“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 1
Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the
Promised Land: Luke’s Use of Joshua for a
Christian Foundation Story
Introduction
This paper1 examines the pervasive allusions in Acts to the book of Joshua, not
only to the story of the taking of the promised land, but to nearly every other major
section of Joshua as well. I argue that Luke not only depended heavily on the Joshua
story but in fact reworked some of its major emphases in ways which would allow the
new narrative to serve as a foundational story for the emerging Christian movement.
The Joshua narrative provided Luke with a store of images well suited to the
building of a defining story for the emerging Church, a new people who had left, rather
than taken, the land of promise. The sheer number of these parallels makes them
striking, even without examination of the skillful ways they are used. Luke also
provides a different interpretation of certain key events in the book of Joshua and seems
to challenge assumptions that that story, or certain readings of it, reinforces.
After defending the title of my paper, which points to a thematic overlap
between Joshua and Acts, I will suggest that the canonical position of Acts may reflect
at least a tacit understanding of this relationship/overlap between the books in the
early church. I will then argue that the two books share a central ‘grand motif’ which
reflects a historical perspective that the author of Acts has inherited—and adapted
—from Joshua. There are, of course, other major parallels between the books, and after
discussing these briefly I will point out several pairs of very similar passages in the two
books and contrast other scenes where Acts reworks traditional
perspectives based on Joshua.
Luke/Acts demonstrates a profound knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and
pervasively uses many parts of it in subtle and seemingly effortless ways. Passages
unique to the gospel of Luke particularly make this point, e.g., Zechariah and Elizabeth
demonstrate the motif of the older couple that can be expected to have the important
This is the slightly edited text of a paper that I delivered on March 21, 1998 at the Southeast
Regional Meeting of the American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature at the Hilton Hotel
in Knoxville, Tennessee. Many thanks go to former colleague Micheal W. Palmer for several clarifying
suggestions.
1
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 2
child, the Magnificat’s dependence on the speech of Hannah, the two pigeons being an
acceptable purification sacrifice for the poor, etc. Is it the case that Luke is consciously
modelling the church’s story on that of Israel (and doing it in such detail) or that he
knows the story so intimately that the modelling is unconscious?
Whether the dependence is intentional or unconscious and whether or not Luke
depends more heavily on Joshua than other Hebrew Bible documents, examining the
use of this one document can clarify the author’s goals in significant ways.
Title Theme
Just as the “Acts of the Apostles” might better be entitled the “Acts of the Holy Spirit,”
the book of “Joshua” might better be entitled “The Mighty Acts of God.”
Each book begins with the passing of the founder/leader and the “mantle”
falling on the followers. The followers are left with a task as large or larger than that of
the master; in each case it is one task composed of many parts. Eleazer and the elders
feature prominently in Joshua (9:14 and 22:13 in the last conflict with the Transjordan
tribes, Joshua does not figure) just as in Acts, although Paul is the dominant figure,
several others play important roles. The continuing/abiding presence of the master’s
source of power (God) is fundamental to both books: in Joshua the presence of God, in
Acts the presence of the Spirit. The heavily underlined promise of God’s presence in
Joshua is paralleled in Acts both by the promise of the presence of the Spirit in Acts 1
and by the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 2.
The conquest of the land, its allotment among the faithful tribes, and their
settling of it is the thrust of the book of Joshua, in contrast, the commission to “be
witnesses” first in Jerusalem and then in ever-widening circles provides the thrust of
the book of Acts.
One of the issues I wish to explore is the way that Luke may provide a
“corrective” to certain readings of Joshua. In the process of taking the land, Joshua and
the Israelites are striving for holiness, distinction from their neighbors, and are said to
carry out that goal (faithful and exclusive, secure within their purified borders) with the
notable exceptions of outsiders who covert to the true faith: Rahab, her family, and the
Gibeonites.2 But for Luke these very exceptions are terribly important; in fact they are
tied into a major theme of the book of Acts. So he is not content with two examples (i.e.,
the Ethiopian and Cornelius) but provides others as well (Lydia, the Philippian jailer,
This is the general tone of the book but a more careful reading indicates the abiding presence of
the Canaanites in cities throughout the land of promise. The religious confessions of Rahab and the
Gibeonites as exceptions to Yahweh War are the point here.
