Certain heretics have conjectured the cause [to lie] in the bloodthirsty temper of Joshua. But these [heretics] have both already been refuted from the things said, and [will be] much more [refuted] from those which will be said below. Certain of the Talmudists, [in the] tractate On the Sabbath, chapter 1, have handed down three other causes. The first: that Joshua reckoned that, with those nefarious cities — for which, at Deut. 13:15, 16, 17, the utter destruction [πανωλεθρία] is prescribed — the case of impious Jericho was equal. The second: that, the city being captured on the Sabbath day (as was said above, q. 29), he judged it right that it be dedicated to Him to whom the Sabbath is dedicated, so that, for that [God’s] sake and honor, it might be utterly exterminated. The third: that the law about firstfruits to be offered to God, sanctioned in Numbers 15, he thought was to be observed also in captured cities; and therefore, since Jericho was the first of all the cities captured in cisjordanian Canaan, he offered it to the Lord as a kind of firstfruits. But by those [Talmudists] these things are said as if Joshua condemned that city to the anathema of his own accord, not by another’s command — which was denied above (q. 18). And therefore it must be said that Joshua did this: first, because the Lord commanded [it]. And the Lord commanded [it]: first, on account of the Canaanite impiety and wickedness of this city; secondly, that the other Canaanites thereafter might be struck by so great a destruction and disaster, and yield to the sons of Israel the possession decreed [to them] by God; thirdly, that those of the same Canaanites who were willing might repent, and beg the mercy of God and the right hand of Joshua, take up the true religion, and serve the true God piously and chastely; fourthly, that it might be understood how detestable are the sins which the Lord — otherwise most benign — afflicts with so great penalties even in this world; fifthly, that the storming of this city might be ascribed not to human arts, swords, and strength, but to the power of God alone; sixthly: the Lord could also have willed all the causes — both those touched in this very question and in the previous questions — to concur; as indeed Josephus (book [5], ch. 1), Theodoret (q. 6), and others hand down that [cause] about the firstfruits. Nay, although one command of God could have sufficed for Joshua for those slaughters and burnings, yet nothing prevents [that] a man both prudent and religious toward the Deity could have looked also to other causes — for instance, that these firstfruits might be devoted to God, [and] that there might be one established example for [dealing with] the impious cities, if any should afterward arise. Whence Theodoret, q. 6: “This city,” he says, “they took first after the river was crossed. As, therefore, he commands them to offer the firstfruits of the fruits, so he commanded [them] to offer the firstfruits of the spoils. Moreover, he wishes them to be exercised, by these laws, in observing the necessary laws. And he lays open to them his power in [their] taking the first city without arms or engines — [the city] which was dissolved by the mere sound of the trumpets: so that, when they should be conquered in battle, they might recognize that they had given the occasions of [their own] succumbing — namely, by despising the divine laws.” But that general reason, which is patent to the previous questions [as well], is not to be scorned: that the Lord willed to demonstrate what would come to pass in this world. For of this Jericho is a type. There will be, therefore, most fearful earthquakes, most bloody wars, most destructive plagues, by which, in the last days, this fabric of the world and its mortal inhabitants will be destroyed; there will then follow the horrendous conflagration, which will lay waste and swallow up all that remains. For [the case] of Jericho holds [applies to] what St. Peter said (2 [Peter], ch. 2, v. 6): “reducing the cities of the Sodomites and Gomorrhaeans to ashes, [God] condemned [them] by overthrow, setting [them as] an example of those who would act impiously.” See Origen, q. 6, near the end.
(col. 797)