Jos 13:1-6 | KD | STEP | The distribution of the conquered land among the Israelites is introduced by the command of the Lord to Joshua to enter upon this work, now that he was old, although different portions of land were still unconquered ( ); and to this there is appended a description of the land on the east of the Jordan which had already been conquered and divided among the two tribes and a half (Josh 13:8-33). The distribution of the land on this side among the nine tribes and a half is related in its historical order; so that not only are the territories assigned by lot to the different tribes described according to their respective boundaries and towns, but the historical circumstances connected with the division and allotting of the land are also introduced into the description. These historical accounts are so closely connected with the geographical descriptions of the territory belonging to the different tribes, that the latter alone will explain the course pursued in the distribution of the land, and the various ways in which the different territories are described (see the remarks on ). For example, in the account of the inheritance which fell to the lot of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, not only are the boundaries most carefully traced, but the towns are also enumerated one by one (Josh 15 and Josh 18:11-28); whereas in the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and half Manasseh) the list of the towns is altogether wanting ( and 17); and in the possessions of the other tribes, either towns alone are mentioned, as in the case of Simeon and Dan ( , ), or the boundaries and towns are mixed up together, but both of them given incompletely, as in the case of Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali ( , , , ). This incompleteness, particularly in the territories of the tribes mentioned last, may be explained from the fact, that in northern Canaan there were still very many tracts of land in the hands of the Canaanites, and the Israelites had not acquired a sufficiently exact or complete knowledge of the country, either through Joshua’s campaign in the north, or through the men who were sent out to survey the northern land before it was divided ( ), to enable them to prepare a complete account of the boundaries and towns at the very outset. In the same way, too, we may explain the absence of the list of towns in the case of the tribes of Ephraim and half Manasseh-namely, from the fact that a large portion of the territory assigned to the tribe of Joseph was still in the possession of the Canaanites (vid., ); whilst the omission of any account of the boundaries in the case of Simeon and Dan is attributable to the circumstance that the former received its inheritance within the tribe of Judah, and the latter between Judah and Ephraim, whilst the space left for the Danites was so small, that Ephraim and Judah had to gave up to them some of the town in their own territory. Thus the very inequality and incompleteness of the geographical accounts of the possessions of the different tribes decidedly favour the conclusion, that they are the very lists which were drawn up at the time when Joshua divided the land. There is nothing to preclude this supposition in the fact that several towns occur with different names, e.g., Beth-shemesh and Ir-shemesh ( ; ; ), Madmannah and Beth-marcaboth , Sansanna and Hazar-susa ( ; ), Shilchim and Sharuchen ( ; ), Remeth and Jarmuth ( ; ), or in other smaller differences. For variations of this kind may be sufficiently explained from the fact that such places were known by two different names, which could be used promiscuously; whilst in other cases the difference in the name amounts to nothing more than a different mode of writing or pronouncing it: e.g., Kattah and Kartah ( ; ), Eshtemoh and Eshtemoa ( ; ), Baalah and Balah ( ; ); or simply in the contraction of a composite name, such as Ramoth in Gilead for Ramoth-mizpeh ( ; ); Bealoth and Baalath-beer ( ; ), Lebaoth and Beth-lebaoth ( ; ), Hammath and Hammoth-dor ( ; ). If the author, on the other hand, had drawn from later sources, or had simply given the results of later surveys, as Knobel supposes, there can be no doubt that much greater uniformity would be found in the different lists. Introduction to the Division of the Land. - -7. Command of the Lord to Joshua to distribute the land of Canaan by lot among the nine tribes and a half. contains only the commencement of the divine command; the conclusion follows in Jos 13:7. form a parenthesis of several clauses, defining the last clause of more fully. When Joshua had grown old, the Lord commanded him, as he was advanced in years, and there was still much land to be taken, to divide “ this land ,” i.e., the whole of the land of Canaan, for an inheritance to the nine tribes and a half, and promised him at the same time that He would drive out the Canaanites from those portions of the land that were not yet conquered ( ). The words “ grown old and come into years ” (vid., ; , etc.) denote advanced age in its different stages up to the near approach of death (as, for example, in ). Joshua might be ninety or a hundred years old at this time. The allusion to Joshua’s great age serves simply to explain the reason for the command of God. As he was already old, and there still remained much land to be taken, he was to proceed to the division of Canaan, that he might accomplish this work to which he was also called before his death; whereas he might very possibly suppose that, under existing circumstances, the time for allotting the land had not yet arrived. - In the districts that were not yet conquered are enumerated separately.

