Matthew Emadi is a pastor of Crossroads Church in Sandy, UT.
1. Introduction
Joshua 10:1–15 is famous for its puzzling description of the sun and moon standing still while Israel destroyed their enemies (Josh. 10:12–13). Trying to understand these strange astronomical events has captivated the attention of commentators for good reason.[1] But perhaps fixation on this cosmological quandary has kept interpreters from sufficiently exploring other avenues of interpretation in Joshua 10. In this article, I will explore one of those avenues.[2] I will argue that Joshua 10 echoes Genesis 14—a literary connection, in my view, that has been underappreciated in commentaries and scholarly literature.[3] More specifically, I contend that Joshua’s war with Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem, and his coalition of kings echoes the narrative of Genesis 14 which describes Abraham’s[4] war with kings and his encounter with Melchizedek, king of Salem.[5] In arguing for this literary connection, I am not denying that Joshua 10 (and Joshua as a whole) depends more heavily on the story of the Exodus where Yahweh fights on Israel’s behalf to deliver them from bondage (Exod. 14:14).[6] Yet even Yahweh’s overthrow of Pharaoh and his armies is an instantiation of a theme that began with Melchizedek’s commentary on Abraham’s military success: God Most High delivered Abraham’s enemies into his hand (Gen. 14:20).
Scholars have recognized some level of connection between Joshua 10 and Genesis 14, though most simply point out the similarities between the names and jurisdictions of Melchizedek king of Salem and Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem.[7] But should we limit the literary connection between these two chapters to the similar names of two kings ruling the same territory? Is this merely a historical coincidence? Or do these two kings and their respective jurisdictions signal to the reader that Joshua 10 intends to situate Joshua’s battles within the larger framework of God’s covenant promises to Abraham, and if so, how does it shape our understanding not only of Joshua 10, but the theology of the conquest narrative as a whole?
Some critical approaches to Joshua suppose the reference to Adoni-zedek in Joshua 10 intends to contest the positive view of Jerusalem’s non-Israelite origin that we find in Genesis 14:17–20 and Psalm 110. Dozeman, in his commentary, appeals to Knauf’s suggestion that “the MT of Josh 10 reflects an anti-Jerusalem point of view by fashioning a polemical story against the royal theology associated with Melchizedek.”[8] In other words, Genesis 14 is pro-Jerusalem while Joshua 10 intends to undermine Jerusalem and its political monarchy. Instead of assuming that Joshua 10 and Genesis 14 present competing perspectives on Jerusalem and its political landscape, my analysis will follow a redemptive-historical line of interpretation that assumes the biblical authors crafted their narratives to develop the theological themes in earlier biblical texts in a way that is consistent with the intentions of those earlier biblical texts.
My thesis is that Joshua 10:1–15 evokes Genesis 14 to reinforce the legitimacy of Joshua’s holy war against Canaan as the outworking of God’s covenant promises to Abraham, and in so doing heightens the expectation that the blessing of Abraham will come through the conquest of kings and rulers of the earth. To defend this thesis, I will first give a brief interpretation of Genesis 14 in its own context. Second, I will establish the theological and textual warrant for reading Joshua 10 in light of Genesis 14. Third, I will explain the interpretive significance of this study for understanding Joshua 10 and larger themes in the book of Joshua. Lastly, I will consider Psalm 110 to demonstrate how David may have read Genesis 14 and Joshua in tandem to articulate his own messianic expectation.
2. Genesis 14: Abraham’s War with Kings and Encounter with Melchizedek
Genesis 14 begins with a description of a battle between two coalitions of kings (Gen. 14:1–12). Chedorlaomer king of Elam ruled over five kings for 12 years, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled against Chedorlaomer causing Chedorlaomer to form an alliance with three other kings to overpower the rebellion—four kings led by Chedorlaomer against five kings (Gen. 14:9). Chedorlaomer and his army sweep through the land, crush the rebellion, and conquer the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah taking Abraham’s nephew Lot captive (Gen. 14:12). While dwelling among the Amorites, Abraham learns of his nephew’s captivity, prompting him to lead 318 of his trained men in a rescue operation. Abraham divided his forces by night, defeated Chedorlaomer’s armies, and rescued Lot and the other captives.
The second half of Genesis 14 records Abraham’s encounter with two different kings representing two different types of kingdoms. Abraham first meets Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blesses Abraham by God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth and acknowledges that Abraham’s victory came from God (Gen. 14:19–20). Melchizedekian kingship is servant-kingship, grounded in the sovereignty of God as the creator of heaven and earth. Melchizedek gives Abraham bread and wine, and Abraham pays Melchizedek a tithe (Gen. 14:18, 20).
Abraham’s next encounter is with the king of Sodom who meets Abraham not with a blessing but with a bargain. The King of Sodom offers Abraham the spoils of war but wants the persons for himself. Sodom’s king represents worldly kingship that clamors for power at the expense of others. Abraham refuses the King of Sodom’s request and instead aligns himself with Jerusalem’s king Melchizedek and with Melchizedek’s God (Gen. 14:22).
The lengthy description of the battle between kings of ancient city-states may seem unnecessary and even out of place in the Genesis narrative, but the discussion of these political and military activities in Genesis 14:1–11 sets up the significance of Abraham’s actions in the rest of the chapter. Abraham’s defeat of Chedorlaomer’s alliance means that Abraham is, as Alexander writes, “no ordinary semi-pastoralist. His military exploits place him on par with kings.”[9] At a time when Abraham could have used his political and military momentum to create alliances with rulers of Canaanite city-states and thereby obtain possessions and land, he refused the offer from the king of Sodom. By rejecting any alliance with the king of Sodom, Abraham indicated, according to Alexander, “his own commitment to be a righteous priest-king.”[10] Abraham’s statement of faith in the God of Melchizedek—God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth—revealed Abraham’s resolve to receive the covenant promises by faith (Gen. 14:22–23; cf. Gen. 15:1).[11]
A handful of these themes will prove significant in the interpretation of Joshua 10 below. First, Genesis 14 implies that the blessing of Abraham will come to pass in a fallen world through the conquest of kings opposed to God’s redemptive purposes. There are Pharaohs in Egypt and there are Chedorlaomer-like kings from the east invading Canaan. The city of man opposes the city of God. If Abraham’s offspring is to inherit the land of Canaan, they will first need to cleanse the land of forces of evil. God’s redemptive purpose will happen through a holy war. Those associated with Abraham, like Lot, will experience God’s blessing; those who oppose Abraham will be cursed (Gen. 12:3).
