Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Joshua 16:1
And the lot of the children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto the water of Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho throughout mount Bethel,
Ch. Jos 16:1-4. The Lot of the Children of Joseph
1. the lot of the children of Joseph ] Having described the inheritance of the royal tribe of Judah, the Author proceeds to relate the distribution of the descendants of the great house of Joseph.
fell ] Heb. went forth, i.e. “came out of the urn or chest.” See above, ch. Jos 7:16, and Jos 14:2.
from Jordan by Jericho ] We have first the southern boundary, which coincided for part of its length with the northern boundary of Benjamin. It began at the Jordan, at the port, or reach, exactly opposite to Jericho. Compare for the expression, above ch. Jos 13:32, and below Jos 20:8.
unto the water of Jericho ] From this point it ran to “the water of Jericho,” i.e. to the one brook, which is found in the neighbourhood of Jericho. It rises at the fountain Ain es Sultn, the waters of which were healed by Elisha (2Ki 2:19), and flows into the Jordan.
to the wilderness that goeth up ] i.e. by one of the ravines, the Wdy Harith or Wdy Suweint, to the wilderness or uncultivated waste hills ( Midbah), to the mountains in the vicinity of Bethel.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
To the wilderness – Strike out to, for the word is in apposition to lot. The wilderness is Jos 18:12 the wilderness of Bethaven.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Jos 16:1-10
The lot of . . . Joseph.
The inheritance of Joseph
Next to Judah, the most important tribe was Joseph; that is, the double tribe to which his two sons gave names, Ephraim and Manasseh. In perpetual acknowledgment of the service rendered by Joseph to the family, by keeping them alive in the famine, it was ordained by Jacob that his two sons should rank with their uncles as founders of tribes (Gen 48:5). It was also prophetically ordained by Jacob that Ephraim, the younger son, should take rank before Manasseh (Gen 48:19). The privilege of the double portion, however, remained to Manasseh as the elder son. Hence, in addition to his lot in Gilead and Bashan, he had also a portion in Western Palestine. But Ephraim was otherwise the more important tribe; and when the separation of the two kingdoms took place, Ephraim often gave his name to the larger division. And in the beautiful prophetic vision of Ezekiel, when the coming reunion of the nation is symbolised, it is on this wise (Eze 37:16-17). The superiority allotted to Ephraim was not followed by very happy results; it raised an arrogant spirit in that tribe. The delimitation of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is not easy to follow, particularly in the A.V., which not only does not translate very accurately, but uses some English expressions of uncertain meaning. The R.V. is much more helpful, correcting both classes of defects in its predecessor. Yet even the R.V. sometimes leaves us at a loss. It has been supposed, indeed, that some words have dropped out of the text. Moreover, it has not been found possible to ascertain the position of all the places mentioned. The portion of the land occupied by Ephraim and Manasseh is, however, on the whole, very clearly known, just as their influence on the history of the country is very distinctly marked. In point of fact, the lot of Joseph in Western Palestine was, in many respects, the most desirable of any. It was a fertile and beautiful district. It embraced the valley of Shechem, the first place of Abrahams sojourn, and reckoned by travellers to be one of the most beautiful spots, some say the most beautiful spot, in Palestine. Samaria, at the head of another valley celebrated for its glorious beauty, and for its fatness or fertility (Isa 28:1), was at no great distance. Tirzah, a symbol of beauty, in the Song of Solomon (Son 6:4) was another of its cities, as was also Jezreel, a lovely position for a capital city. On the other hand, this portion of the country laboured under the disadvantage of not having been well cleared of its original inhabitants. The men of Ephraim did not exert themselves as much as the men of Judah. This is apparent from what is said in verse 10, and also from Joshuas answer to the request of Ephraim for more land (Jos 17:15-18). In the definition of boundaries we have first a notice applicable to Joshua as a whole, then specifications applicable to Ephraim and Manasseh respectively. The southern border is delineated twice with considerable minuteness, and its general course, extending from near the Jordan at Jericho, past Bethel and Luz, and down the pass of Bethhoron to the Mediterranean, is clear enough. The border between Ephraim and Manasseh is not so clear, nor the northern border of Manasseh. It is further to be remarked that, while we have an elaborate statement of boundaries, we have no list of towns in Ephraim and Manasseh such as we have for the tribe of Judah. This gives countenance to the supposition that part of the ancient record has somehow dropped out. We find, however, another statement about towns which is of no small significance. At verse 9 we find that several cities were appropriated to Ephraim that were situated in the territory of Manasseh. And in like manner several cities were given to Manasseh which were situated in the tribes of Issachar and Asher. Of these last the names are given (Jos 17:11). They were Bethshean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo. Some of them were famous in after-history. Bethshean was the city to whose wail the body of Saul and his sons were fixed after the fatal battle of Gilboa; Ibleam was in the neighbourhood of Naboths vineyard (2Ki 9:25; 2Ki 9:27); Endor was the place of abode of the woman with a familiar spirit whom Saul went to consult; Taanach was the battlefield of the kings of Canaan whom Barak defeated, and of whom Deborah sang (Jdg 5:19). As for Megiddo, many a battle was fought in its plain. We can only conjecture why these cities, most of which were in Issachar, were given to Manasseh. They were strongholds in the great plain of Esdraelon, where most of the great battles of Canaan were fought. For the defence of the plain it seemed important that these places should be held by a stronger tribe than Issachar. Hence they appear to have been given to Manasseh. But, like Ephraim, Manasseh was not able to hold them at first. Undoubtedly these sons of Joseph occupied a position which gave them unrivalled opportunities of benefiting their country. But with the exception of the splendid exploit of Gideon, a man of Manasseh, and his little band, we hear of little in the history that redounded to the credit of Josephs descendants. Nobility of character is not hereditary. Sometimes nature appears to spend all her intellectual and moral wealth on the father and almost to impoverish the sons. And sometimes the sons live on the virtues of their fathers, and cannot be roused to the exertion or the sacrifice needed to continue their work and maintain their reputation. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XVI
Borders of the children of Joseph, 1-4.
The borders of the Ephraimites, 5-9.
The Canaanites dwell tributary among them, 10.
NOTES ON CHAP. XVI
Verse 1. The children of Joseph] Ephraim and Manasseh, and their descendants. The limits of the tribe of Ephraim extended along the borders of Benjamin and Dan, from Jordan on the east to the Mediterranean on the west.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Of Joseph, i.e. of Ephraim, and the half tribe of Manasseh, which are here put together in one; not because they had but one lot, for Ephraim had one here, Jos 16:5, and Manasseh another, Jos 17:1; but because in these first verses he speaks of them in common, and of the south border, which seems to be the same, either wholly or in a great part; and then he comes to the particular description of their several portions. It is here further remarkable, that God so disposed of these lots, that they came forth in decent and due order; Judahs first, to whom the sovereignty was promised; and then Josephs, who succeeded Reuben in the other privilege of the birth-right, the double portion, 1Ch 5:1,2.
The water of Jericho; of which see 2Ki 2:19-22. The wilderness that goeth up from Jericho; the wilderness of Beth-aven, as appears by comparing Jos 18:12, which speaks of the very same border which was on the south of Ephraim, and on the north of Benjamin.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. the lot of the children of JosephfellHebrew, “went forth,” referring either tothe lot as drawn out of the urn, or to the tract of land therebyassigned. The first four verses describe the territory allotted tothe family of Joseph in the rich domains of central Palestine. It wasdrawn in one lot, that the brethren might be contiguously situated;but it was afterwards divided. The southern boundary only isdescribed here; that on the north being irregular and less defined(Jos 17:10; Jos 17:11),is not mentioned.
water of Jericho (2Ki2:19), at the joint of its junction with the Jordan.
mount Beth-elthe ridgesouth of Beth-el. Having described the position of Joseph’s familygenerally the historian proceeds to define the territory; first, thatof Ephraim.
Jos16:5-9. THE BORDERSOF THE INHERITANCE OFEPHRAIM.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the lot of the children of Joseph fell,…. Or, “went out” a; of the pot or urn, this being the next lot that was drawn to that of Judah, the government being Judah’s, and the birthright Joseph’s, 1Ch 5:2; and by his children are here meant the tribe of Ephraim, and the tribe of Manasseh: or the line and border according to the lot went forth
from Jordan by Jericho unto the water of Jericho on the east; by which it appears, that this was the southern border of the lot; for the tribe of Benjamin, in which Jericho was, lay between Judah and Ephraim, and the border began at Jordan, where it flowed near Jericho, and proceeded to a water which belonged to that city, and is generally thought to be the waters Elisha healed, 2Ki 2:19;
to the wilderness that goeth up throughout Mount Bethel; this was the wilderness of Bethaven, Jos 18:12; Jarchi interprets it of the border that went up through Mount Bethel; which is true, and so might the wilderness also, for which the Targum is express; mention is made of a mountain on the east of Bethel, Ge 12:8.
a “et egressa est”, Pagninus, Montanus; “exivit”, Piscator.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Territory of the tribe of Joseph. – Jos 16:1. “ And there came out the lot of the children of Joseph from Jordan by Jericho.” “The lot came out,” viz., from the turn (cf. Jos 19:1, Jos 19:17, Jos 19:24). The expression “came up” is used in the same sense in Jos 18:11. The connection of these two words with the rest of the sentence, “ from Jordan by Jericho,” may be explained on the supposition that the lot which came out of the urn determined the inheritance that fell to the tribe, so that we might paraphrase the verse in this manner: “There came out the lot to the children of Joseph, namely, the inheritance, which goes out from, or whose boundary commences at, the Jordan by Jericho,” i.e., from that part of the Jordan which is opposite to Jericho, and which is still more precisely defined by the additional clause, “by the water of Jericho eastward.” The water of Jericho is the present fountain of es Sultan, half an hour to the north-west of Riha, the only large fountain in the neighbourhood of Jericho, whose waters spread over the plain, and form a small brook, which no doubt flows in the rainy season through the Wady Kelt into the Jordan (see Rob. ii. pp. 283-4; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 558-9). “The wilderness” is in opposition to “the lot,” so that the sense is, “ namely, the desert going up from Jericho to the mountains to Bethel.” According to Jos 18:12, the reference is to the desert of Beth-aven, which was on the east of Bethel, between the Wady Suwar ( Tuwar) and Mutyah (see at Jos 7:2). Towards the east this desert terminates with the Jebel Kuruntul (Quarantana) on the north-west of Jericho, where it descends precipitously into the valley of the Jordan, or v. v., where it rises out of the Jordan valley. According to Jos 18:12, the same boundary went up by the shoulder of Jericho towards the north, i.e., along the northern range of mountains by Jericho, which cannot be any other than the “conspicuous double height, or rather group of heights,” in front of the mountain of Quarantana, at the eastern foot of which lies the fountain of Ain es Sultan ( Rob. ii. p. 284). In all probability, therefore, the boundary ran up towards the north-west, from the Sultan fountain to Ain Duk, and thence in a westerly direction across to Abu Seba (along which road Robinson had a frightful desert on his right hand: Pal. ii. p. 310), and then again towards the north-west to Beitin (Bethel), according to Jos 18:13, along the southern shoulder (or side) of Luz, i.e., Bethel.
Jos 16:2 “ And it went out from Bethel to Luz.” Bethel is distinguished from Luz in this passage, because the reference is not to the town of Bethel, which was called Luz by the Canaanites (vid., Gen 28:19), but to the southern range of mountains belonging to Bethel, from which the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which stood upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:22). From this point the boundary went over “ to the territory of the Arkite to Ataroth,” We know nothing further about the Arkite than that David’s friend Hushai belonged to that family (2Sa 15:32; 2Sa 16:16; 1Ch 27:33). Ataroth, called Ataroth-Adar in Jos 18:13, was not the present village of Atra, an hour and a half to the south of Jiljilia ( Rob. iii. p. 80), as I once supposed, but the ruins of Atra, three-quarters of an hour to the south of Bireh (Beeroth, Rob. ii. p. 314), with which the expression “ descended ” in Jos 18:13 perfectly harmonizes. Consequently the boundary was first of all drawn in a south-westerly direction from Beitin to Bireh (Jos 18:25), and then southwards to Atrah.
Jos 16:3 From this point “it went down westward to the territory of the Japhletites to the territory of lower Beth-horon,” or, according to Jos 18:13, “to the mountain (or range) which is on the south by lower Beth-horon.” The Japhletite is altogether unknown as the Asherite of this name cannot possibly be thought of (1Ch 7:32-33). Lower Beth-horon is the present Beit-Ur Tachta, a village upon a low ridge. It is separated from Upper Beth-horon, which lies farther east, by a deep wady (see at Jos 10:10, and Rob. iii. p. 59). “ And to Gezer,” which was probably situated near the village of el Kubab (see at Jos 10:33). “ And the goings out thereof are at the sea ” (the Mediterranean), probably running towards the north-west, and following the Wady Muzeireh to the north of Japho, which was assigned to the Danites, according to Jos 19:46.
