John Calvin Commentary Joshua 9:3

"But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done unto Jericho and to Ai," — Joshua 9:3 (ASV)

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.