The Lord Speaks to Joshua
13:1 When Joshua was very old, the LORD told him, “You are very old, and a great deal of land remains to be conquered. 13:2 This is the land that remains: all the territory of the Philistines and all the Geshurites, 13:3 from the Shihor River east of Egypt northward to the territory of Ekron (it is regarded as Canaanite territory), including the area belonging to the five Philistine lords who ruled in Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron, as well as Avvite land 13:4 to the south; all the Canaanite territory, from Arah in the region of Sidon to Aphek, as far as Amorite territory; 13:5 the territory of Byblos and all Lebanon to the east, from Baal Gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo Hamath. 13:6 I will drive out before the Israelites all who live in the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth Maim, all the Sidonians; you be sure to parcel it out to Israel as I instructed you.” 13:7 Now, divide up this land among the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh.”
“A great deal of land remains to be conquered” – This appears to conflict with Josh 11:16ff –
11:16 Joshua conquered the whole land, including the hill country, all the Negev, all the land of Goshen, the lowlands, the Arabah, the hill country of Israel and its lowlands, 11:17 from Mount Halak on up to Seir, as far as Baal Gad in the Lebanon Valley below Mount Hermon.
The usual critical approach to ascribe the ‘discrepancy’ to the different documentary strands that make up the book (so N.H. Snaith, S.R. Driver).
Adrian Jeffers has argued that the book of Joshua records both ‘ideal’ and ‘real’ history. Examples of the former include
(a) The boundaries of the promised land, Joshua 1:3, 4; 13:1-6, Genesis 15:18; Numbers 34:2-12, etc.
(b) The extent of the conquest, with Joshua 11:16f representing the ideal, and the present passage the real.
(c) The settlement of Canaan. Various texts suggest that the allocation of land to the various tribes was carried out all at once (Joshua 13:7; 14:1, 2, 15-17; Numbers 26:52-56; 34:1ff). But Joshua 18 indicates that this was done over a period of time.
(d) The Levitical cities. According to Joshua 21, the Levitical families were allocated an average of 4 cities each. But other texts show that many of these cities did not come under Israelite control until much later, and it may well be that some of them were never occupied by priests or Levites.
(e) The ‘twelve tribe’ phenomenon. The ‘ideal’ of having twelve tribes is maintained by dividing the tribe of Joseph into two (Manasseh and Ephraim), and by resorting to the expedient of ‘half tribe’ when Manasseh itself is divided.
The ‘ideal history’ may be explained in the following terms:
1. Simplification. The writer of the Book of Joshua appears to use idealization for the purpose of presenting a simple, brief account, which may serve as an introduction (Joshua 1:3, 4), a summary (11:16ff.), or simply a generalization (Numbers 34:4, 5)…
2. The program not completed. It is evident that the story of the Conquest and Settlement of Israel in the Book of Joshua is but the initial stage of the program of God for Israel. Thus, the general statements (Joshua 11:16ff. and 21:43-45) that the Conquest was completed appear to indicate that as far as Joshua was concerned his part was completed (i.e., he was on schedule), though much remained to be done (this apparently was not part of his assignment). It was not until the time of David that the entire area of the “promised land” was captured by Israel, but even then it was not occupied by Israel nor did they drive out the inhabitants. Thus it is suggested that the complete fulfillment of this plan will not come until the return of Israel to Palestine in the “latter days.” In this connection notice the boundaries described in Ezek. 47:3-23, and the tribes enumerated in chapter 48.
3. The program not followed. It appears, for example, that ‘circumstances arose that hindered the implementation of the original program.’
Jeffers asks if the existence of ‘ideal’ history alongside ‘real’ history constitutes a moral problem. He cites Woudstra as saying that we have here:
‘a type of dogmatic history writing. Yet this history writing does not do violence to the actual facts, but looks at these facts from the ideal point of view of a complete obedience to Jahweh. This history writing is therefore truly ‘prophetical’…’
Jefffers concludes:
‘This appears to represent the principles seen throughout Scripture, namely, the sovereign will of God as opposed to
the finite ability of man. The Book of Joshua presents the divine program of Conquest and Settlement but at the same time the actual history of how this divine plan was imperfectly performed by finite human instruments. In the same way we see the divine program for the Church described in the New Testament, but the story of its implementation in
subsequent years of Church History (and even some in the Book of Acts) is poorly accomplished by man. Nevertheless, as with Joshua of old we have the promise of the final accomplishment of God’s program (Joshua 1:6 and Matthew 16:18).’