9:1–2 The nature of the reaction of these Canaanite kings has been discussed in the Response to 8:30–35 in relation to the covenant renewal ceremony recounted in those verses (due to the textual complications of its placement in the flow of the narrative). In the canonical text the kings’ reaction is occasioned by that ceremony, with its assertions of the supreme sovereignty of Israel’s God and the claims this implies for the land. This notice has counterparts in 10:1–5; 11:1–5, in which kings of the central and southern regions, and then again in the north, have the same hostile reaction. As these passages portray it, all of these kings and their cities “fight against” or “make war against” Israel.

The story of Rahab has already alerted the reader to the fact that it did not need to be so; this outcome was not automatic, and it is the further contribution of the story of the Gibeonites to demonstrate that other possibilities for Canaanites were possible for whole communities, not merely for individuals and their families. But throughout this opening part of the book the predominant pattern is that of hostility and aggression provoked by Israel’s presence and the power of Israel’s God.

9:3–5 The identity of Gibeon is not fully disclosed at once, and the information appearing in 9:17 and 10:2 adds to the understanding of who it is that now approaches Joshua and the Israelites. Gibeon was a city about 19 miles (31 km) due west of Gilgal, the Israelite camp to the east of Jericho, and only 6 miles (10 km) southwest of Ai. Although it is named as acting on its own behalf as the account begins, it becomes clear that Gibeon is the leading member of a coalition of cities in the region. Its status and power are, then, on quite a different level than Ai’s (cf. 10:2).

Whether the Gibeonites are to be regarded with sympathy or antipathy rests to some extent on how their characterization here is understood; the key to this is found in the word the ESV translates as “cunning” (Hb. ʿormah). When used in the context of what wisdom provides (Prov. 1:4; 8:5, 12), this word is translated in the ESV as “prudence.” Beyond these instances the word is used only once more in the OT: at Exodus 21:14. This verse describes murder by stealthy intent; there the ESV also reads “cunning.”80 A welter of other options appears across English versions, reflecting differing moral evaluations of the Gibeonites’ actions; “wily” (KJV), “shrewd” (ISV), and “deceptive” (CSB) demonstrate the range. At this point in the narrative readers lack sufficient data to come to an informed judgment; a more neutral term such as “clever” (NET) might capture the sense. But even if the judgment is a negative one, this is not the first time in the book that deception works in keeping with God’s purposes (cf. comments on 2:2–7 [regarding Rahab]; 8:3–9 [regarding the ambush of Ai]).

9:5–7 The ruse is a simple one: the Gibeonites contrive to look as if they have traveled a vast distance by exhibiting stale provisions and dilapidated equipment, reinforced by their own claim in verse 6, emphatic in Hebrew: “From a distant land we have come[!],” fronting the origin of the journey in the clause. With Gibeon less than 20 miles (32 km) to the west of Gilgal, if they departed in the morning they could have arrived comfortably that same afternoon—hardly time for bread to go moldy or clothes and sandals to wear out!

They explicitly request a “covenant” with Israel. This raises a further question regarding Gibeonite intentions: what do they know of Israel’s traditions? Two passages in Deuteronomy bear directly on the Gibeonite initiative: (1) Deuteronomy 7 (cf. comment on 6:15–19) contains instructions for kherem relating to the nations to be dispossessed in Canaan; (2) Deuteronomy 7:2 stipulates, “You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.” However, the laws governing warfare in Deuteronomy 20 include the requirement to offer conditions of peace and servitude only for those “that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here” (Deut. 20:15). The passage goes on to stipulate terms of kherem for the near inhabitants along the lines set out in Deuteronomy 7. This matter will be further explored below in connection with the status of the Gibeonite covenant. But as representatives of Gibeon present themselves to Joshua and the initial interrogation begins, the terms in which the negotiations proceed appear to have these Deuteronomic laws specifically in mind.

Although the Gibeonites have come to Joshua at Gilgal (Josh. 9:6) and address him (also vv. 8, 9–13), the “men of Israel” (v. 7) intervene, and both Joshua and these men are involved as the initial phase of negotiations concludes (vv. 14, 15). The “men of Israel” raise the initial concern about the proximity of these strangers, and only then does Joshua take up this line of questioning. The interaction between Joshua and this wider group will require closer investigation below.

9:8–13 The Gibeonites now provide an account of their actions in keeping with the terms of the plan already set out in verses 4–5. But first they declare their distant origins—omitting any orientation in the landscape as to where their “very distant country” might lie—and their reason for seeking a covenant with Israel in their knowledge of Israel’s God. Like Rahab (2:10), news of what Yahweh has done in Egypt and of the destruction of the Amorite kings Sihon and Og looms large in their reckoning. Pointedly, they do not betray any knowledge of the real trigger for their actions: the recent conquests of Jericho and Ai (9:3). There is no need, since the reputation (“name”) of Israel’s God is fully established on the basis of those more historically distant events, and any mention of Jericho and Ai might raise suspicions about their access to news of Israel’s very recent battles.