Second, Melchizedek’s blessing clearly identifies the source of Abraham’s military success: God Most High gave Abraham the victory in battle. Abraham and his seed must look to God for help when their enemies oppose them. God is a warrior; he fights for his people; he gives their enemies into their hands (Gen. 14:20; Josh. 10:8).
Third, as early as Genesis 14 in the biblical narrative, we learn what kind of kingship should characterize Jerusalem’s throne. Melchizedek’s kingship harkens back to God’s original design for Adam to be a priest-king in the garden.[12] Alexander refers to Melchizedek’s kingship as “divinely instituted” in that “it seeks to re-establish God’s sovereignty on the earth in line with the divine mandate given to human beings when first created.”[13] Jerusalem’s royal theology in the days of Abraham also anticipates the kind of kingship that would characterize the Davidic monarchy (cf. Ps. 110).
Lastly, Abraham lived in Canaan during a time when evil was present, but not yet ripe enough to uproot. Abraham dwelt peacefully among the Amorites, and a righteous priest-king ruled the Canaanite city of Salem. After Abraham’s military success, God informed Abraham that his descendants would possess the land only when the iniquity of the Amorites was complete (Gen. 15:13–16). If Genesis 14 implies that Abraham could have led his own conquest to take the promised land, Genesis 15 clarifies the reason for the delay. God will first bring Abraham’s descendants to Egypt, lead them out in the fourth generation, and bring them back to the land when the iniquity of the Amorites warrants their expulsion (cf. Deut. 9:4–5).[14]
Textual Warrant for Reading Joshua 10 in Light of Genesis 14
Joshua and the Abrahamic Covenant
Before looking at the thematic and linguistic points of contact between Joshua 10 and Genesis 14, it is important to note that the book of Joshua presents Joshua’s conquest of Canaan as the fulfillment of the land promise to Abraham.[15] The book opens with the Lord commanding Joshua to go into the land promised to Moses (Josh. 1:3) and to the patriarchs (Josh. 1:6), shaping the rest of the narrative against the backdrop of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 15:18–20; 17:8; 22:17).[16] Koorevar has shown that the structure of the whole book depends on four prominent verbs describing Israel’s occupation of the land: [17]
In Joshua 1–5, Israel must “pass over” (עָבַר) the Jordan to enter the land.
In Joshua 6–11, Israel must “take” (לָקַח) the land.
In Joshua 12–12, the land is “divided” (חָלַק)
In Joshua 23–24, Israel must “serve” (עָבַד) Yahweh in the land.
Other aspects of God’s promises to Abraham surface in the narrative including God’s promise to bless those who bless Abraham and curse those who curse him. Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute, and her household receive Joshua’s salvation because she hid the spies and aligned herself with Israel (Josh. 2:1–24; 6:25).[18] Evil kings, on the other hand, are placed under a curse symbolically portrayed at various points in the narrative when Joshua hangs their dead bodies on trees (Josh 8:29; 10:26; cf. Deut. 21:22–23). Even the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant occupies a pivotal point in the narrative when Israel is about to cross over the Jordan to enter the land. Before they can cross over, the Lord first commands Joshua to have all the men of Israel circumcised (Josh. 5:1–8). If they are going to receive the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, they must possess the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gen. 17:11). What God promised to Abraham and the patriarchs, he fulfilled through Joshua, a point made emphatically clear in Joshua 21:43–45:
Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:43–45, ESV, emphasis mine)
If the Abrahamic covenant is, in part, the “interpretive and theological grid” through which we are to read Joshua, then it seems likely that the author of Joshua would allude to the one narrative in Genesis where Abraham conquers kings, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of Israel’s holy war and further situating the conquest in its covenantal and redemptive context.[19]
Textual Evidence for Historical Correspondence Between Joshua 10 and Genesis 14
My analysis in this section follows Hamilton’s definition of typological interpretation:
“Typological Interpretation establishes historical correspondence on the basis of linguistic points of contact (i.e., the re-use of significant terms), quotations, repeated sequence of events, and similarities in salvation historical significance and covenantal context. As these features are discerned in the text, interpreters detect author-intended parallels between people, events, and institutions, and they have textual warrant to perceive a growing significance in the repeated patterns.”[20]
Using Hamilton’s criteria for establishing historical correspondence, the following seven points of contact between Joshua 10 and Genesis 14 seem sufficient to demonstrate that Joshua’s battle with Adoni-zedek echoes the narrative of Genesis 14.[21]
First, Joshua 10:1 introduces Adoni-zedek (אֲדֹנִי־צֶדֶק), king of Jerusalem (מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלַםִ).[22] As already mentioned, Adoni-zedek’s name and kingship over Jerusalem recalls Melchizedek (מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק), the king of Salem (מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם) (Gen. 14:18).
Genesis 14:18: מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם
Joshua 10:1: אֲדֹנִי־צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלַםִ
Adoni-zedek’s name is, as Mathews observes, “identical in its construction to Melchizedek’s.”[23] Both are kings of “righteousness” by name, though only one is righteous in practice.
