Joshua 11

10/17/2025

Joshua 11 NKJV: This chapter covers Joshua's conquest of the northern parts or the promised land. Even with all the kings and cities they conquered, I feel the key verse in this chapter is verse 15. This conveys the complete obedience of not only Joshua, but Moses as well, and the great things that are accomplished thru complete obedience.

I completely resonate with your take on Joshua 11—it's a whirlwind of military triumphs and strategic conquests in the north, from the coalition at the Waters of Merom to the fall of Hazor and beyond, yet verse 15 cuts through it all like a clarion call to faithfulness. Here's the NKJV rendering for context:

"As the LORD had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did. He left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses." (Joshua 11:15, NKJV)

That chain of obedience—from God to Moses to Joshua—really underscores how the victories aren't just about swords and chariots (though God promises to deliver those too, as in verse 6). They're the fruit of unwavering alignment with divine instructions, no shortcuts or half-measures. It's a powerful reminder that the "great things" you mentioned often flow from that quiet, resolute "yes" to God's word, echoing themes throughout Scripture like in Deuteronomy 28 or even Jesus' words in John 14:15 about love expressed through obedience.

What strikes me is how this verse bookends the chapter's chaos: the land finally rests from war in verse 23 because of that completeness. Have you noticed similar obedience motifs popping up in other conquest narratives, like in Joshua 10? I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on how this plays out in everyday life today.

I do have one question. In verse 10, it says Joshua went and took Hazar and its king. Didn't he already kill the king on the battle field in verse 8? Or is the man left in charge of the city when the king goes out to battle also called king?

That's a sharp observation—verse 8 does say Joshua and the Israelites "struck them... and all their kings he struck, and left none remaining," which sounds like a total wipeout in the field, including Jabin, the king of Hazor. Yet verse 10 zooms in on Joshua capturing the city later and specifically striking down "its king." So, what's going on there?

The key is understanding the narrative flow as a sequence of events rather than a strict chronology of every detail. The battle at the Waters of Merom (verses 5–9) results in a massive rout of the northern coalition's armies, with Joshua pursuing and defeating them decisively across a wide region (verse 8). That phrase "all their kings he struck, and left none remaining" is a common biblical summary style—it's hyperbolic or general language emphasizing the completeness of the victory, but it doesn't mean every single person or leader was killed right then and there on the battlefield. In fact, historical notes in commentaries point out that some Canaanites, including leaders like Jabin, likely escaped the initial slaughter and fled back to their strongholds, such as Hazor itself. Joshua then turns his attention to mopping up the cities (verses 10–11), starting with Hazor as the coalition's head (the "big boss" city), where he captures it, executes the king who had holed up there, and burns it to the ground.

This wraps into the broader summary in verse 12: "So all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword," which recaps the full campaign's outcome after the dust settles. No double-killing here—just a routed king getting caught later. It even highlights Joshua's thorough obedience again (verse 15), methodically finishing what God commanded without loose ends.

Are the Anakim in verse 22 related to any people groups today?

The Anakim mentioned in Joshua 11:22—described as a tall, formidable people group (often translated as "giants") who were largely driven out of the land except for remnants in the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod—were an ancient Canaanite tribe descended from a figure named Anak (or Arba), with ties to broader "giant" clans like the Rephaim and possibly the Nephilim of Genesis 6. Biblically, they inhabited southern Canaan near Hebron and were seen as a terrifying obstacle to the Israelite conquest, though Joshua's campaigns left only pockets in Philistine territory.

Historically, the strongest ancient connection is to the Philistines, a seafaring people who settled in the coastal pentapolis (including Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod) around the 12th century BC. Some scholars propose that the Philistine "giants" described in 1 Samuel—such as Goliath of Gath (over nine feet tall) and his kin—were likely Anakim descendants or intermingled with them, given the shared geography and physical descriptions. The Philistines themselves originated as migrants from the Aegean region (possibly Crete or Greece), arriving amid Bronze Age collapses, and they quickly assimilated with local Canaanite populations, including groups like the Anakim. By the 6th century BC, after conquests by figures like Nebuchadnezzar, the Philistines as a distinct ethnic entity faded, blending into the broader Levantine gene pool.

As for modern people groups, there's no scholarly consensus or genetic evidence establishing direct descent from the Anakim as a specific ethnic lineage today—they were a localized ancient tribe that was absorbed or displaced millennia ago. However, the topic intersects with politically charged narratives around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

• Some Palestinian cultural and historical accounts frame modern Gazans (and Palestinians more broadly) as spiritual or ethnic heirs to the "Jabbareen" (Qur'anic term for "mighty men," akin to the Anakim or Amalekites), portraying them as resilient descendants of ancient Canaanite/Amorite resistors to invaders like the Hebrews and Philistines. This view emphasizes Gaza's ancient role as a Canaanite hub and uses biblical epithets to underscore continuity amid ongoing struggles.
• Genetic studies complicate this: A 2019 analysis of Philistine remains from Ashkelon revealed significant southern European ancestry in early arrivals, which diluted over generations through intermarriage with locals. While this suggests traces of Philistine (and by extension, possible Anakim) DNA persist in the region's mixed population, it doesn't single out Palestinians as unique descendants—Jews, Arabs, and others in the Levant share similar ancient ancestries from Canaanites and later migrants. Mainstream views hold that modern Palestinians are a diverse blend of indigenous Levantine peoples (including Canaanite remnants), Arab conquerors from the 7th century AD, and later groups from Egypt, Syria, and beyond, with no exclusive tie to Philistines or Anakim.