TEXT [Commentary]

C.   Gibeon’s Successful Deception (9:1-27)

1.   Negotiation with Gibeon’s envoys (9:1-15)

1 Now all the kings west of the Jordan River heard about what had happened. These were the kings of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, who lived in the hill country, in the western foothills,[*] and along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea[*] as far north as the Lebanon mountains. 2 These kings combined their armies to fight as one against Joshua and the Israelites.

3 But when the people of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai, 4 they resorted to deception to save themselves. They sent ambassadors to Joshua, loading their donkeys with weathered saddlebags and old, patched wineskins. 5 They put on worn-out, patched sandals and ragged clothes. And the bread they took with them was dry and moldy. 6 When they arrived at the camp of Israel at Gilgal, they told Joshua and the men of Israel, “We have come from a distant land to ask you to make a peace treaty with us.”

7 The Israelites replied to these Hivites, “How do we know you don’t live nearby? For if you do, we cannot make a treaty with you.”

8 They replied, “We are your servants.”

“But who are you?” Joshua demanded. “Where do you come from?”

9 They answered, “Your servants have come from a very distant country. We have heard of the might of the LORD your God and of all he did in Egypt. 10 We have also heard what he did to the two Amorite kings east of the Jordan River—King Sihon of Heshbon and King Og of Bashan (who lived in Ashtaroth). 11 So our elders and all our people instructed us, ‘Take supplies for a long journey. Go meet with the people of Israel and tell them, “We are your servants; please make a treaty with us.”’

12 “This bread was hot from the ovens when we left our homes. But now, as you can see, it is dry and moldy. 13 These wineskins were new when we filled them, but now they are old and split open. And our clothing and sandals are worn out from our very long journey.”

14 So the Israelites examined their food, but they did not consult the LORD. 15 Then Joshua made a peace treaty with them and guaranteed their safety, and the leaders of the community ratified their agreement with a binding oath.

NOTES

9:1 Hittites . . . Jebusites. See notes on 3:10.

9:2 combined . . . as one. This reflects the Hebrew, “gathered together as one . . . [with] one mouth,” i.e., in one unanimously expressed intention to fight against Israel.

9:3 Gibeon. This is probably modern el-Jib, about seven miles (11 km) southwest of Ai, though not all agree that this identification is certain (cf. Woudstra 1981:154-155).

9:5 moldy. Or, “nothing but crumbs” (Woudstra 1981:151; cf. NASB).

9:7 these Hivites. By using this, the narrator heightened the irony of Israel’s developing mistake. To date, this name occurs only in the Bible, and refers only to a non-Semitic ethnic group that lived in various parts of Canaan. Joshua and the elders should have recognized these visitors for who they really were.

How do we know you don’t live nearby? For if you do, we cannot make a treaty with you. Lit., “Perhaps you [sg.] dwell near me; then how can I cut [make] a treaty with you [sg.]?” The language indicates that Joshua, as Israel’s leader, was speaking to the leader of the Gibeonite delegation. The prohibition against making treaties with near neighbors is found in Deut 20:15.

9:9 of all he did in Egypt. This refers to God’s actions in bringing Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus (Exod 7–14).

9:10 We have also heard what he did to the two Amorite kings. This is recorded in Num 21:21-35 and celebrated again (in greater detail) in Deut 2:24–3:11.

Heshbon. This was a city east of the northern end of the Dead Sea, on the Transjordanian plateau and the King’s Highway. Sihon’s kingdom extended south from his capital city to the gorge of the Arnon, which flows into the Dead Sea about midway along its eastern shore.

Ashtaroth. This was a city east of the Sea of Galilee, also on the King’s Highway, in the region known throughout the OT period as Bashan.

9:12 moldy. See note on 9:5.

9:14 examined. Lit., “took.” This means either that Israel’s leaders actually tasted the bread, or only handled and looked at it. Either way, they were convinced.

did not consult the LORD. Lit., “did not consult the LORD’s mouth.” See note on 9:2 and commentary below.

9:15 guaranteed their safety. Lit., “cut [made] with them a covenant for their lives.”

COMMENTARY [Text]

This section recounts the making of a treaty between the Israelites and the Gibeonites, though God had forbidden Israel to enter into treaties with near neighbors as they occupied the land of Canaan (Deut 20:15). This second mistake in Israel’s occupation of the land was brought on by Joshua’s failure to consult God when an unexpected situation arose. Narration of these less-than-flattering events demonstrates that the author’s intent was not to portray heroic leaders, as many other ancient Near Eastern accounts aimed to do. Joshua and the elders are shown in their shortcomings as well as in their triumphs. God is the real hero whose exploits the author wished to recount.