‏ Joshua 13:1-6

II. Division of the Land of Canaan Among the Tribes of Israel - Joshua 13-24

The distribution of the conquered land among the Israelites is introduced by the command of the Lord to Joshua to enter upon this work, now that he was old, although different portions of land were still unconquered (Jos 13:1-7); and to this there is appended a description of the land on the east of the Jordan which had already been conquered and divided among the two tribes and a half (Josh 13:8-33). The distribution of the land on this side among the nine tribes and a half is related in its historical order; so that not only are the territories assigned by lot to the different tribes described according to their respective boundaries and towns, but the historical circumstances connected with the division and allotting of the land are also introduced into the description. These historical accounts are so closely connected with the geographical descriptions of the territory belonging to the different tribes, that the latter alone will explain the course pursued in the distribution of the land, and the various ways in which the different territories are described (see the remarks on Jos 14:1). For example, in the account of the inheritance which fell to the lot of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, not only are the boundaries most carefully traced, but the towns are also enumerated one by one (Josh 15 and Josh 18:11-28); whereas in the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and half Manasseh) the list of the towns is altogether wanting (Jos 16:1-10 and 17); and in the possessions of the other tribes, either towns alone are mentioned, as in the case of Simeon and Dan (Jos 19:1-9, Jos 19:40-48), or the boundaries and towns are mixed up together, but both of them given incompletely, as in the case of Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali (Jos 19:10-16, Jos 19:17-23, Jos 19:24-31, Jos 19:32-39). This incompleteness, particularly in the territories of the tribes mentioned last, may be explained from the fact, that in northern Canaan there were still very many tracts of land in the hands of the Canaanites, and the Israelites had not acquired a sufficiently exact or complete knowledge of the country, either through Joshua’s campaign in the north, or through the men who were sent out to survey the northern land before it was divided (Jos 18:4-9), to enable them to prepare a complete account of the boundaries and towns at the very outset. In the same way, too, we may explain the absence of the list of towns in the case of the tribes of Ephraim and half Manasseh-namely, from the fact that a large portion of the territory assigned to the tribe of Joseph was still in the possession of the Canaanites (vid., Jos 17:14-18); whilst the omission of any account of the boundaries in the case of Simeon and Dan is attributable to the circumstance that the former received its inheritance within the tribe of Judah, and the latter between Judah and Ephraim, whilst the space left for the Danites was so small, that Ephraim and Judah had to gave up to them some of the town in their own territory. Thus the very inequality and incompleteness of the geographical accounts of the possessions of the different tribes decidedly favour the conclusion, that they are the very lists which were drawn up at the time when Joshua divided the land. There is nothing to preclude this supposition in the fact that several towns occur with different names, e.g., Beth-shemesh and Ir-shemesh (Jos 15:10; Jos 19:41; Jos 21:16), Madmannah and Beth-marcaboth, Sansanna and Hazar-susa (Jos 15:31; Jos 19:5), Shilchim and Sharuchen (Jos 15:32; Jos 19:6), Remeth and Jarmuth (Jos 19:21; Jos 21:29), or in other smaller differences. For variations of this kind may be sufficiently explained from the fact that such places were known by two different names, which could be used promiscuously; whilst in other cases the difference in the name amounts to nothing more than a different mode of writing or pronouncing it: e.g., Kattah and Kartah (Jos 19:15; Jos 21:34), Eshtemoh and Eshtemoa (Jos 15:50; Jos 21:14), Baalah and Balah (Jos 15:29; Jos 19:3); or simply in the contraction of a composite name, such as Ramoth in Gilead for Ramoth-mizpeh (Jos 21:36; Jos 13:26); Bealoth and Baalath-beer (Jos 15:24; Jos 19:8), Lebaoth and Beth-lebaoth (Jos 15:32; Jos 19:6), Hammath and Hammoth-dor (Jos 19:35; Jos 21:32).

