John Calvin Commentary Joshua 13

Now Joshua was old, etc. Since we have seen above that the land was pacified by the subjugation of thirty-one kings, it is probable that some cessation now took place for the purpose of resting from their fatigues, lest the people should be worn out by continual service.

Nor could that justly be blamed, provided they rested only for a time and continued always intent on the goal set before them. But lest that intermission, which was given for the purpose of recruiting new vigor, might prove an occasion of sloth, the Lord employs a new stimulus to urge them to proceed.

For He orders the whole inheritance to be divided into tribes, and the whole line of the Mediterranean coast which was possessed by the enemy to be put into the lot. A division of this kind might indeed seem absurd and ludicrous, even a complete mockery, since they were dealing among themselves with the property of others just as if it had been their own.

But the Lord ordained it so for the best of reasons.

1. They might have cast away the hope of the promise and been content with their present state. Indeed, even though after the lot was cast they had full security for all that God had promised, they, by their own cowardice, discredited His words as far as it was in their power. Nor was it due to any merit of theirs that His truthfulness did not remain diminished and damaged. The allocation by lot must therefore have been for them a pledge of certain possession, in order to keep them always ready for it.

2. Those who happened to have their portion assigned in an enemy’s country, since they were living meanwhile as strangers on precarious hospitality beyond their own inheritance, must have acted like a kind of taskmasters, spurring on the others. And it surely implied excessive stupor to neglect and abandon what had been divinely assigned to them.

We now see why the whole land needed to be divided by lot, and each tribe’s territory allocated. It was also necessary that this should be done while Joshua was alive, because after his death the Israelites would have been less inclined to obedience, for none of his successors possessed sufficient authority for the execution of so difficult a task.

Moreover, as God had already commanded by the mouth of Moses that it be done, if Joshua had not performed the task committed to him, the whole work might have been ruined when the lawful minister was removed.

Although the exact time is not stated, it is still probable that because there was no hope of the people taking up arms again to extend their boundaries while Joshua remained alive, he then initiated the division of the land. He did this as if, by a solemn attestation, he were proclaiming and promising that the distribution would certainly be carried into effect, because the truth of God could not fail due to the death of any man.

This is the land, etc. The ancient boundaries long ago fixed by God are recalled, so that Joshua and the people may be fully persuaded that the covenant made with Abraham would be fulfilled in every part. Therefore, they are instructed to make it their study to acquire the parts still remaining to be possessed. The inference will be appropriate if we make a practical application of this perseverance to what is required of us, namely, to forget the things which are behind, and reach forth unto those that are before, and press toward the mark for the prize of our high calling (Philippians 3:14). For it would be of no use to run in the race without endeavoring to reach the goal.

The boundary began with a river separating Egypt towards the sea from the Holy Land—most probably the river Nile, as we interpret it according to the prevailing opinion, or a small stream that flowed past the town of Rhinocornea, believed by many to be Raphia or Raphane. It is indeed beyond dispute that the inheritance of the people beginning in that region was adjacent to Egypt.

But although I have followed the opinion of the majority of commentators, that the boundaries were not extended further than to the less cultivated and somewhat desert land, lest greater proximity might have been injurious by leading to too close familiarity with the Egyptians, I by no means repudiate a different opinion.

The third verse raises a question. After it is said that the territories towards the sea-coast were five, a sixth is added, namely, that of the Avites. Some think that it is not counted among the five because it was an insignificant province. But I would have my readers consider whether there may not be an indirect antithesis between a free people, their own masters, and five territories ruled by sovereigns. Hence the Avites, being in different circumstances, are mentioned separately, the plural number being used for the sake of distinction. In the enumeration of the sovereignties, they are not arranged in the order of their dignity or opulence, but the first place is given to Aza because of its nearness to Egypt, and the same remark applies to Ashdod and the others.

The Septuagint translators, according to their usual custom, employ the Greek γ (gamma) to express the Hebrew ע (ain), and thus give the name of Gaza to that which in Hebrew is Aza, in the same way as they convert Amorrha into Gomorrha. This sufficiently exposes the mistake of those who suppose that its name is Persian and derived from its resources because Cambyses, when about to carry on war in Greece, made it the depot of his treasures.

But as in Acts, (Acts 8:26), Luke speaks of Gaza which is desert, it appears that a city of the same name was built near it, but on a different site. Ashdod is the same as that which the Greeks called Azotus. The whole of this tract, which is either on the sea-coast or verging towards it, extends as far as Sidon. And there are some who think that the Phoenicians were once masters of both Gaza and Azotus.

