Joshua asks rather than assumes to verify the identity and origin of the strangers before making any covenant. The interrogative form demands accountability and prevents hasty alliance, reflecting the covenantal caution required when God had forbidden treaties with nearby inhabitants (Exodus 23:32, 34:12).

The Gibeonites answered that they were servants from a very far country, having come because of the fame of the LORD and all He had done in Egypt and to the Amorite kings (Joshua 9:9-13). They displayed worn-out provisions, patched wineskins, and old garments as evidence of their claimed long journey.

Joshua’s double question reveals proper leadership caution in covenant matters. The Hebrew construction uses two distinct interrogatives: ‘mi’ (who) addresses identity and ‘me-ayin’ (from where) addresses origin and allegiance. This wasn’t casual conversation but legal examination, since Israel’s covenant with God prohibited alliances with Canaan’s inhabitants. By asking rather than assuming, Joshua demonstrated the investigative responsibility required before making binding oaths. Yet the question’s tragic irony emerges in verse 14: ‘The men took some of their provisions, but did not ask counsel of the LORD.’ Joshua asked the Gibeonites but failed to ask God. The question was right; the questioner simply stopped one inquiry short. Keil and Delitzsch observe that the Gibeonites’ worn sandals and moldy bread created visual evidence that bypassed Joshua’s verbal investigation, showing how deception often works through what seems obvious to the eyes while evading what should be obvious to prayer.