4. From the wilderness and this Lebanon, etc How the truth and fulfillment of this promise surmounted all the obstacles interposed by the wickedness of the people, though they did not obtain immediate possession of the whole territory, I have explained in the Argument. For although God had unfolded the inestimable treasures of his beneficence by constituting them lords of the country, it did not follow that their misconduct was not to be chastised. Nay, there behooved to be a fulfillment of the threatening which Moses had denounced, viz., that if the nations doomed to destruction were not destroyed, they would prove thorns and stings in their eyes and sides. But as the promise was by no means broken or rendered void by the delay of forty years, during which they were led wandering through the desert, so the entire possession, though long suspended, proved the faithfulness of the decree by which it had been adjudged.
The people had it in their power to obtain possession of the prescribed boundaries in due time; they declined to do so. For this they deserved to have been expelled altogether. (18) But the divine indulgence granted them an extent of territory sufficient for their commodious habitation; and although it had been foretold that, in just punishment, the residue of the nations whom they spared would prove pernicious to them, still, they suffered no molestation, unless when they provoked the Divine anger by their perfidy and almost continual defection: for as often as their affairs became prosperous, they turned aside to wantonness. Still, owing to the wonderful goodness of God, when oppressed by the violence of the enemy, and, as it were, thrust down to the grave, they continued to live in death; and not only so, but every now and then deliverers arose, and, contrary to all hope, retrieved them from ruin. (19)
The Great Sea means the Mediterranean, and to it the land of the Hittites forms the opposite boundary; in the same way Lebanon is opposed to the Euphrates; but it must be observed that under Lebanon the desert is comprehended, as appears from another passage. (20)
(18) The two last sentences form only one in the French, which is as follows, “ Le peuple pouuoit du premier coup, et des l’entree s’estendre jusqu’aux bornes que Dieu lui mesme auoit marquees; il n’a pas voulu: il estoit bien digne d’en estre mis dehors, et du tout forclos.” “The people might at the first blow, and immediately on their entrance, have extended themselves to the limits which God himself had marked; they would not: they well deserved to be put out and wholly foreclosed.” — Ed.
(19) Latin, “ Qui praeter spem rebus perditis succurrerent;” French, “ Qui outre toute esperance venoyent a remedier aux affaires si fort deplorez, et redresser aucunement l’estat du peuple;” “Who, beyond all hope, came to remedy the very deplorable affairs, and, in some degree, restore the condition of the people.” — Ed.
(20) Calvin’s language here is not very clear, and seems to convey an erroneous impression. The desert or wilderness, instead of being comprehended under Lebanon, is obviously contrasted with it, and forms the south, while Lebanon forms the north frontier. We have thus three great natural boundaries — Lebanon on the north, the desert of Sin on the south, and the Mediterranean on the west. The eastern boundary occasions more difficulty. According to some, the Euphrates is expressly mentioned as this boundary, and an attempt is made to reconcile the vast difference between the actual possession of the Israelites, even in the most prosperous period of their history, and the tract of country thus bounded, by having recourse to the explanation of St. Augustine, who, in his Commentary on Joshua 21, gives it as his opinion that the country extending eastward beyond the proper limits of Canaan was intended to be given not so much for possession as for tribute. This view receives some confirmation from the extensive conquests which were made by David and Solomon. According to other expositors, the Euphrates is intended to be taken in connection with Lebanon so as to form, by one of its windings or branches, part of the north boundary, while the east boundary is left indefinite, or rather, was so well defined by the Jordan that it did not require to be separately mentioned. In this general uncertainty, there is much practical wisdom in Calvin’s suggestion in his Argument, that the indefiniteness of the boundaries assigned to the promised land, contrasted with its actual limits, tended to elevate the minds of Old Testament believers, and carry them beyond the present to a period when, under a new and more glorious dispensation, the promise would be completely fulfilled. — Ed.