If the author, on the other hand, had drawn from later sources, or had simply given the results of later surveys, as Knobel supposes, there can be no doubt that much greater uniformity would be found in the different lists. ^{▼▼The arguments employed by Knobel in support of his assertion, consist on the one had of inconclusive and incorrect assertions, and are founded on the other hand upon arbitrary assumptions. In the first place, for example, he asserts that “a large number of towns are omitted from the lists, which were within the boundaries mentioned and were in existence in the very earliest times, viz., in the south, Tamar (Gen 14:7), Arad (Num 21:1), Atbach, Rachal, Aroer, and Siphamoth (1Sa 30:28.), Gerar (Gen. 20:26); in the Shephelah, Gaza, Askalon, Gath, Ashdod, Jabne, and Joppa (see Jos 15:45.); in Benjamin, Michmash and Nob (1Sa 13:2., Jos 22:19); in the north, Aphek, Lassaron, Madon, Shimron-meron, and Merom (Jos 11:5; Jos 12:18-20), as well as Meroz and Ajjalon (Jdg 5:23; Jdg 12:12); and these with other places would assuredly not be wanting here, if Joshua and his associates had distributed the towns as well as the land, and furnished our author with the lists.” But it would be difficult to bring forward the proofs of this, since Knobel himself acknowledges that there are gaps in the lists which have come down to us, some of which can be proved to be the fault of the copyists, - such, for example, as the want of a whole section after Jos 15:19 and Jos 21:35. Moreover, the Philistine towns of Ashdod and Gaza are really mentioned in Jos 15:46, and the others at all events hinted at; whereas Knobel first of all arbitrarily rejects Jos 15:45-47 from the text, in order that he may afterwards be able to speak of it as omitted. Again, with many of the places mentioned as omissions, such as Atbach, Rachal, Siphamoth, etc., it is very questionable whether they were towns at all in Joshua’s time, or, at all events, such towns as we should expect to find mentioned. And lastly, not only are no catalogues of towns given at all in the case of Ephraim and Manasseh, but we have only imperfect catalogues in the case of Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali; and, as we have already observed, this incompleteness and these gaps can be satisfactorily explained from the historical circumstances under which the allotment of the land took place. Secondly, Knobel also maintains, that “Joshua’s conquests did not extend to the Lebanon (Jos 13:4-5), and yet the author mentions towns of the Asherites there (Jos 19:28, Jos 19:30): Bethel was not taken till after the time of Joshua (Jdg 1:22.), and this was also the case with Jerusalem (Jdg 1:8), and in the earliest times of the judges they had no Hebrew inhabitants (Jdg 19:12), yet the author speaks of both places as towns of the Benjamites (Jos 18:22, Jos 18:28); Jericho and Ai were lying in ruins in Joshua’s time (Jos 6:24; Jos 8:28), yet they are spoken of here as towns of Benjamin that had been rebuilt (Jos 18:21, Jos 18:23); it is just the same with Hazor in Naphtali (Jos 11:13; Jos 19:36); and according to Jdg 1:1, Jdg 1:10., Hebron and Debir also were not conquered till after Joshua’s time.” But all this rests (1) upon the false assumption, that the only towns which Joshua distributed by lot among the tribes of Israel were those which he permanently conquered, whereas, according to the command of God, he divided the whole land among the Israelites, whether it was conquered or not; (2) upon the erroneous opinion, that the towns which had been destroyed, such as Jericho, Ai, and Hazor, were allotted to the Israelites as “rebuilt,” whereas there is not a word about this in the text. It is just the same with the arguments used by Knobel in proof of the composition of Josh 13-21 from three different documents. The material discrepancies have been forced upon the text, as we shall see when we come to an explanation of the passages in question; and the verbal differences prove nothing more than that the geographical account of the boundaries and towns contains no allusion to the priesthood, to sacrifice, or to certain other things which no one would think of looking for here.}

COMMAND OF GOD TO DIVIDE THE LAND OF CANAAN. DESCRIPTION OF THE TERRITORY OF THE TWO TRIBES AND A HALF. — CHAP. XIII.

