John Calvin Commentary Joshua 7

But the children of Israel committed, etc. Reference is made to the crime, indeed the secret crime, of one individual, whose guilt is transferred to the whole people; and not only that, but punishment is at the same time inflicted upon several who were innocent. However, it seems very unaccountable that a whole people should be condemned for a private and hidden crime of which they had no knowledge.

I answer that it is not new for the sin of one member to be visited upon the whole body. If we are unable to discover the reason, it should be more than enough for us that transgression is imputed to the children of Israel, while the guilt is confined to one individual.

But as it very often happens that those who are not wicked foster the sins of their brethren by conniving at them, a part of the blame is justly laid upon all those who by concealment become implicated in it as partners. For this reason Paul (1 Corinthians 5:4–6) upbraids all the Corinthians for the private enormity of one individual, and inveighs against their pride in presuming to glory while such a stigma attached to them.

But here it is easy to object that all were ignorant of the theft, and that therefore there is no room for the maxim that he who allows a crime to be committed when he can prevent it is its perpetrator. I certainly admit it is not clear why a private crime is imputed to the whole people, unless it is that they had not previously been sufficiently careful to punish misdeeds, and that possibly because of this, the person actually guilty in the present instance had sinned with greater boldness.

It is well known that weeds creep in stealthily, grow quickly, and produce noxious fruits if not speedily torn up. The reason, however, why God charges a whole people with a secret theft is deeper and more abstruse. He wished by an extraordinary manifestation to remind posterity that they might all be held accountable for the act of an individual, and thus induce them to pay more diligent attention to the prevention of crimes.

Nothing, therefore, is better than to keep our minds in suspense until the books are opened, when the divine judgments, which are now obscured by our darkness, will be made perfectly clear. Let it be enough for us that the whole people were infected by a private stain, for so it has been declared by the Supreme Judge, before whom it is fitting for us to stand silent, as we will one day appear at his tribunal.

The lineage from which Achan was descended is narrated for the sake of increasing and, as it were, propagating the ignominy, just as if it were said that he was the disgrace of his family and all his race. For the writer of the history goes back as far as the tribe of Judah.

By this we are taught that when anyone connected with us behaves basely and wickedly, a stigma is in a way impressed upon us through him, so that we may be humbled—not that it can be just to insult all the relatives of a wicked man, but first, that all relatives may be more careful in applying mutual correction to each other, and secondly, that they may be led to recognize that either their connivance or their own faults are punished.

A greater occasion of scandal, fitted to produce general alarm, was offered by the fact that the crime was detected in the tribe of Judah, which was the flower and glory of the whole nation. It was certainly owing to the admirable counsel of God that a pre-eminence which fostered the hope of future dominion resided in that tribe.

But when, near the very outset, this honor was foully stained by the act of an individual, the circumstance might have occasioned no small disturbance to weak minds. The severe punishment, however, wiped away the scandal that might otherwise have existed. From this we gather that when an occasion has been given to the wicked to blaspheme, the Church has no fitter means of removing the opprobrium than that of visiting offences with exemplary punishment.

And Joshua sent men from Jericho, etc. To examine the site of the city and reconnoiter all its approaches was an act of prudence, so that they might not, by hurrying on at random through unknown places, fall into an ambush. But when it would be necessary shortly after to advance with all the forces, to send forward a small band with the intention of taking the city seems to betray a lack of military skill.

Hence, it would not have been strange that two or three thousand men, in a sudden attack, were panic-struck and turned their backs. And it was certainly expedient for the whole army that twenty or thirty thousand should have spread in all directions as foraging parties. We may add that even the act of slaying, though no resistance was offered, was in itself sufficient to wear out a small body of troops.

Therefore, when the three thousand or so were repulsed, it was only a just recompense for their confidence and sloth. The Holy Spirit, however, declares that their small numbers were not the cause of the defeat and ought not to bear the blame for it. The true cause was the secret counsel of God, who intended to show a sign of his anger but allowed the number to be small so that the loss might be less serious.

