“And it came to pass, when all the kings that were beyond the Jordan, in the hill-
country, and in the Lowland, and on all the shore of the Great Sea in front of
Lebanon, the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite,
and the Jebusite, heard thereof, that they gathered themselves together, to
fight with Joshua and with Israel, with one accord.”
Joshua 9 concentrates on the Gibeonites, and a curious chapter it is. Abravanel analyzes the verses,
offering answers to fundamental questions. Among them are:
- According to Jewish tradition, prior to hostilities, Joshua dispatched letters to Canaan’s kings,
one that included a peace treaty. If so, why did the Gibeonites trouble themselves and engage in
subterfuge when they could have been upfront about making shalom? - Why did the Hebrews hesitate to enter into a covenant with their disheveled visitors from a
distant nation (Gibeonites)? Again, a peace accord would have benefited all parties. - Assuming that the Hebrews had valid reason to balk at the Gibeonites’ peace overture, why did
Joshua signal consent?
Below is an overview of Abravanel’s approach to some of the issues raised above. After Jericho and Ai –
separately received a thorough thrashing, Canaan’s kings forged an alliance. “They gathered themselves
together, to fight with Joshua and with Israel, with one accord.” Clearly, the monarchs banked on unity
as a means, their only means, by which to topple the Jews.
Taking a step back, Abravanel cites a critical Talmudic passage regarding Joshua’s pre-invasion strategy.
Before crossing the Jordan, says the Talmud, Joshua sent out emissaries to Canaan’s overlords. In his
missive to them, he put forth three options: 1) peace, 2) all-out war, or 3) free passage out of Canaan.
The kings, we read above, decided on the path to war. Thus, “they gathered themselves together, to
fight with Joshua…” In contrast, the citizens of Gibeon (one of the Canaanite peoples, known as Hivites)
were of a different mind. They sued for peace – on their terms. “But when the inhabitants of Gibeon
heard what Joshua had done unto Jericho and to Ai… they went to Joshua unto the camp at Gilgal, and
said unto him, and to the men of Israel: We are come from a far country. Now therefore make you a
covenant with us.” Gibeonites wanted no part in their king’s misguided foreign policy.
Now, terminology is key, Abravanel teaches. Specifically, what did Joshua mean by offering “peace” to
the locals versus consummating a “covenant” which Gibeon sought? This will be explained shortly, but
let us proceed and see what transpired after the Gibeonites dressed up as travelers from a distant land
before knocking on the Hebrew’s camp’s door. “They also did work wilily, and went and made as if they
had been ambassadors, and took old sacks upon their asses, and wine skins, worn and rent and patched
up. And worn shoes and clouted upon their feet, and worn garments upon them; and all the bread of
their provision was dry and was become crumbs.” Showtime.
This brings our discussion to the first and second issues bullet-pointed above: Why the pretense,
duplicity? Hadn’t Joshua extended an olive branch to all Canaanites? And if so, why did the Jews express
hesitancy. “And the men of Israel said unto the Hivites: Peradventure you dwell among us. And how
shall we make a covenant with you?” In response, the Gibeonites/Hivites equivocated. “From a very far
country your servants are come because of the name of the LORD thy God, for we have heard the fame
of Him, and all that He did in Egypt, and all that He did to the two kings of the Amorites, that were
beyond the Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon, and to Og king of Bashan, who was at Ashtaroth.”
Between the sweet, albeit disingenuous, talk of the Gibeonites and the resistance of the Hebrews, no
progress in the talks gathered steam. Impasse brought both sides to Joshua, who acted as a mediator,
Abravanel suggests. “And they said unto Joshua: We are your servants.” Note, the Gibeonites tweaked
their terms. Initially, they asked for a covenant, but now they offered themselves as servants. A
covenant implies parity. No servitude. No taxation. No subservience. As stated, Gibeonites changed their
tune.
“And Joshua said unto them: Who are you? and from whence come you?” Answering, they repeated
their lies; however, they softened their political position: “And they said unto him: From a very far
country your servants are come because of the name of the LORD your God, for we have heard the fame
of Him, and all that He did in Egypt.” Obsequiously, they identified themselves as Joshua’s servants.
Moreover, Gibeonites expressed religious interest.
As for the Hebrew leader’s response, we read: “And Joshua made peace with them, and made a
covenant with them, to let them live; and the princes of the congregation swore unto them.” For
Abravanel, this is the takeaway. He believed that the Gibeonites had heard about Joshua’s missive, with
option one being a peace accord. Peace had its price. Specifically, it meant socio-economic subservience
in lieu of remaining in Canaan, dwelling in personal security and safety. Religiously speaking, they would
have to renounce paganism in favor of following Noahide laws.
Gibeon’s ruse regarding coming from distant lands had been used to secure a covenantal accord. In
essence, they said that wanted peace with no strings attached. Joshua balked. Yet, according to
Abravanel, the Hebrew leader struck a compromise, found the middle ground between what the
Gibeonites and Jews respective stances. It would be peace, omitting all conditions and a covenant. To be
sure, it wasn’t a full-fledged covenant, rather “a covenant with them, to let them live.” Call it a non-
belligerency pact, but not mutual cooperation etc. In this fashion, Abravanel says, Joshua brought both
sides closer.