Second, both kings—Adoni-zedek and Melchizedek—governed the same city, or at least two cities that were clearly linked in the biblical record.[24] Psalm 76:2 (MT 76:3) identifies Salem with Zion (Jerusalem), the city of the Davidic king:
His abode has been established in Salem,
his dwelling place in Zion. (Ps. 72:6, ESV)
Placing them in poetic parallel structure, Psalm 72:6 equates Salem with Zion. Even though Joshua 10:1 is the first mention of Jerusalem in the Old Testament, its appearance in connection with a king having צֶדֶק in his name draws the reader’s mind back to Genesis 14 and Melchizedek’s city of Salem. Melchizedek’s (Jeru)Salem is Adoni-zedek’s Jerusalem.
Third, the name “Salem” (שָׁלֵם) in Hebrew means peace. Melchizedek is, as the author of Hebrews says, the “king of peace” (Heb. 7:2). Peace plays a defining role in Adoni-zedek’s kingship as well. Adoni-zedek, however, is not at peace with Israel. His military exploits against Gibeon were due to the fact Israel made “peace” (שָׁלֵם) with Gibeon—a fact repeated twice in the first four verses of Joshua 10 (Josh. 10:1, 4). Adoni-zedek is an anti-Melchizedek in the narrative. As we will see below, the nature of Adoni-zedek’s kingship is not the kind of kingship that should characterize Jerusalem’s throne.
Fourth, when Adoni-zedek hears about Joshua’s defeat of Ai and Israel’s covenant with Gibeon, he forms an alliance with four other Amorite kings to attack Gibeon (Josh. 10:3–5), prompting Joshua to come to the defense of the Gibeonites.[25] Joshua’s war against these “five kings of the Amorites” recalls the events of Genesis 14 where Chedorlaomer formed an alliance with three kings from the East to fight against five kings (Gen. 14:9). Prior to the book of Joshua, Genesis 14 is the only narrative that describes a holy war against a coalition of kings. The fact that the events of Joshua 10 specifically involve five kings, a numeric detail mentioned five times in the narrative (Josh. 10:5, 16, 17, 22, 23), makes the allusion to Genesis 14 more likely (cf. Gen. 14:9).
Fifth, the descriptions of the military campaigns in Genesis 14 and Joshua 10 share some similarities. Abraham divided his forces at “night” (לַיְלָה) and “struck” (נָכָה) Lot’s captors and “pursued” (רָדַף) them (Gen. 14:15). Joshua attacked his enemies after they went up “all night” (כָּל־הַלַּיְלָה) from Gilgal (Josh. 10:9). During the battle, the Lord threw Israel’s enemies into a panic and then “struck” (נָכָה) them at Gibeon, and “pursued” (רָדַף) them, and “struck” (נָכָה) them again as far as Azekah and Makkedah (Josh. 10:10).[26] What Abraham did to his enemies in Genesis 14:14–15, the Lord did to Joshua’s in Joshua 10:10.
Sixth, at a thematic level, Abraham’s war with kings and Joshua’s war with Adoni-zedek’s unholy alliance both began as an effort to help a third party. In Genesis 14, Abraham springs into action against Chedorlaomer’s army on behalf of his nephew Lot. Abraham’s war is a rescue operation. Similarly, Joshua wages war against Adoni-zedek’s forces on behalf of the Gibeonites.[27] In Genesis 14, the promise to Abraham that he would be a blessing began to work itself out in Abraham’s rescue of Lot. In Joshua 10, the Canaanite Gibeonites appeal to an offspring of Abraham for their salvation. The Abrahamic promise is at work in both narratives: Abraham’s kinsman Lot and the nations (Gibeonites) are blessed through Abraham and his offspring.
Lastly, the Lord’s promise to defeat Joshua’s enemies recalls Melchizedek’s ascription of praise to God for giving Abraham victory in battle:
Genesis 14:20a: And blessed be God Most High who has delivered (מִגֵּן) your enemies into your hand (בְּיָדֶךָ)
Joshua 10:8a: And the Lord said to Joshua, “Do not fear them, for I have given them (נְתַתִּים) into your hand (בְיָדְךָ).”
Yahweh’s promise to Joshua functions as the answer to the Gibeonites appeal for help in verse 6: “Do not loosen your hand (יָדֶיךָ) from your servants!” Joshua later reaffirms the Lord’s promise to the people in Joshua 10:19 “for Yahweh your God has given them (נְתָנָם) into your hand (בְּיֶדְכֶם).” Melchizedek’s statement in Genesis 14:20 is the first time the Old Testament explicitly attributes military victory to God—a theme that gets developed in the Exodus and the conquest.
Parallels between Genesis 14 and Joshua 10
| Genesis 14 | Joshua 10 |
| Melchizedek (מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק) | Adoni-zedek (אֲדֹנִי־צֶדֶק) |
| Melchizedek is “king of Salem” (מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם) | Adoni-zedek is “king of Jerusalem” (מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלַםִ) |
| Melchizedek is king of peace (שָׁלֵם) who blesses Abraham | Adoni-zedek is afraid because Gibeon made peace (שָׁלֵם) with Israel (Josh. 10:1, 4) |
| A battle of four kings against five kings and Abraham’s defeat of four kings who conquered the Amorites (Gen. 14:1–16) | Joshua’s war with “five kings” of the Amorites (Josh. 10:5, 16, 17, 22, 23) |
| Abraham divided his forces by “night” (לַיְלָה) and “struck” (נָכָה) his enemies and “pursued” (רָדַף) them (Gen. 14:15). | Joshua travels all night (כָּל־הַלַּיְלָה) and the Lord “struck” (נָכָה, x2) Israel’s enemies and “pursued” (רָדַף) them (Josh 10:10). |
| Abraham goes to war to rescue his nephew Lot (Gen. 14:12–16) | Joshua goes to war to rescue Gibeon (Josh. 10:1–15) |
| God gave Abraham’s enemies into his hand (Gen. 14:20) | God promised to deliver Joshua’s enemies into his hand (Josh. 10:8) |
The points of contact between Joshua 10 and Genesis 14 seem strong enough to suggest that Joshua 10 intentionally evokes the narrative of Genesis 14 in its description of Joshua’s defeat of Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem, and his coalition of Amorite kings. But what exactly is the interpretive payoff?