And it was certainly a rare display of mercy to chastise the people gently and without any great defeat, with the intention of arousing them to seek an immediate remedy for the evil. Perhaps, too, the inhabitants of Ai would not have dared to attack the Israelites if they had advanced against the city in full force. The Lord therefore opened a way for his judgment, and yet modified it so as only to detect the hidden crime, under which the people might otherwise have been consumed as by a lingering disease.

But although there is nothing surprising in the defeat of the Israelites, who fought on disadvantageous terms on lower ground, it was, however, perfectly obvious that they were defeated by fear and the failure of their courage before they came to close quarters; for by turning their backs, they gave up the higher ground and retired to the slope of a valley. The enemy, on the other hand, showed how thoroughly they despised them by the confidence and boldness with which they ventured to pursue the fugitives at full speed in the direction of their camp. In the camp itself, such was the trepidation that all hearts melted.

I admit, indeed, that there was cause for fear when, after having gained so many victories as it were in sport, they saw themselves so disgracefully defeated. In unaccustomed circumstances, we are more easily disturbed. But it was a terror from heaven that dismayed them more than the death of thirty men and the flight of three thousand.

And Joshua rent his clothes, etc. Although it was easy to blame others for the defeat or disgrace they had suffered, and it was by no means fitting for a courageous leader to be so cast down by the loss of thirty men—especially when, by increasing his forces a hundredfold, it would not have been difficult to drive back an enemy now weary from their exertions—Joshua’s deep sorrow and feelings bordering on despair were not, however, without cause.

The thought that the outcomes of war are uncertain—a thought that sustains and reanimates the defeated—could not be entertained by him, because God had promised that they would always be victorious. Therefore, when their success did not correspond to his hopes, the only conclusion he could draw was that they had fought unsuccessfully merely because they had been deprived of God's promised assistance.

Accordingly, both he and the elders not only gave themselves up to sorrow and sadness but also engaged in solemn mourning, as was customary in the most calamitous circumstances, by tearing their garments and throwing dust on their heads. That way of expressing grief was also used by the heathen, but it was especially appropriate for the pious worshippers of God in humbly seeking to avert His wrath.

The tearing of garments and other accompanying acts contained a profession of repentance, as can also be inferred from the accompanying prayer, which, however, was of a mixed nature—dictated partly by faith and a pure spirit of piety, and partly by excessive agitation. In turning immediately to God and acknowledging that in His hand, which inflicted the wound, the cure was also prepared, they were influenced by faith; but their excessive grief was evidently carried beyond all proper bounds. Hence the freedom with which they expostulated, and hence the preposterous wish, "Oh, that we had remained in the desert!"

However, it is not a new thing for pious minds, when they aspire to seek God with holy zeal, to obscure the light of faith by the vehemence and impetuosity of their emotions. And in this way, all prayers would be corrupted if the Lord, in His boundless indulgence, did not pardon them and, wiping away all their stains, receive them as if they were pure. And yet, while freely expostulating in this way, they cast their cares upon God; although this blunt simplicity needs pardon, it is far more acceptable than the false modesty of hypocrites, who, while carefully restraining themselves to prevent any confident expression from escaping their lips, inwardly swell and almost burst with defiance.

Joshua oversteps the bounds of moderation when he challenges God for having brought the people out of the desert; but he proceeds to much greater lack of restraint when, in opposition to the divine promise and decree, he utters the turbulent wish, "Oh, that we had never come out of the desert!" That was to annul the divine covenant altogether. But as his objective was to maintain and assert the divine glory, the vehemence that otherwise might have justly provoked God was excused.

Therefore, we are taught that saints, while they aim at the right mark, often stumble and fall, and that this sometimes happens even in their prayers, in which purity of faith and emotions shaped by obedience ought to be especially manifested. That Joshua felt particularly concerned for the divine glory is apparent from the next verse, where he undertakes to maintain it, a task that had, in a way, been assigned to him.

"What shall I say," he asks, "when it will be objected that the people turned their backs?" And he justly complains that he is left without an answer, as God had made him the witness and herald of His favor, from which there was reason to hope for an uninterrupted series of victories.