Their regard for Israel’s God is left to implication rather than outright confession. While the Gibeonites show an awareness of God’s power and actions on behalf of Israel in more distant times, they make no further avowals of respect. The counsel of their elders to seek a covenant is all the reaction described, with attention directed to the evidence of their provisions and equipment rather than to their regard for the Lord God.

9:14–15 The response from Israel’s side comes quite quickly and with remarkable trust in the Gibeonites’ words. Three parties on Israel’s side are involved in concluding the covenant. First, the “men” whose suspicions sparked Joshua’s line of questioning (v. 8) test the claims of the Gibeonites via closer inspection of their goods. At this point (v. 14) we find a very brief, and very rare, intervention on the part of the narrator: “But [they] did not ask counsel from the Lord.” The phrasing in Hebrew draws attention to this lapse and uses distinctive language in doing so: “counsel from the Lord” translates pi yhwh (“mouth of Yahweh”). This is a phrase used often for the direct revelation of a command of God and one that concludes Deuteronomy 8:3, in which Moses declares that “man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.” Here the men of Israel consider bread only, ignoring what might come from the mouth of God.

With the “men” of Israel satisfied, now Joshua makes “peace” and a “covenant” with the Gibeonites to “let them live,” this last phrase making explicit the implication of the covenant and providing an echo of the treatment Joshua ensured for Rahab (Josh. 6:17, 25). A third party now briefly is added to these proceedings, the “leaders of the congregation,” whose oath confirms the arrangements. And the thing is done.

9:16–17 Although crucial for the larger narrative, the Israelite discovery and confirmation of the deception is recounted with extreme economy. The discovery comes after “three days,” and the journey to investigate is concluded on “the third day” after the Israelite delegates depart. The reason such a short journey should have taken this long is of no interest to the narrator. It may imply simply a passage of some days, using a conventional number; perhaps the Israelite investigators are also confirming the locations of all the members of the tetrapolis mentioned in verse 17. In any case, the true facts of the matter are now known to Israel.

9:18–21 The question now arises of what to do in response to the Gibeonites’ ruse. Two of the three parties involved in confirming the arrangements with Gibeon are now at loggerheads. Joshua’s absence from this moment of community crisis is conspicuous. The “people of Israel” seem inclined to destroy those who have duped them. But the “leaders” allay the hostilities of the people—also termed “all the congregation”—by pointing to the oath sworn “by the Lord, the God of Israel” (as had been done by the spies with Rahab; 2:12, 17), which cannot be broken. Joshua 9:21 reports the outcome, slightly elaborated subsequently, that the Gibeonites will be allowed to live, but only as “cutters of wood and drawers of water for all the congregation,” that is, among the general Israelite populace, in accord with the leaders’ commitments.

9:22–23 Only now does Joshua intervene, and the rest of the scene is played out between the Gibeonites and Joshua himself. He first names the Gibeonite action as one of deceit, using a fairly uncommon Hebrew verb that carries the nuance of fraud and betrayal (ramah; used only eight times in the OT); it is used, for example, of Laban’s marrying Jacob to Leah rather than to Rachel (Gen. 29:25) and of Michal’s ruse to protect David in 1 Samuel 19:17. Further, Joshua directs their role as “cutters of wood and drawers of water” toward service of the “house of my God” rather than being among the people as a whole. It is difficult to know just what to make of Joshua’s refining of the leaders’ assignment of servitude to the Gibeonites. Service to the community at large would appear to be in keeping with the stipulation of Deuteronomy 20:10–11, that distant cities offered terms of peace “shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you.”

9:24–25 The Gibeonites reply in mitigation and defense, filling out their account first offered in Joshua 9:9–10. Now they provide a more personal reaction to their knowledge of the actions God had commanded to perform in the land: they came in self-preservation. And so they willingly submit to the terms Joshua has placed on them.

9:26–27 The final verses draw the threads together, wholly described in terms of Joshua’s decisions that bear on the future of the Gibeonites. Their continuing existence is confirmed; they are “delivered” from the people who would rather have killed them (cf. v. 18). Their role among the Israelites is now described as “altar” service, using the distinctive language of Deuteronomy, “in the place that he should choose”81—an anticipation of Jerusalem, but at this point referring to anyplace the Lord’s altar might be. This is further considered below in our evaluation of the Gibeonite covenant.