Rachel Billings introduces her study by acknowledging the two major approaches of the last century to the biblical book of Joshua: its incorporation into the Deuteronomistic history (Martin Noth, 1943) and its historical analysis using the tools of archeology (W. F. Albright, 1939). While Billings does not dispute the value of these approaches, their methodology is not hers. She is interested in the final form of the text. Billings proceeds to acknowledge five studies (Robert Polzin [1980], Richard D. Nelson [1981], David M. Gunn [1990], L. Daniel Hawk [1991], and Gordon Mitchell [1993]) that deal with Joshua as a literary unity. These five pieces become Billings' interlocutors in the manuscript that follows.

Billings' thesis is both interesting and provocative. Taking the final form of the book seriously, she does not explain seeming ambiguities, tensions, and contradictions as the product of multiple sources that a final redactor chose to retain. Rather, Billings sees theological intentionality in the inclusion of such passages. With respect to the book of Joshua, Billings explains why Joshua 24:31, which says that Israel “served the Lord during all the days of Joshua,” functions as a hermeneutical key to understanding the entire book, including those passages that seem to describe Israel behaving in such a way that it did not serve the Lord during all the days of Joshua. She asserts, and will proceed to show, that despite source and redaction, the final editor of the book chose carefully what “he” said. The editor did not just keep the contradictions and tensions of older sources; rather, he incorporated the older materials under Yahweh's judgment of Israel.

Billings proceeds to examine passages in Joshua that seem to depict Israel as acting less than fully unfaithfully—that is, as “not serving the Lord.” These include the story of Rachel (Joshua 2 and 6), the story of Achan (Joshua 7), the account of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9), the building of the Transjordan altar (Joshua 22), and the limits to Israel's occupation of the land. While other scholars (those mentioned above, with the exception of Gunn) tend to take these texts at their face value (violations of hērem, making treaties with foreigners, temptations to idolatry, punishment for unfaithfulness, etc.), Billings is more sophisticated in her reading of the episodes and sees God's judgment as mercy. She rejects the interpretations of her interlocutors (e.g., Nelson's claim that Joshua is not the heroic center of the book; Mitchell's discovery of antipathy against outsiders; Hawk's judgment of Israel as rife with corruption; Polzin's competitive voices that impede reading the book as an integrated whole). She concurs with Gunn: “In the gap between fulfillment and nonfulfillment, we discover also the tension between divine judgment and mercy” (10). Billings' reading of Joshua allows her to conclude that “Israel's attempts at obedience under Joshua's leadership show that the sequence of repentance, forgiveness, and restoration has been a part of Israel's life before Yahweh from the beginning of its time in the land. The model generation does not serve as a model of perfection, but as a model of striving toward obedience and attunement to Yahweh's will” (130).

What I found most provocative was the assertion that Joshua 24:31 is theologically intentional, despite the episodes that portray Israel as imperfect. Despite Israel's imperfections, the judgment of God is in Israel's favor. It makes perfect sense. Why hadn't I seen that? In fact, something of the same might even be said of 1 Samuel 16:13 with respect to David!