What is the context?
On the seventh day the people circle the city seven times. Joshua commands the shout and declares that the city is devoted to the Lord for destruction, with Rahab and those in her house excepted because she protected the spies.
The people are forbidden to take the devoted things for private use. Silver, gold, bronze, and iron belong in the Lord’s treasury. Taking what has been set apart will bring disaster upon Israel’s own camp.
The wall falls, the city is captured, and the text describes the killing of men and women, young and old, and livestock. This is severe destruction, not merely the defeat of an armed garrison. The narrative places it within this conquest command; it does not authorize readers to attack people they identify as religious enemies.
How is this passage commonly understood?
The USCCB notes explain the ban as dedication to destruction and emphasize the Lord’s gift of victory. Wesley defends the judgment by appealing to divine sovereignty and original sin, including in his discussion of infants. That is his theological defense; the chapter itself does not narrate the individual offenses or spiritual condition of every person killed. A claim that such deaths were a benefit to their victims goes beyond the account.
Where does this fit in God's plan?
Hebrews 11:30 explicitly attributes the fall of Jericho’s walls after the seven days of marching to faith. Its next verse names Rahab’s rescue through faith. This stated New Testament reading directs attention to trusting God and receiving His messengers; it does not issue a new command for believers to reproduce Jericho’s destruction.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.
Where can I study this further?
No deeper study linked yet.