Extra-Ordinary

So they stationed the people, all the army that was on the north side of the city, and its rear guard on the west side of the city, and Joshua spent that night in the midst of the valley. Joshua 8:13 NASB

Stationed/ rear guard – The verse makes perfect sense in English, but in Hebrew it leaves us with some puzzling questions.  Two words in particular just don’t fit.  The first word is the first in the verse, yāśîmû.  It’s derived from the verb śûm which means “to put, place, set, appoint.”  That seems reasonable.  Joshua “puts” the people on the north side of Ai.  But wait a minute!  If he “puts” them there, why repeat “all the army that was on the north side”?  If all the army (people) are on the north side, why say that they were placed there?  They are already there!

Rashi (and others) puzzled over this redundancy and determined that the wording means something entirely different.  Referring to the similarity in Kings, Rashi interprets yāśîmû as “prepared.”  So, “they prepared the people, all the army that was on the north side.”  This treats yāśîmû almost as the hapax legomenon, offering a meaning that shows up only twice in the Tanakh, but it removes the puzzle about the redundancy.

Ah, but we’re not done with the oddities in this verse.  Next comes “rear guard.”  The Hebrew is ʿāqēb.  You might recognize this word.  It’s the basis of yaʿăqōb (Jacob).  It is used in verses 2, 4, 7, 9, and 12.  But not as “rear guard.”  The word in Joshua means “ambush.”  It might describe the men who were waiting in ambush but it doesn’t mean simply “rear guard.”  The sinister intent of this group is completely overlooked by translating it as “rear guard.”  So, what’s the story behind this word?

As you know, the root (ʿāqab) is often translated as “take by the heel, supplant,” and following Esau’s attribution of the term to Jacob, “deceitful.”  Using this word would cause the Hebrew audience to remember the story of Jacob.  We might argue that the term had a relatively innocent meaning (take by the heel) when it was first introduced, but when Esau uses it to describe what Jacob did, the term takes on other nuances; nuances which are forever attached to Jacob.  If deceitfulness is the primary flavor, then we can understand why rabbis treat the word in this verse, not as “rear guard,” but rather as “the ones who will ambush.”  And this raises another question.

Why couldn’t God assist the Hebrews in victory of Ai with a frontal attack, just as He does in other places?  Why was there a need for an ambush?  If God is behind the conquering of the Land, why the subterfuge?  Perhaps the answer lies in the prior defeat at Ai.  That defeat involved hubris, lack of leadership, and deception, as you will recall.  Now, when Israel approaches the city, the citizens of Ai believe that they can easily repel them just as they did before.  But something has changed.  First, Joshua has learned his lesson about his own hubris.  Second, he leads the troops and takes his rightful place in the army.  Third, the prior deception of Achan has been dealt with.  Now the deception favors Israel.  It is Ai that is deceived.  Perhaps this is a case of “measure for measure” in the ancient world.  What allowed Ai to win the first battle becomes their defeat in the second.

But there’s something else here that we should consider.  The word clearly reminds the people of the story of Jacob, and the same questions apply.  Why did God allow Jacob to deceive Esau and Isaac in order to take the role that God had already determined for him?  Why not straightforwardly command Isaac to deliver the blessing to Jacob?  Why was it necessary to trick Esau—and Isaac?  Could it be that neither Esau nor Isaac were able to hear what God wanted because they were entirely focused on what they wanted?  Could it be that both men required an “ambush” in order for God’s intention to finally be clear?  We have a hint of this in Genesis 27:33 which describes a fundamental shift in paradigm when Isaac realizes that all his life he was focused on the wrong son.  Perhaps “ambush” has overtones we don’t like, but it seems to be essential to God’s methodology.  Oh, and just in case you forgot about the critical occurrence of ʿāqab at the very beginning of the Bible, take a look at Genesis 3:16:

To the woman He said,

“I will greatly multiply
Your pain ^[g]in childbirth,
In pain you shall deliver children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

Recall that the words translated “greatly multiply” contain a Sheva defining the syllables which was added centuries after the text was written.  Without that diacritical marking, the Genesis 3:16 text contains the same word, ʿāqab, and indicates not pain in childbirth, but rather “ambushed by the serpent.”[1]

Topical Index:  yāśîmû, put, śûm, prepare, ʿāqab, rear guard, ambush, Jacob, Genesis 3:16, Joshua 8:13

[1] As I explain in my book, Guardian Angel.