Accordingly, after having extolled the divine omnipotence in the loftiest terms in fulfillment of the office committed to him, it had now become necessary for him, due to the adverse course of events, to remain shamefully silent. We see, therefore, that nothing distresses him more than the disgrace brought upon his calling.

He is not concerned for his own reputation but fears that the truth of God might be endangered in the eyes of the world. In short, as it was only by God's command that he had brought the people into the land of Canaan, he now in adversity calls upon Him as author and avenger, just as if he had said, "Since You have brought me into these straits, and I am in danger of seeming to be a deceiver, it is for You to interfere and provide me with the means of defense."

For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants, etc. He mentions another reason for fear: all the neighboring nations, who were previously quiet—either subdued by calamities or terrified by miracles—will now regain their confidence and launch a sudden attack on the people.

It was indeed probable that, since divine power had crushed their spirit and filled them with dismay, they would boldly advance to battle as soon as they learned that God had become hostile to the Israelites.

Therefore, he appeals to God concerning the future danger, imploring Him to make quick provision against it. Otherwise, the Canaanites, who until now were numbed with terror, would seize the opportunity, take the offensive, and easily succeed in destroying a panic-stricken people.

It is clear, however, from the last clause, that he is not merely thinking of the people's safety. Instead, his primary concern is for the honor of the divine name.

He desires that God's name remain inviolable and not be trampled underfoot by the insolence of the wicked, which would happen if the people were ejected from the inheritance so often promised. We know the language God Himself used, as recorded in the song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:26–27):

I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them cease among men; were it not that I feared the wrath (pride) of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand is high, and the Lord has not done all this.

Therefore, the very thing God declares He was, humanly speaking, afraid of, Joshua now wishes to be timelessly prevented. Otherwise, the enemy, elated by the people's defeat, will grow insolent and boast of triumphing over God Himself.

And the Lord said to Joshua, etc. God does not reprimand Joshua absolutely for lying prostrate on the ground and lamenting the overthrow of the people, since the true method of obtaining pardon from God was to fall down suppliantly before Him, but for giving himself up to excessive sorrow. The censure, however, ought to be referred to the future rather than to the past. For He tells him to put an end to his wailing, just as if He had said that he had already lain too long prostrate, and that all sloth must now be abandoned, as a different remedy was needed.

But He first shows the cause of the evil and then prescribes the way to remove it. He therefore informs him that the outcome of the battle was disastrous because He was offended by the wickedness of the people and had cast off their defense.

We previously explained why the punishment for a private sacrilege is transferred to all. Although they were not held guilty in their own judgment or that of others, God's judgment, which involved them in the same condemnation, had hidden reasons. While it may be lawful to inquire into these reasons soberly, it is not lawful to search with prying curiosity.

At the same time, we have a rare example of clemency in the fact that while the condemnation verbally extends to all, punishment is inflicted only on a single family actually polluted by the crime. What follows tends to show how enormous the crime was, and accordingly the particle גם is repeated, and not without emphasis, as they might otherwise have extenuated its atrocity.

Hence, when it is said that they have also transgressed the covenant, the meaning is that they had not sinned slightly. The name of covenant is applied to the prohibition that, as we saw, had been given, because a mutual stipulation had been made, assigning the spoils of the whole land to the Israelites, provided He received the first fruits.

Here, then, He does not allude to the general covenant, but complains that He was defrauded of what had been specially set apart.

He accordingly adds immediately after, by way of explanation, that they had taken from the devoted thing, and this not without sacrilege, inasmuch as they had stolen what He claimed as His own.

The term lying is used here, as in many other passages, for frustrating a hope entertained, or for deceiving.

The last thing mentioned, though many might at first sight think it trivial, is set down, not without good cause, as the crowning act of guilt: namely, that they had deposited the forbidden thing among their vessels.

Persons who are otherwise not wholly wicked are sometimes tempted by a love of gain. However, in the act of hiding the thing and laying it up among other goods, a more obstinate perseverance in evil doing is implied, as the party shows himself to be untouched by any feelings of compunction.

In the last part of Joshua 7:12, the term anathema is used in a different sense for execration, because it was on account of the stolen gold that the children of Israel were cursed and almost devoted to destruction.