Original Meaning

The Conquest of Og of Bashan (3:1–11)

STANDING ON THE THRESHOLD of the Promised Land, the Israelites had one more battle to fight—against Og king of Bashan. The name Bashan refers to the mountain range north of the Jabbok River, east of the Sea of Galilee, as far as Mount Hermon southwest of Damascus (Deut. 32:14; Ps. 22:12[13]; Amos 4:1). Verse 10 suggests Og’s kingdom extended south to Salecah and Edrei (cf. 1:4). Situated strategically on a tributary of the Yarmuk, the southern border of Og’s territory, and on the King’s Highway, Edrei was to this king what Aroer was to Sihon (cf. above on v. 36).15 Ashtaroth (modern Tell Ashterah) was located approximately ten miles up the King’s Highway, twenty miles east of the Sea of Galilee.

Omitting a command from Yahweh to continue the campaign northward (cf. v. 24), Moses recalls rather matter-of-factly that the Israelites “turned and went up along the road toward Bashan,” as if this were merely one more stage in Israel’s itinerary of “turning” (2:1), “passing by” (2:8), “crossing” (2:13), and “setting out and passing through” (2:24) one land after another. Og interpreted the Israelites’ movements as a hostile military maneuver. Like Sihon (2:32), he mobilized his troops and challenged Israel to battle at Edrei.

Then the voice of Yahweh broke through to Moses with a word of encouragement and a challenge (v. 2). Yahweh encouraged him and his people not to fear, because he had already delivered Og, all his people, and his land into their hands. But as elsewhere in the Scripture, for every divine promise there is a call for human response. Yahweh challenged Moses to deal with Og exactly as he had with Sihon in Heshbon.

In verses 3–7 Moses describes the course of the battle. With stereotypical language, he begins with a summary statement reporting the divine involvement (“the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army”) and the human response (“we struck them down”). In the recollection that follows, Moses highlights the scope of the Israelites’ victory: (1) Yahweh delivered Og and all his people over to Israel; (2) they captured all his towns; (3) they took the entire Argob region; (4) all these towns were heavily fortified; (5) they imposed the law of ḥērem on all these towns; and (6) they took all the animals and spoils as booty. Furthermore, they struck them until not a single person survived (v. 3).

Clarifying the meaning of “too strong/high” in 2:36, verse 5 adds that the towns were fortified with high walls and gates. Since the fortified towns were not able to withstand Israel’s onslaught, it is not surprising that they also captured all the unwalled villages. Entering the towns, the Israelites annihilated the population according to the law of ḥērem and claimed all the livestock and property as booty (vv. 6–7).

Moses concludes his recollections of the battles against Sihon and Og with a summary statement of the Israelites’ conquests (v. 8). They took the Amorite region east of the Jordan from the Wadi Arnon in the south to Mount Hermon in the north (cf. Josh 12:5; 13:11).16 Verse 9 interrupts the review with another parenthetical comment, this time clarifying the reference to Mount Hermon. Apparently Mount Hermon was the Israelite name for a mountain that the Sidonians (representing the Phoenicians) called Hermon Sirion, and one that the Amorites (who previously controlled it) called Senir.17 In verse 10 Moses reiterates the scope of the Israelites’ conquests, focusing on the highlands. Moving from south to north, he lists the conquered regions.18

A final footnote at the end of Moses’ recollection of the defeat of Sihon and Og notes that as a Rephaite, Og was one of the last survivors of the gigantic pre-Amorite aboriginal peoples in this region.19 As concrete evidence of his size Moses refers to Og’s bed, which apparently was on display in Rabbah of Bene Ammon (the Ammonite capital) at the time this note was written. Og’s bed was impressive. It was huge: nine cubits long by four cubits wide (13.5 feet by 6 feet). And it was made of iron. Since iron was a precious metal in the Late Bronze Age, this was probably a bed made of wood and adorned with iron, similar to Solomon’s great throne, which 1 Kings 10:18 describes as (lit.) “a throne of ivory.”20 This note invites the ancient reader to check the narrator’s veracity and to confirm the magnitude of Israel’s victory.21

Bridging Contexts

WHAT PEOPLE OF FAITH can achieve. Moses’ recollections of the conquests of the Transjordanian Amorite kingdoms teach us what people of faith can achieve. In contrast to the previous generation, which through rebellion and unbelief had disqualified itself from entry into the Promised Land from Kadesh Barnea, this account shows there is no limit to what God is able to do for and through his people if they trust him. Sihon and Og, the giants of the Transjordan, symbolize all that was opposed to Yahweh. Whereas earlier in Hebron the scouts had incidentally observed the presence of gigantic figures (1:28), here the giants were in charge. By sending his people into the Rephaite heartland, Yahweh sent an early signal that when his people entered the conflict with faith and courage, no one could stand in their way. This provided the Israelites with an important precedent as they entered the Promised Land.