Jos 16:4 The territory commencing at the boundary lines mentioned was allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh as their inheritance.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Lot of Joseph. | B. C. 1444. |
1 And the lot of the children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto the water of Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho throughout mount Beth-el, 2 And goeth out from Beth-el to Luz, and passeth along unto the borders of Archi to Ataroth, 3 And goeth down westward to the coast of Japhleti, unto the coast of Beth-horon the nether, and to Gezer: and the goings out thereof are at the sea. 4 So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance.
Though Joseph was one of the younger sons of Jacob, yet he was his eldest by his most just and best beloved wife Rachel, was himself his best beloved son, and had been the greatest ornament and support of his family, kept it from perishing in a time of famine, and had been the shepherd and stone of Israel, and therefore his posterity were very much favoured by the lot. Their portion lay in the very heart of the land of Canaan. It extended from Jordan in the east (v. 1) to the sea, the Mediterranean Sea, in the west, so that it took up the whole breadth of Canaan from side to side; and no question the fruitfulness of the soil answered the blessings both of Jacob and Moses, Gen 49:25; Gen 49:26; Deu 33:13-17, c. The portions allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh are not so particularly described as those of the other tribes we have only the limits and boundaries of them, not the particular cities in them, as before we had the cities of Judah and afterwards those of the other tribes. For this no reason can be assigned, unless we may suppose that Joshua being himself of the children of Joseph they referred it to him alone to distribute among them the several cities that lay within their lot, and therefore did not bring in the names of their cities to the great council of their princes who sat upon this affair, by which means it came to pass that they were not inserted with the rest in the books.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Joshua – Chapter 16
Ephraim’s Lot, vs 1-10
Verses 1 through 4 delineates generally, the south boundary of the two tribes of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. This allotment is in accord to the provision of the double portion for Joseph by the patriarch Jacob himself (Gen 48:5), when he put these two sons of Joseph in the place of Reuben and Simeon, his firstborn sons.
The southern border does not reach to Judah’s northern border, for Benjamin will receive the area between them, but begins north of Jericho and passes westward to mount Bethel and thus to Luz, or Bethel, which Jacob renamed it (Gen 28:19). Archi and Ataroth were minor towns on the border with Benjamin. The coast (border) of Japhleti may have been a landmark preserved from the Canaanites. It stretched slightly southwestward to Nether (Lower) Beth-boron, thence to Gezer and across the Philistine settlements to the Mediterranean Sea.
A more detailed description continues in verse 5 of the territory assigned specifically to the tribe of Ephraim. Its starting point was Ataroth, near Upper Beth-horon, and proceeded to Michmethah toward the Mediterranean, marking the border with Manasseh, to the north. From this point it went to Taanath-shiloh, or the approach to Shiloh, where the tabernacle was first erected in the land. From here it passed Janohah to the east and came to another Ataroth, in the Jordan valley, then went back down the valley to Naarath in the area of Jericho. From a point west of the latter Ataroth, Tappuah, the boundary went westward to the river (a brook only) Kanah, proceeding along its course to the Mediterranean Sea. These boundaries are extremely hard to follow today, so that it is hard to find two map-makers who agree in affixing tribal boundaries exactly. The boundaries may not have been as hard and fast as boundaries are now thought of.
The inspired account records that Ephraim also received cities and suburbs (the surrounding area) in the allotment of Manasseh. Probably this is because Manasseh had more larger towns than did Ephraim in his territory. The children of Ephraim were also limited in their possession by their failure to drive the Canaanites out of Gezer. This was a notable town in the foothills of the southwestern corner of Ephraim’s inheritance. The Canaanites were still there when the inspired record was made. The Israelites took taxes from them.
Note that the Israelites were careful to honor the will of Jacob, their forefather, in giving the double portion of the land to the sons of Joseph One should always seek to abide in the Lord’s will and plan his actions according thereto, (3Jn 1:5).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. And the lot of the children of Joseph fell, etc The sacred writer first states what the lot was which fell to the two children of Joseph, and then describes the lot of Ephraim. It is strange, however, that when the half of the tribe of Manasseh had already been settled beyond the Jordan, more words are employed in describing the remaining half than in describing the whole of the inheritance of the tribe of Ephraim, though the latter was the more populous, and justly claimed for itself a larger territory. But the longer detail given concerning the posterity of Manasseh is owing to particular circumstances. First, the writer repeats how a settlement had been given them without lot in the country of Basan. Secondly, he mentions the ratification by Joshua of the command which Moses had given by divine authority in regard to the daughters of Selophead. Seeing, then, there was no doubt in regard to the boundaries of Ephraim, and there was no danger of dispute, their allocation is only briefly glanced at.
But here a new question arises. When the right of primogeniture had passed from Manasseh to Ephraim, how did the posterity of that tribe which had precedence in rank obtain their cities among the children of Manasseh? For theirs seems in this way to have been the inferior condition. My explanation is this, When the portion of Manasseh was too extensive in proportion to the amount of population, a calculation was made, and certain cities were deducted to complete the just share of the tribe of Ephraim; not that they were mixed up with the children of Manasseh, to hold their dwellings among them by a precarious tenure, (153) but their boundaries were merely extended in the direction of the Manassites whom a narrower possession might suffice.
In the end of the chapter, Ephraim is severely censured for his effeminacy in not having expelled the Canaanites from Gezer. For had they proceeded in a manly and hearty manner to make good their right to the land which had fallen to them by lot, the victory was in their hands. There would have been no temerity in the attempt, since the decision of the lot was as valid as if the Lord himself had stretched forth his hand from heaven. But their disgraceful sloth is more clearly expressed and their culpability greatly heightened by the fact, that they made tributaries of those with whom it was not lawful to enter into any kind of arrangement. Seeing, then, God had distinctly forbidden his people to transact business of any kind with those nations, and least of all to enter into pactions with them, stipulating for their pardon and safety, the Ephraimites sinned much more grievously in exacting tribute than if they had tolerated them without paction. (154)
(153) Latin, “ Quasi precario.” French, “ Comme par emprunt ou par prieres;” “As by loan or by entreaty.” — Ed.
(154) A long clause is here added by the Septuagint, to the effect that the Canaanite continued to dwell in Ephraim till Pharaoh, king of Egypt, came up and took it, drove out the Canaanites, Perizzites, and dwellers in Gezer, and gave it as a dowry to his daughter, (who had married Solomon.) — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE DIVISION OF THE LAND
Joshua, Chapters 13 to 19 and 21, 22.
Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the Lord said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed (Jos 13:1). This is the land that yet remaineth, etc.
MEN grow old differently. Some men remain hale and hearty. Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated (Deu 34:7). Others are weighted with years, and feebleness is their lot. Joshua has been a mighty man; and yet, more than a century has swept over his head, and the Lord is reminding him that the end is near, and what remains to be done must have prompt attention. When the field yet to be occupied is Divinely surveyed, its immensity astonishes us, and suggests an essential truth, namely, that no matter what battles have been successfully fought, and what great victories have been won, there remaineth always much land to be possessed. One of the sad things about growing old exists in that very circumstance. What man ever accomplished marvelous resultsresults that amazed his fellows, without realizing that what he has done is small beside what he would like to live to do?
Youth has its ideals, and age sometimes experiences the realization of those ideals to a large degree, but in the very process of accomplishment, larger things have loomed before the worker; greater plans have evolved, and when life is drawing to a close, one feels that he has only succeeded in laying foundations, and yearns to live that he
might build thereon. But time moves, and the man who puts his stamp permanently upon it must remember his numbered days and wisely utilize till the last.
This division of the land relates itself to the twelve tribes, and in the appointments there will necessarily result some disputations.
THE EAST SIDE
This received first attention, as is shown in chapter 13.
There were conquests yet to be accomplished. We will not attempt to follow these borders and to show the exact location and limitation of each tribal occupancy. That were a work of super-erogation. Almost any good Bible carries a map showing these tribal locations in colors, and a moments glance of the eye at such a diagram would accomplish more than extended discussion. Let us learn, rather, the spiritual significance of this further occupancy of the soil.
What man ever lives long enough to do all that he ought to do; to put down all the enemies that ought to be trampled under his feet; to occupy all the territory that he himself should conquer? Not one! On the other hand, the best that we can do is to hope in our successors. Christ Himself was shut up to that necessity. When Luke came to write the Book of the Acts, he said, The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach (Act 1:1). How strange a sentence to employ with reference to the Son of God! We thought Jesus finished. Did He not say on the cross, It is finished? Was not His work in the world complete before the last breath went from His body? Nay, verily! He completed but one task and that was to make an atonement for the people. As for His deeds and His teaching, they were only beginnings; as for the progress of His church, it was in its infancy; as for the bringing in of His kingdom, that was a far-off event. He only began to do and to teach. His disciples, His Church; they must carry on. Joshua must die, but Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, must occupy the East Side. It was theirs to complete what Moses and Joshua had commenced; it was theirs to inherit and subdue the plains of Moab on the other side of Jordan by Jericho eastward.
The pledge of Moses was now to be fulfilled to them. The Reubenites and the Gadites have received their inheritance, which Moses gave them, beyond Jordan eastward (Jos 13:8).
Joshua, then, was not to settle the question of that section. It was settled already; but Joshua was Gods agent to make good to Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh what Moses pledged.
In Jesus, our Joshua, we find both the execution of the law and the fulfillment of prophecy. It is in Him that we have both made sure to all believers.
The Lord was to be the portion of the Levites. But unto the tribe of Levi Moses gave not any inheritance: the Lord God of Israel was their inheritance, as He said unto them (Jos 13:33).
That sounds like scant treatment, but, as a matter of fact, thats a declaration of great riches. What man is to be envied as that man who has the Lord for his inheritance? Is he not the richest and the most honored of all men? Is he not to be the most envied of all heirs? Can he not sing with good occasion,
My Father is rich in houses and lands,
He holdeth the wealth of the world in His hands!
Of rubies and diamonds, of silver and gold,
His coffers are fullHe has riches untold.
Im a child of the King, a child of the King!
With Jesus, my Saviour, Im a child of the King?
Moses fell heir to honor and fortune. His adoption into Pharaohs house made him the child of both, but the day came when he deliberately chose to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward (Heb 11:25-26).
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
THE WEST SIDE
Chapters 14 to 21.
The apportionment was in fulfillment of prophecy. If one doubts that prophecy is the mold of history, let him read the forty-ninth chapter of Genesis and follow it with chapters fourteen to twenty-one of Joshua, and he will discover that these tribes were finally located, as Jacob, the father of twelve, declared when dying.
Who will say that life is a lottery, that affairs are mere accidents? Who will doubt that the end is known to God from the beginning, or say that He operates without a plan? Who will claim that a blind force, known as Energy, or Nature, is weaving the web of human history? Certainly not the man who has intelligently studied his Bible.
The apportionment expressed the estimate of the tribe. These tribes do not fare alike. Apparently no effort whatever is made to put them on an equal basis. Back in Num 26:54-55, it was written concerning this very distribution of the land,
To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance: to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of him.
Notwithstanding the Land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit.
There is a difference, then, between the lot of men-shuffling, and the lot that God employs. The first is a mere chance, and by it the noblest may be cheated. The last is an absolute science and expresses a perfect judgment. Gods lots work no injustice. The principle employed in the distribution of these lands to the nine and one-half tribes, or, for that matter, to the twelve tribes, is the principle of the New Testament parable of the talents, where to one the absent Lord gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability (Mat 25:15).
Thats the basis, doubtless, of the apportionment to the tribes. God knew what ones of them would conquer a mountain; what ones of them would clear a forest; what ones of them would cultivate a plain; what ones of them would make to blossom a desert, and distributed them accordingly.
The occupancy of America illustrates the fact that God does not cease to give men opportunity according to their several abilities, nor quit locating them according to character and custom. Who will doubt that the Mississippi region and almost our entire southern border was intelligently occupied by the Spanish; that the northeast states flourish the better in the possession of English, Irish and Scotch; that the central west was adapted to the German; the northwest to the Scandinavian? A little careful study will illustrate the fact that these occupations were not mere accidents, but in each and every instance the people possessing were adapted to the climatic and industrial conditions of the particular section settled.
The Levite occupied the entire land. He had no territory that he could claim, but he was given a place in certain cities and distributed among all the tribes. There was a double reason for that fact. First, every tribe needed both the service and ensample of the Levite. Any people who propose to occupy a land, and have among them no ministers, will eventually demonstrate that irreligion cannot create a successful state, and never in history has built a strong nation.
Again, distributed through the nations, they could have their living by the nations. Every community, in self-interest, should sustain a priest unto Goda minister of the Divine will, and if the law of God is regarded, every ten families in the world could maintain a minister and let him live on an absolute equality with them, for that is the law of the tithe. And when one has his living and the conscious presence of the Lord, what greater riches are needed? Let David sing of such, The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot. The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage (Psa 16:5-6).