How far Lebanon extends is sufficiently known. For it sometimes includes Mount Hermon; and on account of its length, part of it is also named Antilibanus. The reader will find the subject of Mount Hermon considered in Deuteronomy 4. Towards the east is Hamath, which is also Antioch of Syria.

All the inhabitants of the hill country, etc., Joshua is again admonished, though the Israelites do not yet possess those regions, not to delay the partition, but to trust in the promise of God, because it would wrongfully detract from His honor if there were any doubt about the outcome. It is accordingly said: 'Only do what is your duty in the distribution of the land; nor let what the enemy still holds securely be exempted from the lot, for it will be My care to fulfill what I have promised.' From this, let us learn when undertaking any business, to depend so on the lips of God that no doubt can delay us. It is not for us, indeed, to fabricate vain hopes for ourselves; but when our confidence is founded on the Lord, let us only obey His commands, and there is no reason to fear that the outcome will disappoint us.

He afterwards assigns the land of Canaan to nine tribes and a half-tribe, because the portion of the Reubenites, Gadites, and half-tribe of Manasseh had already been assigned beyond the Jordan. Though there is a seeming tautology in the words, 'Which Moses gave them, as Moses gave them,' there is nothing superfluous, because in the second clause the donation is confirmed; as if God were ordering what was done to be ratified, or saying, in other words, 'As Moses gave them that land, so let them remain tranquil in the possession of it.' For this reason also, he is distinguished by the title of 'Servant of God,' as if it were said, 'Let no one interfere with that decree which a faithful minister has pronounced on the authority of God.' It was certainly necessary to provide in advance against the disputes that otherwise would surely have arisen daily.

Only unto the tribe of Levi, etc. This exception was also necessary to prevent the Levites from claiming they were unjustly disinherited and thus causing great unrest concerning their rights. He therefore reminds them that Moses was the author of this distinction and, at the same time, shows that they have no reason to complain of having been defrauded in any way, because an excellent compensation was given to them.

For although the sacrifices were not equally divided among the Levites, their livelihood was sufficiently provided for by all the firstfruits and the tithes. Moreover, as God attracts them with reward to undertake the charge of sacred duties, so he, in turn, exhorts the people to be faithful in paying the sacred offerings by declaring that these offerings are the maintenance of the Levites.

Concerning the passage And Moses gave unto the tribe..., and so on, what he seemed to have stated with sufficient clarity, he now follows up more fully in detail. This was done not only so that the reading might incite the people to gratitude—with the divine goodness recorded in public documents and, so to speak, constantly before their eyes—but also so that each person might enjoy his inheritance without harassment and quarreling.

For we know how ingenious human greed is in devising pretexts for litigation, so that no one can possess his right in safety unless a plain and clear definition of his right makes it impossible to call it into question.

That country had been given without casting lots. It was therefore open to others to object that the just proportion had not been maintained, and that the inequality needed to be corrected.

Therefore, so that no inopportune dispute might ever disturb the public peace, the boundaries were everywhere fixed by God's authority, and disputes of every kind were removed by establishing landmarks.

God does not by one single expression merely assign the whole kingdom of Sihon to the tribe of Reuben; instead, He traces their outermost boundary from Aroer to the banks of the Arnon. Thus, making an entire circuit, He narrows or expands their territory so as not to leave the possession of a single acre ambiguous. Moreover, how useful this exact delineation was can be learned from secular history, where we frequently encounter not only resentment-causing but also destructive disputes among neighbors regarding their boundaries.

We may add that the care the Lord graciously undertook in providing for His people, and in fostering mutual peace among them, demonstrates His truly fatherly love, since He omitted nothing that might contribute to their tranquility. Indeed, if such provision had not been made so early, they might have been consumed by internal quarrels.

I again ask my readers to excuse me if I do not strive painstakingly in describing the location of towns, and am not even particular about names. Indeed, I will readily allow those names, which it was considered appropriate to leave as proper nouns in Hebrew, to be treated as adaptable words and altered sufficiently to give them a Latin form.

It is noteworthy that when the land of the Midianites is mentioned, the princes who ruled over it are called "Satraps of Sihon." This informs us that they shared in the same overthrow because they had involved themselves in an unjust war and belonged to the government of Sihon, a declared enemy.

And to make it still clearer that they perished justly, it is recounted that among the slain was Balaam, by whose tongue they (the Midianites) had attempted to wound the Israelites more severely than by a thousand swords. This is as if to say that in that slaughter, the Israelites found the very banner of hostility under which those enemies had declared themselves at open war with them.

When it is said that "the Jordan was a boundary, and a boundary," to prevent useless repetition, we should interpret this to mean that the Jordan was their boundary according to its full extent and limits.