Read Joshua 9:1–20. What are the similarities and differences between the story of Rahab and that of the Gibeonites? Why are they meaningful?
This chapter of Joshua starts by informing us that the Canaanite kings who usually ruled over small city-states decided to create a coalition against the Israelites. By contrast, the inhabitants of Gibeon decided to establish a covenant with Israel.
In order to trick the Israelites into making a covenant with them, the Gibeonites resort to the scheme of being ambassadors from a foreign country. According to Deuteronomy 20:10–18, God made a distinction between the Canaanites and people who lived outside the Promised Land.
The word translated as “craftily” or “cunningly” can be used with a positive meaning, denoting prudence and wisdom (Prov. 1:4; Prov. 8:5, 12), or negatively, implying criminal intent (Exod. 21:14, 1 Sam. 23:22, Ps. 83:3). In the case of the Gibeonites, behind their treacherous action lies a less-destructive intent of self-preservation.
The speech of the Gibeonites is strikingly similar to that of Rahab. Both acknowledge the power of Israel’s God, and both acknowledge that Israel’s success is not simply a human feat. In contrast to other Canaanites, they do not rebel against Yahweh’s plan to grant the land to the Israelites, and they admit that the Lord Himself is driving these nations out before Israel. The news of the deliverance from Egypt, and the victories over Sihon and Og, prompt both Rahab and the Gibeonites to seek an alliance with the Israelites. However, instead of fully acknowledging their willingness to surrender to the God of Israel, as Rahab does, the Gibeonites resort to a subterfuge.
The law of Moses made provisions for learning the will of God in such cases as this (Num. 27:16–21). Joshua should have inquired for the will of the Lord and avoided the deception of the Gibeonites.
The fundamental duty of a theocratic leader, and of any Christian leader, is to seek God’s will (1 Chron. 28:9, 2 Chron. 15:2, 2 Chron. 18:4, 2 Chron. 20:4). By neglecting it, the Israelites were compelled either to violate the fundamental conditions of conquering the land or to break an oath made in the name of the Lord, which was equally binding.
How often have you found yourself struggling between what appears to be two conflicting biblical values?
Supplemental EGW Notes
From Shechem the Israelites returned to their encampment at Gilgal. Here they were soon after visited by a strange deputation, who desired to enter into treaty with them. The ambassadors represented that they had come from a distant country, and this seemed to be confirmed by their appearance. Their clothing was old and worn, their sandals were patched, their provisions moldy, and the skins that served them for wine bottles were rent and bound up, as if hastily repaired on the journey. . . .
These representations prevailed. . . . “And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.” Thus the treaty was entered into. . . .
But it would have fared better with the Gibeonites had they dealt honestly with Israel. While their submission to Jehovah secured the preservation of their lives, their deception brought them only disgrace and servitude. God had made provision that all who would renounce heathenism, and connect themselves with Israel, should share the blessings of the covenant. They were included under the term, “the stranger that sojourneth among you,” and with few exceptions this class were to enjoy equal favors and privileges with Israel. The Lord’s direction was—“If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself” (Leviticus 19:33, 34). . . .
Such was the footing on which the Gibeonites might have been received, but for the deception to which they had resorted. It was no light humiliation to those citizens of a “royal city,” “all the men whereof were mighty,” to be made hewers of wood and drawers of water throughout their generations. But they had adopted the garb of poverty for the purpose of deception, and it was fastened upon them as a badge of perpetual servitude. Thus through all their generations their servile condition would testify to God’s hatred of falsehood.—Conflict and Courage, p. 122.
The submission of Gibeon to the Israelites filled the kings of Canaan with dismay. Steps were at once taken for revenge upon those who had made peace with the invaders. Under the leadership of Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem, five of the Canaanite kings entered into a confederacy against Gibeon. Their movements were rapid. The Gibeonites were unprepared for defense, and they sent a message to Joshua at Gilgal: “Slack not thy hand from thy servants; come up to us quickly, and save us, and help us: for all the kings of the Amorites that dwell in the mountains are gathered together against us.” The danger threatened not the people of Gibeon alone, but also Israel. This city commanded the passes to central and southern Palestine, and it must be held if the country was to be conquered.
Joshua prepared to go at once to the relief of Gibeon. The inhabitants of the besieged city had feared that he would reject their appeal, because of the fraud which they had practiced; but since they had submitted to the control of Israel, and had accepted the worship of God, he felt himself under obligation to protect them. He did not this time move without divine counsel, and the Lord encouraged him in the undertaking. “Fear them not,” was the divine message; “for I have delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.” “So Joshua ascended from Gilgal, he, and all the people of war with him, and all the mighty men of valor.”—Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 507.
The above quotations are taken from Ellen G. White Notes for the Sabbath School Lessons, published by Pacific Press Publishing Association. Used by permission.