POINTS OF DISPUTATION
The reading of these nine chapters brings us face to face with the fact that humanity is the same in all ages. It would not be expected that so intricate a service as the location of so many people could be accomplished without dispute. In some instances, that dispute would be short-lived, and for the most part, a cordial discussion; and in others, it would border on battle itself. To three of these, let us call brief attention. First,
Caleb presented an unselfish and righteous claim to the mountain. The record of this is found in the fourteenth chapter, Jos 14:6-15. In this record, Caleb reminds Joshua of Moses promise to him. It must then have been understood that Moses was Gods man and that his word was regarded of God. It is a great thing to so live that men will look on our word as Gods Word, and even after we are buried, will appeal to what we have spoken as truth too sacred to be forgotten and disregarded. Caleb claims that Moses sware on that day, saying, Surely the land whereon thy feet have trodden shall be thine inheritance, and thy childrens for ever, because thou hast wholly followed the Lord my God (Jos 14:9).
Again, there is a bit of an old mans boast in Calebs words, I am this day fourscore and five years old. As yet I am as strong this day as I was in the day that Moses sent me. We are not condemning Caleb for making it; we are admiring him, rather. It is a fine thing for an old man to feel his strength and to believe that, no matter how many years have passed over his head, he is still equal to war, still ready to meet giants and drive them out. We have a few such old men friends! They are a joy, an encouragement, an inspirationgreat men who renew their strength in God and who, to their last breath, do valiant battle.
Caleb was the one man that joined Joshua in making a report on the land of Canaan, and in that report he admitted that there were giants in the mountains, but declared, We are well able to overcome it.
Forty-five years have swept by, and the indomitable spirit still lives, and Caleb, even now, illustrates the truth of the words spoken when he was yet a young man. He conquered because he hath wholly followed the Lord God.
The fifteenth chapter records
Achsahs request for springs of water. Caleb was of the tribe of Judah, and when he went forth to conquer, and found Kirjath-sepher a stronghold difficult to take, he proposed to give his daughter in marriage to the man who should conquer it, and Othniel, his brother, accepted the challenge and effected the conquest.
Evidently Achsah was a woman of spirit and craved more than had fallen to her lot, and consequently, when her timid husband would not ask, she requested of Caleb a blessing, and an addition to her southland springs of water, and he gave her the upper springs, and the nether springs. This, also, is suggestive. Who is content to dwell in an arid land when the Father has springs in His control, and who will doubt that these springs have their symbolic meaning, their spiritual suggestion?
Do we not recall that marvelous chapter in Johns Gospel when Christ met the woman at the well and asked her to give Him to drink, and she answered,
How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of Me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water.
The woman saith unto Him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life (Joh 4:9-14).
Let us not hesitate to ask our Father for water, Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation (Isa 12:3).
Finally, the schismatic altar of Reuben and Gad. The record of this is in the twenty-second chapter. This was a dispute that approached the fatal. The altar erected by Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh over against the land of Canaan, in the borders of Jordan, was misjudged by the congregation of the Children of Israel. They looked upon it as a departure from the Lord and they proposed to abolish it, and, if need be, destroy their brethren rather than suffer such an altar to live. Was their spirit wrong? Yes and No. They were not wrong in deciding that no false altar should live; they were not wrong in determining that rather than permit its existence, they would indulge in a civil war. War is horrible, and of all wars, a war between brethren is the most to be deplored. But there are some things worse than war, and idolatry is one of them, and sin is one of them. They had already seen what the sin of Achan had wrought. They had witnessed thousands of their brethren perish because Gods Word had been disregarded, and they did not propose to pass through a kindred experience and be silent on the subject. In that they were righta thousand times right.
The church that supposes itself to be Christian because its officials and members are so good-natured that they will not quarrel with the false teacher in their midst, is a church guilty of the grossest folly. The time will come when that very teaching will divide and disrupt the body, and, in all probability, destroy it altogether. History has illustrations in hundreds of cases of this identical result. Far better to call a brother to account for his false altars and false philosophy and false religion than to keep the peace.
But, on the other hand, the nine and one-half tribes were mistaken in supposing this was a false altar, and mistaken in their judgment of the motive that erected it. We want to be sure that men who are not worshiping in our particular house are thereby men who have departed from God before we fight against them. The old denominational controversies that raged white-hot were, for the most part, unjustifiable. The refusal to fellowship a man, and the proposal to fight a man because he approaches God in other ceremonials than we employ, or other sanctuaries than we have erected, is far from Christian. The great question is, Does he worship God and acknowledge the Lordship of His Son Jesus Christ, and the guidance of His Holy Spirit? If so, he is our brother, and with his conduct we should be pleased, and the altar of true worship should be a witness between us that the Lord is God.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
THE INHERITANCE OF THE CHILDREN OF JOSEPH
CRITICAL NOTES.
Jos. 16:1-4. The lot of the children of Joseph] Although Jacob had adopted the sons of Joseph to be as his own children (Gen. 48:5), and prophesied concerning them as the heads of two distinct tribes in Israel, yet in the chapter of tribal blessings he had spoken of them under the one name of Joseph (Gen. 49:22-26) Moses. also, though recognising the division into the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. had likewise given them a single blessing in the name of their common father (Deu. 33:13-17). Thus the one lot for the two tribes was almost anticipated by these prophecies. As Calvin suggested, the admirable counsel of God arranged that the brothers should be neighbours to each other. As the situation of the two tribes was designated by a common lot, and an intermingling of territory is spoken of in Jos. 16:9, it seems more two chapters should be treated as one.
Jos. 16:1. Fell] Lit., came forth; i.e., came out of the urn, or chest, says Clericus, whom Keil follows, in opposition to the opinion of Rosenmller, that the reference is to the land, which came out from Jordan, etc. The water of Jericho] The fountain now known as Ain es-Sultan, to the overflowing of which the neighbouring plain owes so much of its ferility. Here Elisha wrought his miracle of healing the waters (2Ki. 2:19-22). Dr. Robinson placed the site of the first Jericho by this fountain of Elisha, and that of the late Jericho by the opening of the Wady Kelt. The wilderness that goeth up from Jericho] This is the wilderness of Bethaven (chap. Jos. 7:2; Jos. 18:12).
Jos. 16:2. From Bethel to Luz] Knobel, and others, rendering the words as a composite noun, read from Bethel-Luzah. Keil understands the sense to be, from the mountains of Bethel, from which the boundary-line proceeded to the city of Luz. i.e., to Bethel itself. Undoubtedly, from the way is which they are invariably mentioned as one place, Lus should not be put, as by Crosby, three and a half miles west of Bethel. But cf. below, Dr. Cassels remarks on Jdg. 1:22. The borders of Archi to Ataroth] The border of the Archite. The Archites or Erechites, in Canaan, may have been descended from some settlers from the Erech of Nimrod (Gen. 10:10), in the land of Babylonia. Davids friend, or companion, Hushai the Archite, is the subject of the only further reference which is made to this name (2Sa. 15:32; 2Sa. 16:16; 1Ch. 27:33). Ataroth, according to Robinson, is the modern Atara, about four miles south of Jiljilia, and must be distinguished from the ruins of Atara, near to er Ram. The latter is mentioned in Jos. 16:7, while the former is named again as Ataroth-addar in Jos. 16:5 and in chap. Jos. 18:13.
Jos. 16:3. Beth-horon the nether] The lower Beth-horon is now Beit-r, at Tachta. In common with Gezer (cf. on chap. Jos. 10:33) it was afterwards given to the Kohathites (chap. Jos. 21:21-22).
Jos. 16:4. So the children of Joseph, etc.] Thus the southern boundary only is given, which, in chap. Jos. 18:12-13, is repeated as the northern border of Benjamin.
Jos. 16:5-8. The border of the children of Ephraim, etc.] These verses contain a description which seems involved in inextricable confusion. This is perhaps, principally owing to three things: the places named are few, and thus far apart, marking, probably, some of the extreme positions; the sites of the places are nearly all unknown; and further, the inter-tribal line between these brother tribes seems to have been very complex, and, owing to the intermingling named in Jos. 16:9, may have been, at places, hardly capable of clear description in a brief record. Added to this, it is possible that some attempts may have been made by copyists to make the text clearer, these resulting eventually in greater obscurity than ever. Some such process may account for the utterly incomprehensible opening clause of Jos. 16:6; or, as between Jos. 16:5-10, a passage may have been left out between Jos. 16:5-6, rendering what follows uninintelligible.
Jos. 16:9. The separate cities] These were possibly so assigned, in order that by the intermingling of the two tribes the bond of brotherhood might be perpetuated.
OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE PARAGRAPHS
CHAPTER 16.Jos. 16:1.THE PRECEDENCE OF EPHRAIM
As between these children of Joseph, Ephraim takes precedence of Manasseh. Though, as the elder son, Manasseh is named first in Jos. 16:4, yet the lot of Ephraim stands first in the record, and occupies the more important position in the land. This is as Jacob had prophesied it should be (Gen. 48:13-20). The ancient scene of the blessing of Josephs children, when compared with their inheritance as shewn here, is instructive. Joseph had opposed Jacob, but Jacob was right and Joseph wrong. Putting together the circumstances of Jacobs prophecy, and the sequel which the history here begins to reveal, the following thoughts are suggested:
I. Gods special presence and guidance sometimes vouchsafed to the dying, not imaginary, but real. It does not appear that dying Jacob had received any particular promise that God would especially direct him in giving his prophetic blessings. Jacob assumed that it was so. The dying do not care for proofs and arguments. They simply believe, and thus speak. Jacob did not trouble himself with any explanation. He did not even claim Gods special teaching. He merely answered to Josephs objection, I know it, my son, I know it; and then, in the calmness of a man fully assured, went on with his blessing. Jacob believed that God was directing him. By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph (Heb. 11:21). Jacob had no great precedent for conduct like this. Dying Moses could look back and see how God had honoured Jacobs trust, but Jacob could look back on nothing similar. He simply felt that God was with him, and was guiding him so unerringly, that the knowledge of his pious son Joseph must not be suffered, for a moment, to break in upon his own confidence. Jacob was not deceived. The history which begins in this appointment of the lots, goes on to assert through many generations that it was indeed God who had set Ephraim before Manasseh, though the elder son also should be great. Is not God thus present with His dying servants now, if not for prophecy, yet for support? He Himself has said, When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee.
II. Gods special guidance of His servants in death sufficiently realized to enable their faith to overcome all obstacles. Take into consideration the circumstances by which Jacob was surrounded, and it will be seen that it was no light matter for him to persist in his trust.
1. There was the difficulty of getting away from Egypt. Would that be suffered by the Egyptians? Would the Israelites, settled in the fat land of Goshen, unanimously care to leave?
2. There was the task of overcoming the Canaanites. Jacob had lived among them during great part of his life, and must have well known of those cities walled up to heaven, and inhabited here by the Rephaim, there by the Anakim.
3. There was the division of the tribe of Joseph into two tribes. How was that to be brought about? Was Israel to have thirteen tribes? If not, which son was to give place? and how was he to be induced to give place?
4. Then there was the supremacy of Ephraim. Would not this be contested, even as Jacobs own supremacy over Esau? Thus, in addition to the opposition of Joseph, and the weakness imposed by the presence of death, these things stood confronting the aged patriarchs faith. He did not so much as speak of them as making the issue doubtful. He felt God to be so manifestly with him, that no amount of obstacles could present any measure of difficulty. So sufficient is Gods presence in the hour of His peoples need.
III. The special guidance of God in even the weak and dying, transcending physical strength and mental vigour. Joseph was strong, and Jacob was weak; the son could see, but the fathers eyes were dim with age; the younger mans faculties and powers of mental perception were in the very pride of maturity, while the elder man was feeling throughout his entire frame the decay which precedes dissolution; yet Jacob was right, and Joseph was in error. The guidance of God in the feeblest is better than human perception at its best. Even the blind err not when the Lord leads them. The cultivated intellect of Joseph fails to discern the future of his children; the divinely taught, though decaying mind of Jacob, not only reads the centuries to come, but does not so much as think of the possibility of any mistake.
IV. The special guidance of God surpassing the ordinary spiritual apprehensions of an unusually faithful and pious life. Jacobs life had been one full of grave mistakes. He had obtained the birthright of his brother through deep craft and oft-repeated lies. He may fairly be regarded as the prototype of commercial sharpness and cunning. He bargained with men, and even bargained with God. He assumed a demeanour of great moderation with Laban, depending on trickery to make the seeming moderation far more profitable than any open arrangement. His life was a long negotiation in the interest of himself. It had been eminently a life of self-seeking. Yet with all these evil days, as he himself terms them, Jacob had believed unquestioningly in God. God had ever been his refuge in his times of distress, and, apparently, never forgotten in his times of prosperity. Nevertheless, the life of Jacob stands out in dark and painful contrast to the life of Joseph. Joseph had shewn the same ardent belief in God, and had testified to the beauty of his faith by the excellence of his fidelity. The story of Jacobs life is stained throughout, while that of Joseph comes down to us in an almost unsullied purity. For all this, in the instance before us, Jacob is unerringly right, and Joseph is wrong. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him. The pure in heart see God. This is the ordinary rule of life and it is in no way shaken by this exception. God seems to teach us again, here that no man must rely on his purity. Fidelity is one thing, infallibility another. God sometimes corrects the judgment of His most faithful servants through those whose lives are far inferior. This also is well, lest pride become the heritage of piety. Again, it should be remembered that the special teaching of God through the weak is far more unerring than the discernment of the most spiritual of minds momentarily left to themselves.