Introduction to the Division of the Land. - Jos 13:1-7. Command of the Lord to Joshua to distribute the land of Canaan by lot among the nine tribes and a half. Jos 13:1 contains only the commencement of the divine command; the conclusion follows in Jos 13:7. Jos 13:2-6 form a parenthesis of several clauses, defining the last clause of Jos 13:1 more fully. When Joshua had grown old, the Lord commanded him, as he was advanced in years, and there was still much land to be taken, to divide “this land,” i.e., the whole of the land of Canaan, for an inheritance to the nine tribes and a half, and promised him at the same time that He would drive out the Canaanites from those portions of the land that were not yet conquered (Jos 13:6). The words “grown old and come into years” (vid., Gen 24:1; Gen 18:11, etc.) denote advanced age in its different stages up to the near approach of death (as, for example, in Jos 23:1). Joshua might be ninety or a hundred years old at this time. The allusion to Joshua’s great age serves simply to explain the reason for the command of God. As he was already old, and there still remained much land to be taken, he was to proceed to the division of Canaan, that he might accomplish this work to which he was also called before his death; whereas he might very possibly suppose that, under existing circumstances, the time for allotting the land had not yet arrived. - In Jos 13:2-6 the districts that were not yet conquered are enumerated separately. Jos 13:2-4

All the circles of the Philistines (geliloth, circles of well-defined districts lying round the chief city). The reference is to the five towns of the Philistines, whose princes are mentioned in Jos 13:3. “And all Geshuri:” not the district of Geshur in Peraea (Jos 13:11, Jos 13:13, Jos 12:5; Deu 3:14), but the territory of the Geshurites, a small tribe in the south of Philistia, on the edge of the north-western portion of the Arabian desert which borders on Egypt; it is only mentioned again in 1Sa 27:8. The land of the Philistines and Geshurites extended from the Sichor of Egypt (on the south) to the territory of Ekron (on the north). Sichor (Sihor), lit. the black river, is not the Nile, because this is always called היאר (the river) in simple prose (Gen 41:1, Gen 41:3; Exo 1:22), and was not “before Egypt,” i.e., to the east of it, but flowed through the middle of the land. The “Sichor before Egypt” was the brook (Nachal) of Egypt, the Ῥινοκοροῦρα, the modern Wady el Arish, which is mentioned in Jos 15:4, Jos 15:47, etc., as the southern border of Canaan towards Egypt (see at Num 34:5). Ekron (Ἀρρακών, lxx), the most northerly of the five chief cities of the Philistines, was first of all allotted to the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:11, Jos 15:45), then on the further distribution it was given to Dan (Jos 19:43); after Joshua’s death it was conquered by Judah (Jdg 1:18), though it was not permanently occupied. It is the present Akîr, a considerable village in the plain, two hours to the south-west of Ramlah, and on the east of Jamnia, without ruins of any antiquity, with the exception of two old wells walled round, which probably belong to the times of the Crusaders (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 23). “To the Canaanites is reckoned (the territory of the) five lords of the Philistines,” i.e., it was reckoned as belonging to the land of Canaan, and allotted to the Israelites like all the rest. This remark was necessary because the Philistines were not descendants of Canaan (see at Gen 10:14), but yet were to be driven out like the Canaanites themselves as being invaders of Canaanitish territory (cf. Deu 2:23). סרני, from סרן, the standing title of the princes of the Philistines (vid., Jdg 3:3; Jdg 16:5.; 1Sa 5:8), does not mean kings, but princes, and is interchangeable with שׂרים (cf. 1Sa 29:6 with 1Sa 29:4, 1Sa 29:9). At any rate, it was the native or Philistian title of the Philistine princes, though it is not derived from the same root as Sar, but is connected with seren, axis rotae, in the tropical sense of princeps, for which the Arabic furnishes several analogies (see Ges. Thes. p. 972).