Principles of a theology of war. This narrative account illustrates several principles that underlie the Mosaic theology of war.22 Israel’s military engagements with outsiders were always deemed theological affairs. Although economic factors (e.g., the need for Lebensraum, “space to live”) and political ambition (kings’ desire for greater power) often contributed to the initiation and the conduct of war, like their ancient Near Eastern neighbors, the Israelites believed that ultimately God determined the outcome of all their military engagements. The Israelites’ wars of conquest, particularly their seizure of the land of Canaan, have often been referred to as “holy wars.”23 Although the expression rightly acknowledges the sacral nature of war in the Old Testament, because the expression never occurs in the Bible and because of its negative connotations today, the expression is best avoided and replaced with an expression like “Yahweh wars.”24

Although the theology of warfare reflected in Deuteronomy shares many features with perceptions of war among the surrounding nations,25 it also offers a distinctly Israelite perspective.

1. As the divine Commander-in-Chief, Yahweh identifies the military target. He excludes Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, and he zeroes in on the Amorite kings and their people in the Transjordan, presumably because they stood in the way of his people’s manifest destiny.

2. Yahweh initiates the war, telling the Israelites when to engage the enemy.

3. Yahweh determines the strategy for the war—in this instance, telling Israel to cross the Jordan, possess the land, and contend with him in battle (2:24), capturing the cities, annihilating the population, and claiming the property as booty (2:34–37).

4. Yahweh accompanies Israel into battle. Although there is no explicit reference here to Yahweh’s presence within the Israelite military camp, with an eye on 1:42, we may conclude that this is the case here as well.

5. Yahweh engages in psychological warfare, controlling the disposition of the enemy toward himself and toward Israel, so that ultimately his objectives are achieved. Specifically, Yahweh hardened the heart of the enemy king so he would reject overtures of peace (2:30), and he put the fear and dread of Israel on the peoples everywhere, demoralizing them totally (2:25).

6. Yahweh delivered the enemies and their lands into Israel’s hand (2:30–31, 33, 36; 3:3).

In this picture Israel functions as the army of Yahweh. But Moses says nothing about specific military actions taken by the Israelites. He states simply that they took the cities, imposed ḥērem on the population, and claimed the animals and property as booty, but he seems uninterested in the logistics of the campaign—how this unwieldy band of citizen soldiers marched from city to city, the weapons they used, how the battles were actually conducted, what methods they employed to capture the superbly fortified cities with walls and towers reaching to the sky and elaborate gate systems, or how they actually captured Sihon and Og. Moses’ silence on these matters throws into sharp relief his contention that the primary resources needed by the people for the battles ahead were courage and faith in Yahweh, who would fight for them.

In portraying Israel’s battles this way, especially his treatment of Sihon, Moses’ address forces the reader to contemplate the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom. Just as Yahweh had done to Pharaoh forty years earlier, he hardened the heart of Sihon in order that Yahweh’s goals might be achieved. But this did not rob Sihon of personal freedom to act, nor did it absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The divine action does not reduce him to a puppet on a string, nor does it make God into a divine puppeteer. Deuteronomy and the rest of the Scriptures affirm with equal vigor divine sovereignty over earthly affairs and human freedom and responsibility for one’s own conduct. How these two factors can both be true at the same time defies human logic. People of faith can only stand back in awe and wonder.

Contemporary Significance

SOME YEARS AGO MY son and his wife were involved in a Bible study going through the book of Joshua. The entire group was troubled by the Israelites’ treatment of the Canaanites. In fact, few issues in Old Testament interpretation are as difficult as the Lord’s command to the Israelites to dispossess the Canaanites and take over their land, along with his command to wipe out the Amorites east of the Jordan. How could a good God command the elimination of a whole race, including men, women, and children? Is this not genocide of the worst sort? And what is to stop us from carrying out similar actions in the name of God against entire peoples in our own time?