V. The superior wisdom of Gods guidance waiting for the vindication of time. If not vindicated at the time, it was vindicated by time. Joseph quietly submitted to his fathers strong assurance. He offered no further remonstrance. Joseph may even have believed that it would be as his father had declared. Of this, nothing is said. When nearly two hundred and fifty years had passed, God began to confirm the words of Jacob by providing in another manner for the tribe of Levi, and in these appointments of the lots of Josephs children. The vision which God gives may tarry, yet it is for an appointed time. Divine proofs are never hastened, and ultimately they never fail.
Jos. 16:2.THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BETHEL AND LUZ
The following excellent note by Dr. Cassel deals with three passages which have often been found difficult to harmonise with the statement, Bethel, which is Luz, frequently occurring elsewhere:
(1) with the obscure phrase from Bethel to Luz, in this verse;
(2) with the difficulty in chapter Jos. 18:13; Jos. 18:22, where, while Bethel is said to belong to Benjamin, the border of that tribe is stated to be south of Luz;
(3) and finally, with the representation in Jdg. 1:22-25, in which the children of Joseph are seen taking and occupying what might appear to be a city of Benjamin.
As Jebus and Jerusalem are always identified, so it is everywhere remarked of Bethel, that it was formerly Luz; and as Jebus indicated particularly the fortress, Jerusalem the city,although the latter name embraced both,so a similar relation must be assumed to have existed between Bethel and Luz. Otherwise the border of Benjamin could not have run south of Luz (Jos. 18:13), while nevertheless Bethel was reckoned among the cities of Benjamin (Jos. 18:22). This assumption, moreover, explains the peculiar phraseology of Jos. 18:13 : And the border went over from thence toward Luz (after which we expect the usual addition, which is Bethel; but that which does follow is,) on the south side of Luz, which is Bethel. It explains likewise the mention (Jos. 16:2) of the border from Bethel to Luz, i.e., between Bethel and Luz. The latter was evidently a fortress, high and strong, whose city descended along the mountain slope. When Jacob erected his altar, it must have been on this slope or in the valley. One name designated both fortress and city, but this does not militate against their being distinguished from each other. Bethel belonged to two tribes in a similar manner as Jerusalem. The capture of Luz by Joseph would not have been told in a passage which treats of the conflicts of the individual tribes in their own territories, if that fortress had not belonged to the tribes of Joseph. By the conquest of Luz, Joseph secured the possession of Bethel, since both went by that name, just as David, when he had taken the fortress of the Jebusites, was for the first time master of Jerusalem. This deed is related as contrasting with the conduct of Benjamin (Jdg. 1:21). Benjamin did nothing to take the fortress of Zion: Joseph went up to Luz, and God was with him (Jdg. 1:22). This remark had been impossible, if, as has been frequently assumed, the tribe of Joseph had arbitrarily appropriated to itself the city which had been promised to Benjamin. The view of ancient Jewish expositors, who assume a Bethel in the valley and one on the mountain, does not differ from that here suggested. Robinson seems to have established the position of the ancient Bethel near the present Beitn, where scattered ruins occupy the surface of a hill-point. A few minutes to the north-east, on the highest spot of ground in the vicinity, are other ruins, erroneously supposed to be Ai by the natives: these also, perhaps, belonged to Bethel. It cannot, however, be said that until Robinson this position was entirely unknown. Eshtori ha-Parchi, who in his time found it called Bethai, the I having fallen away, was evidently acquainted with it. In another work of the fourteenth century, the then current name of Bethel is said to be Bethin. [Cassel, Langes Com.]
Jos. 16:10.THE WEAKNESS AND INCONSISTENCY OF UNBELIEF.
I. A stronghold thought by Gods people to be too strong for them to subdue, notwithstanding Divine promises to the contrary.
II. A stronghold which, it is pretended, cannot be overcome, and yet is put under tribute.
III. A stronghold too strong for unbelieving men who might have had the help of omnipotence, and presently taken by foreign idolaters, and given to the nation. (Cf. 1Ki. 9:16.)
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
The Territory of the Children of Joseph Jos. 16:1-4
And the lot of the children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto the water of Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho throughout mount Beth-el,
2 And goeth out from Beth-el to Luz, and passeth along unto the borders of Archi to Ataroth,
3 And goeth down westward to the coast of Japhleti, unto the coast of Beth-horon the nether, and to Gezer: and the goings out thereof are at the sea.
4 So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance.
1.
Who were the children of Joseph) Jos. 16:1
Joseph had two childrenManasseh, the first-born; and Ephraim, his younger brother. In Joshuas day, the members of the two tribes are described as the children of Joseph. These two sons were born to Joseph while he was in Egypt. Joseph married Asenath, who was the daughter of the high priest of On (Gen. 41:45). On is called Heliopolis by the Greeks, and it was the city of the sun. Since the god who was symbolized by the sun to the Egyptians would be the chief god, it is believed that this was one of the chief religious cities of Egypt in Josephs day. When his sons were born, Joseph called his first-born Manasseh, a word that signifies forgetting. His reason for this was that God had made him forget all his toil and all his fathers house. He wanted to forget his fathers house because his brothers had sold him as a slave. Ephraim was named fruitful. Joseph named his boy this because he said God had made him to be fruitful in the land of his affliction.
2.
What was the southern border of the inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh? Jos. 16:2
The border on the south went from the Jordan River near Jericho up into the hill country around Beth-el and moved on west to the old site of Luz. From there, it dropped down into Joppa and out to the seacoast, This was also the northern border of the tribe of Benjamin and Dan. These tribes then were the southern neighbors of Ephraim. Dan was on the west and Benjamin on the east along the lower border of the children of Joseph. Beth-el was one of the most prominent points on the south border of Ephraim. This town was twelve miles from Jerusalem and on the right of the road between Jerusalem and Shechem. Ruins at this point bear the name Beitin. Luz was the old name of Beth-el, and the southern border of Ephraim ran along past the old town to Ataroth-adar. The border then went down to the territory possessed by the Japhletites, an ancient tribe who dwelt on the hills in the west part of Ephraims territory. Beth-horon lay on the boundary between Benjamin and Ephraim and was settled by the Kohathites. The upper village is some four miles from Gibeon, and marks the descent down into the Philistine plains. The border of the territory assigned to the children of Joseph finally reached to Gezer, a town that figured prominently in later Israelite history, and the site of which has recently been excavated by a number of capable archaeologists, including Professor Reuben Bullard of the Bible College of The Cincinnati Bible Seminary. Finally, the southern border reached to the Mediterranean Sea.
3.
Who were the Archites? Jos. 16:2 b
The Archites are a family of people otherwise unknown except for this reference here. They evidently lived on the south border of Ephraim between Beth-el and Ataroth. Hushai, the beloved counselor of David, was an Archite (2Sa. 15:32; 2Sa. 16:16; 2Sa. 17:5; 2Sa. 17:14). Any village which belonged to them is not known, their settlement having been lost in the passage of time.
4.
Where is Gezer? Jos. 16:3
Gezer stands right on the edge of the northern promontory of Japhleti and overlooks all of the plain of Sharon and on out to the Mediterranean Sea. It is about one half of the distance between Joppa and Jerusalem and was a very important outpost in the defenses of the land of Canaan. The site was excavated in modern times by Dr. MacAlester, and later by a team under the auspices of Hebrew Union College. Gates built in the time of Solomon have been discovered, and a worship area dating back into the third millenium before Christ is also in evidence.
5.
What was the western border of the children of Joseph? Jos. 16:3 b
The western border of the territory of the children of Joseph was the Mediterranean Sea. The scripture says, the goings out thereof are at the sea (Jos. 16:3 b). No western border is given in so many words, but it goes without saying that the Mediterranean Sea was the western border of both Ephraim and Manasseh. The southern border was given since this divided the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh from the territory of all the other tribes to the south. In giving the border of the children of Ephraim, the author makes it clear that the territory was divided between the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. The northern border of the tribe of Manasseh is given in the next chapter.
6.
Why did Manasseh and Ephraim receive their inheritance together? Jos. 16:4
Since both Ephraim and Manasseh were sons of Joseph, they were given a single portion of land. This portion was then divided between them. In addition, Manasseh also was divided with part of his descendants living east of the Jordan while others lived west of the Jordan. In receiving this double portion of land, Joseph indeed became a fruitful bough by a fountain; his branches ran over the wall (Gen. 49:22).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XVI.
INHERITANCE OF JOSEPHi.e., of Ephraim and Manasseh (Jos. 16:1 to Jos. 18:1, inclusive).
(1) The lot of the children of Joseph.The order of precedence among the tribes of Israel was always Judah first and the sons of Joseph second. In the words of 1Ch. 5:2, Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Josephs. Accordingly in the division of the land of Canaan under Joshua, there are three successive stages: first, the settlement of the tribe of Judah in the strongholds of the south of Palestine; secondly, the establishment of Ephraim and Manasseh in the centre of the country, and in some strong positions towards the north; thirdly, the settlement of the remaining tribes, so as to fill up the gaps left between Judah and Joseph, and also upon the outskirts of their territory, so as to be, as it were, under the shadow of their wings.
In the inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh we observe some features which distinguish this description from that of Judahs inheritance in Joshua 15. The boundaries of the territory are given, but there is no catalogue of cities. There is also another peculiarity: the tribe of Ephraim is interlocked with the tribe of Manasseh, and the tribe of Manasseh again with Issachar and Asher, by the possession of cities in the territory of these other tribes.
(1-3) Comp. Jos. 18:12-14. The south border of Joseph was the north border of Benjamin. (See Conders Bible Handbook, p. 260, and Ordnance Map, sheets 14, 15, and 18)
Archi is Ain Ark (sheet 14).
Ataroth is Ed-Drieh (sheet 18).
Japhleti is not identified.
Beth-horon is Beit Ur.
Gezer is Tell Jezer.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
OUTLINE OF JOSEPH’S LOT, Jos 16:1-4.
[Chapters 16 and 17 belong together, and describe the allotment made to the house of Joseph, composed of the two powerful tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. “We are so familiar,” says Stanley, “with the supremacy of the tribe of Judah, that we are apt to forget that it was of comparatively recent date. For more than four hundred years a period equal in length to that which elapsed between the Norman Conquest and the Wars of the Roses Ephraim, with its two dependent tribes of Manasseh and Benjamin, exercised undisputed pre-eminence. Joshua, the first conqueror; Gideon, the greatest of the judges, whose brothers were ‘as the children of kings,’ and whose children all but established hereditary monarchy in their own line; Saul, the first king, belonged to one or the other of these three tribes.
“It was not till the close of the first period of Jewish history that God ‘ refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: but chose the tribe of Judah, even the Mount Zion which he loved.’ Psa 78:67. That haughty spirit which could brook no equal or superior, which chafed against the rise even of the kindred tribe of Manasseh, in the persons of Gideon and Jephthah, (Jdg 8:1; Jdg 12:1,) and yet more against the growing dominion of Judah in David and Solomon, till it threw off the yoke altogether and established an independent kingdom, would naturally claim, and could not rightly be refused, the choicest portion of the land. ‘Blessed of the Lord be his land; for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, and for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, and for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth and the fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush, let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph.’ If Judah was the wild lion that guarded the south, and couched in the fastness of Zion, so Ephraim was to be the more peaceful but not less powerful buffalo, who was to rove the rich vales of Central Palestine, and defend the frontier of the north. ‘His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns, (buffaloes;) with them shall he push the people together to the ends of the earth, and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.’” Deu 33:13-17.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1. Children of Joseph That is, Ephraim and the western half of Manasseh. Their lots were first drawn together that these brothers might be contiguous, but there was a subsequent division of their joint territory.
The lot fell Hebrew, went forth; that is, from the urn in which the lots were cast. See note on Jos 13:6. “It is remarkable that of the whole inheritance assigned to the children of Joseph only the southern boundary is given. But this may be explained partly on the ground that this double tribe had no definite boundary on the north, but merely had a number of cities allotted to them within the line which formed the boundary of Asher and Issachar, (Jos 17:10-11,) and partly from the fact that the Josephites did not expel the Canaanites from the northern part of the territory assigned them, but only gradually brought them into subjection and dwelt among them. Hence the limits of their land in this direction were not always the same; and at one time, when they expressed some discontent at the portion allotted to them, Joshua told them that they might enlarge their possessions if they could drive out the Canaanites. Jos 17:12-18.” Keil.
