Abstract
The Book of Joshua records divinely sanctioned conquest, war, and violence, and it is sacred Scripture. Nonetheless, stereotypes that dismiss the Old Testament God as a God of wrath, not of mercy, often point to Joshua as the prime exemplar of “old” texts that should be avoided, minimized, or superceded by the New Testament. The essays in this issue offer constructive alternatives to this simplistic reading of Joshua.
In the lead essay, Daniel Hawk overviews the “truth-telling” of Joshua as historical narrative, as a narrative of origins, and as scriptural narrative. With an evocative connection to “American national mythology,” Hawk prods North American Christians to read Joshua not only as “citizens of the new Israel but also through Canaanite eyes,” and thus “to confess the truth about conquest . . . and to facilitate necessary steps toward justice and reconciliation.”
Carolyn Sharp addresses the brutality in the Book of Joshua by focusing on a key hermeneutical question, “Are you [God] for us, or for our adversaries?” (Josh 5:13). Using a feminist and postcolonial reading of the narratives about Rahab, Achan, and the Gibeonites, she concludes that Joshua invites contemporary readers to inhabit intense liminal moments in which “Joshua can never be ‘for us’ in any easy way.” Even so, “faithful readers who practice interpretative courage may dare to trust that through scholarship and Bible studies, through preaching and other means of cherishing this difficult and dangerous Scripture text, the hermeneutical victory may yet be ours.”
Jerome Creach’s close reading of the distribution of the land in Joshua 13–21 provides a cogent argument for why this text is not, as commonly assumed, “devoid of theological and homiletical value.” Creach concludes that “the land is received like torah, as God’s gift that comes at God’s command. . . . Like torah, it is meant to remind its recipients of God’s goodness and provide constant opportunity for faithfulness.”
How shall we obey the God of Joshua, who “authorizes and summons to violence”? Walter Brueggemann shows why the “acute embarrassment” of Scripture’s testimony to such a God invites a “covenantal obedience that is dialogical and requires more strenuous engagement than simple acceptance of divine resolve.” As Brueggemann puts, it, “YHWH requires ‘obedient partners’ who are advocates for YHWH’s better self, who are advocates for the vulnerable who stand in the path of the divine propensity to violence.”
“Wherever the mighty misuse their power and offer some spiritual justification for their actions,” Stephen Farris says, “preaching from Joshua is difficult.” Many choose to avoid the challenge. Given so many other edifying texts in the Bible, why “borrow trouble by turning to Joshua?” One reason to do so is because “[t]o take the trouble from a text is to suck out its life. To avoid trouble in a sermon preached on that text is to rob it of its potential healing power.” It is better to name the trouble, even if it requires speaking against some aspects of Joshua, and then, following Augustine, to seek the “nourishment of charity” that leads to “increased love for God and our neighbor.”