John Calvin Commentary Joshua 22:21

"Then the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh answered, and spake unto the heads of the thousands of Israel," — Joshua 22:21 (ASV)

Then the children of Reuben, etc. The state of the case turns on the definition. For the children of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh explain that they had a different intention, and thus exculpate themselves from the charge, since the nature of the proceeding was quite different from what the others supposed.

In not making a disturbance, nor picking a quarrel for the injustice done to them, they give an example of rare modesty, which is presented for our imitation; so that if at any time anything we have rightly done happens to be unjustly and falsely blamed by those not acquainted with its nature, we may deem it sufficient to refute the censure only so far as may be necessary for clearing ourselves.

Moreover, so that more credit may be given to them, and that they may better attest their integrity, they, by a solemn protest, reject the wickedness of which they were suspected. For there is force and meaning in the reduplication, The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, by which they vehemently affirm how faithfully they desire to persevere in the doctrine of the Law, and how greatly they abhor all contrary superstitions.

But as their intention was not apparent to men, and everyone interpreted it differently according to their own understanding, they appeal to the judgment of God and offer to submit to punishment if He decides that they had attempted anything wickedly.

And to prove that they are not like hypocrites who, with utter wickedness, appeal to God a hundred times as judge even when they are convicted in their own minds, they not only appeal to their conscience but at the same time declare that the whole people will be witnesses.

It was as if they had said that it will be made evident by the act itself that they never had any intention of devising any new form of worship. They rightly explain how the altar would have been unlawful: namely, if they had built it for the purpose of offering sacrifice.

For the Law did not condemn the mere raising of heaps of stones but only enjoined that sacrifices should be offered in one place, in order to retain the people in one faith, lest religion be torn apart, lest license be given to human presumption, and thus everyone might turn aside to follow their own inventions.

We thus see how an explanation of the nature of the deed removes the detestation which the ten tribes had for it.

It is not strictly correct, though perhaps appropriate enough for common understanding, to speak of placing our God above all gods. For it is impossible to compare Him with others, since no others actually exist.

Hence, to avoid this apparent absurdity, some interpreters substitute angels for gods; this meaning holds in some cases, though not in all.

However, it should not seem harsh when He who is the one sole supreme Being is called the God of gods, since He has no equal, standing out conspicuously above all other heights, and so, by His glory, obscuring and annihilating all names of deity that are celebrated in the world.

Therefore, this way of speaking should be understood in light of the common understanding of ordinary people.