Joshua 10:28 - Joshua took Makkedah on that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword, with its king. He utterly destroyed it and all the souls who were in it. He left no one remaining. He did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.
Select Bible Verse
Filter Categories
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
R
S
T
U
V
W
What does "Joshua 10:28" mean?
This verse, Joshua 10:28, describes the Israelite conquest of the city of Makkedah under the leadership of Joshua. Let's break down its meaning phrase by phrase:
"Joshua took Makkedah on that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword, with its king." This establishes that the Israelites, led by Joshua, successfully captured the city of Makkedah through military force. The phrase "struck it with the edge of the sword" is a common idiom for conquering a city by force in the Old Testament. It implies a complete and decisive victory. They also killed the king of Makkedah.
"He utterly destroyed it and all the souls who were in it." This is the most difficult and controversial part of the verse. "Utterly destroyed" translates the Hebrew word "חרם" (cherem), which signifies a devoted thing, set apart for destruction, often as an offering to God. In this context, it meant that the city and all its inhabitants were devoted to destruction. The verse explicitly states that all the people in the city were killed.
"He left no one remaining." This reinforces the totality of the destruction. There were no survivors.
"He did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho." This draws a parallel with a previous event, the conquest of Jericho (described in Joshua 6). In Jericho, the Israelites also killed all the inhabitants and their king (except for Rahab and her family). This comparison suggests a consistent policy of complete annihilation of the Canaanite cities they conquered.
Interpretations and Controversies:
This verse, like other accounts of violence in the Old Testament, is a source of significant moral and theological debate. Here are some common interpretations and perspectives:
Literal Interpretation: Some interpret the verse literally, accepting that God commanded the Israelites to kill all the inhabitants of these cities. They may justify this by arguing that the Canaanites were exceedingly wicked and posed a threat to Israel's religious purity. This view is often met with criticism for its endorsement of genocide.
Contextual Interpretation: Others argue that the language of "total destruction" is hyperbolic and should not be taken literally. They point to other passages where Israelites are said to have "destroyed" a people, but later those same people are still present. They might argue that "utterly destroyed" really means a devastating defeat that broke the city's power, rather than a complete elimination of every man, woman, and child. However, the phrase "he left no one remaining" makes this interpretation difficult in this particular verse.
Figurative/Symbolic Interpretation: Some see the conquest narratives as primarily symbolic, representing the struggle between good and evil, or the need to completely reject idolatry and wickedness. In this view, the violence is not meant to be understood as historical fact, but rather as a metaphorical representation of spiritual warfare.
Historical Context Interpretation: Some scholars try to understand the passages within the historical context of ancient warfare. Ancient Near Eastern warfare was often brutal, and accounts were prone to exaggeration. While this doesn't excuse the violence, it helps to understand it as part of a different moral framework.
Ethical Considerations:
It's essential to grapple with the ethical implications of these passages. How can one reconcile the idea of a just and loving God with commands for such seemingly indiscriminate violence? This is a question that has troubled theologians and readers of the Bible for centuries.
Ultimately, understanding this verse requires careful consideration of the historical context, literary style, and theological implications. There is no single, universally accepted interpretation, and it's important to approach it with humility and a willingness to engage with the difficult questions it raises.
Joshua 10:28 - Joshua took Makkedah on that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword, with its king. He utterly destroyed it and all the souls who were in it. He left no one remaining. He did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.
What does "Joshua 10:28" mean?
This verse, Joshua 10:28, describes the Israelite conquest of the city of Makkedah under the leadership of Joshua. Let's break down its meaning phrase by phrase:
"Joshua took Makkedah on that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword, with its king." This establishes that the Israelites, led by Joshua, successfully captured the city of Makkedah through military force. The phrase "struck it with the edge of the sword" is a common idiom for conquering a city by force in the Old Testament. It implies a complete and decisive victory. They also killed the king of Makkedah.
"He utterly destroyed it and all the souls who were in it." This is the most difficult and controversial part of the verse. "Utterly destroyed" translates the Hebrew word "חרם" (cherem), which signifies a devoted thing, set apart for destruction, often as an offering to God. In this context, it meant that the city and all its inhabitants were devoted to destruction. The verse explicitly states that all the people in the city were killed.
"He left no one remaining." This reinforces the totality of the destruction. There were no survivors.
"He did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho." This draws a parallel with a previous event, the conquest of Jericho (described in Joshua 6). In Jericho, the Israelites also killed all the inhabitants and their king (except for Rahab and her family). This comparison suggests a consistent policy of complete annihilation of the Canaanite cities they conquered.
Interpretations and Controversies:
This verse, like other accounts of violence in the Old Testament, is a source of significant moral and theological debate. Here are some common interpretations and perspectives:
Literal Interpretation: Some interpret the verse literally, accepting that God commanded the Israelites to kill all the inhabitants of these cities. They may justify this by arguing that the Canaanites were exceedingly wicked and posed a threat to Israel's religious purity. This view is often met with criticism for its endorsement of genocide.
Contextual Interpretation: Others argue that the language of "total destruction" is hyperbolic and should not be taken literally. They point to other passages where Israelites are said to have "destroyed" a people, but later those same people are still present. They might argue that "utterly destroyed" really means a devastating defeat that broke the city's power, rather than a complete elimination of every man, woman, and child. However, the phrase "he left no one remaining" makes this interpretation difficult in this particular verse.
Figurative/Symbolic Interpretation: Some see the conquest narratives as primarily symbolic, representing the struggle between good and evil, or the need to completely reject idolatry and wickedness. In this view, the violence is not meant to be understood as historical fact, but rather as a metaphorical representation of spiritual warfare.
Historical Context Interpretation: Some scholars try to understand the passages within the historical context of ancient warfare. Ancient Near Eastern warfare was often brutal, and accounts were prone to exaggeration. While this doesn't excuse the violence, it helps to understand it as part of a different moral framework.
Ethical Considerations:
It's essential to grapple with the ethical implications of these passages. How can one reconcile the idea of a just and loving God with commands for such seemingly indiscriminate violence? This is a question that has troubled theologians and readers of the Bible for centuries.
Ultimately, understanding this verse requires careful consideration of the historical context, literary style, and theological implications. There is no single, universally accepted interpretation, and it's important to approach it with humility and a willingness to engage with the difficult questions it raises.