בס”ד

Joshua 12: What Does It Mean to Conquer a Land?

This blog summarizes the class, but it is well worth watching the entire lesson. There is considerably more in the class than I can include here.

A simple question

What does it mean to conquer a land?

If the king of a country is defeated and killed, does his country automatically belong to the one who defeated him? It might seem logical, but Joshua chapter 12 shows that the matter is more complicated.

The chapter consists largely of a list of defeated kings. It records the victories achieved first under Moses, east of the Jordan, and then under Joshua, west of the Jordan.

At first glance, it appears to be a straightforward record of military victories. But there is an important detail: not all the territory had actually been taken into Israel’s possession. In the following chapter, Joshua 13:1, we read that much of the land still remained to be conquered.

This distinction is essential. The Torah presents three related but separate stages:

  1. Defeating the king who rules a territory.
  2. Taking possession and establishing control over the territory.
  3. Distributing the land among the tribes who will settle there.

These stages belong together, but they are not identical. Defeating a ruler does not necessarily mean that every part of his territory has already been occupied or settled.

The two parts of the chapter

Joshua 12 is divided into two sections.

Verses 1–6 describe the territories conquered by Moses and the Israelites east of the Jordan. These belonged to Sihon, king of the Amorites, and Og, king of Bashan.

Verses 7–24 describe Joshua’s victories west of the Jordan. The chapter concludes with a list of 31 defeated kings.

The Abarbanel explains that the opening verse serves as a general heading for the entire chapter. It introduces the lands and kings that were defeated, after which the text provides the details of the two campaigns (Abarbanel on Joshua 12:1).

This structure is important because the chapter is not simply counting military victories. It is recording the extent of the territories that came under Israel’s control.

Why describe the size of the kingdoms?

There is an interesting question here. If the purpose of the chapter is to record the number of kings defeated, why does the Torah describe the territories of Sihon and Og in such detail?

The Abarbanel explains that the size of their kingdoms is itself part of the record. Moses defeated only two kings, but they ruled over an enormous area. Their territories were comparable in size to the combined territories of many of the smaller kingdoms defeated by Joshua (Abarbanel on Joshua 12:1–6).

Consider an example. Imagine one person conquering twenty small European countries, while another conquers a single country as large as Russia. The first person has defeated more rulers, but the second has conquered a much larger territory.

The number of kings, therefore, does not tell us everything about the extent of a conquest.

The Torah gives us the geographical information because it wants us to understand the actual scale of Moses’s achievements, not merely count the number of defeated rulers.

Moses and the people of Israel

There is another detail worth noticing. Moses is not mentioned by name in the opening verse. He appears in verse 6, where he is described as the servant of Hashem.

The Ralbag explains that although Moses led the conquest, the verse first attributes the victory to the Children of Israel. This teaches that the achievement was not simply Moses’s personal success. It was a collective victory, accomplished through Israel’s relationship and covenant with Hashem (Ralbag on Joshua 12:6).

The title servant of Hashem is also significant.

The Malbim explains that Moses acted as Hashem’s appointed servant, carrying out a specific divine command. The conquest east of the Jordan was not an ordinary expansion of territory. It took place because Hashem explicitly instructed Israel to take the lands of Sihon and Og and gave those territories to the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh (Malbim on Joshua 12:6; see also Numbers 32:1–33).

This brings us to a much broader principle.

Could Israel conquer any land it wanted?

Absolutely not.

The Torah makes it very clear that Israel’s military strength did not give it unlimited rights over neighbouring territories.

Consider the instructions concerning Edom. Moses was told:

“Do not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land, not even a foot’s width, because I have assigned Mount Seir as a possession to Esau.”

(Deuteronomy 2:4–5)

The same principle applies to Moab and Ammon. Their territories had been assigned to the descendants of Lot, and Israel was explicitly forbidden to take them (Deuteronomy 2:9, 18–19).

