Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Joshua 9:14
And the men took of their victuals, and asked not [counsel] at the mouth of the LORD.
14. the men took of their victuals ] “thei token thanne of the meetis of hem,” Wyclif. “The men” here denote the elders of Israel, the heads of the tribes. Comp. Jos 9:18-21. Some think it means they took and tasted of their provisions by way of test to see if their story was true, so Keil and Rosenmller. Others interpret the words as denoting that the princes of the people took of the provisions, and by thus eating, according to the usages of Oriental nations, pledged themselves to friendship and amity. Compare the eating together as a sign of friendship of Jacob and Laban, Gen 31:46; and the expression “covenant of salt,” Lev 2:13 ; 2Ch 13:5.
and asked not counsel ] This was a transgression of an explicit command that the priest should seek a revelation of the Divine will for Joshua by means of the Sacred Oracle, the Urim and Thummim; “at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him” (Num 27:21). See also Exo 28:30. Against any league with the inhabitants of Canaan they had been specially warned (Exo 23:32; Exo 34:12; Num 33:55; Deu 7:2).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The elders of Israel Jos 9:18, tasting what was offered them by the Gibeonites, pledged themselves according to the usage of Eastern nations to peace and friendship with them. They credited the story at once, instead of seeking the direction of God in the matter. The rendering of the margin is not to be preferred to that of the text.
At the mouth of the Lord – i. e. by the Urim and Thummim Exo 28:30.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 14. The men took of their victuals] This was done in all probability in the way of friendship; for, from time immemorial to the present day, eating together, in the Asiatic countries, is considered a token of unalterable friendship; and those who eat even salt together, feel themselves bound thereby in a perpetual covenant. But the marginal reading of this clause should not be hastily rejected.
And asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord.] They made the covenant with the Gibeonites without consulting God by Urim and Thummim, which was highly reprehensible in them, as it was a state transaction in which the interests and honour of God their king were intimately concerned.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The men, i.e. the princes, as before, Jos 9:6.
Took of their victuals; not from their want or any desire they could have to such unpleasant and unwholesome food; nor in a ceremony usual in making leagues, for that was not now done, but in the next verse; but that they might examine the truth of what they said.
Asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord, as they ought to have done upon all such weighty and doubtful occasions. So they are accused of rashness, and neglect of their duty. For though it is probable, if God had been consulted, he would have consented to the sparing of the Gibeonites; yet it should have been done with more caution, and an obligation left upon them to embrace the true religion, which here was omitted.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14, 15. the men took of theirvictuals and asked not counsel at the mouth of the LordThemouldy appearance of their bread was, after examination, accepted asguaranteeing the truth of the story. In this precipitate conclusionthe Israelites were guilty of excessive credulity and culpablenegligence, in not asking by the high priest’s Urim and Thummim themind of God, before entering into the alliance. It is not clear,however, that had they applied for divine direction they would havebeen forbidden to spare and connect themselves with any of theCanaanite tribes who renounced idolatry and embraced and worshippedthe true God. At least, no fault was found with them for making acovenant with the Gibeonites; while, on the other hand, the violationof it was severely punished (2Sa 21:1;Jos 11:19; Jos 11:20).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the men took of their victuals,…. That is, the princes of Israel took thereof; not to eat of them, for it cannot be thought that such personages would eat of such dry and mouldy bread, and especially as they were now in a plentiful country, and possessed of the fruits of it; but to see whether it was in such a plight and condition as they said, whereby they might judge of the truth of what they said; and they learned and knew, as R. Jonah observes, from the dryness of their food, that it was truth they said; and so the Targum, the men hearkened to their words; and so Jarchi, they believed what they said on sight of their provisions; but, according to Kimchi and Ben Melech, they ate with them, to confirm the covenant they made with them; but had this been the case, as it sometimes was a custom to eat together at making covenants, see Ge 26:30; the princes would doubtless have provided a better entertainment for such a purpose: the “margin” of our Bibles leads to the other sense,
“they received the men by reason of their victuals:”
and asked not [counsel] at the mouth of the Lord; as they might and should have done, by desiring the high priest to inquire of the Lord by Urim and Thummim; but this they neglected, which, had they attended to, the fraud would have been discovered; or however, they would have had the mind of God about making peace with the Gibeonites, which in all likelihood he would not have disapproved of, they becoming proselytes, and giving up their possessions to Israel; but this did not excuse their neglect.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Israelites suffered themselves to be taken in by this pretence. “ The men (the elders of Israel) took of their provisions; but they did not ask the mouth of the Lord.” Instead of inquiring the will of the Lord in this matter through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest (Num 27:21), they contented themselves with taking some of the bread that was shown them, and tasting it; as if the dry mouldy bread furnished a safe guarantee of the truth of the words of these foreign ambassadors. Some commentators regard their taking of their provisions as a sign of mutual friendship, or of the league which they made; but in that case their eating with them would at any rate have been mentioned. Among the Arabs, simply eating bread and salt with a guest is considered a sign of peace and friendship.
