learned to realize the essential enmity of heathenism against the kingdom of God, and who understood that

so great a change as the report of these men implied could not be brought about by "the hearing of the ear."

Besides, what they proposed was not to make submission to, but a league with, Israel: by which not merely

life, but their land and liberty, would be secured to them.  100 But against any league with the inhabitants of

Canaan, Israel had been specially warned (Exodus 23:32; 34:12; Numbers 33:55; Deuteronomy 7:2). What if,

after all, they were neighbors? The suspicion seems to have crossed the minds of Joshua and of the elders,

and even to have been expressed by them, only to be set aside by the protestations of the pretended

ambassadors. It was certainly a mark of religious superficiality and self-confidence on the part of the elders

of Israel to have consented on such grounds to "a league." The sacred text significantly puts it: "And the

men (the elders of Israel) took of their victuals (according to the common Eastern fashion of eating bread

and salt with a guest who is received as a friend), but they asked not counsel at the mouth of Jehovah."

Their mistake soon became apparent. Three days later, and Israel found that the pretended foreigners were

in reality neighbors! Meanwhile, the kings or chieftains who ruled in Western Palestine had been concerting

against Israel a combined movement of their forces from "the hills," or highlands of Central Palestine, from

"the valleys," or the Shephelah (low country), between the mountain -chain and the sea, and "from the

coasts of the great sea over against Lebanon," that is, from Joppa northwards by the sea-shore. The

existence of the small confederate republic of Gibeon with its three associate cities in the midst of small

monarchies throws a curious light upon the state of Palestine at the time; and the jealousy which would

naturally exist between them helps to explain alike the policy of the Gibeonites, and the revenge which the

Canaanitish kings were shortly afterwards preparing to take. The history of the republic of Gibeon is

"Gibeon was a great city, as one of the royal cities.... greater than Ai, and all the men

thereof were mighty" (Joshua 10:2).

Its inhabitants were "Hivites" (11:19). Afterwards Gibeon fell to the lot of Benjamin, and became a priest-city

(18:25; 21:17). When Nob was destroyed by Saul, the tabernacle was transported to Gibeon, where it

remained till the temple was built by Solomon (1 Chronicles 16:39; 21:29; 1 Kings 3:4; 2 Chronicles 1:3).101 It

lay about two hours to the north-west of Jerusalem, and is represented by the modern village of el-Jib. Its

three associate towns were Chephirah, about three hours' west from Gibeon, the modern Kefir; Beeroth,

about ten miles north of Jerusalem, the modern el-Bireh - both cities afterwards within the possession of

Benjamin; and Kirjath-Jearim, "the city of groves," probably so called from its olive, fig, and other

plantations, as its modern representative, Kuriet-el-Enab, is from its vineyards. The latter city, which was

afterwards allotted to Judah, is about three hours from Jerusalem; and there the Ark remained from the time

of its return from the Philistines to that of David (1 Samuel 7:2; 2 Samuel 6:2; 1 Chronicles 13:5, 6).

When the people learned the deceit practiced upon them, they "murmured against the princes;" but the

latter refused to break their solemn oath, so far as it insured the lives and safety of the Gibeonites. If they

had sworn rashly and presumptuously "by Jehovah, God of Israel," it would have only added another and a

far more grievous sin to have broken their oath; not to speak of the effect upon the heathen around. The

principle applying to this, as to similar rash undertakings, is, that a solemn obligation, however incurred,

must be considered binding, unless its observance involve fresh sin.102 But in this instance it manifestly did

not involve fresh sin. For the main reason of the destruction of the Canaanites was their essential hostility

to the kingdom of God. The danger to Israel, accruing from this, could be avoided in a solitary instance.

With a view to this, the Gibeonites were indeed spared, but attached as "bond-men" to the sanctuary, where

they and their descendants performed all menial services  103 (Joshua 9:23). Nor, as the event proved, did

they ever betray their t rust, or lead Israel into idolatry.104 Still, as a German writer observes, the rashness of

Israel's princes, and the conduct of the Gibeonites, conveys to the church at all times solemn warning

against the devices and the deceit of the world, which, when outward advantage offers, seeks a friendly

alliance with, or even reception into, the visible kingdom of God.