In other words, the fact that Israel was powerful, and that other nations were afraid of it, did not give Israel the right to take land that Hashem had assigned to someone else.

Even when travelling through these territories, Israel was instructed to pay for the food and water it needed (Deuteronomy 2:6).

Sihon, however, was different.

Hashem told Moses:

“See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his land to you. Begin to take possession.”

(Deuteronomy 2:31)

Before going to war, Moses sent messengers to Sihon with an offer of peace. He asked permission to pass through the territory, promising not to enter the fields or vineyards and to pay for the water they used (Deuteronomy 2:26–29).

Sihon refused and came out to fight against Israel. The Torah explains that Hashem had hardened his spirit and strengthened his resolve so that he would be delivered into Israel’s hands (Deuteronomy 2:30).

A similar account is given concerning Og, king of Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:1–2).

The distinction is therefore very clear:

The conquest was not an open-ended permission to expand wherever Israel had the military strength to do so. It was limited by specific divine instructions.

Peace comes first

There is another important principle. Even when the Torah commands a war, the possibility of peace cannot simply be ignored.

Deuteronomy 20:10 states:

“When you approach a city to wage war against it, you shall offer it terms of peace.”

The Ramban discusses whether this obligation also applies to wars commanded by the Torah, including the conquest of the seven Canaanite nations.

He disagrees with Rashi’s narrower interpretation and argues that an offer of peace must be made even in these commanded wars. His principal example is Moses’s offer of peace to Sihon. Moses would not have acted contrary to the Torah’s commandments by offering peace before fighting (Ramban on Deuteronomy 20:10).

The Ramban also explains that the terms of peace for the Canaanite nations included abandoning idolatry and accepting the seven commandments given to the descendants of Noah. He refers to the discussion in Sifre, Shoftim 202, concerning the possibility of accepting those commandments.

Thus, even in the context of the commanded conquest, the Torah recognises the possibility of a peaceful resolution.

This is an important qualification: the command to conquer did not mean that Israel could simply ignore the offer of peace.

The connection to Bnei Noach

This discussion also touches on the relationship between the commandments given to Israel and those given to Bnei Noach.

The Talmud discusses the relationship between the universal commandments given to Noah’s descendants and the commandments subsequently given at Sinai. One of its discussions concerns the yefat to’ar, the beautiful captive woman, whose situation is addressed in Deuteronomy 21:10–14 (see Kiddushin 21b).

This is a specialised discussion about the laws of warfare and the captive woman. It should not be turned into a general statement that every permission granted to Israel in the context of its biblical conquest applies to other nations as well.

The Ramban’s discussion of Deuteronomy 20:10 and 20:18 provides a more direct source for the connection to Bnei Noach. He explains that, in the context of a peace agreement with the seven Canaanite nations, acceptance of the seven commandments given to Noah’s descendants was relevant. This did not require them to convert to Judaism (Ramban on Deuteronomy 20:10, commenting on verse 18).

The important distinction is that universal obligations and commandments specific to Israel are not interchangeable.

The biblical conquest of the Land of Israel was a particular command given to a particular people concerning a particular territory. It cannot be used as a general permission for nations to take the lands of others.

We should therefore be careful not to draw conclusions from Joshua’s conquests that the text itself does not support.

The 31 kings

We can now return to the second part of Joshua 12.

The chapter lists the kings defeated by Joshua, beginning with the king of Jericho, followed by the king of Ai, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, and many others. The list eventually reaches a total of 31 kings (Joshua 12:9–24).

One small detail is particularly noticeable: the word one is repeated after each king.

The text is emphasising that these were separate rulers, each governing his own territory. The Canaanites were not necessarily one united political kingdom. They consisted of numerous smaller kingdoms and city-states.

This helps explain why Joshua had to fight so many separate campaigns.

But there is another important point. The list tells us that these kings were defeated. It does not claim that every town and every part of their territories had already been occupied.

This brings us back to the opening question.

