John Calvin Commentary Joshua 9

And it came to pass when all the kings, etc. Since the arrival of the people was well known to these kings from the very first, it is certain that their minds were intoxicated from above with security or lethargy, so that they did not immediately league together to oppose them. It implied excessive stupor not to provide for themselves until they were violently roused to action by the overthrow of two cities. For as the war concerned them all, it was a kind of voluntary surrender to send no aid to their neighbors, indeed, even to have no army ready that could have mounted a strong defense. But in this way God spared the weakness of His people, to whom the combined forces of so many nations would have caused no small fear.

It is certain, then, that by the sluggishness and inactivity of their enemies, the Israelites were able to advance more quickly. For an interval was, meanwhile, given them to compose themselves, and thus those who might have been alarmed by the mere name of their enemies could prepare at leisure to face them. In the same way, although the reprobate desire by every possible means to destroy the Church, God, to take away their power of harming her, scatters and confounds their plans, indeed, even destroys their spirit.

On the other hand, these nations display their frantic audacity. Instead of being overcome by a clear miracle, they continue to rage like wild beasts against the unassailable power of God. A report of the taking of Jericho had reached them. Was it overthrown by human strategy, or actions, or prowess, or human devices? No, the walls had fallen of their own accord. With what confidence then can they league together to take up arms against heaven?

And when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard, etc. The inhabitants of Gibeon alone, rejecting the proposal to make war, resort to fraud and try to obtain peace by pretending to live at a great distance. Such an attempt was very odious to their neighbors because it was, in a way, to create a schism among them, to open a door to the Israelites, and to weaken the strength of their allies. And though Joshua and the rulers are justly blameworthy for their foolish credulity, as they were not obligated to make a rash agreement about a matter not properly investigated, yet the Lord, who is accustomed to bring light out of darkness, turned it to His people's advantage. For it gained them a period of rest while they stopped in a peaceful area.

The Gibeonites, indeed, judged rightly and prudently when they decided to endure anything rather than provoke God further against them by a futile resistance. But the use of fraud and unlawful methods to circumvent those whose favor and protection they desired to enjoy was as absurd and ridiculous as it was contrary to reason and fairness. For what could be the stability of a league founded on nothing but gross fraud? They pretended that they were foreigners who had come from a far distant country. Joshua, therefore, was bargaining with mere masks and incurred no obligation except according to their words. Therefore, the cunning by which they worked their way in should not have benefited them. Still, as a great degree of integrity still existed among people, they considered it enough to obtain an oath, even one extorted by fraud, being fully convinced that the people of Israel would not violate it.

The expression that they too acted cunningly is mistakenly thought by some to allude to the stratagem Joshua had used in deceiving the citizens of Ai. Others, just as inaccurately, make it refer to the time of Jacob, whose sons, Simeon and Levi, had treacherously destroyed the Shechemites (Genesis 34). The contrast is merely between the hostile preparations of the kings and the secret cunning with which the Gibeonites approached Joshua. Accordingly, after it is stated that some had allied with the intention of trying the outcome of open war, the trick of the Gibeonites is added. Therefore, the meaning is that Joshua had to deal not only with declared enemies who had gathered for battle but also with the crafty dissimulation of one nation.

However, it is asked why the Gibeonites worked so anxiously on a matter that was not at all necessary. For we shall see elsewhere that the Israelites were ordered to offer peace to all, so that they might afterward have a just and legitimate cause for declaring war.

But as it was everywhere rumored that they were seeking a permanent settlement in the land of Canaan (which they could not obtain except by expelling the inhabitants), the Gibeonites concluded that there was no way to bind them to mercy except by deceiving them in some way. They reasoned that the Israelites would never have willingly and knowingly allowed the land they had invaded to be occupied by others. Indeed, since it was known that the Israelites had been commanded to destroy all, the Gibeonites had no alternative left but to resort to fraud, as all hope of obtaining safety was otherwise removed. And for this reason, they shortly afterward ask pardon for a fraud forced upon them by necessity.

Here, however, a question arises, as the Israelites object that they are not free to make any agreement with the nations of Canaan but are bound to exterminate them completely. There is certainly a discrepancy between these two things: urging submission and, at the same time, refusing to admit supplicants and volunteers.

But although God required that the laws of war should be observed according to custom, and that, therefore, peace should be offered on condition of their submitting, He merely wished to test the minds of those nations, so that they might bring destruction upon themselves by their own obstinacy. At the same time, it was made known to the Israelite people that they must destroy them. Hence, the conclusion necessarily followed that those who lived in the land of Canaan could not be tolerated and that it was unlawful to make a covenant with them.

We shall later find both things distinctly expressed: namely, that all persisted in carrying on war because it had been God's intention that their hearts should be hardened and that they should perish. It was, therefore, a legitimate inference that those who were doomed to death could not be preserved.