2
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 3
etc.). In Acts, while the spiritual purity of the community is at issue, there is a clear
rejection of the notion that the concern for Israel’s distinctiveness (or that of the church)
legitimizes exclusion.3 Purity of motive and devotion, not of ethnicity or food (cf.
chapter 10), is the issue for Luke’s church. So, while there is contrast between the books
on one level, this contrast is possible because because both books give an important
place to relations between Jews and Gentiles and the ways Gentiles enter and
become part of the community. And, on a deeper level, Joshua is so useful to Luke
because its Deuteronomic preoccupation with faithfulness and the results thereof is of
central importance to Luke as well.
There are also specific examples of Luke’s modeling of the early church’s story
on the example of Joshua. Some of these are striking. The dominant image—and the one
which gave rise to the title of this paper—was the way Luke seems to reverse Joshua’s
telling of the taking of the land, which is mentioned twice in Acts (7:45 Stephen to the
Sannhedrin and 13:19 Paul to the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia). Indeed these
parallels/contrasts come at the beginning of each book. Joshua 1:1–4 emphasizes the
point that Moses is dead (stated twice) and therefore,
…Now proceed to cross the Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I
am giving them, to the Israelites. Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread
upon, I have given to you as I promised to Moses. From the wilderness and the
Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites
to the Great Sea in the west shall be your territory.”
Likewise, at the very last instant before Jesus leaves his disciples, he gives them the
charge that will take the whole of the book to accomplish, Acts 1:8: “But you will
receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses
in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” In fact this contrast
is more arresting if one goes back a couple of verses to 1:4 “So when they had come
together, they asked him,’ Lord is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to
Israel?’ He replied, ‘It is not for you to know the times or periods the Father has set by
his own authority.” Unlike Joshua, Acts is not about building a kingdom for Israel in
the land of promise; it is about building the kingdom of God in the world.
Luke’s genealogy of Jesus and the promises to Abraham in Genesis make this
parallel even more dramatic; from Genesis 12, Abraham is promised the land of his
sojournings as the home of his descendents; this promise is only finally fulfilled with
the ending of the book of Joshua (shown by the burial of Joseph). Luke’s genealogy is
Is Luke siding with one Hebrew Bible tradition over another? Clearly his sympathies are with
the Jonah/Ruth/3rd Isaiah attitude towards the gentiles rather than that of the view of Ezra/Nehemiah.
3
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 4
not content to stop with Abraham like Matthew’s; it must go back to Adam. Likewise,
the message of God must be taken beyond the land of its origin just as Jesus’ genealogy
is traced back to the father of all people; God’s message must go out to all people, it can
not stay in the land of promise. The genealogy points to Luke’s universal rather than
exclusive goal.
Are the missionary journeys of Acts meant to somehow echo the various military
campaigns of Joshua? Joshua’s first campaign is to the central part of the country
(Joshua 10), the second is south (Joshua 10), and the third is north (Joshua 11). This is
followed by a conquest summary and the distribution of the land. In fact, the thematic
statement of Acts 1:8 can be seen as a parallel: Jerusalem is in the central part of the
country, “Judea” is Joshua’s “south,” “Samaria” is the Joshua’s “north.”4 The journey to
confront the supposedly errant tribes in the Transjordan is of a different sort as is the
journey to Rome—“ends of the earth”— in Acts.
Canonical Position
There is a certain similarity between the relationship of Joshua to Deuteronomy
on the one hand and Acts to Luke on the other. Although beyond the power or
knowledge of the authors, the canonical arrangement of the respective books is also
noteworthy in that it shows that the early church saw Acts as a fitting beginning of the
story of the church’s fulfillment of its commission from the Lord in a way directly
parallel to the function of Joshua’s story in relation to Moses’ instruction to take the
land. Each follows 4 books which purport to contain the teaching of the respective
master, which, in turn, has been received from God.
Although the author of Luke/Acts could have no say in the canonical placement
of his work, these two books are meant to be read together and he did know both the
story of Jesus and the real life situation of the early church. He could write about the
church's faithfulness to the leader's legacy and seek to provide the struggling, fractious
movement with a vision of the blessings of faithfulness. This is just what the book of
Joshua does for the interval between the passing of Moses and the chaos of the Judges.