Interpretive Significance
Reading Joshua 10 in light of Genesis 14 adds a level of theological depth and covenantal context to the interpretation of Joshua’s war with Jerusalem’s king and his unholy alliance. First, by evoking Abraham’s war with kings and his encounter with Melchizedek, Joshua 10 functions as an apologetic for Joshua’s holy war against the people of Canaan. It is not just God’s promise to the patriarchs that gives Joshua the right to conquer the Canaanites, it is the fact that the iniquity of Canaanites has matured making them the objects of God’s just judgment. Part of Adoni-zedek’s role in the narrative is to show the reader the moral degradation of the Canaanite civilization since the days of Abraham. When Joshua moved his army south, he encountered Adoni-zedek, a man opposed to the true and living God despite the fact that his name means “my lord is righteous.”[28] Unlike Abraham, Joshua was not greeted by a righteous king from Jerusalem. There is no Melchizedek-like king to offer Israel a covenant meal around a table of peace, but an evil counterpart named Adoni-zedek who opposes peace and opposes Israel.
Adoni-zedek’s coalition of Amorite kings is a stark contrast to the friendly alliance Abraham once enjoyed with the Amorite people (Gen. 14:13, 24). The Amorites are no longer friendly to Abraham, instead they are at war with his seed. Abraham went to war with Chedorlaomer who conquered both Amalekites and Amorites (Gen. 14:7). Joshua, however, fought with the kings of the Amorites led by Jerusalem’s Adoni-zedek. Old alliances are dead. Jerusalem’s king in Joshua 10 is more like Chedorlaomer than Melchizedek. Israel’s archenemy is not outside of Jerusalem but within. What once delayed the fulfillment of the land promise—the incompleteness of the iniquity of the Amorites (Gen. 15:16)—no longer stands in the way. Their iniquity is now complete.[29]
Second, as already noted, both Abraham’s rescue of Lot and Joshua’s rescue of the Gibeonites are the outworking of the Abrahamic promise (cf. Gen. 12:3). Whether or not the Gibeonites are brought fully into the covenant community of Israel is up for debate, but regardless, their deliverance is a picture of the kind of blessing that comes to those who seek salvation in Abraham’s seed. Their cry for help is quite explicit: “Come up to us in haste! Save us and help us!” (Josh. 10:6b). Salvation is what every nation loyal to the offspring of Abraham will receive. Just as Abraham rescued Lot and crushed worldly powers; so too does Joshua save Gibeonite Canaanites from an equally threatening army by executing judgment on evil kings and rulers of the earth. Genesis 14 and Joshua 10 together contribute a level of nuance to the nature of the blessing of Abraham. God’s blessing to the nations will require the conquest of evil.
Third, Genesis 14 and Joshua 10 identify God as the source of military success. Genesis 14 is the first mention of war (מִלְהָמָה) in the biblical storyline.[30] In a Genesis 3 world, nations rage against each other and against God’s people. God’s solution to the curse of Genesis 3 and the hostility of warring kings is his promise to Abraham.[31] Abraham defeated his enemies even when the odds were stacked against him (Abraham had only 318 men for battle). Melchizedek’s blessing revealed how Abraham achieved such an unlikely victory: “And blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand” (Gen. 14:20, ESV). Melchizedek’s blessing is the theological interpretation of the Bible’s first recorded battle and sets a trajectory for what will become repeated pattern in Israel’s history—God fights for his people (Exod. 14:14; Deut. 1:30; 3:22; 20:4; 2 Chron. 20:15, 29; Neh. 4:20).
Joshua 10 illustrates the truth of Melchizedek’s blessing and the divine warrior theme prominent in the book of Exodus. Joshua 10:10–14 describes the battle with terminology that evokes the book of Exodus.[32] “Panic” (הָמַם), “struck” (נָכָה), “pursue” (רָדַף), “fled” (נוּס), and “hurl” (שָׁלַךְ) are all significant terms in the Exodus narrative.[33] The stones from heaven echo the seventh plague where God rained down hail on Egypt striking down everything in the field, including both man and beast (Exod. 9:25). The description of the sun standing still is probably part of this Exodus pattern as well. The sun stood still not to prolong daylight, but to extend the darkness echoing God’s ninth plague on Egypt when he blotted out the light of the sun (Exod. 10:21–29).[34] My point here is that Abraham’s holy war in Genesis 14 is an initial manifestation of the divine warrior theme that gets developed in the Exodus, the conquest, and later revelation—“Yahweh is a man of war, Yahweh is his name” (Exod. 15:3; cf. Exod. 14:14).
Lastly, the similarities between Joshua and Abraham and their respective battles invite the reader to draw comparisons between these two significant figures. Joshua’s military victories over the kings in Canaan, like Abraham’s before him, place him on par with kings. The five kings of the Amorites in Joshua 10 flee from Joshua and hide themselves in a cave at Makkedah (Josh. 10:16). After removing them from the cave, Joshua summoned Israel’s leaders to stomp the necks of their enemies (Josh. 10:24), a graphic illustration of the promise of Genesis 3:15 and an echo to Jacob’s prophecy about the future king from Judah’s line:[35]
| Genesis 3:15 | Genesis 49:8 | Joshua 10:24b |
| I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. (ESV) | Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck (עֹרֶף) of your enemies; your father’s sons shall bow down before you. (ESV) | “Come near; put your feet on the necks of these kings.” Then they came near and put their feet on their necks (צַוָּאר). (ESV) |
Though Joshua does not hold the office of kingship, his leadership, actions, and responsibilities depict him as a kind of kingly figure leading Israel’s armies.[36] His success is, in fact, contingent on meditation on Torah, and obeying Torah (Josh. 1:7–8), the same duties Moses prescribed for Israel’s future king in Deuteronomy 17:18–20.
