Joshua 11:13 · Bible study
Joshua 11:13 Commentary: Why Only Hazor Burned
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Explore why Joshua burned only Hazor among the conquered cities, what 'mounds' means, and the theology of selective judgment.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Israel preserved the Canaanite cities built on mounds for their own habitation, burning only Hazor because it was the head of the rebellion.
- Key words: תֵּל (tel, 'mound/heap of ruins') and שָׂרַף (sarah, 'to burn'), the unique combination sets Hazor apart.
- Main debate: Whether 'stood on their mounds' means on natural hills (most commentators) or with walls intact (Wesley, following Kimchi).
- Theological theme: God’s judgment is both severe and selective, the instigator of rebellion faces destruction, while the land is preserved as an inheritance.
- Best use: Teaching about the nature of the conquest, God’s provision, and the principle of dealing thoroughly with sources of sin or opposition.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds, except Hazor, which Joshua burned.
WEB World English Bible 2000
But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, except Hazor only. Joshua burned that.
KJV King James Version 1769
But as for the cities that stood still in their strength, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
Only, all the cities which are standing by their hill, Israel hath not burned them, save Hazor only, it hath Joshua burnt;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Only, all the cities that stood still upon their hills Israel did not burn, save Hazor alone, [which] Joshua burned.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Except the cities that were on hills and high places, the rest Israel burned: only Asor that was very strong he consumed with fire.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Empero todas las ciudades que estaban en sus cabezos, no las quemó Israel, sacando á sola Asor, la cual quemó Josué.
Porém todas as cidades que estavam em suas colinas, não as queimou Israel, tirando a só Hazor, a qual queimou Josué.
Mais Israël ne brûla aucune des villes situées sur des collines, à l’ exception seulement de Hatsor, qui fut brûlée par Josué.
Doch verbrannten die Kinder Israel keine Städte, die auf Hügeln standen, sondern Hazor allein verbrannte Josua.
Alleenlijk verbrandden de Israelieten geen steden, die op haar heuvelen stonden, behalve Hazor alleen; dat verbrandde Jozua.
Ma Israele non arse alcuna delle città poste in collina, salvo Hatsor, la sola che Giosuè incendiasse.
Tylko tych wszystkich miast, które były obronne, nie palił Izrael, oprócz samego Hasora, które spalił Jozue.
впрочем всех городов, лежавших на возвышенности, не жгли Израильтяне, кроме одного Асора, который сжег Иисус.
至於 造 在 山岡 上的城，除了 夏瑣以外，以色列 人都 沒有 焚燒。約書亞 只 將夏瑣焚燒了。
As for the towns made on hills of earth, not one was burned by Israel but Hazor, which was burned by Joshua.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Joshua 11:13
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across the centuries agree on the basic sense of this verse. Israel did not burn the cities that stood on their mounds. The Hebrew phrase עַל תִּלָּם (al tillam, 'on their mounds') is understood by Barnes, the Cambridge Bible, and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown as a reference to the characteristic Canaanite custom of building cities on natural or artificial heights. Matthew Henry and Wesley add that these cities were left intact because Israel was to inhabit them, fulfilling the promise of 'great and goodly cities which you did not build' (Deuteronomy 6:10). Hazor alone was burned. Gill and Matthew Henry note that Hazor was the head of the coalition that had gathered against Israel (v.10); it was the center of rebellion. A Jewish tradition cited by Gill (Bereshit Rabba) states that God commanded Moses, and Moses commanded Joshua, that only Hazor should be burned. The consensus is clear: the sparing of most cities was God’s provision for Israel’s settlement; the burning of Hazor was a unique act of judgment against the instigator of the war.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Hill cities (natural elevation): The word תֵּל normally means a mound or hill. Barnes, Cambridge, and JFB read 'on its own hill' as typical Canaanite city placement, supported by Jeremiah 30:18.
- Cities with walls intact: Wesley explains 'in their strength' as 'with their fence, walls or bulwarks,' i.e., not ruined in capture. He bases this on the Hebrew idiom and the tradition cited by Gill from Kimchi and Jarchi.