While it is clear that Joshua strives to be faithful to the mission of his predecessor, it is
also clear that the faithfulness of the community to God is the ultimate concern. Luke
goes a step further and tries to hold up the ideal of faithfulness for a community not
only shaped by the teachings of the church's leader, but also based upon his very being.
Notice that Galilee, so central to the gospels, is not mentioned. Is this because Luke has been so
thoroughly influenced by the Deuteronomistic History and its perspective that these are the two logical
divisions of the land?
4
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 5
Grand Motif
Luke does not merely harvest appropriate images from Joshua wholesale; rather
Joshua’s overarching story serves as the lens through which he views the church’s
beginnings. M.D. Coogan5 notes that one theme of the book of Joshua is that “God is
with Joshua as He was with Moses” (Josh. 1:5b; reiterated in 3:7 and 4:14) and that this
theme is spelled out in two ways with several examples of each.
First, Joshua repeats many of Moses’ actions. For example: 1) from the
wilderness Moses sent out spies to scout out the land (Num 13; Deut. 1:19–26); from
Transjordan Joshua sent out spies to scout out the land near Jericho (Josh 2). 2) Under
Moses’ leadership the Israelites passed through the Reed Sea as on dry ground (Exod
14); under Joshua’s leadership the Israelites cross the Jordan as on dry ground (Josh 3).
3) In the wilderness where Moses was to lead the Israelites, he had a vision of a burning
bush in which he was told, “Remove your sandals from your feet for the place on which
you are standing is holy ground” (Exod 3:5); in the territory into which Joshua leads
the Israelites, he has a vision in which the commander of Yahweh’s army tells him,
“Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy”
(Josh 5:15). 4) Moses, holding the rod of God, extended his hand, and while he does so,
Israel prevails over the Amelekites (Exod 17:8–13); Joshua stretches forth a sickle-sword,
and while he does so, Israel prevails over the inhabitants of Ai (8:18–26). 5) Before their
deaths both Moses (Deut) and Joshua (23–24) deliver farewell addresses to the Israelites.
6) Before the Exodus from Egypt, Moses and the Hebrews celebrated the Passover
(Exod 12); after their entry into Canaan, Joshua and the Israelites celebrate the Passover
(Josh 5:10-12).6
The theme of God’s presence with Joshua is spelled out in a second way in that
Joshua fulills Moses’ commands. These include 1) the extermination of the inhabitants
of the land in general (11:15; see Deut 20:16); 2) and of the Anakim in particular (11:21;
see Deut 9:2); 3) the division of the land by lot among the tribes (14:2; see Num 34:13);
5
The New Jerome Bibilical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), pp. 110–11.
Further examples include: a) Both Moses and Joshua sent out spies twice: having entered the
land, Joshua sends spies to Ai (Josh 7:2–5), just as Moses had sent spies into Transjordan (Num 21:32); b)
the instruction to the people to sanctify themselves in preparation for the divine manifestation (Exod
19:10; Josh 3:5); c) intercession for the Israelites who offended God (Exod 32:11–14; Num 11:2; 14:13–19;
Deut. 9:25–29; Josh 7:6–9); and d) the roles of Moses and Joshua as covenant mediators (Exod 24; Josh 24).
6
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 6
4) the establishment of the cities of refuge (20; see Num 35:9–15; Deut 19:1–10) and 5)
the establishment of the cities of the Levites (21:1–42; see Num 35:1–8).7
The same relationship between the departed master and the new leaders can be
observed in Acts. God, in the guise of the Holy Spirit, is with the apostles/disciples of
Jesus as He was with Jesus. This theme is developed along the same two lines as in
Joshua. First, they repeat many of Jesus’ actions: The apostles preach in the Temple like
Jesus (Acts 3//L19:47ff.). The apostles are arrested and tried like Jesus (Acts 4). The
apostles are beaten like Jesus (Acts 4). In Acts 7 Stephen, like Jesus in the Gospel of
Luke, is charged with preaching against the temple, is killed, and forgives his enemies
as he dies.8 The apostles heal people. They cast out demons. They raise the dead.9 And,
second, they fulfill Jesus’ command to evangelize the world beginning with Jerusalem
(1:8).