Like Abraham, Joshua also takes on the role of a priestly ruler. In the narrative flow from Genesis to the book of Joshua, the conquest of Canaan is a type of re-entry into Eden.[37] Before the battle of Jericho, Joshua encounters an angel wielding a sword (Josh. 5:13–15)—a clear allusion to the fiery sword that barred access to Eden after Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:24).[38] Like Moses at the burning bush, Joshua removes his sandals because the ground is holy (Josh. 5:15; cf. Exod. 3:1–5). Joshua’s commission, in part, is to lead Israel back into sacred space, the place where God will dwell with his people (cf. Josh. 18:1).
If Adoni-zedek functions as a literary foil to Melchizedek (Jerusalem’s priest-king), then perhaps the narrative of Joshua 10 insinuates that Jerusalem in Joshua’s day needed the kind of kingship it had during the reign of Melchizedek—righteous kingship that is subservient to God and blesses the offspring of Abraham. The irony inherent in Adoni-zedek’s name as the ruler of Jerusalem is surely significant. As McConville and Williams comment:
The assertion contained in the name Adonizedek is ultimately true of Yahweh according to the narrative, and that narrative is leading us to a time when Yahweh would be recognized as God in Jerusalem and when he would call kings to act righteously there (cf. 2 Sam. 8:15). Adonizedek, therefore, points to a goal of the story well beyond himself, while in the meantime he stands in defiant opposition to it. The irony points up well the nature of the conflict: who has the right to claim the mantle of righteousness, and who rules truly in the land?”[39]
Righteousness and peace characterized (Jeru)Salem’s throne when Abraham conquered kings and rescued lot (cf. Heb. 7:2). Righteousness and peace are qualities that would later define Davidic kingship (Ps. 72:7; Isa. 9:7; 48:18–19).[40] Between Melchizedek’s reign in Salem and David’s monarchy in Jerusalem stands Joshua, a priestly ruler cleansing Jerusalem of its uncleanness, granting rest to Abraham’s offspring, leading them into the sacred space of a New Eden, and even interceding on their behalf (Josh. 10:12–14). Joshua 10, then, would support the idea that Joshua himself is a model for Israel’s future kings.
Psalm 110: Melchizedek, Holy War, And Joshua-Like Conquest of Kings
The argument of this paper will have greater merit if later biblical authors give any evidence of reading Joshua 10 in light of Genesis 14. Psalm 110 may provide one such example. I have argued elsewhere that Psalm 110 is result of David’s meditations on Genesis 14, the promises of the Davidic covenant, and the patterns of David’s own life.[41] Verse 4 stands at the center of its chiastic structure: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”[42] On both sides of verse 4 are descriptions of the Messiah’s holy war. He is a priest after the Melchizedekian order whose ministry resembles not the Levitical sacrifices, but Abraham’s war with kings in Genesis 14 and Joshua’s conquest of the promised land.
Psalm 110 begins with a declaration of Yahweh to David’s Lord, the Messiah: “Sit at my right hand until I make (שִׁית) your enemies (אָיַב) a footstool for your feet (רֶגֶל).” The imagery of Psalm 110:1 echoes Adam’s original commission as described in Psalm 8:6: “You have placed (שִׁית) all things under his feet” (רֶגֶל; cf. Gen. 1:26–28). David’s Lord will “rule” (רָדָה) as king (Ps. 110:2).[43] He will fulfill the Adamic commission in a fallen world where enemies pose a significant threat to the people of God. Prior to Psalm 110, Joshua 10:24 provides the most literal example of Israel placing their enemies under their feet.[44] After Joshua defeated the armies of the five kings, he brought the kings out before all the men of Israel and summoned the chiefs and the men of war to put their feet (רֶגֶל) on the necks of the kings (Josh. 10:24). The object lesson was to show Israel what God would do to all their enemies (אָיַב, Josh. 10:25)—they will effectively become footstools for their feet. Psalm 110:6 depicts the Messiah’s enemy as the “head” (רֹאשׁ).[45] The רֹאשׁ is not only a clear allusion to Genesis 3:15 and Numbers 24:17, it is also probably David’s way of recasting Chedorlaomer as the eschatological enemy of God—a serpentine foe ruling not just in Canaan but over the earth.[46] All enemies, including spiritual forces of evil, will be subjected to the reign of the Messiah.
Kings are the objects of the Messiah’s righteous indignation in Psalm 110:5. Having just referenced Melchizedek in verse 4, Psalm 110:5 is part of David’s sustained mediation on Abraham’s war with kings and encounter with Melchizedek as described in Genesis 14. Like Abraham, David’s Lord will smash “kings” (מְלָכִים) on the day of his wrath (Ps. 110:5). Outside of Genesis 14, the book of Joshua most heavily records and emphasizes the subjugation of earthly kings. The word מֶלֶך (king) appears 109 times in the book of Joshua. Almost every occurrence refers to the targets of Joshua’s military campaign. Joshua 12:7–24 lists 31 kings Joshua conquered during his battles in Canaan. As David reflected on Genesis 14, it seems reasonable to conclude that he would have noticed the parallels between Abraham’s conquest of kings and Joshua’s military campaign against Canaanite kings, especially since Joshua 10 and Genesis 14 specifically share so many parallels.
If Psalm 110 also represents David’s reflections on the promises of God’s covenant with him (2 Samuel 7:1–16), David would have expected the Messiah (his greater son) to give people the rest that Joshua ultimately did not. God promised to bring Israel to a place where “sons of injustice” would no longer afflict them “as they did in former times” when judges ruled over the people (2 Sam. 7:10–11). The book of Judges describes Israel’s problems with these “sons of injustice” that Israel did not drive out under Joshua’s leadership (Josh. 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12–13; 23:13). Judges 2:21–23 refers to the nations that were not given “into the hand of Joshua.” The people had rest under Joshua’s leadership (Josh. 21:4; 22:3; 23:1), but it was not permanent. God promised David that their final rest would come through a Davidic son who would finish Joshua’s original assignment.