How can Joshua 12 describe all these victories while Joshua 13:1 tells us that much of the land still remained to be possessed?

There is no contradiction.

A king can be defeated before every town he ruled has been brought under control. Military victory and complete territorial possession are two different stages.

That is precisely the distinction the chapter teaches us to recognise.

A lesson for our own lives

With a little poetic freedom, we can also take a personal lesson from this chapter.

Sometimes we win a battle without having completed the larger task.

We may overcome an obstacle, win an argument, finish a project or reach a goal we have been working towards. But that does not necessarily mean that we have fully taken possession of what comes next.

There is a difference between removing an obstacle and building something lasting.

There is a difference between defeating a king and taking possession of his land.

And there is a difference between winning a battle and inheriting a land.

Joshua 12 reminds us that an achievement is not always the end of the journey. Sometimes it is only the beginning of the next stage.

Summary

The central message of Joshua 12 is that conquest is not simply a matter of defeating an opponent. The Torah distinguishes between victory, possession and inheritance. It also places clear limits on where Israel could conquer and how it was to approach its enemies.

Footnotes and sources

Joshua 12:9–24 – The list of the 31 defeated kings.

Joshua 13:1 – The statement that much of the land remained to be possessed.

Abarbanel on Joshua 12:1 – The opening verse as an introduction to the chapter.

Abarbanel on Joshua 12:1–6 – The extent of the territories ruled by Sihon and Og in comparison with the territories conquered by Joshua.

Ralbag on Joshua 12:6 – The role of Moses and the collective achievement of Israel.

Malbim on Joshua 12:6 – Moses as the servant of Hashem and the commanded nature of the conquest east of the Jordan.

Deuteronomy 2:4–5 – The prohibition against taking the land of Edom.

Deuteronomy 2:9 and 2:18–19 – The prohibition against taking the lands of Moab and Ammon.

Deuteronomy 2:31 – Hashem’s command to begin taking possession of Sihon’s territory.

Deuteronomy 2:26–30 – Moses’s offer of peace to Sihon and Sihon’s refusal.

Deuteronomy 3:1–2 – The campaign against Og, king of Bashan.

Deuteronomy 20:10–12 – The obligation to offer terms of peace before warfare.

Ramban on Deuteronomy 20:10 – His explanation that the offer of peace applies even to commanded wars, including the conquest of the seven Canaanite nations. See also Sifre, Shoftim 199 and 202; Jerusalem Talmud, Shevi’it 6:1.

Kiddushin 21b – The Talmudic discussion of the yefat to’ar and the circumstances in which the Torah addresses the captive woman.

Deuteronomy 21:10–14 – The biblical laws concerning the captive woman.

Ramban on Deuteronomy 20:10, commenting on verse 18 – The acceptance of the seven commandments of Bnei Noach in the context of peace with the Canaanite nations.

By Rabbi Tani Burton

Footnotes

  1. 1. Genesis 39:9.
  2. 2. Rambam, Shemoneh Perakim, chapter 6.
  3. 3. Proverbs 21:10.
  4. 4. almud Bavli, Sukkah 52a.
  5. 5. Pirkei Avot 5:23.
  6. 6. Genesis 18:25.
  7. 7. Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625); John Selden, De Jure Naturali et Gentium juxta Disciplinam Ebraeorum (1640).
  8. 8. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 8:11.
  9. 9. The Midrash on Psalms 146:8 (“G-d loves the righteous”). The spreker noemt de naam van de Midrash niet duidelijk, dus controleer deze bron even.
  10. 10. Sifra on Leviticus 18:5; Isaiah 26:2; Psalms 118:20.
  11. 11. Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 59a.

More shiurim of Rabbi Tani Burton

 © Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further.

Our blogs may contain text/quotes/references/links that include copyright material of Mechon-Mamre.org, Aish.com, Sefaria.org, Chabad.org, and/or AskNoah.org, which we use in accordance with their policies.