The presence of God in Joshua becomes the guiding power of the Holy Spirit in
Acts which leads the reluctant church to each new growth experience along the way.
Mistakes › Faithfulness › Opportunity
In both Acts and Joshua even problems/threats to the community are resolved in
such a way that the community emerges stronger than before. In Joshua, the “failed”
spy mission nevertheless provides the key contact for information leading to the
conquest of the city. The spies were supposed to search out the land and Jericho (3:1).
But they are discovered almost immediately upon entering Jericho are tracked to their
hiding place. Yet it is the “chance” meeting with Rahab that provides them with key
information about the psychological state of their enemy providing them important
encouragement. The defeat at Ai, is followed by the judgement of Aachan and
clarification of Israel’s source of power and victory. The Gibeonites’ trickery raises the
ire of Israel against Joshua and the leaders, but results in their capture of the central
section of the land.
Further examples include: a) his instruction to Reuben, Gad, and Eastern Manasseh to join the
other tribes in the military conquest of the land 1:12–18; see Num. 32; Deut 3:12–20); b) the erection of the
altar on Mt. Ebal (8:30–35; see Deut 27:1–26).
7
There is a major textual variant at Luke 23:34 which eliminates the prayer “Father, forgive
them…” Not original? Perhaps the parallel between Stephen and Jesus is so strong that the story of
Stephen has influenced a later copiest of Luke to the point of editing Jesus’ story. Just as Joshua reflects
Moses’ story, so the disciples reflect Jesus story.
8
The dividing of the flame of the Spirit into the tongues of fire in Acts 2 is reminiscent of the
divided waters at the Sea and the Jordan.
9
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 7
In Acts a crisis erupts between different groups in the church and deacons are
chosen to settle the conflict regarding the widows. But this brings to the fore the
powerful preachers Stephen and Philip who are crucial to the fulfillment of the mission
of the book. Ananias and Sapphira figure here, too. Once their counterfeit faithfulness is
exposed, the church moves on in strength. Conflict between Paul and Barnabas over
John Mark which first threatens to dissolve the mission effort, results in its
multiplication (Acts 15:36ff.).
Although, as I have stated, the book of Joshua applies the ideas of Deuteronomy,
it also contrasts with the less than faithful behavior of the Israelites in Deuteronomy,
and Joshua contrasts with the less than perfect record of Moses. The contrast is much
stronger, though, when one contrasts the book of Joshua with the book of Judges.
Between the trials and waywardness of the wilderness experience recounted in
Deuteronomy and the chaotic disunity of the Judges period, Joshua stands out as a
sterling example of faithfulness of leaders and people and the rewards such behavior
can bring.
Likewise, Acts reflects the same idealistic picture of leader(s) and people.
Standing between the doubts of Jesus’ followers and the querulousness of the churches
in Paul’s letters10, Acts gives an idealized picture of what can happen when people
and leaders are faithful. The church goes from strength to strength; even its difficulties
and mishaps become successfully negotiated opportunities for growth.
Comparison of Specific Passages
Acts 1:15ff is concerned with replacing the traitor Judas by casting lots and thus
maintaining the full complement of 12 (cf. Josh 1:12). Is Luke concerned with this to
maintain the tie to Israel?11 Twice in the Acts passage (vv. 17 and 20) Judas’ portion and
“homestead” (NRSV) are referred to, language reminiscent of the division of the land
among the tribes. There is also the concern in Acts that a replacement be chosen from
those who have “been among us from the beginning.” This sounds very much like the
concern in Joshua that the full complement of 12 tribes be represented consistently
throughout the book.
While Luke could not have known that Paul’s letters would follow Acts in the later canon, he
certainly knew of the tumultuous time of Paul’s ministry and writes a history in some ways intended to
counter such turmoil.
10
One might compare Joshua 3:12 and 4:2 where 12 representatives of the tribes pick up stones for a
monument to the crossing of the Jordan. Also, cf. Acts 1:2.