Perhaps, then, Psalm 110 indicates that Genesis 14 and the book of Joshua—with its emphasis on conquest of kings—are two streams flowing into the ocean of David’s messianic theology. Abraham’s war with kings, and Joshua’s conquest of kings together seem to form a pattern that escalates in the Messiah’s eschatological conquest of the earth. David’s Lord will conquer the kings of nations on the eschatological day (Ps. 110:5–6). The Messiah’s “promised land” is the entire earth. What Joshua did not complete in Canaan, the Messiah will finish on a greater scale—he will fill the nations with corpses (Ps. 110:6).
The data presented above suggests that Psalm 110 was influenced by the story of Joshua as a whole. David may have made connections between Genesis 14 and Joshua 10 in particular, but the evidence from Psalm 110 is insufficient to yield absolute certainty. Nevertheless, Psalm 110 establishes a broader connection between Genesis 14, Joshua’s conquest of kings in the promised land, and the Messiah’s ministry of holy war across the earth.
Conclusion
I suggested that the influence of Genesis 14 on Joshua 10 is underappreciated and underdeveloped in the scholarly literature. Recognizing that some inner-biblical echoes and allusions are easier to substantiate than others, I have tried to demonstrate that there are enough points of contact between Joshua 10 and Genesis 14 to conclude that Joshua 10:1–15 evokes Genesis 14 for apologetic and theological reasons. Contrary to critical proposals that interpret Jerusalem’s two kings—Melchizedek in Genesis 14 and Adoni-zedek in Joshua 10—as part of two competing perspectives on Jerusalem and its political monarchy, Adoni-zedek’s malice actually reveals Jerusalem’s need for the kind of kingship it had in the days of Abraham under the reign of Melchizedek. One of these kings is indeed not like the other. Joshua 10 is not anti-Jerusalem; it is anti-Adoni-zedek. His presence in Jerusalem further justifies Joshua’s takeover of Canaan. Evil was rampant in Joshua’s day, even in what was once Melchizedek’s city.
At a theological level, Abraham’s redemptive holy war in Genesis 14 sets a trajectory that escalates in the Exodus and Joshua’s conquest of the land. The pattern creates an increased expectation that a final seed of Abraham will execute a similar kind of judgment on kings of the earth. David believed as much about the Messiah in Psalm 110. The blessing of Abraham to all the peoples of the earth (typified by Lot and the Gibeonites) will come through the destruction of kings and rulers that rage against the LORD and his Anointed (Ps. 2:1–2; cf. Ps. 110:5).
The hope of the church today is that Jesus will one day come again to vanquish evil and make all his enemies a footstool for his feet. The apostle John fortified his readers to endure persecution by reminding them of the coming conquest of a better Joshua (Ἰησοῦς).[47] Jesus is the “ruler of kings on earth” (Rev. 1:5). His second coming will strike fear into the hearts of ungodly rulers who oppose the church. Five kings once hid from Joshua in a cave to escape his justice. John says that a day is coming when the kings of the earth will hide themselves in caves among the rocks of the mountains to escape the face of the one seated on the throne and the wrath of the lamb (Rev. 6:15–17). History repeats itself. Powerful forces of evil will not endure. Jesus will shatter kings on the day of his wrath to make way for Abraham’s children to receive the promised land of a new heavens and new earth.
Read more from the inaugural issue by downloading the full pdf or accessing the articles below.
[1] See for example, Daniel Vainstub, Hezi Yizhaq, and Uzi Avner, “The Miracle of the Sun and Moon in Joshua 10 as a Solar Eclipse,” Vetus Testamentum 70 (220 AD): 722–51; Gordon Oeste, “‘A Day Like No Other’ In The Context Of Yahweh War: Joshua 10:14 And The Characterization Of Joshua,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 4 (2014): 689–702; Bill Tackmier, “A Theological, Literary, and Historical Analysis of Joshua 10:1-14,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 114, no. 2 (2017): 83–92; R.D. Wilson, “Understanding ‘the Sun Stood Still,’” in Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, ed. Walter C. Kaiser (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 61–65; John S. Holladay, “The Day(s) the Moon Stood Still,” Journal of Biblical Literature 87, no. 2 (1968): 166–78; Baruch Margalit, “The Day the Sun Did Not Stand Still: A New Look at Joshua X 8–15,” Vetus Testamentum 42, no. 4 (1992): 466–91.
[2] While my purpose is not to focus on the details about the sun and moon standing still, I will briefly suggest how my argument helps inform the meaning of Joshua 10:12–14 in the course of this article. For historical and geographical analysis of Joshua 10, see John D. Currid, “Echoes of Egypt and the Exodus in the Battle of the Five Kings (Joshua 10:10–15),” in The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings: Studies in Evangelical Old Testament Hermeneutics in Honor of Duane A. Garrett, ed. Andrew M. King, Joshua M. Philpot, and William R. Osborne (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2021), 172–76.
[3] Beale notes that some scholars distinguish between echoes and allusions suggesting an echo is not as clear a reference to an earlier text as an allusion. I have chosen to use the word “echo” to acknowledge that Joshua 10’s dependence on Genesis 14 is not as clear as some other allusions in the Bible. Beale, however, observes that the distinction between “echo” and “allusion” may not be that helpful. See G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 32. I will use terms like “echo,” “evoke,” and “allude” in this paper to indicate that some of the narrative details of Joshua 10 intentionally call to mind the narrative events of Genesis 14 for theological purposes. The points of contact between Joshua 10 and Genesis 14 that I present below are enough to satisfy—to varying degrees—Richard Hays’ criteria for validating the presence of an allusion (he prefers the term “echo”). Hays discusses these criteria with regard to the NT use of the OT, but the principles are the same for the OT use of the OT. See Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29–32. Bryan Estelle has a helpful discussion for determining literary connections in Bryan D. Estelle, Echoes of Exodus: Tracing a Biblical Motif (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2018), 28–30.
[4] In Genesis 14, Abraham is still referred to as Abram. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the name Abraham throughout this article unless quoting directly from Genesis 14 or another scholar.
