14:1–5 Although the divine alert came to Joshua (13:1–7) and is here put into motion under the leadership of Joshua and Eleazar, its execution is framed as Israel’s obedience (14:1, 5). Before proceeding with the division of the land itself, the narrator sets out with some care the circumstances under which that division takes place. Verse 2 stipulates that, in accord with the divine command to Moses, the “inheritance” of the “nine and one-half tribes” is to be decided “by lot.” This notice accomplishes two purposes: it both declares that the remaining land allotment takes place “by lot” and also by implication explains why the previous settlement of the two and one-half tribes did not. Yahweh’s initial instruction to Moses concerning division by lot is found in Numbers 26:52–56, where it comes at the conclusion of the census of the twelve tribes of the conquest generation (including Ephraim and Manasseh) but precedes the census account of the tribe of Levi, which was excluded from the settlement. At this point it would appear to apply to all the tribes, but in Numbers 33:54, after the land is allotted to the Transjordan tribes under Moses and Eleazar, the Lord renews the command to Moses that the remaining tribes should inherit “by lot.” On one further occasion Moses himself reports the divine stipulation, as an element of the survey of geographical limits of the Promised Land to the west of the Jordan, again after the Transjordanian allotment has taken place (Num. 34:13–15). The requirement to make use of the “lot” moving forward is stated in Joshua 14:2, while the absence of the use of lots is thus explained in 14:3. This will be an integral part of the obedience registered in verse 5. Mention of the “lot” (Hb. goral) is unevenly distributed through the book, with all twenty-six of the occurrences in the book found in chapters 14–21 (which account for one-third of all such occurrences in the Hebrew Bible as a whole), including twenty in Joshua 18–19; 21 alone.

Again the non-inheritance of Levi receives prominent notice (cf. comment on 13:14, 33). The positive command to settle by lot in Numbers 26:55–56 is followed swiftly by the remark that the tribe of Levi did not participate in the census because it was not due to inherit (Num. 26:62). The requirement for the lot is repeated at Numbers 33:54 and 34:13, after which follows the arrangements for the cities and pasturelands in Numbers 35:1–8. This language is now picked up by the narrator in Joshua. The otherwise odd remark here that “the people of Joseph were two tribes” provides further explanation for the total of twelve tribes who find an inheritance when there is yet a further tribe excluded from this arrangement. The overall situation is thus accounted for, and Israel is found to be compliant, along with its leaders, Joshua and Eleazar.

14:6–12 After this it might be thought odd that Caleb’s inheritance does not come by lot. Clearly, however, Caleb’s understanding is that the land for which he asks is his by promise. In verse 6 and again in verse 12 Caleb explicitly references a promise made to him by the Lord that a particular parcel of land should be his. In verse 9 this is expanded by way of confirmation of a word from Moses in view of the wholehearted obedience Caleb showed not only on the occasion of spying out the land in Numbers 13–14 but throughout his long and faithful life (cf. Num. 32:12). The promise was not recorded in Numbers, where it might have been expected, but is reported by Moses on the plains of Moab as he begins a rehearsal of Israel’s exodus experience as the conquest generation prepares to enter the land (Deut. 1:36; cf. Num. 14:24). By his behavior and his prospects in entering the land, Caleb’s is a special case.

Beyond his obedience lies a question of identity. As this story begins and ends (Josh. 14:6, 14) Caleb receives a full identification: “Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite.” His membership in the tribe of Judah is only implied in the juxtaposition of the tribe’s approach to Joshua with Caleb’s request. Outside of this passage, his identification as a Kenizzite is found only at Numbers 32:12. Why should this affiliation be so noticeable here, then? It is common to associate the Kenizzites with a descendant of Esau, Kenaz, associated with the Edomites (Gen. 36:1–11, 40–43). At the very least, then, this identifier suggests an ancestry for Caleb that makes him a non-Israelite, yet one whose family is incorporated into Israel and whose exemplary and forceful fidelity marks him out as unparalleled in his generation. Not even Joshua, the designated successor to Moses, receives gets the approval accorded to Caleb.

One theological nuance to Caleb’s request might seem unusual. After Caleb sets out the basis for his request, points out God’s promise, records his experience of God’s faithfulness, and claims in no uncertain terms both his own vigor and his territory, his speech’s climax seems remarkably halfhearted: “It may be that the Lord will be with me, and I shall drive them out just as the Lord said” (Josh. 14:12). In spite of Caleb’s grounds for confidence in God’s gift and his own ability, his “It may be . . .” (Hb. ʾulay, “perhaps, maybe”) might seem like a failure of nerve or a lack of confidence in God’s provision. On the contrary, however, Caleb is leaving open some other way for God’s promise to be realized, a mark of theological humility and a demonstration of an absence of spiritual presumption. Israel’s God is under no constraint to behave in the manner in which Caleb anticipates he might. This is quite a different matter than doubting either God’s capacity or his willingness; everything Caleb has seen of this God through his life reassures him that he is faithful to his word, and his “maybe” does not undermine that confidence.

14:13–14 Joshua’s blessing and assignment of the land granted to Caleb comes without need for casting lots. Although Caleb has referred to his hoped-for property as “this hill country” (v. 12), it is now twice identified as Hebron. Located to the south of the area associated with the settlement of Judah, Hebron retained its association with Caleb into David’s time (1 Sam. 30:14).

14:15 The narrator’s final observations associate Hebron with “Kiriath-arba.” If “arba” is related to the number four, it may refer to a tetrapolis, like Gibeon and its associated cities. This could in turn explain why his request for “cities” (Josh. 14:12) results in the grant of seemingly just one. The old name bears a further association with the Anakim (cf. comment on 11:21–22). Just as on that previous occasion, the mention of the Anakim is partnered with a notice of “rest from war,” repeating the phrase from 11:23.