The other efficient cause is indicated in the context [to be] God, who (verse 14) is said “to have obeyed the voice of a man.” Now it must be observed that in the Hebrew there is a verb “of hearing,” which often signifies not simply “to hear,” but “to hear effectively” — just as the Latin [does] too; and that especially in two ways. First, that it be “to hearken [grant the request].” Secondly, “to obey.” Calvin, then, here wants the former notion, of “hearkening”: “Which verb [shama],” he says, “some translate ‘to obey’ — [a rendering] which I reject as too harsh.” But, first: our [Latin] translator rightly judged it to be translated thus [as “obey”] — [a translator] in whom there is both a skill in the Hebrew tongue and an authority far greater than in Calvin; and [so did] the Latin and Greek Fathers, all of them, [and] the Seventy themselves, when they rendered [it] ἐπακοῦσαι θεὸν ἀνθρώπου (epakousai theon anthrōpou, “that God obeyed a man”). Secondly: in the Hebrew it is here, word for word, “to hear unto a voice,” which elsewhere means “to obey” — Genesis 26, verse 5: “all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in thy seed, because thou hast obeyed my voice” — as Calvin himself, in that place, acknowledges it to be rightly translated, although he takes it ill that Abraham’s obedience is so clearly declared the cause and merit of the blessing. Proverbs 5, verse 13: “Why have I detested discipline, and my heart has not acquiesced in rebukes, nor have I heard the voice” (in Hebrew, “and I did not [hear] unto the voice”) “of those teaching me” — which is, not to obey their voice and admonitions. So Jeremiah chapter 32, verse 23; chapter 22, verse 21; 1 Kings [1 Samuel] 12, verse 14; chapter 28, verse 21; and elsewhere. Thirdly: the Lord is said (Psalm 20, verse 3) “to grant the desire of [one’s] heart, and not to withhold the wish of his lips” — which is, in reality, to obey him, as indeed Calvin holds, though he still makes some exception: “Although,” he says, “God is said in the psalm to act according to the desire of His servants — which amounts to the same as ‘complying’ — yet it is better to avoid whatever seems to force God into order [i.e. to subordinate Him].” But how does this seem to force God into order? Is it because it signifies Him [to be] inferior to a man? [that] He is compelled by the [man], since the [man] commands and the [other] obeys? This we shall see a little later. For now it is enough that the Hebrew verb is rightly translated by “to obey,” and that Calvin ought not, by his own discretion, to force Scripture into order, and to interpret it as he pleases. Fourthly. But what of his disciple Junius? Did he heed his master? No, but he translated “hearken to the voice of a man” — which the schoolboys of the Grammarians know to be “being obedient.” But the Lutheran Chytraeus, on this passage, says: “The Lord obeys the will of a man, and changes the order of nature on account of Joshua’s prayers.” And of the Rabbis, Radak — as often as he uses the same Hebrew verb for “to obey,” on Psalm 2 — as when he says “as [it were]…”
…[what wonder is it that the Sun should obey God, when Scripture has] the son obey the father, and David [obey] God? In a like miracle too, Josephus (book 14, chapter 3, page 419): to Onias praying for rain, γινόμενος ὑπήκοος ὁ θεὸς ὗσεν — that is, “God, becoming obedient, sent rain,” or “gave rain.” And what of the miracle [obtained] through the Christians, in the time of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus Verus, divinely obtained — [as] the Poet Claudian, otherwise a Gentile, [tells] in [the panegyric on] the sixth consulship of Honorius?
— Every compliance of the Thunderer the character of Marcus was able to merit.
It is to be observed, secondly, that in the Hebrew it is had: “And there was not [a day] like this day, before it and after it, for the Lord to obey,” or (as the Seventy translate) “that the Lord should obey the voice of a man.” And so a twofold meaning can hence be elicited. One, that God never thus obeyed, nor will obey, the voice of any man. The other, that the cause why such a day never has been, nor will be, is that God obeyed the voice of Joshua. Either sense can be tolerated; yet the latter is the more received. And indeed from the former it is also gathered most well [that the latter is true]: for if [God] never [obeyed] thus, as on that day He obeyed (or ever will obey) the voice of a man, then on that day He obeyed. And this sense seems to be confirmed from what is subjoined: “And [the Lord] fighting for Israel” — in Hebrew, with a causal particle: “because God fought for Israel.”