These texts are so troubling that many reject the Old Testament and its God because of this single issue, and many refuse the gospel of the New Testament because of its guilt by association, for the Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible. How should we answer these questions? While none of the following responses below is satisfying in and of itself, all represent factors to be considered in coming to grips with the issue.26

1. As Creator of all things and all human beings and as sovereign over all, God can do anything he wants with anyone and be right in doing so. He was Israel’s Commander-in-Chief. He accounts to no one for his actions or his commands, and by definition he does what is right. If he decides to command the Israelites to eliminate the Canaanites, he is perfectly within his rights. Obviously this answer will satisfy few but hardcore Calvinists.

2. The ways of God are a mystery. Since we will never completely understand him, we might as well relax with the questions in our minds. Isaiah 55:8–9 offers some consolation.

3. According to the biblical picture of the Canaanites, these peoples were extremely wicked, and their annihilation represented God’s judgment for their sin. The destruction of the Canaanites was neither the first nor the last time God would do this. The differences between the Canaanites’ fate and the fate of humanity (except for Noah’s family) as described in Genesis 6–9 involve scale and agency. With the Canaanites, as with many others in history, Yahweh used human beings rather than natural disasters or plagues and sickness (Lev. 26; Deut. 28).

4. God never intended for the Israelites to make the policy of ḥērem as a general policy toward outsiders. Deuteronomy 7:1 expressly identifies and thereby delimits the target peoples. The Israelites were not to follow these policies against Aramaeans or Edomites or Egyptians, or anyone else (cf. Deut. 20:10–18). Contrary to the way Christians have often used these texts in past history, this policy provides no justification at all for Christian atrocities committed against Jews and Muslims in the context of the Crusades or for Europeans’ claim to some sort of “manifest destiny” in their dispossession and slaughter of native North Americans.

5. The Canaanites suffered a fate that ultimately all sinners will face: the judgment of God. The difference between them and other lost peoples is that they (especially the children) met their doom earlier than most. But in the last analysis, apart from the grace of God we are all Canaanites, and it is only by divine grace that modern nations are not cut off as they were.

6. During biblical times people assumed a sense of corporate identity that is difficult for modern Westerners to understand. According to the ancient Near Eastern ideal, one found one’s significance and identity in relation to the community. When one member hurt, they all hurt; when one prospered, they all prospered (1 Cor. 12–14). Accordingly, few ancients would have objected to the fact that the general population shared the fate of kings and children shared the fate of their parents.

7. God’s elimination of the Canaanites was a necessary step in the history of salvation. In order for Israel to achieve the goals that God had established for them—that they might declare to the world his glory and grace—they needed a clean slate and a holy land. Because they resisted Israel’s migration through their territory, the war of extermination against Canaanites was extended to Sihon and Og.

8. Although the Canaanites as a whole were targets of God’s judgment, they had at least forty years of advance warning (see Rahab’s confession in Josh. 2:8–11). The conquest of Canaan caught few by surprise. Rahab illustrates the gracious fact that any individual who declared faith in Yahweh would be spared. Rahab’s incorporation into the community of faith was so complete that she became the ancestor of Jesus! (Matt. 1).

9. God really does not play favorites. Yes, he chose Abraham and his descendants to be his covenant people, but Deuteronomy warns the Israelites repeatedly that if they ever forget God and behave like Canaanites, they will experience the same fate as the Canaanites (4:25–28; 7:25–26; 8:19–20; 28:15–68).

None of these answers will satisfy everyone, and none of them should be taken in isolation. But when we consider this complex of considerations, we may relax, knowing that God is good and God is always right. The challenge for us is that we treasure his grace in our own lives and pray for him to extend that grace to others. Perhaps when they see what God has done for us, like Rahab non-Christians will confess faith in our God.

Original Meaning

The Conquest of Sihon of Heshbon (2:24–37)

IF WE DISREGARD FOR a moment verses 20–23, which are parenthetical, we notice that verse 19 flows smoothly into verse 24. The absence of any reference to Yahweh as speaker and the use of second person imperatives in verse 24 confirm that verses 24–25 continue his speech in verses 18–19. This episode begins with a directive from the divine Commander to cross the Wadi Arnon (modern Wadi el-Mujib), which served as the boundary between the Moabites and the Amorites of the Transjordan (Num. 21:13). After the instructions on how to deal with the Ammonites in verses 18–19, we expect an encounter with these people, but this does not happen. Instead, Yahweh’s eyes are fixed on another challenge. Once Israel had crossed the Arnon the Amorites represented the only obstacle separating them from the Promised Land.