11
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 8
In the case of both Aachan and Ananias12, their allegiances are to their wallets
rather than the movement of God. Both endanger their respective movements: Aachan’s
violation of the ban causes the defeat at the first battle of Ai; Ananias and Sapphira’s
lying to the Holy Spirit threatens the future of the church. In both cases the perpetrators
confess, are judged by the community acting under God’s leadership, and die. In both
cases punishment of the perpetrators’ families, who are viewed as accomplices, is
involved.13 There is also a linquistic tie-in. It has been noted that a very rare Greek
word occurs in both Joshua 7:1 (LXX) and Acts 5:2. The word, , means
“pilfer, purloin, embezzle” and is used to describe the actions of both Aachan and
Ananias.14
Why include such an episode in either case? Is it in order to highlight the
otherwise faithful behavior of each community? To show how each deals with conflict?
Use of the lot by the community in Acts 1 to choose a successor to Judas is
reminiscent of Joshua’s use of the lot to ferret out Aachan’s guilt. Aachan the traitor is
revealed by the lot; Judas the traitor is replaced by it.
Walled cities play a part in each book: Israel’s spies are let down from the wall by
the new convert Rahab while Saul/Paul is likewise, and in like manner, rescued by his
(new) disciples in Damascus. Both are escaping to save their lives: the spies to report a
situation ripe for conquest; Paul to report that he has been conquered by the one he
persecuted and spared to spread the word.
Are the conversions of Rahab & family, Cornelius & family, and the eunuch all
doubly troubling for the respective Hebrew/Jewish communities? Rahab is a prostitute
(“unclean”) as well as gentile; Cornelius is a soldier (“enemy”) as well as a gentile; the
eunuch is sexually disqualified from full admission to the first community.
Might the farewell address of Joshua and that of Paul to the Ephesian elders in
Acts 20:17–38 be compared? Although Paul’s address is only to the elders of one
congregation, in Joshua 23:2 Joshua summons the “elders, heads, judges, and officials”
This comparison is also noted in the Harper Collins Study Bible (New York, NY: HarperCollins,
1993), p. 2066.
12
Perhaps this issue is further underlined in Acts 8:9–24 in the story of Simon the Magician who
attempts to buy the power of God. But Acts does not have the defeat suffered as result of the theft nor an
equivalent to the subsequent prayer of Joshua. Aachan acts against the faithful norm which is
demonstrated by the treatment of Rahab’s family (ironic faithfulness since the oath violates HW) and the
placement of metal goods in the treasury of the Lord (6:24).
13
John Polhill, (Acts, The New American Commentary, vol. 26, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press,
1992, p. 156) goes on to say, “Luke may well have seen a reminder of his fate in the similar divine
judgment which came upon Ananias and Sapphira…”
14
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 9
as well as “all Israel” to hear his parting words. Both addresses begin with a summary
of the work that the leader has accomplished by God’s power (Joshua 23:2b–4//Acts
20:18b–21). Both also have some statement that the end is near for the leader (Joshua
23:1b–2, 14//Acts 18:22–25). Both include a warning about coming dangers to the
faithfulness of the community (Joshua 23: 6–13//Acts 22:29–31a). Acts 20:32 even
includes the phrase, “to give you the inheritance among all who are sanctified.”
The book of Acts ends not with the death of the leader “in his own inheritance”
like Joshua (24:29–30) but in the capital of the world far from home carrying on as
before to the literary horizon. The journey of Joshua was a journey home. The journey
of Acts was the journey to Rome.15
Acts 2:43: The sharing of possessions may be compared to the treasury of the
Lord into which all metal goods from the conquered cities were to be placed (Joshua
6:19)? Both reflect a corporate mentality; the large community is more significant than
the individual. This sharing is noted a second time in Acts just before Barnabas makes
his offering.
Acts 3–4: Are Peter and John the two spies who are “captured” and released?
Like the spies, Peter and John report back after their release. The spies (Joshua 2:24)
report that the nations are in fear before the advance of the Israelites. In Acts 2:23ff. the
opposition of rulers is fruitless against the advance of the church.
To Joshua 4:14 & 24, compare Acts 2:43 and 3:11ff.: Joshua is exalted in sight of
the Israelites (like Moses), and the people stand in “awe” of the apostles.