It is to be observed, thirdly, that three modes can be given by which God “obeyed” the voice of a man. The first is according to the effect, because God did the same [as] if He were subject to a man and obeyed him. For in this manner of speaking, God is said to be angry, to rage, to be led to repentance, to laugh, and the like — which are attributed to God ἀνθρωποπαθῶς (anthrōpopathōs, “after the manner of human passions”); or, as the Hebrews say, Hal derech maschal bilschon bene adam — that is, “by way of parable, according to the language of the sons of Adam,” or of man — as Radak relates on the cited Psalm 2. The second [mode is] according to efficiency, because God brought it about that, at [His] command, the creatures — Sun and Moon — stood still; and so He “obeyed” not in Himself, but in His creatures. And this mode was indicated above by the Author of the Marvels of Sacred Scripture. And God did this either by signifying to the assistant Angel [paredros] of those heavenly bodies that for so many hours it should cease to turn them, or by withdrawing His own influx necessary for [their] motion. And this could be done in two ways. First, that He should withdraw the influx both from the heavenly bodies and from the Angel itself. Secondly, that [He withdraw it] from the heavenly bodies alone — and then there would be place for the latter mode, if the Lord moved the heavens by Himself, immediately; which, however, is rejected by the more noble Theologians and Philosophers, as may be seen in the Coimbrans (book 2 On the Heavens, chapter 5, question 6). The third mode is according to voluntary subjection — not in that manner in which God, made man, “came to Nazareth with [His] parents, and was subject to them” (Luke 2, verse 51), but [in this:] that, by inciting Joshua himself to command the Sun and Moon, and by persuading him, through the faith of miracles, that the Sun and Moon would stand still, God had in a manner already bound Himself that He would see to this. And this is not what Calvin said — “[God being forced] into order” — but it is [a matter of] explaining His immense goodness toward men, whereby it comes about that He Himself, before they dare even to think of it, binds Himself to them for those things which, at His own impulse and assurance, they shall have asked to be done. For of this kind is also that [event] in Exodus 32…
(col. 1015)
…[Exodus 32,] verse 10: “Let me alone, that my wrath may be kindled against them.” Whence St. Jerome, on Ezekiel 13: “We read that Aaron set himself against the fire [of wrath], deprecating [praying for] the people of Israel — that he stood in the midst, and set [himself as] a wall for the people’s safety. Jeremiah too is bidden to run to meet the Lord, and to stand against His wrath by the perseverance of prayer. For just as a wall is set against the enemy, and by the same plan one runs out against [him] who comes from the opposite side, so the sentence of God is broken by the prayers of the saints.” Whence also it is said to Moses: “Let me alone, and I shall destroy this people.” For to whom it is said “Let me alone,” it is shown that he has the power of holding [God back]. St. Gregory, explaining that [text] of Job (chapter 9, “God, whose wrath no one can resist”): “It is a great wonder,” he says (book 9 of the Morals, chapter 9), “that no one is said to be able to resist God’s wrath, since the divine words testify that many have run to meet [withstood] the indignation of the heavenly punishment. Did not Moses resist God’s wrath, who, raised up for the falling people, restrained the very onset of the heavenly stroke by the offering of his own death, saying: ‘Forgive them this offense; or else blot me out of the book which thou hast written’? Did not Aaron resist God’s wrath, when among the falling and the dead he took the censer, and, kindled [with zeal], tempered the fire of the punishment? Did not Phinehas resist God’s wrath, who, slaying in the very act those wantoning with the foreign [women], offered his zeal to the divine indignation, and appeased the fury with the sword? Did not David resist God’s wrath, who, offering himself to the striking Angel, obtained the grace of propitiation, and at that time achieved his purpose? Did not Elijah resist God’s wrath, who, when the earth was so long parched, recalled by [his] word the rains withdrawn from heaven? How, then, is it said that none can resist the divine wrath, when it is shown by evident examples that many have often resisted? But if we weigh subtly both these words of blessed Job and the deeds of those [men], we recognize the truth — that the divine wrath is not resisted; and [also] the truth, that many have often resisted. For all the saints who run to meet God’s wrath receive from Him [the power] to be set against the onset of His stroke; and, so to speak, with Him they rise up against Him, and the divine power sets them against itself: namely, because, in that outwardly they maintain a [pleading] against [His] wrath, inwardly the grace of the One [who is] angry cherishes them, and inwardly He lifts up these His servants, whom outwardly He tolerates as if [they were] adversaries. He bears, therefore, the contradiction of those who pray, which He Himself prompts, and is, as it were, opposed by [those who are] unwilling [to let Him strike] — [the opposing] being commanded to be done by the same [God]. For to Moses it is said: ‘Let me alone, that my wrath may be kindled against them, and I will destroy them, and make of thee a great nation.’ What is it, to say to a servant ‘Let me alone,’ but to offer [him] the boldness of deprecating? — as if it were openly said to him: ‘Weigh how much you avail with me, and know that you will be able to obtain whatever you pray for on behalf of the people.’”
And according to this mode, Joshua could have commanded rest to the Sun and Moon, even if they were moved immediately by God, and so the command would properly be borne upon Him [God]. But [the cause] which I said could be added — let us see [it as] the third cause.