John Calvin Commentary Joshua 22

Then Joshua called the Reubenites, etc. This passage relates the discharge of the two tribes and half-tribe. They had accompanied the rest of the people, not to acquire anything for themselves—since they had already obtained dwellings and lands without the casting of lots—but so that they might wage war alongside their brothers until their brothers also had a secure inheritance.

Now, since they had been faithful companions and helpers to their brothers, Joshua declares that they were entitled to their discharge, and so sends them back to their homes, released and free. The question is asked, however, how he can consider them to have performed their due measure of military service while the enemy still possessed part of the land, the sole possession of which was to be the proper termination of the war?

But if we keep in mind what I said recently, the difficulty will be resolved. If the Israelites had followed God’s invitation and supported His work—indeed, if, when He was stretching out His hand to them, they had not shamefully drawn back—the remaining part of the war would have been finished with no danger and little trouble.

Therefore, because of their own sloth, they refused what God was ready to bestow. And so it happened that the agreement by which the two tribes and half-tribe had bound themselves ceased to be binding.

For the only obligation they had undertaken was to accompany the ten tribes and contend for their inheritance as strenuously as if their own condition had been exactly the same.

Now, since they have perseveringly performed their part as faithful allies, and the ten tribes—content with their present situation—not only do not demand but rather tacitly repudiate their assistance, a free return to their homes is justly allowed them.

Indeed, they deserve praise for their patient endurance, for not allowing weariness from the service to make them request their discharge, but instead waiting quietly until Joshua, of his own accord, sent for them.

But take diligent heed, etc. He thus releases and frees them from temporary service, that he may bind them forever to the authority of the one true God. He therefore permits them to return home, but on the condition that wherever they may be, they are to be the soldiers of God; and he at the same time prescribes the way, namely, the observance of his Law.

But since such is the vanity and inconstancy of the human mind, that religion easily fades away from the heart, while carelessness and contempt creep in, he requires of them zeal and diligence in carrying out the Law. He calls it the Law of Moses, so that they may not be carried to and fro by airy speculations, but remain fixed in the doctrine which they had learned from the faithful servant of God.

He also touches on the end and sum of the Law, love to God, and adherence to him, because outward worship would otherwise be of little value. He confirms the same thing by other words, which denote sincerity, namely, serving the Lord with their whole heart and soul.

Return with much riches, etc. As it was formerly seen that the greater part of the two tribes were left in their territories beyond the Jordan, when the others passed over to carry on the war, it was fair that, as they had lived at ease with their families, or been only occupied with domestic concerns, they should be contented with their own livelihood and the produce of their own labor.

And they certainly could not, without dishonesty, have demanded that any part of the booty and spoil be distributed among them, since they had taken no share in all the toil and the danger. Joshua, however, does not insist on the strictly legal view, but exhorts the soldiers to deal liberally with their countrymen by sharing the prey with them.

Here, someone might inappropriately raise the question of whether or not the booty was common. For Joshua does not decide absolutely that it is their duty to do as he instructs; he admonishes them that, after they have been enriched by the divine blessing, it would betray a lack of proper feeling not to be liberal and kind towards their brothers, especially as it was not their fault that they did not take part in the same expedition. Moreover, when he tells them to divide, he does not demand an equal partition, such as is usual among partners and equals, but only to bestow something that may suffice to remove all cause of envy and hatred.

And when they came to the borders, etc. The history here is particularly deserving of notice. The two and a half tribes, intending to set up a memorial of common faith and brotherly unity, allowed themselves, out of thoughtless zeal, to adopt a method that was justly suspected by their brothers.

The ten tribes, thinking that God's worship was violated with irreverent boldness and recklessness, were inflamed with holy anger and took up arms against their own relatives; nor were they pacified until they had received full satisfaction.

The motive for setting up the altar was right in itself. For the aim of the people of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh was to testify that although a river separated them from their brothers, they were nevertheless united with them in religion and shared a mutual agreement in the teaching of the Law. It was far from their intention to make any changes whatsoever in God's worship. However, they sinned gravely by attempting something new without any regard for the high priest or consulting their brothers, and in a way that was very likely to be misunderstood.

We know how strictly the Law prohibited two altars (Exodus 20:24), for the Lord wished to be worshipped in one place only. Therefore, when at first glance everyone was immediately led to think that they were building a second altar, who would not have judged them guilty of sacrilege in creating a corrupt form of worship, contrary to God's Law?

Since, then, their action could be considered wrong, they should, at least, in such a great and serious matter, have consulted their brothers. They were especially wrong in failing to consult the high priest, from whose lips God's will was to be determined. They were, therefore, blameworthy because, as if they were alone in the world, they did not consider what offense might arise from the newness of their example.

Therefore, let us learn not to attempt anything hastily, even if it seems blameless. Let us always pay careful attention to the admonition of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 10:23) that it is necessary to consider not only what is lawful, but also what is beneficial. Especially, let us carefully avoid disturbing devout minds by introducing any kind of novelty.

And the children of Israel heard say, and so on. There is no doubt that they were inflamed with holy zeal, nor ought their vehemence to seem excessive in taking up arms to destroy their countrymen over a pile of stones. For they truly and wisely judged that the lawful sanctuary of God was polluted and His worship profaned, that sacred things were violated, religious unity destroyed, and a door opened for unrestrained superstitious practices, if sacrifices were offered to God in two places; for God had, for these reasons, so solemnly bound the whole people to a single altar. Not rashly, therefore, do the ten tribes, upon hearing of a profane altar, detest its sacrilegious audacity.

Here, then, we have an illustrious display of piety, teaching us that if we see the pure worship of God corrupted, we must be vigorous, to the utmost of our ability, in vindicating it. The sword, indeed, has not been committed into the hands of all; but each person must, according to their calling and office, strive resolutely and firmly to maintain the purity of religion against all corruptions.

Especially deserving of the highest praise was the zeal of the half-tribe of Manasseh, who, setting aside all natural family ties, did not spare their own relatives. I admit, however, that this zeal, though pious, was not free from turbulent impetuosity, since they rushed to declare war before they inquired about their brothers' intentions and had properly ascertained the facts of the situation. War, I admit, was declared only conditionally, for they sent ambassadors to report back after they had carefully investigated the matter, and they took no action to inflict punishment until they were certified of the crime's existence. Therefore, an excuse may be made for their passionate fervor, as they prepared for battle in case any defection was discovered.