From Jordan by Jericho Literally, Jordan of Jericho; that is, a part of the Jordan directly opposite Jericho, and which might therefore be regarded as belonging especially to Jericho.
The water of Jericho This has been commonly understood of the fountain Es Sultan, a mile northwest of Riha, and probably the scene of Elisha’s miracle. 2Ki 2:19-22. As the border ran on the north side of Jericho, (Jos 18:12,) and on the east of the wilderness, (for so the Hebrew should here be rendered,) it seems to have turned northward from the water of Jericho, and went up so far as to include in Benjamin’s territory Zemaraim, the modern Es Sumra, about five miles north of Jericho. Accordingly we understand this border between Ephraim and Benjamin to have commenced at a point of the Jordan directly opposite Jericho, perhaps at the mouth of Wady Nawaimeh, and, running westward, fetched a curve near Jericho and its great fountain, thence, passing northward along the eastern side of the wilderness that stretches east of Beth-el, it went up to Es Sumrah, and then passed westward to Ophni, the modern Jifna, which was also assigned to Benjamin. Jos 18:24.]
The wilderness The wild region of country that lies on the east of Beth-el, and is called in Jos 18:12, the wilderness of Beth-aven.
Mount Beth-el The mountain range on which Beth-el was situated.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Chapter 16 The Lot For the Children of Joseph.
In this chapter the lot allocated to the children of Joseph, seen as one tribe and yet two, is described. It was the portion north of that of Benjamin and Dan. It was not necessary to deal with it in such detail because it was discernible from the boundaries of the other tribes. Their prospective possessions occupied the centre of Palestine, bounded on the north by the Plain of Esdraelon, and the territories of Asher and Issachar, and on the south by those of Dan (Jos 19:41-46) and Benjamin (Jos 18:11-28). No list of towns is given, possibly because of the stress on their need to clear the forest land (Jos 17:15-18). That was what they should have been concentrating on rather than towns. Furthermore their area included Shechem and its related towns which were probably to be left alone having joined the tribal confederacy. No suggestion was to be given that they had been possessed.
Jos 16:1
‘ And the lot for the children of Joseph went out from the Jordan at Jericho, at the waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness going up from Jericho through the hill country to Bethel.’
Once again the sacred lot was called on to determine the land allocated to Ephraim and Manasseh. Yet as the other large tribe, their activity in the Central Highlands was necessary. Thus did the sacred lot and what was necessary for success go hand in hand.
The border parallels that of Benjamin, but here was looking northward, commencing with ‘the Jordan of Jericho’, that part of the Jordan close to Jericho (compare Num 22:1). The ‘waters of Jericho on the east’ refers to some copious spring on the east of, and connected with, the wilderness going up from Jericho through the hill country to Bethel.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jos 16:10 And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute.
Jos 16:10
1Ki 9:15-17, “And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the LORD, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer. For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer , and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon’s wife. And Solomon built Gezer, and Bethhoron the nether,”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The General Boundaries of the Sons of Joseph
v. 1. And the lot of the children of Joseph fell, v. 2. And v. 3. and goeth down westward to the coast of Japhleti, v. 4. So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE INHERITANCE OF EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH.
Jos 16:1
Fell. Literally came forth, i.e; out of the urn. The water of Jericho. “This is the present fountain of es Sultan, half an hour to the west of Ribs, the only large fountain in the neighbourhood of Jericho, whose waters spread over the plain and form a small brook” (or small stream, according to Von Schubert),” which flows in the rainy season through the Wady Kelt into the Jordan” (Keil and Delitzsch). This spring, which rises amid the nebek trees and the wheat fields, “springs from the earth at the eastern base of a little knoll; the water is sweet, clear, and agreeable, neither cold nor warm” (Ritter). It flows, he adds, into a basin nine feet broad, in which many fish may be seen playing. This border coincides with the northern border of Benjamin (see Jos 18:11-20). Ritter mentions another spring, nearer to the Kuruntul or Quarantania range, and adds that, “under the wise management of an efficient government, and with the security of the district from the depredations of predatory savages, the oasis of Jericho might unquestionably resume the paradisaical aspect it once bore.” To the wilderness. Or, by or along the wilderness. The Hebrew requires some preposition to be supplied. This wilderness is the same as that spoken of as the wilderness of Bethaven in Jos 18:12. Throughout Mount Bethel. The Vulgate has, “to Mount Bethel.” The LXX. renders, “unto the hill country unto Bethel.” The Hebrew may be rendered, “along the hill country unto Bethel” (see Jos 18:12). The Syriac renders, “up to the mountain which goeth unto Bethel;” but we must understand this of a range of mountains, and then we can identify the border with the double rocky ridge which stretches from the Mons quarantania, of which we have already heard (Jos 2:1-24), and from the pool of Ain es Sultan, just mentioned, as far as Bethel.
Jos 16:2
From Bethel to Luz. Like Jerusalem and AElia Capitolina, or old and new Carthage, the new city did not coincide precisely in its site with the old one (see Jos 18:13; also Gen 28:19; Gen 35:6; Jdg 1:23). Bethel was probably built, as far as could be ascertained, on the spot near the Canaanitish city where the wanderer Jacob spent the night in which the famous vision appeared to him (see Gen 28:11). Knobel, however, renders literally, Bethel-Luzah, as though the older and later names had been here conjoined. The borders of Archi. Rather, the borders of the Archite (cf. 2Sa 15:32; 2Sa 16:16; 1Ch 27:33). This is the only clue we have to the residence or tribe of Hushai.
Jos 16:3
Japhleth. Rather, the Japhlethite; but it is unknown what this family was. Beth-horon the nether (see Jos 10:10). In Jos 16:5 we have Upper Beth-horon, but the places were close together. For Gezer; see Jos 10:33.
Jos 16:5
The border of the children of Ephraim. The Hebrew word is translated indifferently by coast and border in our translation. The border of Joseph is very slightly traced out by the historian. It is difficult to give a reason for this fact, when we remember that Joseph, consisting as it did of the preponderating tribe of Ephraim, together with half the tribe of Manasseh, constituted by far the most important portion of Jewish territory. See, however, Introduction for the bearing of this fact on the authorship of the book. It is by no means easy to define the boundaries of the tribes; but, with the utmost deference to the authority of one so long engaged in the actual survey of the Holy Land as Mr. Conder, I feel unable to accept the maps he has given us in his ‘Handbook’ as an accurate account of them. Sometimes, perhaps, an eager attempt at the identification of certain places may lead astray those who are most familiar with their subject. But there are certain plain statements of the Book of Joshua which cannot be lightly set aside. Thus the extremity () of the border of Ephraim is distinctly stated in verse 8 to be the sea. To translate “westward” would rob the expression of all meaning, even if had not the article. Thus Dan can only have approached towards Joppa, but cannot have reached it. And it will be observed in Jos 19:46, in accordance with this view, that the outgoings of the Danite border are not said to have been the sea. Next, it would seem that the Ataroth of Jos 19:2 (not of Jos 19:7) and Ataroth-addar are either the same place or close together, and that the present verse gives a small portion of the southeastern boundary as far as Beth-horon. Why the boundary is not traced out further (“the author only gives the western part of the southern border, and leaves out the eastern,” Knobel) we cannot tell, but the natural translation of Jos 19:6 is, “and the western border ran to Michmethah on the north” (so Knobel). There was so small a portion of Ephraim on the sea that the line of the Wady Kanah in a northeasterly direction to Michmethah, near Shechem, might be called a western, as it certainly was a northwestern, border. Then the border deflected () and ran in a southwesterly direction to Jericho. Manasseh seems to have been bounded by Asher on the north and Issachar on the east, from the borders of Asher to Michmethah, and its western boundary the sea from the Wady Kanah to the neighbourhood of Dor. It seems impossible, with the distinct statement that Dor was in Asher (Jos 17:11)it could hardly have been in Issacharand that Carmel was part of its western border (Jos 19:26), to thrust a wedge of Zehulun between Manasseh and Asher, as Mr. Conder has done. The invention of an Asherham-Michmethah must not be allowed to set aside the plain statement (Jos 17:10) that Manasseh impinged () upon Asher in a northerly directionthat is, was bounded on the north by that tribe. Then, as Asher was the northern, so it would seem from the passage just cited that Issachar was, as has been suggested, the eastern boundary, and that Issachar was bounded by the Jordan eastward, Manasseh westward, and by Ephraim to the southwest, and some distance further south than is usually supposed. Yet Jos 17:11 must not he forgotten in fixing the boundary of Issachar (see note on Jos 19:17-23). Its northern border, comprehending Jezreel, and bounded by Tabor, was thrust in between Zebulun and Naphtali. Tabor was evidently the border of these three tribes. It is with much diffidence that I venture to offer these suggestions, hut they appear to have the sanction of the plain statements of the sacred writer. It would seem as though the comparative smallness of the territory assigned to Joseph led to the cession of some of the towns northward of the Wady Kanah by Manasseh to Ephraim, Manasseh receiving compensation by receiving Beth-shean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo from Issachar and Asher. The possession of Beth-shean by Manasseh may be due to the fact that the boundary of Manasseh ran along the chain of mountains bordering the great plain of Esdraelon, until it almost reached the Jordan. Additional reasons for entertaining these opinions will be given in the following notes. On the east side was Ataroth-addar. It is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that a passage has been omitted here by the transcriber. If so, it must have been at a very early period, since the LXX. shows no sign of it, save that some copies add “and Gezer.” But this is probably added from verse 3, and is in no sense an eastern border.
Jos 16:6
And the border went out towards the sea. Or, “and the western border.” On the north side. Or, “northward.” Apparently a line is drawn from the sea, which (Jos 16:3) is given as the termination of the southern boundary to Michmethah, near Shechem (Jos 17:7). Knobel thinks that Michmethah (the signification of which is perhaps hiding place) was upon the watershed, and thus served as a dividing point. Went about. Rather, deflected. The border ran m a northeasterly direction to Michmethah. It then bent back and ran in a southeasterly direction to Jericho.
Jos 16:7
Ataroth. Another Ataroth, on the northern border of Ephraim. The name, which signifies crowns is a common one (see Num 32:3, Num 32:34, Num 32:35; 1Ch 2:54). Came to Jericho. Or perhaps skirted Jericho. The word used (see note on Jos 16:5) is akin to the Latin pango and our impinge.
Jos 16:8
The border went out from Tappuah westward. This would seem to be a more minute description of the border line drawn from the sea to Michmethah above. Tappuah seems to have been near Mich-methah, and on the border (Jos 17:8) of Manasseh. According to Knobel, Tappuah signifies plain, which is a little inconsistent with his idea that Michmethah, close by, was the watershed. Tappuah elsewhere signifies apple. Unto the river Trench. The winter-bound torrent Kanah, so named from its reeds and canes, formed the border between Ephraim and Manasseh. And the goings out (literally, extremities) thereof were at the sea This is the only possible interpretation of the passage, in spite of the obscurity caused by the same word being used for “sea” and “west.”
Jos 16:9
And the separate cities. Literally, and the cities divided off. The word “were,” in our version, is misplaced. It should be read thus: “And there were cities divided off and assigned to the tribe of Ephraim in the midst of the inheritance of the sons of Manasseh” (see note on verse 5). This fact, together with the compensation given to Manasseh, may serve to explain the cohesion of the ten tribes in opposition to Judah. The boundaries of the latter tribe were more strictly defined, her attitude more exclusive. We may almost discern this in the prominence given to Judah in the present book. Ephraim, already enraged at the passing away of the pre-eminence from itself, which had not merely been predicted, but, as Jdg 8:1-3 and Jdg 12:1 show, had been actually enjoyed, was closely allied to Manasseh, and Manasseh to Issachar and Zebulun, by the arrangement we are considering. It would naturally be able, by its position and these circumstances, to combine together the rest of the tribe against the somewhat overbearing attitude of the tribe of Judah (see 2Sa 19:43).
Jos 16:10
And they drave not out. The Ephraimites soon grew slack in the fulfilment of the Divine command. There is a distinction, apparently, between this passage and Jos 15:63. There the tribe of Judah was unable to drive out the Jebusites from their stronghold, and no mention is made of tribute. Here the Ephraimites seem deliberately to have preferred the easier task of reducing the Canaanites to tribute to the sterner and more difficult task of destroying them utterly.
HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY
Jos 16:10
Canaanites still in the land.
I. CANAANITES STILL IN THE LAND WERE A WITNESS TO THE FAILURE OF THE JEWS TO ACCOMPLISH GOD‘S WILL. They may have failed
(1) from weakness and indolence,
(2) from mercenary motives, thinking to make profit out of the Canaanites with their tribute.
But these Canaanites were a cause of future trouble and a constant temptation to idolatry and immorality. We shall always suffer when we neglect God’s will for worldly convenience.