Sihon ruled the southern Amorites from his capital Heshbon, modern Tell Hesban.1 His territory extended from the Jordan in the west to the land of Bene Ammon and the desert on the east, and from Wadi Jabbok in the north to Wadi Arnon in the south. God’s promises of land to the patriarchs never included the territory east of the Jordan. The narratives in Numbers suggest that Israel’s claim to this region was an afterthought, in response to the vacuum created when the Israelites eliminated the Amorites. In Moses’ reminiscences both the defeat of the Amorites and the Israelite claim to this land seem to have been foregone conclusions.2

Yahweh’s command to the Israelites consists of six imperatives (the first is not represented in the NIV): “Arise! Set out! Cross the Wadi Arnon! Begin! Take possession! Engage him in battle!”3 This charge is accompanied by two significant promises: Yahweh had already given Sihon into the Israelites’ hands,4 and from this day on, he would send shockwaves throughout the earth, causing people to tremble in fright when they heard of Israel’s triumphs. Remarkably the statement highlights Israel’s actions and places Yahweh in the background. The peoples throughout the world (lit., “the peoples under the whole heaven”) would tremble and writhe (in anguish) before them when they heard reports of them because they were in dread of them and in awe of them.5 Rahab’s testimony in Joshua 2:9–11 and the narrator’s comment in Numbers 22:3 indicate that this actually happened among the Canaanites and Moabites.

Moses reports that from Kedemoth6 he dispatched an emissary7 to Sihon ostensibly with an offer of peace and a request for permission for safe passage through Sihon’s territory. While the text does not say that Moses did so in response to Yahweh’s command, since the action was in line with policies concerning conflicts with foreign peoples outlined later in Deut. 20:10–15, these Amorites were not by definition targets of Israelite conquest. Moses’ request for safe passage through Sihon’s territory echoes Yahweh’s earlier instructions on dealing with the Edomites (vv. 4–6) and the actual account of his overtures to Edom as reported in Numbers 20:14–17. Moses promised to stay on the highway; his forces would not leave the road to pillage the countryside as invading armies customarily did. But they would need resources, so he requested that Sihon provide them with food and water, for which the Israelites would gladly pay; they were just passing through (cf. Num. 20:19).

Given the negative picture of the Edomite response in Numbers 20:14–21 and the Moabite hostility in Numbers 22–24, Moses’ positive portrayal of these nations in verse 29 is surprising. Has he forgotten so quickly? Obviously not, for later he will single out Ammonites and Moabites for not having offered them bread or water. These comments sound like diplomatic rhetoric, stretching the truth for the sake of argument, a common feature in political negotiations (cf. Jephthah’s speech in Judg. 11).

The description of Sihon’s response to Moses’ overture recalls the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus 5–11. Although like Pharaoh, Sihon was inexcusable for his disposition, Moses attributes his response directly to Yahweh, who “made his spirit stubborn” and “his heart obstinate.” He also declares explicitly the divine purpose in hardening Sihon: “in order to give him into your hands.” With the concluding phrase, (lit.) “as [it is] this day,” he draws attention to a present reality whose roots lay in past actions.

In verses 31–37 Moses describes the battle against Sihon. The narrative provides few details, but in its general structure it provides a model for how the Israelites would engage the Canaanites in their battles for the Promised Land. As Commander-in-Chief Yahweh ordered the attack, offering words of encouragement and promises of victory, to which Israel responded by defeating the enemy forces, utterly destroying the population, and claiming the territory promised. The sevenfold repletion of “all” in verses 32–37 emphasizes the completeness of Israel’s obedience and the totality of victory. This pattern continues in the sequel (3:3–10).8

Verse 32 describes Sihon’s response as if he imagined himself to be a free moral agent. Apparently thinking this Israelite rabble would be easy picking, the Amorite king brought his troops out of their fortifications and committed them all to battle at Jahaz.9 In verses 33–34 Moses summarizes the outcome of the battle. His description reflects two key principles involved in the biblical perspective on historical events. (1) As Sovereign over all nations and over all historical events, Yahweh delivered Sihon into Israel’s hands. It is assumed that Sihon’s gods could not defend him. (2) The victory was achieved by concentrated human effort. Moses notes three specific actions: they captured every one of Sihon’s fortifications,10 they completely annihilated the populations of every town,11 but they excluded the animals and the property from the law of ḥērem and claimed them as booty.12

