We saw (quest. 9) [that] he spoke words to the people. He repeats this same [thing] at v. 9, but much more fully. For [him] whom — as [was] said in the preceding 13th question — he had now understood from God, [namely] the manner of crossing the Jordan, he discloses to them. And first, indeed, he procures attention; then, at verse 10, he pursues the matter itself. In that [former part] [it] is to be noted, first, [that] his voice could not be so strained that — as in some school by the disciples—
(col. 411)
—[as, in some school, by the disciples of a] teacher, [or] in the forum by the surrounding people, some vocal herald could be heard by the whole camp of the Israelites. Who [is] a Stentor of such strength of lungs, with so vast a chest, as to strike the ears of more than Six hundred thousand [men]? [It is] to be said, therefore, [that] he addressed those nearest, and as many as could hear his voice; but that the others received from these [what] he had said. For [there were] called not the magistrates only, as Lyranus thinks, but all. Yet from all, [only] certain [ones] — to whom his voice could reach — heard him; the rest stood indeed with most attentive ears, and with the greatest silence, but [only] so that they might know [that] something was said by him, and afterward understand it from the others. Secondly. When he says “Come here,” he means, of course, the place where he then was. And [it] seems to have been in the middle of the camp, at the tabernacle itself. For there he had just now received the divine revelation about the manner of the crossing, and there too the assemblies of the people were wont to be held, especially when something divine was to be announced to it. But Abulensis says (quest. 19) [that] Rabbi Solomon [Rashi] much more defined and narrowed this very place — [so] that, namely, it should be only that space which was between the two poles [vectes] of the ark. But if we were to apply those poles to the sides of the ark’s breadth, and its length were intercepted between them (as [it] seemed to that same Abulensis, and was rejected by me in [my commentary on] Exodus), that space would be only two cubits and a half. But could so many myriads of men be contained within so tiny a little space now? Certainly not, except successively — although not even that was then possible, because that one whole day would scarcely have sufficed for driving the individuals into that little space, while some had to go out thence that others might enter. Much less [could they be contained] all at once — because either a penetration of bodies, or certainly a reduction of so many thousands to a very tiny quantity, would have had to occur. This absurdity, in that whole question (19, 20, 21, 22), that same writer [Abulensis] gathers and refutes from the inmost recesses of the Physicists — [he,] surely most enduring of labours, even where [there] would scarcely be need. For who would think either that that was Rashi’s meaning, or, if it was, that [it is] not at once foolish and ridiculous? I know [those] who assert [that] some mystical meaning-or-other is placed beneath such fables of the Rabbis; and then Abulensis would be doing what some say Aristotle did against Plato, Parmenides, Hippodamus, and some others — [namely], stirring up their words, lest the more ignorant be carried off by them into error. 3. When he asks [that] they hear words not his own, but God’s — and God’s, [God] who most of all, and indeed most deservedly, moves attention as, so to speak, more properly his own. For what should we hear either willingly or attentively, if not the words of God? — and of God [who is] benevolent and propitious to us [though we are] so undeserving and unworthy. Let that [line] surely hold good here:
“Not for me, but for the great God is he demanded.”
The matter, moreover, Joshua pursues in three ways. First, he promises a sign from God, and the cause and explanation of the sign. For at verse 11, the sign is [this]: that the ark should precede them through the Jordan, and that they should follow it through the same Jordan. A great sign, assuredly, a great miracle — but why is [it] to be done? He answers, verse 10: that in it — or, through it — those two [things they may] know. First: that God is [in their midst]—
(col. 412)
—[that God is] in their midst — that is, [that he is] most intimately and most closely present to them, that he may rule, help, confirm [them], [and] make [them] grow. For just as from the centre, which is in the middle of a circle, lines are drawn to the several points of the circumference; and from the heart, which holds the middle of a man, force and life are poured into the whole body: so from God, who says he is in the middle of the Israelites, life and strength are to be expected; and, in this manner of beneficence, he is among them — [he] who otherwise, by essence, knowledge, and power, is everywhere. Secondly [that] which flows from the former: that the same Lord, for these same Israelites, when they have crossed the Jordan, will make the seven nations of that land give way, and — as the Hebrew has [it] — “by expelling will expel” them; or, as our [Interpreter] rightly [renders], “will destroy” [them]. For that “sprouting” [germinatio — the doubled Hebrew verb] implies a great expulsion, which happens when something is destroyed and exterminated. But in these [there] are five little questions.