Does Acts 2 compare to the crossing of the Jordan? Crossing the Jordan follows
the preparation just as the day of Pentecost follows Jesus instructions to his disciples: cf.
Luke 24:49 “stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” to Josh 1:11
“prepare…three days…pass over…”
To Joshua 5:1 and 9:1, compare Acts 4:25ff. In Joshua the enemy kings of Canaan
are disheartened by the crossing of the Jordan. In Acts, Psalm 2 “Why do the nations
rage…?” is cited after the successful deliverance of the apostles from prison.
While there are several of these comparisons of specific passages, the major
influence that Joshua has excercised over the writing of Acts is seen in the larger
structuring of the narrative as a whole.
The books are each, in a sense, both concluded and left open-ended. As the book
of Joshua concludes the land has been taken, the hero has died, and there is a funeral to
mark the completion of the promise of land. But in the context of Joshua’s challenging
In a sense, Joshua is the one going to a new place and Paul is the one going home—since he is a
Roman citizen.
15
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 10
farewell speech (especially 24:19), the funeral, and the statement in 24:31, “And Israel
served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua
and had known all the work which the Lord had done for Israel,” the book also
proposes a sort of rhetorical question to be answered by the next generation: “Will they
be faithful and receive the rewards of faithfulness like Joshua and his generation, or will
they turn away?”16 Acts ends with Paul under house arrest but with mission
accomplished; he has carried the message to the capital of the world. However, the last
address of the book—that to the Jewish community—meets with an ambivalent response
(28:25). What will the next generation—and especially the Jewish people—do with this
message?17
Joshua 13:1b “…very much of the land still remains to be possessed.” In Acts the
various campaigns have lead to numerous colonies of the Kingdom spread over the
Roman empire while in Joshua although the summaries give a general picture of
subjected Canaan, the book also makes it clear that there are many Canaanites in the
land (e.g., 13:13; 15:63; passim). In both cases there is much work for the next generation
to do under the leadership of God (13:7).
Contrasts of Specific Passages
The books are quite different in their attitude regarding violence. Joshua is a
violent book full of wars. Israel fights throughout the first half of the book and almost
again at the end. But Acts is a book in which the community is the victim of violence
rather than the perpetrator of it. Cornelius the convert is a military man and officially
an enemy. Rahab the convert is a member of the subject people targeted for
displacement or extermination. In Joshua the people of power overwhelm or persuade.
In Acts the people of power and position are persuaded: Cornelius, the Philippian jailer,
the eunuch, Lydia, the governor of Cyprus (Sergius Paulus Acts 13:7). Those “almost”
persuaded include Procurator Felix (who has private conferences with Paul) and King
Agrippa. The purpose of the community in Acts is not to hollow out a homeland as it is
in Joshua, but to subvert and transform the whole world empire one family or person at
a time.
16
Judges 2:7–10 makes this rhetorical question explicit.
Isa. 6:9–10 is the citation and some say that this is a strong rejection of the Jews. In the larger
context of the book and Paul’s writings, I disagree. The book is likely written just about the time of the
final split between the synagogue and church, in the heat of the debate. There is a strong ongoing debate
about this issue.
17
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 11
“Circumcision” or “circumcize” is mentioned 7 times in Acts (7:8; 10:45; 11:2;
15:1; 16:3; 15:5; 21:21). The performance of circumcision is an important event in Joshua
5: an act of faithfulness to God and an act of trust as the Israelites make themselves
vulnerable to their enemies in so doing. It is the ancient sign of participation in the
community. But circumcision is mentioned only here in Joshua. In Acts circumcision is a
pervasive concern and the issue is still faithfulness but here the issue is whether
outsiders must practice it in order to be part of the community.
As regards pagans accepted into Israel versus gentiles accepted into the church,
we read in Joshua 9:18b that the Israelites “murmur” against the leaders because of the
treaty with the Gibeonites; the conservative (Jewish) element in the church also
murmurs against admission of uncircumcized gentile converts (Acts 15). But while in
Joshua the pagans are to be perpetually second class (cf. 9:21), in Acts second class
status is rejected—no circumcision is required to make god-fearers into Christians.18 Is
the reluctance of the church in this matter (Acts 14–15) meant to underline this
distinction? That is, is Luke’s emphasis on first the hesitance of the church to accept
gentiles and then the overcoming of that hesitance a way for Luke to further the
contrast between the ways church and Israel treat gentiles?