The capitals of these five princes were the following. Azzah (Gaza, i.e., the strong): this was allotted to the tribe of Judah and taken by the Judaeans (Jos 15:47; Jdg 1:18), but was not held long. It is at the present time a considerable town of about 15,000 inhabitants, with the old name of Ghazzeh, about an hour from the sea, and with a seaport called Majuma; it is the farthest town of Palestine towards the south-west (see Rob. Pal. ii. pp. 374ff.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 35ff.; Stark, Gaza, etc., pp. 45ff.). Ashdod (Ἄζωτος, Azotus): this was also allotted to the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:46-47), the seat of Dagon-worship, to which the Philistines carried the ark (1Sa 5:1.). It was conquered by Uzziah (2Ch 26:6), was afterwards taken by Tartan, the general of Sargon (Isa 20:1), and was besieged by Psammetichus for twenty-nine years (Herod. ii. 157). It is the present Esdud, a Mahometan village with about a hundred or a hundred and fifty miserable huts, upon a low, round, wooded height on the road from Jamnia to Gaza, two miles to the south of Jamnia, about half an hour from the sea (vid., Rob. i. p. 368). Ashkalon: this was conquered by the Judaeans after the death of Joshua (Jdg 1:8-9); but shortly afterwards recovered its independence (vid., Jdg 14:19; 1Sa 6:17). It is the present Askulân on the sea-shore between Gaza and Ashdod, five hours to the north of Gaza, with considerable and widespread ruins (see v. Raum. pp. 173-4; Ritter, xvi. pp. 69ff.). Gath (Γέθ): this was for a long time the seat of the Rephaites, and was the home of Goliath (Jos 11:22; 1Sa 17:4, 1Sa 17:23; 2Sa 21:19.; 1Ch 20:5.); it was thither that the Philistines of Ashdod removed the ark, which was taken thence to Ekron (1Sa 5:7-10). David was the first to wrest it from the Philistines (1Ch 18:1). In the time of Solomon it was a royal city of the Philistines, though no doubt under Israelitish supremacy (1Ki 2:39; 1Ki 5:1). It was fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch 11:8), was taken by the Syrians in the time of Joash (2Ki 12:18), and was conquered again by Uzziah (2Ch 26:6; Amo 6:2); but no further mention is made of it, and no traces have yet been discovered ^{▼▼According to the Onom. (s. v. Geth), it was a place five Roman miles from Eleutheropolis towards Diospolis, whereas Jerome (on Mic 1) says: “Gath was near the border of Judaea, and on the road from Eleutheropolis to Gaza; it is still a very large village;” whilst in the commentary on Jer 25 he says: “Gath was near to and conterminous with Azotus,” from which it is obvious enough that the situation of the Philistine city of Gath was altogether unknown to the Fathers. Hitzig and Knobel suppose the Βαιτογάβρα of Ptolemy (5:16, 6), Betogabri in Tab. Peuting. ix. e. (the Eleutheropolis of the Fathers, and the present Beit Jibrin, a very considerable ruin), to be the ancient Gath, but this opinion is only founded upon very questionable etymological combinations; whereas Thenius looks for it on the site of the present Deir Dubban, though without any tenable ground.} (see Rob. ii. p. 420, and v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 191-2). “And the Avvites (Avvaeans) towards the south.” Judging from Deu 2:23, the Avvim appear to have belonged to those tribes of the land who were already found there by the Canaanites, and whom the Philistines subdued and destroyed when they entered the country. They are not mentioned in Gen 10:15-19 among the Canaanitish tribes. At the same time, there is not sufficient ground for identifying them with the Geshurites as Ewald does, or with the Anakites, as Bertheau has done. Moreover, it cannot be decided whether they were descendants of Ham or Shem (see Stark. Gaza, pp. 32ff.). מתּימן (from, or on, the south) at the commencement of Jos 13:4 should be attached to Jos 13:3, as it is in the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, and joined to העוּים (the Avvites). The Avvaeans dwelt to the south of the Philistines, on the south-west of Gaza. It gives no sense to connect with the what follows, so as to read “towards the south all the land of the Canaanites;” for whatever land to the south of Gaza, or of the territory of the Philistines, was still inhabited by Canaanites, could not possibly be called “all the land of the Canaanites.” If, however, we were disposed to adopt the opinion held by Masius and Rosenmüller, and understand these words as relating to the southern boundaries of Canaan, “the possessions of the king of Arad and the neighbouring petty kings who ruled in the southern extremity of Judaea down to the desert of Paran, Zin, Kadesh,” etc., the fact that Arad and the adjoining districts are always reckoned as belonging to the Negeb would at once be decisive against it (compare Jos 15:21. with Jos 10:40; Jos 11:16, also Num 21:1). Moreover, according to Jos 10:40, Jos 10:21, and Jos 11:16-17, Joshua had smitten the whole of the south of Canaan from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza and taken it; so that nothing remained unconquered there, which could possibly have been mentioned in this passage as not yet taken by the Israelites. For the fact that the districts, which Joshua traversed so victoriously and took possession of, were not all permanently held by the Israelites, does not come into consideration here at all. If the author had thought of enumerating all these places, he would have had to include many other districts as well.