1. Why is God here called “living”? Masius aptly answers. Life, as Aristotle says, is action, and is known chiefly from motion. And [those things] of which no action or motion appears are deemed dead, or at least languid and torpid. God, therefore — since by his efficiency he governs and moderates all things, and above all comes to the aid of the solicitude of his worshippers — is most rightly called חַי [chai], “living, agile, vigorous”; which the divine bard [David] signified when he sang: “He will not suffer your foot to be moved; he who keeps you will not slumber; behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.” For although for that reason too he may rightly be named “living,” nay “life itself” — because through him all [things] live, and move, and exist, as Paul says — nevertheless that etymology which I mentioned serves the present place. Many [things] have also been disputed by the philosophers of the Hebrews — whom they call Cabbalists, as [being] those who have received a doctrine handed down by the hands of [their] elders — about those names of God אֵל חַי [El Chai, “living God”], both in many other places, and also in that book which they entitled the Gate of Light [Sha’are Orah]. For here they write [that] יהוה [Iehouah], whom we call God the Father, [when] invoked and called by this name El Chai, bestows through Adonai — that is, through the Lord, whom we call the Son — most kindly, both the other [things] which are needful, and life safe and secure from enemies. And they add [that] the Commander Joshua, in this place, used that [name] אֵל חַי [El Chai], so that by its mention he might render the minds of his [men] secure against the most ferocious enemies whom they were approaching.
2. Which are those seven nations, and especially the Hivite? [It has been] said of the individual [ones in] Gen. 15. But those who are there called Rephaim, the same Masius thinks are here called Hivites. For the names of nations are not rarely changed. See Acts 13 v. 19.
3. Why are only seven enumerated here — as [in] Acts 13, [and] Deuteronomy 7 — when in Gen. 15 ten are enumerated? The answer was [given] in the same place. But from Masius I now briefly say [that] Joshua treats of those possessions which he himself was to distribute to the Israelites — that is, [those] which did not lie beyond חֲמָת לְבוֹא [Lebo Chamath, “the entrance of Hamath”]. But in those more liberal promises, all the places are [included], as far as the Euphrates — about which matter let the reader recall [what] was prolixly disputed by us on the fourth verse of the first chapter. Besides, those seven nations are sometimes signified by more, sometimes by fewer names, as we shall note in [their] places. For [it] is credible [that] in a most populous region very many diverse families dwelt. See also on Genesis, tome 3, Pererius, folio 293.
4. How are the Amorites now said [to be] destroyed, when—
(col. 413)
—when, their Kings Og and Sihon having been slain, they were long since destroyed, and their land occupied? Abulensis answers (quest. 9) [that] the Amorite [region] is twofold. One [was] on the Eastern side of the Jordan, and that was already occupied; the other on the western side of the same Jordan, and of this [there] is now discourse.
5. Whether the ark is here called “the Lord of the whole earth”? So it seems to Masius — both because in the Hebrew, in this place, [there] is the royal accent of separation, Zakeph, and because elsewhere too the same [ark] is marked with the name of God (Num. 26, 35 & 36; Psalm 24). But, first, our text called the ark not “the Lord,” but “the Lord’s”; and so also the Septuagint, and the other Greeks — Symmachus and Aquila. And besides, his reasons press nothing. For those accents and points were adjoined to the text by the more recent Rabbis, as Masius himself shows and confesses in the Biblical Prolegomena, and above (quest. 7). But in the other cited places, not the ark, but he who was understood to sit upon the ark, is (as was treated in [my commentary on] Exodus) called [so] by Moses and David — just as, if a King sat in a chariot or on a horse, we would address him so seated, and call [him] “King,” but not the chariot or the horse. Yet rightly — from the opinion of the Rabbis who [were] the affixers of those accents, and of all the synagogues which now follow them — rightly, I say, is the ark called “Lord” by Masius; and [it is] a not-to-be-despised precedent against the Iconomachs [image-breakers], as I noted (bk. 1 ch. 3 quest. 23). Yet the same Masius seems to do somewhat too boldly, when — not in the commentary, where [it is] permitted [to indulge] copiousness of doctrine, but in the very version of the text (the Latins and Greeks set aside) — he would put this same [thing], saying: “Behold, the ark of the covenant — the Lord of the whole earth — goes before.”
Two other [things] which Joshua adds to this sign, and to its signification, I will defer to the following question, if I [first] warn how great and vast a thing it is, before God — the recognition of his love and beneficence toward us. For since the sign is so great and so admirable, how great and how admirable [is] the thing to be held [as that] which is signified by it? Yet this knowledge ought to be not bare and sterile, but clothed with the grateful service of our minds, and begetting in us a signal love toward him, and religion. For this — as [was] also said above — the Lord regards in his portents and prodigies; in which is placed our highest usefulness.