Verses 36–37 describe the scope of Israel’s victory. From Aroer13 on the edge of the Wadi Arnon in the south to the Gilead highlands in the north, no Amorite fortification could hold back the Israelites. While the description assumes the Jordan River marked the western extremity of the territory conquered by Israel, Moses defines the amorphous eastern fringe of Sihon’s territory ethnically. In keeping with Yahweh’s instructions (vv. 18–19), the Israelites did not encroach on the territory of Bene Ammon, who occupied the land to the east, on the other side of the Jabbok (modern Wadi Zerqa).14

Bridging Contexts

WHAT PEOPLE OF FAITH can achieve. Moses’ recollections of the conquests of the Transjordanian Amorite kingdoms teach us what people of faith can achieve. In contrast to the previous generation, which through rebellion and unbelief had disqualified itself from entry into the Promised Land from Kadesh Barnea, this account shows there is no limit to what God is able to do for and through his people if they trust him. Sihon and Og, the giants of the Transjordan, symbolize all that was opposed to Yahweh. Whereas earlier in Hebron the scouts had incidentally observed the presence of gigantic figures (1:28), here the giants were in charge. By sending his people into the Rephaite heartland, Yahweh sent an early signal that when his people entered the conflict with faith and courage, no one could stand in their way. This provided the Israelites with an important precedent as they entered the Promised Land.

Principles of a theology of war. This narrative account illustrates several principles that underlie the Mosaic theology of war.22 Israel’s military engagements with outsiders were always deemed theological affairs. Although economic factors (e.g., the need for Lebensraum, “space to live”) and political ambition (kings’ desire for greater power) often contributed to the initiation and the conduct of war, like their ancient Near Eastern neighbors, the Israelites believed that ultimately God determined the outcome of all their military engagements. The Israelites’ wars of conquest, particularly their seizure of the land of Canaan, have often been referred to as “holy wars.”23 Although the expression rightly acknowledges the sacral nature of war in the Old Testament, because the expression never occurs in the Bible and because of its negative connotations today, the expression is best avoided and replaced with an expression like “Yahweh wars.”24

Although the theology of warfare reflected in Deuteronomy shares many features with perceptions of war among the surrounding nations,25 it also offers a distinctly Israelite perspective.

1. As the divine Commander-in-Chief, Yahweh identifies the military target. He excludes Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, and he zeroes in on the Amorite kings and their people in the Transjordan, presumably because they stood in the way of his people’s manifest destiny.

2. Yahweh initiates the war, telling the Israelites when to engage the enemy.

3. Yahweh determines the strategy for the war—in this instance, telling Israel to cross the Jordan, possess the land, and contend with him in battle (2:24), capturing the cities, annihilating the population, and claiming the property as booty (2:34–37).

4. Yahweh accompanies Israel into battle. Although there is no explicit reference here to Yahweh’s presence within the Israelite military camp, with an eye on 1:42, we may conclude that this is the case here as well.

5. Yahweh engages in psychological warfare, controlling the disposition of the enemy toward himself and toward Israel, so that ultimately his objectives are achieved. Specifically, Yahweh hardened the heart of the enemy king so he would reject overtures of peace (2:30), and he put the fear and dread of Israel on the peoples everywhere, demoralizing them totally (2:25).

6. Yahweh delivered the enemies and their lands into Israel’s hand (2:30–31, 33, 36; 3:3).

In this picture Israel functions as the army of Yahweh. But Moses says nothing about specific military actions taken by the Israelites. He states simply that they took the cities, imposed ḥērem on the population, and claimed the animals and property as booty, but he seems uninterested in the logistics of the campaign—how this unwieldy band of citizen soldiers marched from city to city, the weapons they used, how the battles were actually conducted, what methods they employed to capture the superbly fortified cities with walls and towers reaching to the sky and elaborate gate systems, or how they actually captured Sihon and Og. Moses’ silence on these matters throws into sharp relief his contention that the primary resources needed by the people for the battles ahead were courage and faith in Yahweh, who would fight for them.

In portraying Israel’s battles this way, especially his treatment of Sihon, Moses’ address forces the reader to contemplate the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom. Just as Yahweh had done to Pharaoh forty years earlier, he hardened the heart of Sihon in order that Yahweh’s goals might be achieved. But this did not rob Sihon of personal freedom to act, nor did it absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The divine action does not reduce him to a puppet on a string, nor does it make God into a divine puppeteer. Deuteronomy and the rest of the Scriptures affirm with equal vigor divine sovereignty over earthly affairs and human freedom and responsibility for one’s own conduct. How these two factors can both be true at the same time defies human logic. People of faith can only stand back in awe and wonder.

