Equality for All
“But all the silver and gold, and articles of bronze and iron are holy to the Lord; they shall go into the treasury of the Lord.” Joshua 6:19 NASB
They shall go – “Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth” (the United Nations). “Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities” (National Association of Social Workers). Accordingly, what’s good for you should also be good for me. And, by the way, if you have more than you need, you should give the excess to me. Why? Because it’s only fair! Right? In the end, social justice is Marxism in disguise.
The reality is that life isn’t fair. Not everyone has equal opportunity. Not everyone will share equally in economic rewards. Not everyone will have equal political or social rights. To think otherwise is to deny the entire history of Mankind—and to fall prey to utopian thinking—man-made utopian thinking! More importantly for us, this view of social justice is the denial of God’s assignment of roles and responsibilities. The consequences of imagining that we determine what’s fair are severe.
Consider two related biblical examples. The first comes in this apparently innocuous verse. Joshua tells the people that all the silver, gold, copper and iron they find in the destroyed city of Jericho is not for them. It must be delivered to the treasury for God’s use. Sounds good, right? After all, all these metals can’t be burned up. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with them, so why not put them to use for God? The problem is that just two verses earlier Joshua prohibited the people from taking anything in the city God determined for destruction. The Hebrew word ḥāram means “to utterly destroy.” The English translation uses the words “under an ban” or “forbidden” but the word means more than just off limits. Irrevocable surrender to God means “devoting it to the service of God or putting it under a ban for utter destruction.”[1] Accordingly, Jericho is to be completely destroyed. Except all these valuable things. The question is whether Joshua made this exception or God made this exception.
In the previous verse, Joshua tells the people they are not to take or touch anything for themselves. In fact, they’re not even to think about the possibility. Then in this verse he instructs them to gather all the silver, gold, utensils of copper and iron and take it to the treasury. Doesn’t this imply that they are to look for these things? Did God direct Joshua to say this, or is it his own decision?
One argument is that since these items could not be burned, they might as well be used for God’s purposes. But this flies in the face of other situations where God specifically prohibits all items from a pagan culture and orders the people utterly destroy everything, including these things.
Another argument is that God actually directed Joshua to say this, but the text doesn’t say that. We have to explain Joshua’s previous command not to take any thing. Is it God speaking through Joshua or it is Joshua’s decision?
Either way, these two commands might appear to be in conflict. Suddenly this innocuous verse pushes us to dig deeper.
This reminds us of the circumstances surrounding Saul’s choice to keep the best animals for sacrifice. Saul killed the inhabitants—men, women and children, except the king—but he spared some animals. He seems to have reasoned, “Why kill the animals? They haven’t done anything wrong. Besides, we can use them for sacrifices.” Samuel confronts him and charges Saul with violating God’s order. The consequences are severe. Saul loses the kingdom over this mistake. But Joshua isn’t confronted by a prophet. He is the prophet. Does he make an exception here without God’s direct order?
Perhaps we’re given an insight into Joshua’s humanness. He might have convinced himself that there was no harm in taking these items because they would be put into God’s service, but this exception establishes a precedent that gives Achen the opportunity to violate the restriction (with dire consequences) as we see in the next chapter (7). Achen might have thought, “If he made an exception previously, why can’t I make an exception again?” Like Koresh, he may have argued that what was good for one Israelite was good for all. Social justice, you know. It’s only fair.
This might also be a hint about Joshua’s own flaws. We have already seen him confronted by an angel (Joshua 5:13) without any explanation in the text as to why the angel comes armed. We notice that Joshua bows down to the angel as if he is repenting of something. The Gemara suggests that Joshua stopped Torah study and the daily sacrifice and this is the reason the angel confronts him. Even if that explanation comes centuries later, it seems clear enough that something isn’t right. The angel arrives to communicate something even if his answer to Joshua is considerably confusing.
In this verse, it is as if Joshua allows this exception “for the greater good.” After all, it’s not for him. It’s for God. But this small exception opens a door for further exceptions, specifically the Gibeonites. Joshua’s self-reliance is the basis for the ill-conceived covenant with this group despite God’s direct order. The result is ultimately the near destruction of the Kingdom of Israel. In biblical accounts, social justice is not a justification for anything. What matters is what God says—and that’s all that matters. If some have more than others, if some have “unequal” opportunities, if some are rewarded differently—all according to God’s plan—then get used to it. Not everyone is a Moses, or a Joshua, or a Saul. Each man’s destiny is his own under God. No one else is you.
Topical Index: social justice, equality, Joshua, Saul, Joshua 6:19
[1] Wood, L. J. (1999). 744 חָרַם. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 324). Chicago: Moody Press.