II. CANAANITES REMAINING IN THE LAND WERE AN INSTANCE OF THE MIXED CONDITION OF HUMAN SOCIETY. Wheat and tares grow together. The Church and the world are in close contact. It is dangerous to associate with evil company when we can avoid it (Psa 1:1). But it is also wrong for Christians to neglect their duty to the world in order to escape the contamination of the world’s wickedness.
III. CANAANITES REMAINING IN THE LAND WERE AN EXAMPLE OF A COMMON CAUSE OF NATIONAL WEAKNESS. Much of the trouble of the dark age of the Judges arose from this fact. A nation to be strong must be united as one body, and it can only be so united when there are common sympathies binding the people together. The government which is effected through the forcible subjugation of unwilling peoples must always rest on an unstable basis, and can never accomplish the highest good of the subject races. Therefore it should be the aim of a government to avoid, if possible, the conquest of new, unwilling subjects, to cultivate the affections of all classes beneath it, and to weld them together by just equality of administration, and the development of common interests. Where national assimilation is impossible it is better that a common government should not be attempted.
IV. CANAANITES REMAINING IN THE LAND WERE A TYPE OF SINS REMAINING IN THE HEART OF THE CHRISTIAN.
(1) Most of the land was conquered. The heart of the Christian is conquered by Christ. Christ sits enthroned there. Sin is dispossessed of the citadel.
(2) Canaanites still lurked in obscure corners of the land. Sin still lingers about the life of the Christian. It retains its old character unaltered, and must be regarded as dangerous (Rom 7:23).
(3) These Canaanites were so far subdued that they served under tribute. The sin that remains in the Christian’s heart no longer reigns there. It is a defeated enemy. It will be ultimately exterminated. The temptation to it may be converted into an instrument of wholesome discipline.W.F.A.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
2. The Territory of the Tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh
Joshua 16, 17
a. Its Boundaries
Jos 16:1-4
1And the lot of [for] the children [sons] of Joseph fell [came out] from [the] Jordan by Jericho, unto [at] the water of Jericho, on the east, to the wilderness which 2goeth up from Jericho throughout [on] Mount Beth-el, And goeth [and it went] out from Beth-el to Luz, and passeth [passed] along unto the border of Archi [the 3Archite] to Ataroth, And goeth [went] down westward to the coast [border] of Japhleti [the Japhletite], unto the coast [border] of Beth-horon the nether, and to 4Gezer: and the goings out thereof are [were] at the sea. So [And] the children [sons] of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance [possession].
b. Portion of the Tribe of Ephraim.
Jos 16:5-10
5And the border of the children [sons] of Ephraim [was] according to their families was thus [omit: was thus]: even [and] the border of their inheritance [possession] on the east side was Ataroth-addar, unto Beth-horon the upper; 6And the border went out toward the sea to Michmethah on the north side [so De Wette; Keil, and Fay: from Michmethah, northward]; and the border went about eastward unto Taanath-shiloh, and passed by it on the east [eastward] to Janohah. 7And it went down from Janohah to Ataroth, and to Naarath, and came to [struck or touched] Jericho, and went out at [the] Jordan. 8The border went out [went] from Tappuah westward unto the river [water-course of] Kanah; and the goings out thereof were at the sea. This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Ephraim by their families. 9And1 the separate cities for the children [sons] of Ephraim were among the inheritance of the children [sons] of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages. 10And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute [and they became tributary servants; LXX.: ].
c. Portion of the Tribe of Manasseh.
Chapter Jos 17:1-13
1There was also a lot [And there was the lot] for the tribe of Manasseh; for he was the first-born of Joseph; to wit, for Machir the first-born of Manasseh, the father of Gilead: [,] because he was a man of war, [;] therefore [and] he had Gilead and Bashan. 2There was also [And there was] a lot for the rest of the children [sons] of Manasseh by their families; for the children [sons] of Abiezer, and for the children [sons] of Helek, and for the children [sons] of Asriel, and for the children [sons] of Shechem, and for the children [sons] of Hepher, and for the children [sons] of Shemida: these were the male children of Manasseh the son of Joseph by their families. 3But [And] Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 4And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The Lord [Jehovah] commanded Moses to give us an inheritance [a possession] among our brethren: therefore [and] according to the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah] he gave them an inheritance [a possession] among the brethren of their father. 5And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which were on the other side [of the] Jordan; 6Because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance [possession] among his sons: and the rest of Manassehs sons had the land of Gilead.
7And the coast [border] of Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethah, that lieth before Shechem; and the border went along on the right hand [De Wette: towards the south] unto the inhabitants of En-tappuah. 8Now [omit: now] Manasseh had the land of Tappuah: but Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim: 9And the border descended unto the river [water-course of] Kanah [reeds; hence = Reed-brook], southward of the river [water-course]. These cities2 of Ephraim are among the cities of Manasseh: the coast [border] of Manasseh also was on the north side of the river [water-course], and the out-goings of it were at the sea: 10Southward it [the land] was Ephraims, and northward it was Manassehs, and the sea is [was] his border; and they met together in [touched, or struck upon] Asher on the north, and in [upon] Issachar on the east. 11And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher, Beth-shean and her towns [daughters], and Ibleam and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of Dor and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of En-Dor and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of Taanach and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns [daughters], even three countries [Gesen., Fay: the three heights, i.e. the three cities situated on heights. See the exegetical explanations. LXX.: . Vulg.: tertia pars. Luther: the third part of Napheth. De Wette: three 12portions of country (drei Landschaften); Bunsen: die Dreilandschaft]. Yet [And] the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of [could not conquer] 13those cities; but [and] the Canaanites would dwell in that land. Yet [And] it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen [became] strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute [made the Canaanites tributary servants]; but did not utterly drive them out, [De Wette, Fay: aber vertreiben thaten sie sie nicht; nearly the same as but drive them out they did not do; to express: ].
d. Complaint of the Sons of Joseph on Account of an insufficient Possession
Jos 17:14-18
14And the children [sons] of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit [as a possession], seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as [in so far as, ] the Lord [Jehovah] hath blessed me hitherto? 15And Joshua answered [said to] them, If thou be a great people, then [omit: then] get thee up to the wood-country [forest], and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants [Rephaim], if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee. 16And the children [sons] of Joseph said, The hill [mountain] is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of [in] Beth-shean and her towns 17[daughters], and they who are of [in] the valley of Jezreel. And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art a 18great people and hast great power, thou shalt not have one lot only: But the [a] mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood [forest], and thou shalt cut it down: and the out-goings of it [its outrunners, spurs] shall be thine: for thou shalt [wilt] drive out the Canaanites, though [for] they have iron chariots, and though they be [for they are] strong.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The two chapters, sixteen and seventeen, belong together, since they contain the statements concerning the territory of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph (Gen 41:50-52; Gen 46:20; Gen 48:5 ff.). The united inheritance of the two tribes includes a fruitful, for the most part, and pleasant country lying in the midst of western Palestine. It extends from the Jordan, and the eastern declivities of mount Ephraim (which are much less rough than the land of Judah), across to the seashore which borders the beautiful plain of Sharon. Of this entire district Ephraim received the southern portion, Manasseh (strictly speaking only the half-tribe of Manasseh, comp. Jos 13:29 ff.) the northern. Ephraim only, and he for a narrow space, touched the Jordan. See the often mentioned and very clear Map iii. of Menkes Bibel Atlas, and also Kieperts Wall Map. On the quality of the land comp. Robinson, iii., lect. xiv.; Ritter, xvi. 566 ff. [Gages transl. 4:293332]; von Raumer, pp. 4245; Furrer, pp. 211246; Robinson, Phys. Geog. pp. 3442 [Stanley, Sin. and Pal ch. v.].
a. Jos 16:1-4. Boundaries of the Entire Province. Jos 16:1. The lot came out, namely, from the urn. Bunsen rightly observes: From the ambiguity of the word lot, the passage might perhaps be paraphrased thus: The lot was drawn for the children of Joseph and to them fell, etc.
From the Jordan by Jericho,3 at the water of Jericho on the east. The water of Jericho is the fountain of Elisha (2Ki 2:19-22), now Ain es-Sultan, whose waters are diffused over the plain (Robinson, ii. 283 ff.). It gurgles forth beautifully from under the rocks, and forms, at the foot of the hill from which it comes, a beautiful basin of water densely surrounded by oleanders and reeds (Furrer, p. 150. [Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 300, et ibid. Van de Velde, in a note]). Somewhat to the north of this, the still larger fountain of Dk is met with, the waters of which, led along in canals, formerly turned several mills in the vicinity (Robinson, Furrer, [Stanley]). The border began at the lower Jordan, and went thence to the fountain of Elisha. This, accordingly, the region of the Jordan opposite Jericho, is its eastern starting point or, more correctly, place. Hence it passed into the wilderness which goes up if from Jericho on the mountain of Beth-el. The region intended here is what in Jos 18:12 is called the wilderness of Beth-aven, which city appears from Jos 7:2. to have lain east of Beth-el. On the mountain of Beth-el. which the Masoretes separate from is yet, and notwithstanding the LXX., Chald., and Arab. versions repeat this view, undoubtedly to be connected with , according to 1Sa 13:2, and to be pointed . So the Vulg.: ad montem Bethel, and Syriac (Keil). The mountain about Bethel is meant.
Jos 16:2. And it went out (the border) from Beth-el to Luz. Hebr. . The words must either be translated, as we have done, with the LXX., Luther, De Wette, [Eng. vers.] Keil, Bunsen, in which case Beth-el stands, as Bunsen also supposes, for mountain of Beth-el; or, as Knobel among others prefers: and it went out from Bethel-luzah. In this translation Knobel (1) follows in Jos 16:1, the Masoretic pointing , (2) assumes in Jos 16:2 a union of the old and new names, quite contrary to the usage of our author, who, when a city had two names places one after the other connected by , as he does e.g. (Jos 18:13) in the case even of Beth-el and Luz (Keil). Other examples are Jos 15:14; Jos 15:49; Jos 15:54 (Joshua 16:59, LXX.), 60. See more concerning Beth-el and Luz on Jos 18:12-13. From Luz, i.e. Beth-el (Jos 18:13), it went, and on the south side of this city (Jos 18:13), unto the border of the Archite to Ataroth. Hushai was an Archite (2Sa 15:32; 2Sa 16:16; 1Ch 27:33). Where his possession lay is to be determined from Ataroth, concerning which see on Jos 18:13.
Jos 16:3. Thence it went down westward to the border of the Japhletite, unto the border of Beth-horon, the nether, and to Gezer; and the goings out thereof were at (or, toward) the sea. The border followed from Bethel toward Ataroth a northerly, then a southwestern, and finally a decidedly western course (see the map). The Japhletite (), only here as a patronymic; the prop. name (whom He, i.e. God saves, Gesen.), 1Ch 7:32-33. On Beth-horon comp. partly Jos 10:10, partly Jos 18:13. Gezer (), as the seat of a Canaanite king mentioned already Jos 10:33; Jos 12:12; according to Jos 21:21; 1Ch 6:52, a city of the priests; not yet discovered by modern travellers. Knobel seeks the city northwest of Beth-horon, where Menke has introduced the name. Comp. also von Raumer, p. 191, and his map, where he also has placed it northwest of Beth-horon.
Jos 16:4. North of the line indicated Ephraim and Manasseh took their possession. It is therefore only the south line of both tribes, which is at the same time the north line of Benjamin, and as such is given in inverse order as before mentioned, in Jos 18:12-13.
b. Jos 16:5-10. The Province of the Tribe of Ephraim. Jos 16:5. The south border is first given. Ataroth-addar appears as the starting-point, identical, according to Jos 18:13, with our Ataroth, Jos 16:2. Assuming this, the author notices only the western half of the south border, and omits the eastern half, for Beth-horon, whether the upper as here, to the lower as mentioned in Jos 16:2, lies west, or more accurately still, southwest of Ataroth-addar. We might, it is true, and Knobel proposes this as an alternative, read , and understand the Ataroth mentioned Jos 16:7, which would then make the eastern part of the south border to be drawn. But in that case, or would, it seems to us, be inserted between the two names. The first supposition therefore appears preferable, according to which we are to understand that the south border of Ephraim in its western half is specified from Ataroth-addar to Beth-horon. But even thus we have not, if we compare Jos 16:3, this western half of the line at all complete; for from Jos 16:3, the border proceeds still to Gezer, nay even to the sea. And the LXX. have here after Beth-horon . Perhaps this, as well as what is mentioned besides, Jos 16:3, has here fallen out. At all events we have, as Jos 16:6 will show, to deal with a corrupt text, in which the first words of Jos 16:6 to and including might easily have formed the conclusion of ver 5, to which they would admirably suit. [Verse 5 would thus endBeth-horon, the upper; and the border went out to the sea]. Then the south border at least of Ephraim, from Ataroth-addar to the sea, would be completely given.
