Envoy or Pretender?

And they also acted with wile, and they went, and disguised as ambassadors, and they took worn sacks for their donkeys, and wine bottles, rotten, split, and tied together.  Joshua 9:4  Chabad

Disguised as ambassadors – Exactly how did the Gibeonites present themselves?  Oh, we know they acted deceptively. That was a matter of survival.  But did they come as “ambassadors” or is something else involved here?  The root of the word yiṣṭăyyā’rû is tsîyr, but there are two semantic domains for this root.  The first means “errand-doer:” the second means “to make an image.”  Since both concepts have the same root spelling, English translations try to capture both ideas in one phrase.  Therefore, we have “disguised” from the second root (“to make an image”) and “ambassadors” from the first root (“errand-doer”).  Perhaps the text is actually trying to communicate both ideas at once.  The context suggests that the Gibeonites disguised themselves and acted like envoys.  But this combination provides us with a challenge.  How are the two roots related?  How can one spelling include both meanings?

Let me make a suggestion.  Start with the grammar.  The word in this verse is a Hitap’el.  This is reflexive, that is, something that is done to the subject.  In this case, the Gibeonites made themselves appear as errand-doers.  But what is the character of an errand-doer, a messenger?  Such a person is not the authority.  He represents the authority.  The errand was assigned by someone else.  The message came from someone else.  The ambassador represents someone else.  In other words, the person who that stands before you isn’t the real thing.  So the question arises, “Does this person standing before me really represent the real thing?”  In other words, without a direct connection to the underlying authority, there is always a question of deception.  How do we know that the message given is correct?  How do we know that the “ambassador” really represents the will of the king?  We don’t.  We have to trust this stranger because we have no access to the one who initiates the message or who rules over these people.  Underlying any second-hand communication is always the question of deception.  Tsîyr conveniently captures the surface and the depth of this dilemma.

This isn’t the first time we’ve encountered a tsîyr situation in the Bible.  It’s back to the Garden.  Are we talking with the serpent again?  It’s Jacob pretending to be Esau.  Are the men sent to Jericho spies or angels (it’s the same word)?  And what about Simeon and Levi: a lie that accomplishes the objective.  In fact, years later God seems to engage in the same kind of deception (1 King 22:19-23).  Perhaps the Gibeonites were operating within the norms of ethical behavior in the ancient Middle East.  When the objective is crucial, lies don’t seem to matter.

The story of the Gibeonites is perplexing.  Joshua violated God’s command about the indigenous people of Canaan.  Allowing these people to remain in the Land eventually resulted in idolatry.  Certainly God anticipated this and wanted to remove these influences when Israel arrived.  But the question of deception isn’t resolved.  When is a lie acceptable?  Now we will have to rethink some of our traditional education.

Topical Index: deception, tsîyr, envoy, ambassador, image, disguised, I Kings 22:19-23, Joshua 9:4