Deep Dive

Joshua 9:18

A plain-spoken deep dive on this verse. Read the chapter →

But the Israelites did not attack them, because the leaders of the congregation had sworn an oath to them by the LORD, the God of Israel. And the whole congregation grumbled against the leaders.

Commentaries

Excerpts gathered from published commentaries to ground the reading.

Keil-Delitzsch Old Testament Commentaryv. 18

"The Israelites smote them not," sc., with the edge of the sword, "because the princes of the congregation had sworn to them," sc., to let them live (Jos 9:15); but, notwithstanding the murmuring of the congregation, they declared that they might not touch them because of their oath. "This (sc., what we have sworn) we will do to them, and let them live (החיה, inf. abs. with special emphasis instead of the finite verb), lest wrath come upon us because of the oath." Wrath (sc., of God), a judgment such as fell upon Israel in the time of David, because Saul disregarded this oath and sought to destroy the Gibeonites (Sa2 21:1.). But how could the elders of Israel consider themselves bound by their oath to grant to the Gibeonites the preservation of life which had been secured to them by the treaty they had made, when the very supposition upon which the treaty was made, viz., that the Gibeonites did not belong to the tribes of Canaan, was proved to be false, and the Gibeonites had studiously deceived them by pretending that they had come from a very distant land? As they had been absolutely forbidden to make any treaties with the Canaanites, it might be supposed that, after the discovery of the deception which had been practised upon them, the Israelitish rulers would be under no obligation to observe the treaty which they had made with the Gibeonites in full faith in the truth of their word. And no doubt from the stand-point of strict justice this view appears to be a right one. But the princes of Israel shrank back from breaking the oath which, as is emphatically stated in Jos 9:19, they had sworn by Jehovah the God of Israel, not because they assumed, as Hauff supposes, "that an oath simply regarded as an outward and holy transaction had an absolutely binding force," but…

Open source ↗
Matthew Henry Bible Commentaryv. 18

Here is in this chapter, I. The impolite confederacy of the kings of Canaan against Israel (Jos 9:1, Jos 9:2). II. The polite confederacy of the inhabitants of Gibeon with Israel, 1. How it was subtly proposed and petitioned for by the Gibeonites pretending to come from a far country (Jos 9:3-13). 2. How it was unwarily consented to by Joshua and the Israelites, to the disgust of the congregation when the fraud was discovered (Jos 9:14-18). 3. How the matter was adjusted to the satisfaction of all sides, by giving these Gibeonites their lives because they had covenanted with them, yet depriving them of their liberties because the covenant was not fairly obtained (Jos 9:19-27).

Open source ↗
Tyndale Open Study Notesv. 18

9:18-21 Israel was not entitled to break this treaty even though the Gibeonites deceived the Israelites into making it. Breaking a covenant sworn by an oath in the presence of the Lord would have made light of God’s name and honor (cp. Gen 27:30-38).

Open source ↗

Your reflection