Jos 16:6. Keil says, in reference to this verse: With Jos 16:6 I know as little as my predecessors how to begin. It would appear that Jos 16:6-8 should give the northern boundary of the land of Ephraim, and that from a central point, in Jos 16:6-7 toward the east, then in Jos 16:8 toward the west, as analogous to which, Knobel, who shares this view, adduces the south boundary of Zebulun, Jos 19:10-12, and the division of the places of Benjamin, Jos 18:21-28, as also the west border of Naphtali, Jos 19:33 ff. In this view, however, as Keil further remarks, the first clause of Jos 16:6 is perfectly inexplicable, and must be corrupt. Perhaps there originally stood on the north the border went out from Michmethah, for according to Jos 17:7, the border of Manasseh went from Asher to Michmethah. It seems to us still better to assume that it originally stood:
.
If that were so it is obvious that the twice recurring (namely, at the end of Jos 16:5, and at the beginning of Jos 16:6), must have fallen away once. Let us now by this extension of Keils very appropriate correction restore the text, and we gain a reading at least in some degree acceptable, by which (1) Jos 16:5 receives a good ending, and (2) Jos 16:6 an intelligible beginning, and the whole would mean thus: And the border went out seaward, i.e. toward the west, from Michmethah on the north side, i.e. north of Michmethah. Michmethah (LXX.: ) lay according to Jos 17:7, east from Shechem. See further on Jos 17:7. Thus we should have given the starting-point of the eastern half of the northern boundary of Ephraim, as lying north of Michmethah in the west of the land. But then, it proceeds, the border went about eastward unto Taanath-shiloh, and passed by it on the east to Janohah.Taanath-shiloh, now Tana, Ain Tana, a place of ruins, southeast of Nablus (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 2954). Janoah, according to the Onom. s. v. , Janon, twelve miles, i.e. near three hours east of Neapolis, now a ruin, Janun, somewhat over two hours southeast of Nablus, Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 297 (Knobel). The border, accordingly, went from Michmethah to Janohah in a southeast direction, as Menke has indicated.
Jos 16:7. From Janohah it went down to Ataroth, and to Naarath, and came to (struck) Jericho, and went out at the Jordan. Keil holds this Ataroth to be the same as Ataroth, Jos 16:2, Ataroth-addar (Jos 16:5; Jos 18:13), thus making it the Atara discovered by Robinson (iii. 80, not that mentioned ii. 315), one and a half hours southwest of Jiljilieh, as Robinson himself also believes. Knobel explains that our Ataroth here in Jos 16:7 cannot be identified, but must certainly, from have lain nearer the Jordan, possibly one of the two Ataroths which the Onom., s. h. v., refers to in the district of Jerusalem. We shall come upon the question again, Jos 18:13. Naarath = Naaran, 1Ch 7:28, in the east of Ephraim. Onom.: Naorath villa, in quinto milliario Jerichus, i.e. two hours from Jericho (Keil, Knobel, von Raumer, p. 215). Struck Jericho, i.e. the territory of Jericho which city, according to Jos 18:21, belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. The border of Ephraim thus touched the northern side of this territory, comp. Jos 18:12.
Jos 16:8. Now follows the western half of the north border of Ephraim, described as follows: From Tappuah the border goes () westward to the water-course of Kanah, and the goings out thereof were at [to] the sea. Tappuah, distinct from the Tappuah (Jos 15:34) and Beth-tap-puah (Jos 15:53), in Judah, concerning the etymology of which we have already spoken; the residence of a Canaanite king (Jos 12:24). Its site is doubtful. Knobel: Probably Kefr Kud with its important well, by which the great road from Beisan and Zerin passes toward Ramleh (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 121 ff.) as in the Roman times a military road passed from Cesara to Scythopolis past Capercota (Tab. Peuting. ix. f., in Menke, Map vi. where an extract from the Tab. Peuting. is found). The fact that the place is called (Jos 17:7) , while Kefr Kud has a valuable well, would seem to favor the identity of the two places; but it may be maintained on the other hand, (1) that Kefr Kud lies too far north on the border of Manasseh toward Issachar, while it should lie on the border of Manasseh toward Ephraim (see Menkes Map viii. compared with Map iii); (2) that the old name does not at all appear in the present name Kefr Kud. This is true rather of the present Belad (land) Tafua northeast of Shechem, toward which von Raumer, though not without hesitation, inclines. We hear of a land of Tappuah in Jos 17:8 as the district belonging to En-tappuah. Van de Velde (Mem. p. 357) holds it to be Atuf, four hours E. N. E. of Shechem. Very improbable. Hence we decide for Belad Tafua, against which Keil brings the objection, that this opinion does not agree with the (ch Jos 17:7), and therefore he concludes that here also the text is corrupt. See further on Jos 17:7, where we must at all events return again to this passage. Water-course of Kana (Reed-brook), see Jos 17:9.
Jos 16:9. To this province belong also the cities separated in the land of Manasseh for the children of Ephraim, of which, however, only Tappuah is mentioned Jos 17:8. Instead of the elsewhere unheard of , Knobel proposes to read : Gesen. . Maurer and Keil regard it as a substantive formed after the analogy of ,, and other words. Maurer translates loca selecta. To me the change of Chireq into Kibbuts, as proposed by Gesen., appears the most simple, and thus we have a part. Hophal.
Jos 16:10. An addition similar to Jos 15:63. They became tributary servants ( ). In Gen 49:15 the same expression is used concerning Issachar. According to 1Ki 9:16, Pharaoh, in the beginning of the reign of Solomon, took Gezer, burned the city and drove out of it the Canaanites. Hence the LXX. add to our verse: (. ) , (. ) . Manifestly transferred ad libitum from 1Ki 9:16. Knobel, Gen 49:15, translates , er ward zu Frohn des Arbeiters, i.e. he fell under tributary labor, as he himself further on explains. Lange, more poetically and more clearly: He is become subject to tributary service. We render the phrase here in prose, with De Wette subject to tributary service. The common rendering: subject to tribute which Bunsen still retains, gives the erroneous idea that the Canaanites had to pay a tribute in money, like the tributary states in the Turkish empire. The expression is used elsewhere, with the exception of Gen 49:15, of the Canaanites who became subject to the Hebrews (as Jos 17:13; 1Ki 9:21; Jdg 1:28; Jdg 1:33), and of prisoners taken in war whom the Hebrews made slaves (Deu 20:11; Isa 31:8) (Knobel). Comp. also Keil on Kings, pp. 44 and 67 [Germ.].
c. Jos 17:1-13. Portion of the Tribe of Manasseh. The description of this province by its boundaries, beginning Jos 17:7, is preceded by some genealogical notices concerning the families of the tribe. Of these that of Machir had already received its territory beyond the Jordan.
Jos 17:1. And there was the lot for the tribe of Manasseh. After it had fallen to Ephraim, Manassehs turn came. These introductory words refer only to the country allotted to this tribe west of the Jordan (Jos 17:7-13). This lay north of the possession of Ephraim in a fertile and beautiful region.
For he was the first-born of Joseph,Gen 41:51; Gen 48:14. Keil: the is not to be pressed, and the whole remark is made only with reference to the following genealogical statements. Better Knobel: Wherefore (because he was Josephs first-born) he received yet a possession in Canaan also, the land of the fathers, Gods land. is placed first and is afterwards taken up by after , thus: To Machir. (and) to him fell Gilead and Bashan. Why is stated in the parenthetical clause, because he was a man of war, Num 32:29 ff. This portion of the tribe, the author would have us understand, had nothing to receive west of the Jordan. They had their part already on the east side.
Jos 17:2. The other sons of Manasseh follow, to whom the lot fell in west Palestine. They are mentioned in Num 26:30-32, where instead of stands . By an error of transcription, as Keil conjectures, the appears to have fallen out. Instead of to read , as Knobel proposes, is not justifiable; rather, since in genealogies may indicate all (male and female) posterity, while here, in what follows, female descendants also are mentioned, the is added for perspicuity (Keil).
Jos 17:3. It had been stated also in Num 26:33 that Zelophehad,5 the son of Hepher, had no sons but only daughters. Zelophehad himself, according to Num 27:3, had died in the wilderness, but the daughters declare it an injustice (Num 27:4) that their fathers name should perish, and that too when he had not been of those that rose up against the Lord in the company of Korah. Moses agrees with them, and at their request grants their wish, an inheritance among their brothers. By this the name of Zelophehad was preserved, which could not have been the case without the possession of an estate to which the name of the original proprietor attached. The law which governed the case is found in Num 27:8-11 (compared with Num 36:6-10), occasioned by this occurrence. They were accordingly heir daughters, comp. Knobel on Num 27:1 ff.
Jos 17:4. Now, since the land was divided, they claim their right, appealing to the command of God through Moses. Eleazar and Joshua without objection immediately promise what they desire.
Jos 17:5-6. According to this the inheritance coming to the Manassites had to be divided into ten parts, since the male posterity fell into five families, and so received five parts, while the sixth family, that of Hepher, was divided again into five families, through his grand-daughters, the five daughters of Zelophehad, who married men of the other families of their paternal tribe (Num 36:1-10), and received each her special share of the land (Keil). Because, therefore, the daughters, as heirs, obtained their possession among the male descendants of Manasseh, the inheritance in western Palestine must need be divided into ten parts, while the land of Gilead went to the remaining Manassites. The genealogy is for the rest by no means clear. Comp. Knobel on Num 26:29-34; Keil on Jos 17:1 of this chapter.
Jos 17:7-13. Portion of the Western Branch of the Tribe of Manasseh. The author gives the boundary again from east to west, as in the case of Judah (Jos 15:2 ff.), the sons of Joseph (Jos 16:1 ff.) and Benjamin (Jos 18:12 ff.). So the author of the Apocalypse also names the gates of the New Jerusalem, beginning from the east (Rev 21:13), and Ezekiel designates the several tribe divisions in like manner from east to west (Eze 48:1 ff.).
And the border of Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethah, that lieth before Shechem; and the border went along on [toward] the right hand unto the inhabitants of En-tappuah. What border is meant, the north or south? Knobel thinks the former, Keil and Bunsen the south border. The starting-point lies unquestionably in the east. Asher (), fifteen Roman miles from Shechem toward Bethshean (Scythopolis), perhaps Teyasir (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 306 f.), or Jafir (Van de Velde, ii. 295, apud. von Raumer, p. 148). This however is not certain, but only so far sure that Asher is to be sought, according to the statement of the Onom., on the road from Shechem to Bethshean, hence in the eastern part of the territory of Manasseh.
Thence the border goes to Michmethah which we have already met with at Jos 16:5. This Michmethah (, perhaps hiding-place, from , Gesen.) lay, as our passage would indicate, before, i.e. according to the customary use of , east or northeast of Shechem, unless, as Knobel assumes, is to be taken here in reference to a more remote distance = , Deu 11:30. In this case, Kubatijeh (on Menkes Map viii. written Kabatijeh) or Kabaat (Buckingham, Syria, i. p. 453), Kabate in Seetzen (ii. p. 166), lying exactly north of Shechem, on the road from Shechem to Jenin would in his view offer itself for comparison. The etymological relationship of the two words is thus established by Knobel: doubtless is to be regarded, with the LXX. as the plural of a sing. , for which they may probably have used also (see on Jos 12:18). Then, since m and b are frequently interchanged (see on Jos 3:16), the present name of the place agrees, etc. Against this we would oppose the following considerations: (1) It appears to us that the operation by which the relationship between the names Michmethah and Kubatijeh, or Kabaat, or Kabate, is attempted to be proved, is an exceedingly violent one. (2) In Deu 11:30 does indeed stand for a northwest direction, but it is precisely that stands there, meaning, in a quite general way, over against, and not the more definite concerning which Knobel himself admits that in geographical statements it is certainly for the most part to the east,precisely in the same way, Knobel might have added, as is the case with (Gen 23:17; Gen 25:18; Deu 32:49). (3) If Michmethah is to be sought so far north, then Jos 16:6, where it is brought in to determine the north border of Ephraim which lies south of Manasseh, is inexplicable. Rather may it be said, that (a) the statement of this passage: and (b) the proximity indicated, Jos 16:6, of Taanath-shiloh, which is now recognized in Ain Tana [?], go to show that Michmethah is to be looked for east or northeast of Shechem, perhaps, also, on the road to Bethshean, where Kiepert, indeed (on the large map, 3d and most recent edition, 1866), although with a mark of interrogation, and Menke (Map iii.) have inserted the name. But if this is correct we have here not the north border of Manasseh, hut the south, the same which is given, Jos 16:5 ff., as the north boundary of Ephraim; and there lies before us precisely the same case of the double registry of the same line as between our two tribes and Benjamin (Jos 16:1-4 compared with Jos 18:12-13) on one side, and between Judah and Benjamin (Jos 15:5 ff; Jos 18:15 ff.) on the other. But as regards the north border of Manasseh, it as well as the east border is given in common for both tribes in the second half of Jos 17:10.