Jos 9:15 So Joshua made (granted) them peace (vid., Isa 27:5), and concluded a covenant with them ( , in their favour), to let them live; and the princes of the congregation sware unto them. Letting them live is the only article of the league that is mentioned, both because this was the main point, and also with special reference to the fact that the Gibeonites, being Canaanites, ought properly to have been destroyed. It is true that Joshua and the princes of the congregation had not violated any express command of God by doing this; for the only thing prohibited in the law was making treaties with the Canaanites, which they did not suppose the Gibeonites to be, whilst in Deu 20:11, where wars with foreign nations (not Canaanites) are referred to, permission is given to make peace with them, so that all treaties with foreign nations are not forbidden. But they had failed in this respect, that, trusting to the crafty words of the Gibeonites, and to outward appearances only, they had forgotten their attitude to the Lord their God who had promised to His congregation, in all important matters, a direct revelation of His own will.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
14. And the men took of their victuals, etc. Some commentators here have recourse to the insipid fictions that they ate the bread, to ascertain from the taste whether it were stale from age, or that they confirmed the covenant by a feast. The words rather, in my opinion, are an indirect censure of their excessive credulity in having, on slight grounds acquiesced in a fabulous narrative, and in having attended merely to the bread, without considering that the fiction was devoid of color. And, certainly, had not their senses been blunted, many things would have instantly occurred to refute the Gibeonites. (84) But as it sometimes happens, that the most piercing eyes are dazzled by an empty spectacle, they are more severely condemned for not having ascertained the pleasure of God. The remedy was at hand, had they attempted nothing without consulting the oracle. It was a matter deserving of careful inquiry, and it was therefore a sign of gross carelessness, when a priest was ready to seek an answer from God, by means of Urim and Thummim, to decide rashly in an obscure case, as if they had no means of obtaining advice. Their rashness was the less excusable, from being combined with such supine neglect of the grace of God.
(84) Nothing could be more gross than the imposition thus practiced. The capital of the Gibeonites was not above fourteen miles west from Jericho, and scarcely half that distance south-west from Ai, where the Israelites had recently gained so signal a victory, and it is therefore not improbable that the Israelites, while pursuing the fugitives, had actually been within the territory which their leaders now ignorantly believe to be so very distant, as to be altogether beyond the limits of the promised land. The compliments paid to their prowess so flattered their pride, and the alliance of a powerful though distant nation held out the hope of so many advantages in the further prosecution of their conquests, that they fell at once into the snare, as if they had almost been willing to be deceived. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(14) And the men took of their victuals.And they accepted the men from (the appearance of) their provisions. This, which is the view taken in our marginal reading, seems to be the more probable interpretation, and follows the Targum. The men can hardly refer to any one but the ambassadors of the Gibeonites.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
14. The men The chiefs in Joshua’s camp with whom the Gibeonites conferred.
Took of their victuals But it is not said that the men of Israel ate of these victuals. Yet, as it is a custom among the Arabs to eat the victuals of a guest, as a sign of peace and friendship, this may have been the purpose of their taking the provision of these Gibeonites. This passage has puzzled all the interpreters. The marginal reading in our English Bible is ingenious, but it is not sustained by the Hebrew, “they received the men by reason of their victuals.” Nor did they make a treaty with them by eating their food, for this was not customary. More plausible is the theory that they took their bread into their hands to examine it. But we would suggest that the real meaning may be, they presumed the truth of the story from their victuals. The original word for took is sometimes used for mental acts.
And asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord A momentous question was settled with no reference to the Divine will, and that, too, on a point in regard to which Jehovah’s commands were very explicit alliance with aliens. Compare note and references on Jos 9:7. Jehovah, who had made special arrangements for communicating with his people through the urim and thummim, was slighted and ignored. These Israelitish princes have had many imitators in the senates and cabinets of Christian lands. How rarely is God consulted by statesmen, even in affairs in which the destiny of a nation is involved!
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the men took of their provisions and did not ask counsel of YHWH.’
O how foolish we are when we do not consult God. Convinced by the false evidence the food was accepted by the elders of Israel, Joshua among them. It would only be a token participation to demonstrate acceptance in view of the condition of the food, although they were more used to eating mouldy food than we are. But it was specifically done without consulting YHWH (see Num 27:21). How careful we should be before we come to decisions, especially decisions which bind us to alliance and working together, without giving time for full consultation with God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Ver. 14. And the men took of their victuals It has been asked in what light they thus took of it? and some pretend it was to taste with them in token of friendship, peace, and alliance, according to the ancient custom in use among almost all nations. Others think it was rather to examine whether their bread was, as they said, dry and mouldy, like a biscuit which has been a long voyage.
And asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord They did not consult the high-priest, arrayed in the breast-plate with the Urim and Thummim, as they ought to have done, to know from his mouth the will of the Lord. They were determined by views merely political. After a bare inspection of the victuals which the Gibeonites brought with them, they believed their declaration, and received them cordially, without giving themselves the trouble of consulting God, who, in all probability, would have permitted them to make peace with them, on the conditions imposed by Joshua, and secretly prescribed by his divine providence.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Jos 9:14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not [counsel] at the mouth of the LORD.
Ver. 14. And the men took of their victuals. ] That is, they did eat of it in token of a league made with them, say some: others more probably, they took it and looked on it, to see whether it were hoary and mouldy, as they had said.
And asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the men. Hebrew, plural of ish or ‘enosh. App-14
took of their victuals. Probably tasted, or partook of their food; or, ate with them–a token of friendship.
asked not: i.e. by “Urim and Thummim”. Compare Exo 28:30, note.
mouth. Put by Figure of speech Melonymy (of Cause), App-6, for the counsel given by the mouth.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
the men took of their victuals: or, they received the men by reason of their victuals
asked not: Exo 28:30, Num 27:21, Jdg 1:1, Jdg 20:18, Jdg 20:28, 1Sa 14:18, 1Sa 14:19, 1Sa 22:10, 1Sa 23:9-12, 1Sa 30:7, 1Sa 30:8, 2Sa 2:1, 2Sa 5:19, 1Ch 10:13, 1Ch 10:14, Ezr 8:21, Pro 3:5, Pro 3:6, Isa 30:1, Isa 30:2, Jam 1:5
Reciprocal: Exo 23:32 – shalt make Jdg 20:7 – give here 1Sa 23:2 – inquired 1Sa 25:13 – Gird ye 1Ki 22:5 – Inquire 2Ki 3:11 – that we may 1Ch 17:2 – Do all 2Ch 35:22 – the mouth Luk 9:50 – Forbid 1Ti 5:22 – suddenly
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jos 9:14. The men That is, the princes. Their victuals That they might examine the truth of what they said. Asked not at the mouth of the Lord As they ought to have done upon all such weighty occasions. So they are accused of rashness and neglect of their duty. For though it is probable, if God had been consulted, he would have consented to the sparing of the Gibeonites; yet it should have been done with more caution, and an obligation upon them to embrace the true religion. In every business of importance we should take God along with us, and by his word and prayer consult him. Many a time our affairs miscarry, because we ask not counsel at the mouth of the Lord. Did we acknowledge him in all our ways, they would be more safe, easy, and successful.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
9:14 And the {g} men took of their victuals, and asked not [counsel] at the mouth of the LORD.
(g) Some think that the Israelites are of their victuals, and so made a league with them.