What is clear: Israel did not burn the cities they were meant to inhabit, reserving Hazor for utter destruction as the source of rebellion.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'stood on their mounds' | The cities were left standing, not burned, and this was Israel’s practice except for Hazor. | Some read it as cities on natural hills (Barnes, Cambridge); Wesley and Jewish interpreters like Kimchi and Jarchi (cited by Gill) understand it as cities whose walls were still intact after capture. |
| Why only Hazor was burned | Hazor was the head of the coalition against Israel and therefore singled out for destruction. | Whether this was a divine command passed from Moses to Joshua (Gill cites Rabbinic tradition) or a military decision to eliminate a future threat (Matthew Henry, Wesley). |
| The ethics of the conquest | God commanded the destruction of the Canaanite peoples because of their sin and opposition to His purposes. | Some Christians interpret this as a unique theocratic judgment for that time; others struggle with the apparent severity and see it as a type of spiritual warfare. |
| Preservation of cities for Israel | The spared cities were given to Israel as homes, fulfilling Deuteronomy's promise. | Whether this shows God's mercy toward the Canaanite structures (historic Christian reading) or simply strategic pragmatism in conquest. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Joshua 11:13 sits within the account of Israel's northern campaign. Hazor, located about ten miles north of the Sea of Galilee (identified by some with Jebel Hadirah near Kedesh), was the most powerful city in the region. Verse 10 calls it 'the head of all those kingdoms.' Its king, Jabin, organized a broad coalition of Canaanite kings to oppose Israel at the waters of Merom. After a decisive victory, Joshua turned back to destroy Hazor specifically (v.10-11).
The phrase 'cities that stood on their mounds' reflects the typical construction of Canaanite cities. Over centuries, repeated rebuilding on the same site raised the city above the surrounding plain, forming an artificial hill called a tel. For example, Hazor itself is a massive tell today. Such cities were naturally fortified by their elevation. Leaving them standing was both strategic and providential. Israel, a nomadic people moving into settled life, would need ready-made cities with walls and infrastructure. Deuteronomy 6:10-11 promised exactly this: 'great and goodly cities which you did not build, houses full of all good things.'
The sparing of these cities was not hesitation or disobedience. Verse 15 emphasizes that Joshua left nothing undone of all the Lord commanded. The selective burning of Hazor highlights that God’s command was not a blanket order to destroy every structure. The herem (devotion to destruction) applied to the inhabitants, not always to the cities themselves. Later, in the time of the judges, Hazor was rebuilt and again oppressed Israel under another Jabin (Judges 4:2). The failure to maintain the city’s destruction foreshadows the incomplete conquest of Canaan.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Joshua 11:13. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts. The agreement among English translations (KJV, ASV, WEB, BSB, YLT, Darby) shows only minor differences in wording, not meaning.
Reception History
Jewish midrash (Bereshit Rabba, cited by Gill) preserves a tradition that God commanded Moses to instruct Joshua to burn only Hazor. This reflects a concern to trace Joshua’s actions to direct divine authorization. Christian interpreters from the Reformation onward, such as Calvin and Matthew Henry, read the selective burning as a demonstration of God’s sovereign judgment and provision. Matthew Henry emphasizes that Hazor was destroyed because it was the seat of rebellion, while other cities were spared for Israel’s dwelling. The verse also echoes in Jeremiah 30:18, where the promise of restoration includes the city being built on its own tell, a reversal of the destruction seen here. In the history of interpretation, this passage has been used to illustrate the principle that God’s commands are specific and must be obeyed precisely, not expanded or reduced.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God’s victory is complete. The northern coalition was shattered, and Joshua captured all the cities and kings (v.12). The burning of Hazor shows that the instigator of rebellion receives special judgment. God deals thoroughly with the sources of opposition.
- God provides for His people. The cities left standing became homes for Israel. God’s judgment is not wanton destruction; it clears the land for His people to inherit. The preservation of these cities demonstrates that God’s warfare has a redemptive goal.
- Complete obedience means following specific commands. Joshua burned only Hazor because that is what God ordered. He did not exceed or fall short. Discernment in obedience is as important as the act itself.
Five-point outline
- The king of Hazor organized a massive resistance (v.1-5).
