Ruth the kings of Judah; so that Rahab appears in the genealogy of Christ, the son of David after the flesh: comp. Ruth 4:20 ff.; 1 Chronicles 2:11 Chron. 2:11 ff.; Matthew 1:5, where Rahab is first mentioned.