As always, the narrator of Joshua was careful to note the pertinent geography in his record. “The hill country” (9:1) here includes the Negev in the south and the highlands of the territories later assigned to Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh. “The western foothills” is the Shephelah, the fertile region of lower hills between the highlands of Judah and the southern coastal plain. The coast of the Mediterranean Sea was not occupied along its entire length, but several important cities did exist there during this period. The kings of these small city-states, as far north as Mount Carmel, could have been expected to join this southern coalition against Joshua and Israel.

Chapter 9 records two different Canaanite responses to the news that Israel was coming into the hill country. Chapter 10 is a fuller recital of these kings and their determination to fight against Israel. They may have taken heart from Israel’s initial defeat at Ai, thinking that by fighting together they could defeat them again. Even if Ai’s destruction had dimmed their hopes, apparently they felt it was better to die fighting than not to fight at all. Thus, this short notice contrasts vividly the unheroic and deceptive response of the Gibeonites with that of the other southern cities. After the treaty was concluded, the Gibeonites told Joshua why they thought deceiving Israel was their only hope (9:24).

The Gibeonite cities occupied what would come to be called the plateau of Benjamin, the strategic slice of the hill country, about 10 miles north to south, lying between Judah and Ephraim. They chose a different approach to Israel. Gibeon is only about seven miles from Ai, and not more than 15 miles from Gilgal, where Israel continued to maintain their camp. But to carry out their deception, the Gibeonite “ambassadors” had to arrive at Gilgal looking travel worn and ill-used; long-distance travel in those days was hard, dirty, and dangerous.

Upon encountering these “weary travelers,” Joshua began well. His reasonable supposition, “perhaps you live among us,” (9:7) means, “in the land we are coming to possess and live in.” Following the ambassadors’ short, evasive reply, Joshua even asked two pertinent, direct questions, point-blank, as a responsible leader charged with his people’s welfare should do. The Gibeonite reply, “from a very distant country,” was not only another vague answer, but this time also an insulting one, if Joshua had taken the time to think about it—because he should have known the name of any country they could have come from. These “ambassadors” could not have come from beyond present-day Turkey to the north, or Iran to the east, and any kingdom or people from within that range, Joshua should/would have known about or heard of. For them to insinuate otherwise was a verbal slap to a knowledgeable and capable leader. Joshua should have continued to vigorously insist on a name!

Joshua’s and Israel’s skepticism was short-lived. Distracted by the deception, by the Gibeonites’ seemingly reverent words about Israel’s God, and by the flattering notion that a faraway people wanted to make a treaty with them and become their vassals, no one among the Israelite leaders noticed they had failed to answer Joshua’s questions. Israel still did not know who these people were or where they had come from.

Joshua had neglected once more to seek God’s guidance, forgetting the recent lesson of Ai. Even on merely human terms, Joshua should have been suspicious at this point. If the travelers’ wineskins were worn out and cracked, then their bread taken “hot from the ovens” (9:12) should have been gone long ago. If some of their bread really had lasted the whole journey, it could not have been so great a distance as to wear out their wineskins. The narrator’s chiding of Israel’s leadership for this foolish decision at first seems very gentle. He notes only “they did not consult the LORD” (9:14). But in light of all that had just happened, this is not such a gentle chiding after all. Not asking God’s counsel had cost lives at Ai. The victories at Jericho and Ai both had been won when Israel followed God’s instructions precisely. How could they so soon forget?

Another issue also should have occurred to Joshua. The Gibeonite envoys were asking Israel to enter with them into what is called today a vassal-suzerain treaty (but cf. Woudstra 1981:160-161). They were willing to swear a binding covenant with Israel and become a vassal state if only their lives were spared (9:11); this seems enough to conclude that the treaty was granted by a stronger power (Israel) to a weaker power (the Gibeonite cities). The request alone, though, ought to have raised suspicions; why would a faraway people be concerned with a treaty of protection with Israel?

There was even more, had Joshua thought of it. Israel, too, were vassals, the vassals of God. They had entered into just such a treaty with God at Sinai. Israel did not have authority to enter into treaties on her own, without the approval of her own suzerain. The narrator subtly contrasted the fierce determination of the Canaanite coalition’s decision “with one mouth” to fight against Israel (9:2, see note), with Israel’s failure to inquire of “the mouth of Yahweh” (9:14, see note), their divine suzerain, whom they always should have sought “with one mouth.”

The important points for the succeeding action of this episode are that this covenant allowed the Gibeonites to live, and “the leaders of the community” ratified it “with a binding oath” (9:15). Covenants in this period were ratified by a ceremony involving cutting several animals in half lengthwise. It was as though the participants were saying, “Just as we have cut these animals in two, so may we be cut in two if we break this treaty” (cf. Gen 15:7-21). In Israel, moreover, binding oaths were sworn in the name of Yahweh. To violate the oath was to invite Yahweh’s judgment for false swearing (Exod 20:7).