John Calvin Commentary Joshua 9:16

"And it came to pass at the end of three days after they had made a covenant with them, that they heard that they were their neighbors, and that they dwelt among them." — Joshua 9:16 (ASV)

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.