[5] Though Melchizedek’s name appears only in Genesis 14:18 and Psalm 110:4, I agree with Joshua Mathews who has written, “Psalm 110 is not the only place beyond the Pentateuch where we find verbal echoes of Melchizedek and his royal priestly order. It just happens to be the only place where he is mentioned by name.” Joshua G. Mathews, Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18-20 and Its Echoes throughout the Tanak, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements, vol. 8 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 121.
[6] Currid says, “The dependence of the book of Joshua on the book of Exodus is obvious, and it occurs on many levels. The reliance is structural, thematic, and linguistic. In particular, the account of the Exodus out of Egypt simply reverberates into the conquest narratives; it is what Robert Alter calls ‘a kind of recurrent stammer in the process of transmission.’” Currid, “Echoes of Egypt and the Exodus in the Battle of the Five Kings (Joshua 10:10–15),” 185. For a brief discussion of the new Exodus theme in Joshua, see Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 127–28.
[7] The following resources acknowledge Joshua 10 has some level of connection to Melchizedek and Genesis 14: Tackmier, “A Theological, Literary, and Historical Analysis of Joshua 10,” 83; Mathews, Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order, 117; A. Graeme Auld, Joshua: Jesus Son of Nauē in Codex Vaticanus, Septuagint Commentary Series (Boston: Brill, 2005), 159; Thomas B. Dozeman, Joshua 1-12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 6b, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), 428, 448; Richard D. Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 140; J. Gordon McConville and Stephen N. Williams, Joshua, The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 51–52.
[8] Dozeman, Joshua 1-12, 6b:448.
[9] T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2009), 82. Wenham similarly writes, “In these scenes Abram is portrayed not merely as the archetypal Israelite who has faith in God, but as a conquering king who has been promised victory over his foes and a great territory.” Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 1, WBC (Waco: TX: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 335.
[10] Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem, 82.
[11] McConville helpfully summarizes the meaning of Abraham’s actions: “In the gift and the polite refusal, therefore, Abram shows how he will possess the land; he will receive it as a gift. . . . Perhaps we can say that Abram learns this, or relearns it, in the encounter with Melchizedek, for this is implied in the suggestion that the one encounter bears upon the other. Yet he is not a bland receiver of the doctrine, for in assimilating it he re-expresses, now for the benefit of the King of Sodom (v. 22), his own faith in the God, Yahweh, who has promised him land and posterity. The priest-king of Salem knows that it is the Most High, the Maker of heaven and earth, who alone can give; but Abram knows that this is none other than Yahweh.” J. Gordon McConville, “Abram and Melchizedek: Horizons in Genesis 14,” in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50, ed. R. S. Hess, G. J. Wenham, and P. E. Satterthwaite (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1994), 115. Alexander draws a similar conclusion: “Abraham will not inherit the earth through the use of aggressive military power, although clearly his defeat of the eastern kings indicates he has the capacity to do so. Rather, he looks to God to provide for his future well-being.” Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem, 82.
[12] See my discussion in Matthew H. Emadi, The Royal Priest: Psalm 110 in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson, New Studies in Biblical Theology 61 (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2022), 43–49.
[13] Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem, 82.
[14] Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 160.
[15] Schreiner says that the book of Joshua describes how the land promise to Abraham is fulfilled. See Thomas R. Schreiner, The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 107. See also Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 244; Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, 127.
[16] The description of the land in Joshua 1:4 alludes to God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18 (cf. Exod. 23:31).
[17] Hendrik Koorevaar, De Opbouw van Het Boek Jozua (Heverlee: Centrum voor Bijbelse Vorming Beljie, 1990). See also J. Gordon McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1993), 101–102; See also Schreiner, The King in His Beauty, 107.
[18] The Gibeonites receive similar blessing because of the covenant they make with Israel.
[19] Sam Emadi helpfully comments on the importance of covenants for understanding OT historical narratives: “Readers often understand the full significance of a character’s actions only in the light of covenant stipulations and promises laid out elsewhere in the Old Testament. Covenants, thus, provide the inner-biblical interpretive and theological grid needed to evaluate historical narratives. Reading Old Testament history according to covenantal unfolding and context reveals the deeper, theological significance that often goes unstated in narrative.” Samuel Emadi, From Prisoner to Prince: The Joseph Story in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 59, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2022), 28.
[20] James M. Hamilton Jr., Typology-Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns: How Old Testament Expectations Are Fulfilled in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2022), 27. He also writes, “Later biblical authors assume earlier Scripture as the wider context against which they intended their writings to be understood.” Hamilton Jr., 18–19.
[21] In addition to the data presented in this section, it is possible that other points of contact exist between the two chapters. In particular, after Abraham’s successful defeat of the kings, the Lord summons Abraham to forsake any fear of retribution from his enemies. With the possibility that the powerful Eastern kings might reform their army and come after Abraham, God tells Abraham in Genesis 15:1, “Do not fear” (אַל־תִּירָא) because the Lord himself promises to be Abraham’s shield and to give him great reward (Gen. 15:1). On the cusp of battle with the five kings of the Amorites, the Lord commands Joshua, “Do not fear (אַל־תִּירָא) them, for I have given them into your hands” (Josh. 10:8, ESV). Furthermore, after Abraham rescues Lot, the text say that Abraham “returned” (שׁוּב) all the possessions and also Lot his kinsman (Gen. 14:16). After Joshua’s victory over the Amorite kings, he “returned” (שׁוּב) with all of Israel to the camp at Gilgal (Josh 10:15). In both cases, the main character returns from war with his kinfolk in victory.
[22] The LXX has Αδωνιβεζεκ (Adoni-bezek) rather than Adoni-zedek. The LXX was likely assimilating to Judges 1:7, though scholars debate the issue. Dozeman’s comment is helpful with respect to the thesis of this paper: “Whether original or not, the MT version recalls the priest of El-Elyon, Melchizedek of Salem, who blesses Abram (Gen 14:17–20) and reappears in a royal psalm of David in which the king receives the divine oath, ‘You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek’ (Ps 110:4).” Dozeman, Joshua 1-12, 6b:448. I do not think Joshua 10:1–15 and Judges 1:1–10 refer to the same battle because Judges 1:1 indicates that the events of Judges 1:1ff took place after the death of Joshua.