What about the Ethiopian eunuch in this regard? He is not only an outsider, he is
a eunuch and therefore prohibited from full participation in that first community. He is
reading Isa 53 when Philip meets him. That passage is only a column or two away from
Isa. 56:3ff. which talks about the inclusion of both the foreigner and the eunuch in the
worshipping community. According to Acts, therefore, he can be fully accepted.
Compare the embassy of the Gibeonites to Israel with the embassy from
Cornelius to Peter. Both involve multi-day journeys. In Joshua representatives of the
outsiders come to the community, in Acts the outsiders also send representatives to the
community and the community in turn sends representatives back to the outsiders. In
both cases the insider communities disapprove at first. But in Acts it is God’s intention
to add them; in Joshua a trick although God seems to approve.19 In contrast to the
Gibeonites who are made servants, Cornelius is not allowed to be subservient to Peter
(Acts 10:25–26). Although this parallel is not exact since in Joshua the Gibeonites are not
to worship the Israelites or Joshua, but rather to serve the house of God; Peter’s further
comment that he has now learned to call no one unclean strengthens the contrast, as do
18
Although, Timothy is circumcised (Acts 16:3).
19
Compare 10:11, where God assists in the battle fought in defense of Gibeon.
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 12
vv. 34–35 which conclude with the statement that “in every nation anyone who fears
him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”
In Joshua 10 (vv. 28, 30, 34–35), by repetition the eradication of the inhabitants of
Canaan is shown to be a major concern of Joshua, so the contrary is shown to be true in
Acts by the repetition of the story of Cornelius.20 The story of the conversion of
Cornelius is told repeatedly to teach about a fundamentally new direction of the church
but perhaps also to contrast with Luke’s model, the book of Joshua.
Regarding the dispute between the tribes at the end of Joshua (22:10–34) it
should be noted that the emphasis is on the people who stay in the land (the 9 1/2
tribes) rather that those on the outside (the 2 1/2 tribes). In Acts the emphasis is the
opposite, it is on those who leave. The story soon comes to be told from their
perspective rather than from the perspective of the insiders which is the case in Joshua.
This matter of perspective leads back to the issue of attitude toward the gentiles, the
outsiders.
The authors of both Joshua and Acts strive to be faithful to the sacred traditions
and in both books the outsiders’ unorthodoxy (the altar at the Jordan in Joshua, no
circumcision in Acts) causes anxiety, tension, and almost “war.” In both cases conflict is
narrowly averted by diplomacy and there is lingering tension (foreshadowed in Joshua
22:27 “so that your children may never say to our children in the time to come, ‘you
have no portion in the Lord.’”) This tension is not as explicit in Joshua and Acts as it is
in the books that follow them in canonical order (wars between the tribes in Judges,
conflict with Judaizers reflected in Paul’s letters21). To this specific episode we might
compare the Acts 15 council. Note that the actions of the leaders of the church are
prominent, in Joshua the elders and Eleazer take the lead. The resolution leaves
(temporary) positive religious feelings between the parties in dispute (Joshua
22:31//Acts 15:31) and there is positive reaction from the side telling the story when, as
both books recount, “word is brought back to them” (Joshua 22:32//Acts 15:30-31).22
Conclusion
20
In chapter 10 twice and in chapter 11.
While Luke does not mention the letters of Paul, he clearly is aware of the growing conflict in the
early church evident both in Paul’s letters and in the Acts 15 account.
22
In each story both sides are pictured as faithful although there may be some implied doubt about
the other from the perspective of the side telling the story: Was this the original intention of the altar by
the Jordan? Are the motives of the conservative party in Acts really 100% pure
21
“Taking the Promised Land, Leaving the Promised Land…”
page 13
Luke’s use of Joshua is pervasive, profound. This is shown by the way that the
main theme of the book of Joshua has been adopted and adapted for Acts, by the way
that the grand motif of the book of Joshua has been appropriated for Acts, as well as by
the points of specific contact between the two books. It is my hope that this paper will
prove to be a contribution to Acts studies and the starting point for considerable further
study.