Joshua 3:7-17

First, I emphasize the
liturgical nature of the crossing of the Jordan. This seems like an
entrance liturgy to me. It certainly does not read as a military
incursion. It points up to the conquest as the arm of god, not the
military might of nascent Israel. With God as the warrior, it
downplays a warrior caste. (See Yahweh as Warrior by Millard Lind for
a good examination of the issue, also work by Patrick Miller.) Who
wants priests to take the point in any battle? You do want them in a
religious procession, however.

Second, in class, one
may wish to broach the idea of this as interpreted history,
Archaeology can be a friend to biblical factual accuracy, but it
often challenges it. Lately, some minimize almost all historical data
in the bible, and others seek to maximize it. It may be that Israel
moved in lightning strokes, but it could also be a more gradual
issue. Scripture has hints of it, certainly. Scholarly work is
imaginative reconstructive, see Gottwald’s transformation of
the conquest into a Maoist uprising of the oppressed.

Archaeology does
demonstrate changes. Early Israel seemed to have a hilltop base, not
an urban base. (Maybe that’s why Jericho falls) Distinctive
pottery is found in abundance at these sites, along with a house with
a loft for sleeping.

Third, in spiritual
terms, where do you cross the Jordan? Think of how the slaves saw the
Ohio as the Jordan. What prevents you from crossing it? When is
wishing better than achieving? What seems to be an insuperable
obstacle to reaching your Promised Land?

(Recall jesus and
Joshua have the same name: God helps/delivers/saves)