[23] Mathews, Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order, 117.
[24] Mathews suggests that the association between Salem and Jerusalem “does not depend on a geographical identification of Salem with Jerusalem. Rather, what can be affirmed is that there is at least a verbal link between the two names.” Mathews, 117.
[25] McConville and Williams note that “kings find new prominence” in Joshua 10. McConville and Williams, Joshua, 51. On the identification of the Amorites, Tackmier suggests that “Amorite” was sometimes used in a broad sense to refer to Canaanites in general and sometimes used in a narrow sense to refer to the Canaanites living in the hill country. Tackmier, “A Theological, Literary, and Historical Analysis of Joshua 10,” 85.
[26] Yahweh is the subject of the third person masculine singular verbs, not Israel. For a defense of this reading, see David M. Howard Jr., Joshua: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, vol. 5, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 237; Dale Ralph Davis, Joshua: No Falling Words, Focus on the Bible (United Kingdom: Christian Focus, 2000), 87.
[27] The Gibeonites originally deceived Joshua and Israel by bringing old bread and empty wineskins to convince Joshua that they had been on a lengthy journey. Their deception works as Joshua makes peace with them and a covenant with them (Josh 9:11–15). Though their elements of bread and wineskins are used for deception, they may serve as another subtle echo to the Melchizedek narrative. Melchizedek, the king of peace, brought bread and wine to Abraham after his victory over the kings. The Gibeonites come to Joshua with similar elements and receive peace from Abraham’s offspring.
[28] Tackmier suggests Adoni-zedek’s name probably refers to Baal or El, the supreme deity of the Canaanites. Tackmier, “A Theological, Literary, and Historical Analysis of Joshua 10,” 83.
[29] Warren Gage writes, “Such was the measure of Joshua’s justice for the Canaanite royalty, once the cup of the iniquity of the Amorite was full (Gen 15:16).” Warren Austin Gage, Gospel Typology in Joshua and Revelation: A Whore and Her Scarlet, Seven Trumpets Sound, A Great City Falls (Fort Lauderdale, FL: St. Andrews House, 2013). Exported from Logos Bible Software May 22, 2023.
[30] Matthew Albanese pointed out this interesting observation in a personal conversation.
[31] Hamilton has argued that the promises given to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3 answer the curses of Genesis 3:14–19. James M. Hamilton, “The Seed of the Woman and the Blessing of Abraham,” TynBul 58, no. 2 (2007): 253–73.
[32] See Currid, “Echoes of Egypt and the Exodus in the Battle of the Five Kings (Joshua 10:10–15),” 177–85.
[33] Exod. 1:22; 3:20; 4:3; 7:9, 10, 12, 17; 8:12; 12:29; 14:8, 9, 23, 24, 25, 27; 15:9; 23:27.
[34] For arguments that Joshua 10:12–13 refers to prolonging darkness, see Davis, Joshua, 88–90. For a brief survey of various interpretations of the sun standing still see Richard S. Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 6, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 216–18; Kenneth A. Mathews, Joshua, Teach the Text Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2016), 92–95.
[35] Not all echoes require the use of the same terms. Different terms for “neck” are used in Gen. 49:8 and Josh. 10:24.
[36] Hamilton suggests that Joshua led the people in “royal ways.” He writes, “Joshua is not a king, but kings are interpreted in light of what he did and presented in terms that recall the way he led Israel.” Hamilton continues with this quote from Dale Allison: “Allison comments, ‘if, as appears, Joshua himself is intended to be ‘the prototype of the ideal king of Israel,’ . . . , it follows that Moses is, so to speak, the model for the model of the king. That is, Moses, as Joshua’s type, is implicitly the prototype of Israel’s (or Judah’s) ruler. The author of Joshua made his hero the standard of kingship by, among other things, indelibly stamping Moses’ shape upon him.’” Hamilton Jr., Typology-Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns, 119. See Dale C. Allison Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 127.
[37] Dempster says the land is a new Eden, “the place from which a new restoration of the pristine conditions of the entire creation can commence.” Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, 127–28. Mathews similarly says that Eden is the “theological prototype” for the land of Canaan. Mathews, Joshua, 6.
[38] Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, 128.
[39] McConville and Williams, Joshua, 52.
[40] See Hamilton, “Seed of the Woman and the Blessing of Abraham,” Tyndale Bulletin 269.
[41] Emadi, The Royal Priest.
[42] James M. Hamilton Jr., Psalms Volume II: Psalms 73–150, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2021), 290; Scott Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 185; Robert L Alden, “Chiastic Psalms (III): A Study in the Mechanics of Semitic Poetry in Psalms 101–150,” JETS 21, no. 3 (1978): 204.
[43] Dempster says that the imperative “Rule!” in Psalm 110:2 “powerfully echoes” the creation mandate. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, 60.
[44] Dozeman notes the royal imagery in this scene and its parallel to Psalm 110:1. See Dozeman, Joshua 1-12, 6b:454.
[45] Though Numbers 24:17 uses “forehead” (פֵּאָה) instead of “head” (רֹאשׁ), it uses the same verb “shatter” (מָחַץ) found in Psalm 110:6 and makes the same theological point—a messianic figure will crush the heads of God’s enemies. For a biblical-theological treatment of the promise of Genesis 3:15, see James M. Hamilton, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” SBJT 10, no. 2 (2006): 30–54.
[46] Chedorlaomer is the most powerful of kings in Genesis 14, he is the king of kings until he meets Abraham. Chedorlaomer’s military exploits gain him power over a broad land before being defeated by Abraham.
[47] The names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are the same in Greek. For a discussion of Joshua typology in the New Testament, see Richard Ounsworth, Joshua Typology in the New Testament, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 328 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).