This is the land that yet remaineth: all the borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri,

This is the land that yet remaineth: all the regions of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites;

To wit, all Galilee, Philistia, and all Gessuri.

This is the land that yet remaineth: all the districts of the Philistines and all the Geshurites,

This is the land that is left; all the circuits of the Philistines, and all Geshuri,

This is the land that yet remains: all the borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri,

This is the land which is still to be taken: all the country of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites;

specifically, all of Galilee, Philistia, and all of Geshur;

Haec est terra quae residua est, omnes limites Philisthinorum, et omnis Gessuri.

This is the land, etc The ancient boundaries long ago fixed by God, are recalled to remembrance, in order that Joshua. and the people may feel fully persuaded that the covenant made with Abraham would be fulfilled in every part. Wherefore they are enjoined to make it their study to acquire the parts still remaining to be possessed. The inference will be appropriate if we make a practical application of this perseverance to that which is required of us, viz., to forget the things which are behind, and reach forth unto those that are before, and press toward the mark for the prize of our high calling. (Philippians 3:14.) [1] For it would be of no use to run in the race without endeavoring to reach the goal. The boundary commenced with a river separating Egypt toward the sea from the Holy Land, and most probably the river Nile, as we interpret it according to the received opinion, or a small stream which flowed past the town of Rhinocornea, believed by many to be Raphia or Raphane. [2] It is indeed beyond dispute that the inheritance of the people commencing in that quarter was contiguous to Egypt. But although I have followed the opinion of the majority of expositors, that the boundaries were not extended further than to the less cultivated and in a manner desert land, lest greater proximity might have been injurious by leading to too close familiarity with the Egyptians, I by no means repudiate a different opinion. The third verse raises a question. After it is said that the territories towards the sea-coast were five, a sixth is added, namely, that of the Avites. Some think that it is not counted among the five because it was an insignificant province. But I would have my readers to consider whether there may not be an indirect antithesis between a free people, their own masters, and five territories ruled by sovereigns. Hence the Avites being in different circumstances are mentioned separately, the plural number being used for the sake of distinction. In the enumeration of the sovereignties they are not arranged in the order of their dignity or opulence, but the first place is given to Aza because of its nearness to Egypt, and the same remark applies to Ashdod and the others. The Septuagint translators, according to their usual custom, employ the Greek g (gamma) to express the Hebrew (ain), and thus give the name of Gaza to that which in Hebrew is Aza, in the same way as they convert Amorrha into Gomorrha. [3] This sufficiently exposes the mistake of those who suppose that its name is Persian, and derived from its resources [4] in consequence of Cambyses, when about to carry on war in Greece, having made it the depot of his treasures. But as in the Acts, (Acts 8:26,) Luke speaks of "Gaza which is desert," it appears that a city of the same name was erected near it, but on a different site. Ashdod is the same as that which the Greeks called Azotus. The whole of this tract, which is either on the sea-coast or verging towards it, extends as far as Sidon. And there are some who think that the Phoenicians were once masters both of Gaza and Azotus. How far Lebanon extends is sufficiently known. [5] For it sometimes comprehends Mount Hermon; and on account of its length part of it is surnamed Antilibanus. [6] The reader will find the subject of Mount Hermon considered in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy. Towards the east is Hamath, which is also Antioch of Syria.

Footnotes

1 - The original text had the reference to Philippians 2:14, an obvious typesetting error. --fj.

2 - The opinion generally entertained in Calvin's time, that the river here meant was the Nile, or at least one of its branches, was founded partly on the meaning of the word sihor, which is literally black, and was explained by expositors as equivalent to turbid, a term strictly applicable to the Nile; and partly from a passage in Jeremiah, (Jeremiah 2:18) in which the Prophet asks, "What has thou to do in the way of Egypt to drink the waters of Sihor?" -- Sihor being here undoubtedly used as a proper name for the Nile. The second opinion mentioned by Calvin is now almost universally admitted to be the only one tenable. Even the description here given of Sihor, (Joshua 13:3,) as "before Egypt," is totally inapplicable to the Nile which, instead of being before Egypt, or on its frontiers, flows nearly through its center. The river meant and expressly referred to both by Moses (Numbers 34:5) and by Joshua (Joshua 15:4) under the name of the river of Egypt, is now called the Wady El-Arisch, from the town of that name situated near its mouth, and not far from the site of the ancient Rhinocolura, or perhaps more properly Rhinocorura. Calvin spells Rhinocornea, which if it had not been repeated by the French, might seem to be a misprint. -- Ed.

3 - It is here assumed that the only genuine sound represented by the Hebrew letter Ain is that of a. Is this the fact? Gesenius, on the contrary, while repudiating the modern Jewish pronunciation of it by the nasal gn or ng as decidedly false, says that its hardest sound is that of a g referring to Gaza and Gomorrha, the two words referred to by Calvin in illustration of the contrary. See Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar. (Bagster, 1852.)

4 - The French adds, "Et qu'il signifie Richesses;" "And that it means Riches." -- Ed.

5 - French, "Quant au Liban, c'est une chose assez notoire quelle longeur d'etendue il a;" "As to Lebanon it is sufficiently well known what length of extent it has."

6 - This is certainly incorrect. Antilibanus received its name, not from its length, but from its being a mountain chain opposite and parallel to Libanus or Lebanon proper, from which it is separated by the beautiful valley known to the Greeks and Romans by the names of Coele-Syria, or rather Koile (Hollow) Syria, and watered by the Leontes. -- Ed.

This and Joshua 13:3 name the still unconquered districts in the southern half of the land, Joshua 13:4-6 those in the north.
Geshuri - A district on the south of Philistia, the inhabitants of which are again named in 1-Samuel 27:8; but are not to be confounded with the land of the Geshurites mentioned in Joshua 13:13; Joshua 12:5.

The borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri - The borders of the Philistines may mean the land which they possessed on the sea-coast, southwest of the land of Canaan. There were several places named Geshuri, but that spoken of here was probably the region on the south of Canaan, towards Arabia, or towards Egypt. - Calmet. Cellarius supposes it to have been a country in the vicinity of the Amalekites.

This is the land that yet remaineth,.... Unconquered and not enjoyed, namely, what is after described; and this account is given for Joshua's information, that he might know what to divide, and for the people of Israel's sake, that they might know what they had a right to a claim upon; what they should endeavour to possess themselves of, and what the Lord would deliver into their hands, provided they were obedient to his will, for, because they were not, hence many of these places never came into their possession, though divided to them by lot:
all the borders of the Philistines; whose country bordered and lay upon the shores of the Mediterranean sea, in the southwest of the land of Canaan:
and all Geshuri; the principal city belonging to it is said to be in Syria, 2-Samuel 15:8; and had a king over it in the times of David, 2-Samuel 3:3; and seems never to have come into the hands of the Israelites.

This is the land that yet remaineth--that is, to be acquired. This section forms a parenthesis, in which the historian briefly notices the districts yet unsubdued; namely, first, the whole country of the Philistines--a narrow tract stretching about sixty miles along the Mediterranean coast, and that of the Geshurites to the south of it (1-Samuel 27:8). Both included that portion of the country "from Sihor, which is before Egypt," a small brook near El-Arish, which on the east was the southern boundary of Canaan, to Ekron, the most northerly of the five chief lordships or principalities of the Philistines.

Remaineth - Unconquered by thee, and to be conquered by the Israelites, if they behave themselves aright. All Geshuri - A people in the northeast of Canaan, as the Philistines are on the southwest.