- Joshua trusted God’s promise of victory and attacked suddenly (v.6-9).
- Hazor was singled out for burning because it was the head of the kingdoms (v.10-11).
- Other cities on their tells were spared to house Israel (v.13).
- The land was taken as an inheritance, fulfilling the covenant with Abraham (v.16-23).
Illustration hooks
- A homeowner clearing a property for a new house: some structures are salvageable, others must be razed because they are structurally compromised. The selective burning is like clearing only what is necessary to build something new.
- A school principal dealing with a fight: the ringleaders face greater consequences than those who followed. Hazor, as the instigator, received the full force of judgment.
- Moving into a newly purchased house that needs renovation: you keep the sturdy frame but tear out the rotted sections. Israel kept the cities but removed the people.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Why would a loving God command the destruction of entire cities, even if He spared the buildings?
- How can we see God’s mercy in a passage like Joshua 11, where so many are killed?
- What does this selective burning teach us about discernment in following God’s commands today?
Leading a Discussion
This verse marks a turning point in Joshua's conquest of northern Canaan. God has given Israel victory over a coalition of kings, and now the land is ready for distribution among the tribes. But the text pauses to note that most of the conquered cities were not burned. Why? The answer teaches us about God's provision and His specific purposes in judgment. As you discuss, keep in mind that this narrative is part of God's larger plan to bring His people into a land flowing with milk and honey, a plan that involves both severity and goodness.
Discussion questions
- Read Joshua 11:10-15. What stands out to you about the pattern of warfare described here?
- The phrase 'cities that stood on their mounds' can mean either cities on hills or cities with walls intact. How does each interpretation affect your understanding of why they were spared?
- Why do you think Hazor was burned when other cities were not? What does this tell us about God's judgment?
- Verse 15 says Joshua left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded. How does this selective burning fit with that statement of complete obedience?
- What does this passage reveal about God’s character, both in judgment and in provision?
- In what ways do we need discernment today to know what God wants us to 'tear down' and what He wants us to 'preserve' in our lives?
- How does the later rebuilding of Hazor (Judges 4) challenge us to maintain vigilance in our spiritual walk?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Jeremiah 30:18 | Yahweh says: “Behold, I will reverse the captivity of Jacob’s tents, and have compassion on his dwelling places. The city will be built on its own hill, and the palace will be inhabited in its own place. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke points out two possible meanings for the word translated "their strength": either cities that made peace and were spared, or cities built on hills that could be easily defended. He favors the second reading, noting that Jeremiah uses similar language to describe Jerusalem being rebuilt on its own hill.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes explains that when the text says "the cities standing each on its own hill," it means Joshua left them intact on their original sites rather than burning them, except for Hazor. He notes that cities in Canaan were normally built on hills, which gives the phrase its straightforward meaning.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator explains that the phrase refers to cities built each on its own hill or mound, the usual site in Canaan. With the exception of Hazor, Joshua did not burn these cities but left them standing on their hilltops, their natural strength.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note points out that Israel burned none of the fortified cities they captured, except Hazor alone. This single exception marks Hazor as uniquely singled out for destruction by fire, while all other strong cities were left standing.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill explains that the phrase "stood still in their strength" means the walls were left intact or the cities stood on hills, so Israel kept them for settlement. Hazor alone was burned because it was the chief city where the alliance against Israel was formed. He also records a Jewish tradition that God commanded Moses, who passed the instruction to Joshua, to burn only that city.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB notes that the phrase “stood still in their strength” literally means “on their heaps,” pointing to the Phoenician practice of building cities on elevated mounds, whether natural or artificial. He highlights that the original language evokes a specific custom.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry notes that Hazor alone was burned because it had been the instigator of the rebellion against Israel. The other cities were left standing, since God had promised Israel great and goodly cities they did not build. This distinction shows divine judgment on the chief enemy while preserving the rest for Israel’s future.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley explains that "in their strength" means the cities' walls were left standing during the conquest. He says Hazor was deliberately spared because it initiated the war and was the royal capital, so leaving it intact would prevent the Canaanites from using it to renew the conflict, though later it was indeed seized by a Canaanite king.