If anyone objects that the Gibeonites, who voluntarily applied for peace, were therefore exceptions, I answer that the Israelites were not at that time considering that formal custom which had no effect, but were merely focusing on the promise and the command of God. Therefore, they allowed no hope to remain, because they had been simply and precisely commanded to purge the land by putting every individual to death and to take the place of those they had killed.

And they went to Joshua, etc. I have said that in strict law, a covenant of this description was null and void. For when they obtain their request, what is stipulated is only that they should be kept safe, provided they come from a distant and remote region of the globe?

And the more often they reiterate the same falsehood, the more they annul an agreement elicited by fraud, since its true meaning only amounts to this: that the Israelites will offer no harm to a foreign people, living at a remote distance. This is shown to be especially the meaning from the fact that the Israelites expressly exclude all the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. They could not, therefore, gain anything by the fraud.

Nor are they assisted any further by making a deceptive pretext of the name of God, and thus throwing a kind of mist over the mind of Joshua. They pretend that they had come in the name of God, as if they were professing to give glory to God, even the God of Israel, since there is a tacit rejection of the superstitions to which they had been accustomed. For if it is true that they had come, moved by faith in the miracles which had been performed in Egypt, they concede supreme power to the God of Israel, though to them a God unknown.

And the men took of their victuals, etc. Some commentators here resort to unconvincing fabrications that they ate the bread to determine from the taste whether it was stale from age, or that they confirmed the covenant by a feast. The words, in my opinion, are rather an indirect censure of their excessive credulity in having, on slight grounds, acquiesced in a fabricated narrative, and in having paid attention merely to the bread, without considering that the fabrication lacked credibility.

And certainly, had their senses not been dulled, many things would have instantly occurred to them to refute the Gibeonites. But as it sometimes happens that the most piercing eyes are dazzled by an empty spectacle, they are more severely condemned for not having determined God's will. The remedy was at hand, had they simply consulted the oracle before attempting anything. It was a matter deserving of careful inquiry, and it was therefore a sign of gross carelessness—since a priest was ready to seek an answer from God by means of Urim and Thummim—to decide rashly in an obscure case, as if they had no means of obtaining advice. Their rashness was all the more inexcusable since it was combined with such supine neglect of the grace of God.

And it came to pass, etc. The chastisement of their levity by the discovery of the fraud, three days later, must, by the swiftness of the punishment, have made them more aware of the shame and disgrace. For it was thus known that, through sloth and lethargy, they had very stupidly fallen into error from not having taken the trouble to inquire into a matter almost placed before their eyes.

Their marching quietly through that region, entering cities without trouble, and finding free means of sustenance, was owing to the paternal indulgence of God, who not only pardons their fault, but causes what might justly have been injurious to turn out for their good. Here it is related that the children of Israel did not act in a hostile manner in that region, because the Gibeonites had received a promise of safety confirmed by an oath.

Now two questions arise:

1. Whether the children of Israel, who had no intention whatever of pledging their faith to impostors, had contracted any obligation?
2. Whether the people did not have the option to rescind a promise which their leaders had foolishly and erroneously made?

In regard to the general position, the obligation of an oath ought to be held in the greatest sacredness, so that we may not, under the pretext of error, withdraw from agreements, even from those in which we have been deceived, since the sacred name of God is more precious than the wealth of a whole world.

Hence, though a man may have sworn with little consideration, no loss or expense will free him from performance. I have no doubt that, in this sense, David says (Psalms 15:4) that the true worshippers of God, if they have sworn to their own hurt, do not change, because they will bear loss sooner than expose the name of God to contempt by retracting their promises.

I conclude, therefore, that if a private interest only is to be affected, everything that we may have promised by oath must be performed. And it is apparent from the words that the Israelites were afraid that they might expose the name of their God to disgrace among the nations of Canaan.

For I think there is an emphasis in the expression—because they had sworn by the God of Israel. But a special reason left the Israelites at liberty to withdraw from the deceitful compact, for they had not only given up their own right but had also improperly departed from the command of God, with which it was not lawful to interfere in the smallest iota.

It was not within their power either to spare the vanquished or to enact laws of surrender, whereas they now acted as if the business had been committed to them. We see, accordingly, that they twice profaned the name of God when, under pretense of the oath, they persevered in defending what they had foolishly promised.

In the deference that the common people paid to their leaders by abstaining from all violence toward the Gibeonites, we witness the integrity of that age. Elsewhere, it would have readily occurred to people to elude the promise by asserting that a whole people were not bound by the agreement of a few individuals, as the Romans did in repudiating the Caudine peace, to which only the consuls, legates, and tribunes had sworn without the orders of the senate and people.

The more praise, therefore, is due to that unrefined simplicity in which the religious obligation prevailed more than the overly subtle arguments that most people in the present day approve and applaud. The people were indeed indignant that their leaders had taken more upon themselves than they were entitled to do, but their moderation did not allow them to proceed beyond murmuring and noise.