Contemporary Significance

SOME YEARS AGO MY son and his wife were involved in a Bible study going through the book of Joshua. The entire group was troubled by the Israelites’ treatment of the Canaanites. In fact, few issues in Old Testament interpretation are as difficult as the Lord’s command to the Israelites to dispossess the Canaanites and take over their land, along with his command to wipe out the Amorites east of the Jordan. How could a good God command the elimination of a whole race, including men, women, and children? Is this not genocide of the worst sort? And what is to stop us from carrying out similar actions in the name of God against entire peoples in our own time?

These texts are so troubling that many reject the Old Testament and its God because of this single issue, and many refuse the gospel of the New Testament because of its guilt by association, for the Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible. How should we answer these questions? While none of the following responses below is satisfying in and of itself, all represent factors to be considered in coming to grips with the issue.26

1. As Creator of all things and all human beings and as sovereign over all, God can do anything he wants with anyone and be right in doing so. He was Israel’s Commander-in-Chief. He accounts to no one for his actions or his commands, and by definition he does what is right. If he decides to command the Israelites to eliminate the Canaanites, he is perfectly within his rights. Obviously this answer will satisfy few but hardcore Calvinists.

2. The ways of God are a mystery. Since we will never completely understand him, we might as well relax with the questions in our minds. Isaiah 55:8–9 offers some consolation.

3. According to the biblical picture of the Canaanites, these peoples were extremely wicked, and their annihilation represented God’s judgment for their sin. The destruction of the Canaanites was neither the first nor the last time God would do this. The differences between the Canaanites’ fate and the fate of humanity (except for Noah’s family) as described in Genesis 6–9 involve scale and agency. With the Canaanites, as with many others in history, Yahweh used human beings rather than natural disasters or plagues and sickness (Lev. 26; Deut. 28).

4. God never intended for the Israelites to make the policy of ḥērem as a general policy toward outsiders. Deuteronomy 7:1 expressly identifies and thereby delimits the target peoples. The Israelites were not to follow these policies against Aramaeans or Edomites or Egyptians, or anyone else (cf. Deut. 20:10–18). Contrary to the way Christians have often used these texts in past history, this policy provides no justification at all for Christian atrocities committed against Jews and Muslims in the context of the Crusades or for Europeans’ claim to some sort of “manifest destiny” in their dispossession and slaughter of native North Americans.

5. The Canaanites suffered a fate that ultimately all sinners will face: the judgment of God. The difference between them and other lost peoples is that they (especially the children) met their doom earlier than most. But in the last analysis, apart from the grace of God we are all Canaanites, and it is only by divine grace that modern nations are not cut off as they were.

6. During biblical times people assumed a sense of corporate identity that is difficult for modern Westerners to understand. According to the ancient Near Eastern ideal, one found one’s significance and identity in relation to the community. When one member hurt, they all hurt; when one prospered, they all prospered (1 Cor. 12–14). Accordingly, few ancients would have objected to the fact that the general population shared the fate of kings and children shared the fate of their parents.

7. God’s elimination of the Canaanites was a necessary step in the history of salvation. In order for Israel to achieve the goals that God had established for them—that they might declare to the world his glory and grace—they needed a clean slate and a holy land. Because they resisted Israel’s migration through their territory, the war of extermination against Canaanites was extended to Sihon and Og.

8. Although the Canaanites as a whole were targets of God’s judgment, they had at least forty years of advance warning (see Rahab’s confession in Josh. 2:8–11). The conquest of Canaan caught few by surprise. Rahab illustrates the gracious fact that any individual who declared faith in Yahweh would be spared. Rahab’s incorporation into the community of faith was so complete that she became the ancestor of Jesus! (Matt. 1).

9. God really does not play favorites. Yes, he chose Abraham and his descendants to be his covenant people, but Deuteronomy warns the Israelites repeatedly that if they ever forget God and behave like Canaanites, they will experience the same fate as the Canaanites (4:25–28; 7:25–26; 8:19–20; 28:15–68).

None of these answers will satisfy everyone, and none of them should be taken in isolation. But when we consider this complex of considerations, we may relax, knowing that God is good and God is always right. The challenge for us is that we treasure his grace in our own lives and pray for him to extend that grace to others. Perhaps when they see what God has done for us, like Rahab non-Christians will confess faith in our God.