The beginning of this chapter indicates [that] the cities [were] given to them as the Levites’ [own] portion. Where first [it] is asked, “what [need there] was [for] these to request them” — since, as they themselves say (v. 2), and [as] is clear from Num. 35, the Lord had commanded [that] these be given to them? Masius seems to answer [that they] did not request [them], but [that], by presenting themselves, [they] simply set forth God’s commands. But this very [act] too was a certain kind of petition. But Calvin answers: “It is probable [that they] were neglected, until [they] should plead their [own] case. For [it] is wont to happen thus — while each one is intent on caring for his own [affairs] — that [one] forgets [one’s] brothers. Certainly [it] was shameful [for] the people’s ear to be tweaked, and [for them] to be recalled to memory of what God had clearly commanded concerning the Levites. But, unless [the Levites] had demanded a dwelling, [there] was danger lest [they] lie [out] under the open sky.” But this man [Calvin] accuses not only the tribes of the Jews universally, but also both [their] princes and all [their] wise [men], and especially those who had been set over the division by God, and Eleazar the Pontiff himself, and the commander Joshua. But who would believe [that they] were so intent on caring for their own [affairs] that [they] would forget [their] brothers? who would believe [that they] approached the lot so rashly, that — without any order of affairs to be done — [they] stood before the Lord? and [that they] did not first determine [that] the whole land [was] first to be divided among the 12 tribes, and [that] then, afterward, provision [was] to be made concerning cities for the Levites? So great an imprudence, rashness, and forgetfulness does not befit such great men. Nay, even if they [the people] had been intent only on caring for their own [affairs], yet Eleazar could not have done that without that care concerning all the Levites. For his dwelling, convenience, and all [his] fruit [benefit] was so utterly joined with the habitation, convenience, and fruit of the [other] Levites, that concerning those, without these, there could be no thought for anyone. [There are], therefore, other causes of this petition. One: since those [cities] which were to be assigned to the Levites had to be plucked from the cities of the individual tribes, [it] was first necessary [that] these be given to them in the last place (for the other tribes could not give them before [they themselves] had received [them]). Then modesty and equity admonished the Levites, that [what] the other tribes were going to give them liberally, [they] should request [it] modestly, as [if] a favor. The other: because, although Joshua, although Eleazar, although all the dividers remembered very well God’s command concerning those cities, and wished [it] to be fulfilled as quickly and as fully as possible, nevertheless [they] became much more eager by that petition and admonition of the Levites —
“Keen, and of himself bound to run to the palm [and its] honors — yet, if thou urge [him] on, the horse will go the more strongly.”
(col. 1231)
[…continued from col. 1230.] And two useful lessons return hence to us. One: that if something is to be given to us by someone, [it] neither shame nor irk us to request it. [There] are so [many] — even in the religious institutes of life — [who are], toward [their] prelates and superiors, peevish and disdainful, so that [they] straightway say: “This one and that one knows [that] this is owed to me by him; [knows] that I need this and that; [knows] that it is God’s will to give [it] to me — if he does not wish to give [it], let him omit [it].” But hark, O good [man], God also wishes thee to produce acts of modesty and humility. He wishes thee to deal humanely with men, and to summon forth and incite their beneficence by thy requests — even if [it] were most ready [of itself]. Why art thou so uncouth and rustic? Look at these Levites: gaze at their Princes. [They] approach, very modestly, the Princes of the division, the Tribunes, Eleazar, & Joshua; [they] cite the divine command; and [they] beseech cities and suburbs for themselves. The other: [there] are, on the contrary, others, from whom, if something be requested — and indeed of such a kind that [they] could neither refuse [it], nor indeed would [wish to] — [they] bear it grudgingly, and straightway say: “Thou art too anxious for me, [my good] man. Thou admonishest [one who is already] mindful. Cease to interrupt me: I know well enough what, and when, this [is] to be done by me. I have no need of a monitor.” Those [men] wish to seem to do all [things] of their own accord; to need no one’s admonitions or prayers for doing good. Which is a certain hidden pride — which the Phylarchs [tribal chiefs], Pontiff Eleazar, & commander Joshua, [when] asked by the Levites, blunt [rebuke] by [their] silence and example. “And the children of Israel,” says the text (v. 3), “gave out of their possessions, according to the command of the Lord, cities and their suburbs.” [It] is asked, besides:
“Whether these cities were given to the Levites by lot?” Tostatus (Num. 35, q. 5) seems to deny [it]: “It is to be answered,” he says, “[that] the cities given to the Levites were not given by lot — because then it could have happened [that] some cities would have been given to them at the extremity [edge], or in separated places; but [they] were given by election [choice], namely [in] that those who were of some tribe chose, from their own cities, some [cities] which [they] would give to the Levites.” But [that] a lot did intervene, this chapter teaches clearly (v. 4, 6, & 10); nor does that diligent writer deny every [kind of] lot. For [it is] to be observed [that there] were five matters to be asked and determined in this business: First: how many cities [were] to be given to the Levites themselves? Secondly: how many out of each tribe. Thirdly: which [cities] out of each tribe likewise? Fourthly: how many to each part [division] of the Levites? Fifthly: which [cities] to each such part of the Levites? But to the First question no lot was to be applied, because the Lord had expressly settled it (Num. 35:6 & 7). Nor to the Second, because the Lord had committed that to the prudence and judgment of the dividers, in the same place (v. 8), when [he] said: “From those who have more, more [cities] shall be taken away, and [from those who have] less, fewer. Each shall give towns to the Levites according to the measure of their inheritance.” To the Third, the cited author [Tostatus] thinks a lot could not be applied, because certain spaces [suburbs] around the cities had to be given together with the cities. Those cities, therefore, were to be chosen out of the individual tribes which had such suburbs within their [own] tribes — but not those which, situated at the extreme borders and lines of them, had no suburb of their own. But if the lot had pronounced which cities were to be given from each tribe, [it] could have designated some one, or some [several], of those extreme [border] cities. But truly, [since] God — who was then the author and moderator of the lots — could best have guarded against whatever of this was [an] inconvenience, so that in that third controversy the lot could also have been [the] judgment [i.e. could itself have decided]. To the Fourth, human prudence [was] sufficient — the dividers carefully examining what [was] the multitude, state, and condition of each Levitic division, as [was] said concerning the other tribes (ch. 13, q. 12). To the Fifth, a lot [was] altogether applied, as the before-cited verses indicate, and [as] Tostatus confesses in the cited place, and in this chapter (q. 4, 5, & 6). But [those] who were sent [as] envoys by the Levites to the dividers, and to Eleazar, and to Joshua, for the sake of this petition — Masius thinks they were twelve, namely four from each of their [three] clans. Yet this cannot be proved from elsewhere — but neither [can it] be disproved.