The Gibeonites, having learned of the
Israelites’ most recent battles at Jericho and Ai, respond quite differently
than the other Canaanite city-states, and with a mind of self-preservation.
Instead of preparing for war, they decide to approach Joshua and the people,
pretending to be foreigners from a distant land. But why? If you remember the
rules of engagement from Deuteronomy 20, those cities that lie outside of
Canaan are to be offered the chance to become vassals to Israel. This is the
type of treaty that Gibeon is seeking here (see Joshua 9:11).
Joshua and the Israelites question the
veracity of the Gibeonites’ story, but finally determine that they are indeed
from a distant country and ratified a vassal treaty with them. Only later do
they realize that the Gibeonites are actually from Canaan and should be under
the ban. However, as they have made an oath, it cannot be rescinded and must
otherwise be honored. Thus, the Gibeonites tricked the Israelites and were
spared the effects of the ban. Rösel agrees, “According to the Torah the story
should not have happened; the Torah rules that a covenant between the
Israelites and the people of Canaan is not possible”. (Hartmut Rösel, Joshua.
Historical Commentary on the Old Testament [2011], 142)
What would happen to this story,
however, if we assume that the language is merely hyperbolic? Would it have the
same effect upon the reader? The assumption of the narrative is that everyone
in Canaan is subject to the ban, bound for utter destruction. Most rulers rally
their troops to fight, but the Gibeonites express a type of faithfulness to
Yahweh; they acknowledge his superiority and seek a way to escape his wrath.
However, if this language of total destruction was nothing more than hyperbole,
then there would be no expectation that everyone was to be killed, and
the story of Gibeonites trying to weasel their way out would make little sense.
The reason that they need to perform such a ruse is specifically because they
are inhabitants of Canaan and are marked for total annihilation! Hess writes:
“The literary context parallels
that of Rahab. Just as Rahab and her family escaped destruction through
negotiations with representatives of Israel, so the Gibeonites do the same
thing. The Gibeonites’ treaty precedes the account of the war with the leaders
of the surrounding towns in southern Canaan (ch. 10). In both cases, this
deliverance occurs after the confession of God’s deeds of salvation on behalf
of Israel. The theological context parallels the account of Achan”
(emphasis mine). (Richard Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary
[1996], 194) (Joshua Bowen, The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament, 2
vols. [Mechanicsville, Md.: Digital Hammurabi Press, 2022], 2:251-52)
