E. The Taking of Jericho (6:1-27)

One of the most widely known narratives in the Bible is the taking of Jericho. The march around the city for seven days, the shouts and blowing of the ram’s horn trumpets, the crumbling of Jericho’s walls—all are dramatic and unforgettable.

The fall of Jericho is also a prime example of difficulties that sometimes arise when biblical records are compared with archaeological findings. Ancient Jericho is today a tell, or ruin mound, beside the copious spring that waters the oasis of Jericho on the edge of the Jordan Valley, 670 feet below sea level. Jericho was the second site in the Holy Land (after Jerusalem) to be excavated; archaeologists have dug there in four campaigns. The first was under Charles Warren in 1867 and 1868. He concluded that the tell was the remains of an ancient castle, and he did not connect it in any way with the story recorded in Joshua.

The first major excavation was by Sellin and Watzinger in four seasons from 1907 to 1911. They concluded that the tell was unoccupied when the Israelites entered the land. John Garstang excavated from 1930 to 1936. He judged that the city had indeed been destroyed as recorded in Joshua; therefore, it probably had been destroyed by Joshua. Kathleen Kenyon was the last to excavate Jericho, from 1952 to 1958. She concluded that the destruction all the excavators had found was too early to be ascribed to Israel under Joshua. Most recently new studies of the site are again affirming the accuracy of the biblical records.

Before proceeding, we should note that it is not necessary to have archaeological “proof” in order to have confidence in the biblical record of an event. Archaeology seldom can prove events; archaeology and history are different disciplines, with differing methodologies.

In by far the greater number of instances, when archaeology, history, or another discipline can be brought to bear on the biblical record, its findings tend rather to confirm than to contradict it. Despite the statements of some, there exists no solid, substantial evidence from history or archaeology that disproves the biblical record. Christians can be glad of that, but it is more to be expected than marveled at. The Bible’s reliability and authority have been demonstrated over millennia. Archaeological or historical affirmation, though welcome, is not essential to the Christian’s confidence in the revelation of God.

But evaluation of all the excavation records from Jericho (most of Kenyon’s data was not published until the early 1980s) reveals that many details of the Joshua account of Jericho’s destruction have parallels in the archaeological record of the city’s destruction about 1400 b.c. That record reveals:

1. Jericho was strongly fortified (cf. 2:5, 7, 15; 6:5, 20);

2. The attack occurred just after the spring harvest (cf. 2:6; 3:15; 5:10);

3. Jericho’s citizens could not flee with their newly harvested food supplies (cf. 6:1);

4. The siege was short (cf. 6:15);

5. The city walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (cf. 6:20);

6. The city was not plundered (cf. 6:17-18);

7. The city was burned (cf. 6:24). (Wood, 57)

The archaeological record seems to preserve an independent witness to the circumstances of Joshua’s capture of Jericho.

A second serious concern arises from the narrative of Jericho’s destruction. This is the nature and intention of the ban (Heb. herem; cf. Eng.—from Arab.—“harem”) under which Joshua placed Jericho, at God’s command. The events are clear: All the inhabitants of the city were killed; the city and all it contained were burned; the only exceptions were Rahab and her family who were spared because of her faith and the oath of the spies; all metal objects were put into the treasury of the tabernacle; the metal would not have perished, only melted, in the fire.

But why were all the city’s inhabitants put to the sword? Why would God command such a thing? In considering these questions, we first must trust the justice, integrity, love, and wisdom of God. We probably never will understand fully.

Two partial answers can be suggested. The first lies in God’s sovereignty. This is emphasized by the fact that Jericho was God’s battle, not Joshua’s. Joshua only directed the disposition of the city after God had given him the victory. The God who created human beings has the sovereign right to destroy them. The theological heirs of John Wesley affirm, along with other Christians, the truth of God’s absolute sovereignty.

The second answer lies in God’s justice. A God who called for wanton, capricious destruction would be reprehensible to the sense of justice with which humans have been created. We are not told the details of Canaan’s sin, but already God had informed Abraham (Ge 15:16) that “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure” (here “Amorite” stands for the entire Canaanite population).

After a great space of years in which to repent, Canaan instead had completed its iniquity. God, the righteous Judge, declared the day of grace for Canaan over. Joshua and the Israelites were God’s instruments of judgment. Whatever the extent of Canaan’s sin, God’s judgment upon them was just. Whenever God declares, “Enough,” and brings judgment upon a people, we may be sure that continued grace and mercy would not really have been either gracious, merciful, or just. With that, we must trust God to judge rightly.