testimony.” “There was not a city
that made peace with the children of Israel save the
Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all others they
took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden
their hearts, that they should COME OUT AGAINST ISRAEL
IN BATTLE, that he might destroy them utterly, and
that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy
them, as the Lord commanded Moses.” Josh.
xix. 19, 20. That is, if they had
not
come out against Israel in battle, they would have
had “favor” shown them, and would not have
been “
destroyed utterly.” The great
design was to
transfer the territory of the
Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it,
absolute
sovereignty in every respect; to annihilate their
political organizations, civil polity, and jurisprudence
and their system of religion, with all its rights
and appendages; and to substitute therefor, a pure
theocracy, administered by Jehovah, with the Israelites
as His representatives and agents. In a word
the people were to be
denationalized, their
political existence annihilated, their idol temples,
altars, images groves and heathen rites destroyed,
and themselves put under tribute. Those who resisted
the execution of Jehovah’s purpose were to be
killed, while those who quietly submitted to it were
to be spared. All had the choice of these alternatives,
either free egress out of the land[C]; or acquiescence
in the decree, with life and residence as tributaries,
under the protection of the government; or resistance
to the execution of the decree, with death. “
And
it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn
the ways of my people, to swear by my name, the Lord
liveth as they taught my people to swear by Baal;
THEN SHALL THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE.”
[Footnote A: Perhaps it will be objected, that
the preservation of the Gibeonites, and of Rahab and
her kindred, was a violation of the command of God.
We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such
intimation. If God had strictly commanded them
to exterminate all the Canaanites, their pledge
to save themselves was neither a repeal of the statute,
nor absolution for the breach of it. If unconditional
destruction was the import of the command, would
God have permitted such an act to pass without rebuke?
Would he have established such a precedent when Israel
had hardly passed the threshold of Canaan, and was
then striking the first blow of a half century war?
What if they had passed their word to Rahab
and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than
God’s command? So Saul seems to have passed
his word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in pieces,
because in saving his life, Saul had violated God’s
command. When Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites
in “his zeal for the children of Israel and
Judah,” God sent upon Israel three years famine
for it. When David inquired of them what atonement
he should make, they say, “The man that devised
against us, that we should be destroyed from remaining
in any of the coasts of Israel, let seven of his
sons be delivered,” &c. 2 Sam. xxii. 1-6.]