Beside the territory of the Philistines on the south-west, there still remained to be taken (Jos 13:4, Jos 13:5) in the north, “all the land of the Canaanites,” i.e., of the Phoenicians dwelling on the coast, and “the caves which belonged to the Sidonians unto Aphek.” Mearah (the cave) is the present Mugr Jezzin, i.e., cave of Jezzin, on the east of Sidon, in a steep rocky wall of Lebanon, a hiding-place of the Druses at the present time (see at Num 34:8; also F. v. Richter, Wallfahrten in Morgenland, p. 133). Aphek, or Aphik, was allotted to the tribe of Asher (Jos 19:30; Jdg 1:31); it was called Ἄφακα by the Greeks; there was a temple of Venus there, which Constantine ordered to be destroyed, on account of the licentious nature of the worship (Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 55). It is the present Afka, a small village, but a place of rare beauty, upon a terrace of Lebanon, near the chief source of the river Adonis (Nahr Ibrahim), with ruins of an ancient temple in the neighbourhood, surrounded by groves of the most splendid walnut trees on the north-east of Beirut (see O. F. v. Richter, pp. 106-7; Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 663; and V. de Velde, Reise. ii. p. 398). “To the territory of the Amorites:” this is obscure. We cannot imagine the reference to be to the territory of Og of Bashan, which was formerly inhabited by Amorites, as that did not extend so far north; and the explanation given by Knobel, that farther north there were not Canaanites, but Amorites, who were of Semitic origin, rests upon hypotheses which cannot be historically sustained. Jos 13:5-7

There still remained to be taken (2) “the land of the Giblites,” i.e., the territory of the population of Gebal (1Ki 5:18; Eze 27:9), the Byblos of the classics, on the Mediterranean Sea, to the north of Beirut, called Jebail by the Arabs, and according to Edrisi (ed. Jaubert, i. p. 356), “a pretty town on the sea-shore, enclosed in good walls, and surrounded by vineyards and extensive grounds planted with fruit trees” (see also Abulfed. Tab. Syr. p. 94). It is still a town with an old wall, some portions of which apparently belong to the time of the Crusades (see Burckhardt, Syr. p. 296, and Ritter, Erdk. xvii. pp. 60ff.). ^{▼▼The evidence adduced by Movers (Phönizier, ii. 1, p. 103), that the Giblites did not belong to the Canaanites, has more plausibility than truth.}

“And all Lebanon toward the sunrising:” i.e., not Antilibanus (Knobel), but the Lebanon which is to the east of the territory of Gebal, “from Baal-gad under Mount Hermon,” i.e., Paneas Banjas at the foot of Hermon (see at Jos 11:17), “unto the entering in to Hamath,” i.e., as far up as the territory of the kingdom of Hamath, with the capital of the same name on the Orontes (see at Num 34:8). Lastly, there still remained (3) “all the inhabitants of the mountains, from Lebanon to Misrephothmaim,” i.e., the promontory of Nakura (see at Jos 11:8), namely “all the Sidonians,” i.e., all the Phoenicians who dwelt from Lebanon southwards, from the boundary of the territory of Hamath down to the promontory of Nakura. According to ancient usage, the Sidonians stand for the Phoenicians generally, as in Homer, on account of Sidon being the oldest capital of Phoenicia (see Ges. on Isa. i. pp. 724ff.). All these the Lord would root out before Israel, and therefore Joshua was to divide the whole of northern Canaan, which was inhabited by Phoenicians, among the Israelites. “only divide thou it by lot for an inheritance,” etc. רק, only, i.e., although thou hast not yet taken it. הפּיל, to cause it to fall, here used with reference to the lot, i.e., to divide by lot. “Fulfil thy duty in the distribution of the land, not even excepting what is still in the firm grasp of the enemy; for I will take care to perform what I have promised. From this we may learn to rely so perfectly upon the word of God, when undertaking any duty, as not to be deterred by doubts of fears” (Calvin).