Shechem, , now Nablus or Nabulus, having, like Jerusalem, Gibeon, and Jericho, had several names between the times of the patriarchs and of Christ (Gen 12:6; Joh 4:5), lies on the watershed ( = back) between the Mediterranean and the Jordan Valley (Furrer, pp. 237, 238), in a lovely, richly favored valley between Ebal and Gerizim, surrounded by gardens in which nature has prodigally scattered her richness (Furrer, p. 234). See the fresh and beautiful description in Furrer, p. 230 ff.; comp. further, von Raumer, p. 161 ff.; Rob. iii. p. 95 ff. [Tristram, 141 ff.; Stanley, S. & P., 229 ff.]. Shechem has at present about eight thousand inhabitants. From Michmethah the border went to the right () unto the inhabitants of en-Tappuah. According to this, en-Tappuah or Tappuah (Jos 16:8) lay south of Michmethah, and hence also south or southwest of Shechem. But Balad Tafuah (comp. on Jos 16:8) lies rather northeast of Shechem. How then should the border go thence toward the right, i.e., southwardly? May not, perhaps, an escape be found from the obscurity (undeniably very great6) of this passage in the fact that it reads, not unto en-Tappuah, but only unto the inhabitants of Tappuah? Although then Tappuah itself had lain northeast of Shechem, we might still imagine that the territory of this royal city of the Canaanites (Jos 12:17) had stretched toward the south or southwest. With Knobel, who everywhere here supposes that he has the north boundary line before him, it all goes beautifully. For him the line runs from Asher to Kubatijeh, from Kubatijeh to Jamun (, in spite of the article, is taken as a proper name = Yamon, Rob. iii. pp. 161, 167), and from Jamun to Kefr Kud. But we repeat, that we are not now concerned with the north limit of Manasseh, but its southern, toward Ephraim. [So Mr. Grove, also, Dict. of the Bible, art. Manasseh, p. 1770 c, although he thinks it doubtful whether the portions of Ephraim and Manasseh were intended to be effectually separated, and that, if they were, no clear line of division can now be made out.Tr.]
Jos 17:8. Another notice of Tappuah, purporting that the land of Tappuah went to Manasseh, the city to Ephraim. The latter possessed, according to Jos 16:9, still other places in Manasseh. Kiepert has inserted Tappuah on the map northwest of Shechem and Michmethah, but with a mark of interrogation. Menke assigns it the same position, perhaps with reference to the brook of reeds mentioned (Jos 16:8), which we here find again in Jos 17:9.
Jos 17:9. And the border descended unto the watercourse Kanah, southward of the watercourse. In Jos 16:8, it reads: From Tappuah the border goes westward toward the Reed-brook, and its out-goings were at the sea. Keil supposes this brook to be the Abu Zabura, which Knobel also mentions at first, although he immediately afterward refers to the Nahr el-Kassab. Von Raumer decides for the latter (p. 51) with greater positiveness, because the old name Reed-brook has been preserved in Nahr el-Kassab. But Nahr el-Kassab is the same stream which on Kieperts wall-map appears as Nahr el-Falik (Van de Velde: Falaik), which Kiepert with von Raumer holds to be the Reed-brook (brook of Cana). The border extended south of the brook to the sea, i.e., the Mediterranean sea ( Jos 16:8), which Jerome strangely regards as being the mare salsissimum!
These cities belonged to Ephraim among the cities of Manasseh. Thus Jos 16:9 is more exactly defined, These cities. Which cities? It is indeed said further: and the border of Manasseh was north of the brook, but the definition is made no clearer thereby. The sense can hardly be other than what Masius long ago expressed: Funiculus, qui discernabat fratrum istorum possessiones, ambiebat ille quidem torrentem Cannosum ( ) a meridie atque eum attribuebat Manassensibus; verumtamen urbes, qu illi torrenti ab austro adjacebant, etsi essent reipsa intra Manassensium posit terminos, nihilominus jure fuerunt Ephraimitarum; qu vero a septentrione torrentis exstabant, eas obtinebant Manassenses. For in Jos 17:10 we read still more plainly: Southward (from the brook it, the land, was) Ephraims, and northward (of the same) it was Manassehs; and the sea was his border (toward the west). Knobel would, according to Jos 16:9, read for ; but this is not strictly necessary.
Jos 17:10. South of the Reed-brook the land is here said to have belonged to Ephraim, north of it to Manasseh, a boundary line as simple as could be. Knobel here comes into perplexity, out of which he would escape by supposing that the north border of Manasseh cuts through the Reed-brook, while the north border of Ephraim comes to it, so that the territory of Manasseh there formed a point!And the sea was his border. Both divisions had the sea on the west, one (Ephraim) south of the Reed-brook, the other (Manasseh) north of it. The account of the north boundary for both in common follows (comp. Jos 16:1 ff.). They struck upon () Asher on the north, i.e., on the north side (Jos 19:26). The description of the province concludes with the eastern limit; on Issachar on the east (Jos 19:17). The two tribes were bounded, therefore, (1) on the east by Issachar; (2) on the north by Asher; (3) on the west by the sea; (4) on the south by Benjamin and Dan. Between them they had a division line which is twice referred to, (a) Jos 16:6 ff., (b) in our chapter, Jos 17:7-10; but unfortunately in neither place with such clearness as marks the description e.g. of the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Jos 15:8 ff.). A separate border of Manasseh on the north, such as Knobel assumes, we cannot find given in the text.
Jos 17:11-13. Six cities are enumerated which Manasseh received beyond his own country, in Issachar and Asher, without, however, being able to expel the Canaanites from them. At a later period having become stronger, they were content to make them tributary servants (Jos 17:13). The same report is found again (Jdg 1:27 ff.), where, however, Endor is omitted.
The word reminds us of Jos 15:47. Knobel7 finds here the second document of the Jehovist.
Jos 17:11. Beth-shean (, i.e., house of rest, now Beisan,in an expansion of the Jordan Valley, which is bounded on the west by the low ridge of Mount Gilboa. At the present day ruins of an ancient Roman theatre are found here, but only about seventy or eighty miserable buts for the two hundred actual inhabitants. It stands about four hours from Tiberias, on the road from Jerusalem to Damascus (von Raumer, p. 150; Rob. iii. 174 ff.). The Philistines hung on its walls the dead body of Saul (1Sa 31:10). It was afterward called Scythopolis (see Herod, i. 104106, in regard to the origin of the name). From the summit of Gilboa, two thousand two hundred feet high, Furrer (p. 260) saw a green plain lying at his feet on the east, out of which rose the black tents of the Bedouin camps, like dark patches, on the green. The plain extends downward to the Jordan, and he was able to follow its picturesque windings to a considerable distance. There, not far from the river, Furrer proceeds, Beisan must lie, although I could not discern itthe ancient Bethshean on whose walls the Philistines once hung the dead body of Saul. [Comp. Tristrams account of Beisan, p. 504 ff.]
Ibleam, where Ahaziah was mortally wounded (2Ki 9:27), a Levitical city (Jos 21:25), perhaps, as Knobel supposes, Jelameh, Jelamah between Zerin and Jenin (Rob. iii. 161). The accusative ( ) which follows is remarkable, since the sentence had begun with . It is most simply explained by a change of construction, perhaps occasioned by the fact that , which governs the accusative, is used in verse 12; to which may be added that in Jdg 1:27, the whole statement begins with . Nor should it be overlooked, that instead of the cities the inhabitants whom Manasseh could not drive out are mentioned.
Dor, Jos 11:2; Jos 12:23.
En-dor ( ), four Roman miles south of Tabor, according to the Onom. (von Raumer, p. 125), near the northern slope of the Jebel Dachi (Duhy, little Hermon), which rises in yellow nakedness over against Tabor (Furrer, p. 308; Rob. p. 171 f.). Endor was the abode of the woman with a familiar spirit, whom Saul consulted (1Sa 28:9), but is also celebrated (Psa 83:11) as the scene of the victory in which the Midianites were destroyed. In the parallel passage (Jdg 1:27 ff.) Endor is not mentioned. Taanach, Jos 12:21. Megiddo, Jos 12:21.
The three heights ( ; LXX., ; Vulg., tertia pars urbis Naphet). What is intended is the three cities lying on hills: Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo, a Tripolis of mountain cities in distinction from the places on the plain: Bethshean, Ibleam, and Dor. The author might have called the latter also a , a , using in the general sense of plain, and not in the definite geographical signification which in this book it everywhere bears, as e.g., in Jos 15:33.
Jos 17:12. The Manassites, however, were not in a condition to expel the population from the cities named, so that the Canaanites, according to their will and pleasure, dwelt in this district (Knobel). The will and pleasure is right vividly expressed by the plastic (Jos 7:7; Exo 2:21).
Jos 17:13. But when the Israelites became strong () they made the Canaanites tributary servants (comp. Jos 10:10), but drive them out they did not. We allow ourselves this translation, after the example of De Wette, to indicate in English something of the effect of the emphatic .
d. Jos 17:14-18. Complaint of the Children of Joseph that their Possession is insufficient. An old, original fragment, and a beautiful, historical trait in the character of Joshua. The unselfish Joshua was himself of Ephraim, Num 13:8; Num 13:16 (Bunsen). As the history of Achsah (Jos 15:13-19), occurring in the midst of the boundary descriptions of Judah, and catalogues of its cities, makes a very refreshing impression on the laborious explorer of these records, so this narrative awakens similar emotions. The children of Joseph, i.e., probably the patriarchs of the tribe, came complaining before their fellow-tribesman Joshua, to whom they had trusted for a better guardianship of their interests. Why, they ask, hast thou given me but one lot and one portion, as a possession, when I am a great people, in so far as Jehovah hath blessed me hitherto. Joshua, by no means disposed to grant special favors to his own tribe, demands of them to use their strength, to go up into the forest, to clear it out, and establish for themselves new abodes there among the Perizzites and the Rephaim. When they (Jos 17:16) show little inclination to this course, and at the same time intimate that they cannot spread themselves further in the plain because of the formidableness of the Canaanites who dwell there, Joshua (Jos 17:17) still remains firm. In both his replies (Jos 17:15; Jos 17:17) he betrays a touch of irony, as if he would say: Yes, it is true, thou art a numerous people, and hast great strength, and oughtest therefore to have more than one share. But seek to procure this second portion thyself! Rely on thy own power! Cut down the forest! Behold thou wilt drive out the Canaanites; it is precisely thy task to conquer those that have iron chariots and are mighty; no other tribe can do it. Of the manner in which Ewald (ii. 315317, 2d [Germ.] ed.) treats this narrative, we shall have occasion to speak further on.
Jos 17:14. As here, so also Jos 16:1 ff; Jos 17:10, the children of Joseph are taken together. They are regarded as one tribe, so to speak, the tribe of Joseph, as Rev 7:8. Comp. also passages like Amo 6:6; Psa 77:16; Psa 78:67; Psa 80:2; Psa 81:6; Eze 37:16; Eze 37:19.
One lot and one portion. and are synonymous and combined for greater emphasis. is the lot which is cast; the measuring line, then the measured inheritance (Keil). Comp. also Jos 17:5.
So far as (; not as Gesenius would have it, ; de gradu, Maurer) Jehovah hath blessed me hitherto (, de tempore, Maurer). A quite peculiar blessing had been promised to Joseph (Gen 49:25-26; Deu 33:13-17.
Jos 17:15. Joshuas answer. Get thee up intothe forest. The forest of the mountain of Ephraim and of its out-goings (Jos 17:18) is meant. That Mount Ephraim (mountain of Israel, Jos 11:16-21) was then covered with woods, is clear from 1Sa 14:25; 2Sa 18:6. Even the forest at Bethel, 2Ki 2:23-24, probably belonged (Winer, ii. 675) to the forest of Ephraim. And even at the present day, according to the uniform testimony of travellers, the heights of Mount Ephraim, forming the northern portion of the mountainous country between the plain of Jezreel and the wilderness of the south (von Raumer, p. 42), are more rich in vegetation than that part of the same mountain which belonged to Judah Especially is this the case with its spurs toward the northwest and northeast. On the northwest a forest-covered hill joins itself to Mount Ephraim connecting the latter with Carmel, that most beautiful, and greenest of all the mountains of Canaan. On the northeast Mount Gilboa, where Saul and Jonathan fell in the contest with the Philistines (1Sa 28:4; 1Sa 31:1-8; 2Sa 1:6-20), constitutes its off-shoot toward the Jordan. On the road from the hamlet of Jelbon, in which word the old name is preserved, Eurrer (p. 260) ascended the mountain by a lofty slope which was in places clothed with a dense oak thicket. A small forest of low oak trees is mentioned by the same traveller as standing on the right of the road from Nazareth to Carmel (p. 280). Without doubt it is the same woods which Schultz describes (Reise in das gelobte Land, pp. 249, 250), since he also notices the crisp eastern oaks. Robinson (iii. p. 189 f.) speaks of a wide strip of low woody heights by which Carmel is joined on the southwest with the mountains of Samaria. We find woods therefore partly on Mount Ephraim itself, partly on its off-shoots.
At the very foot of this forest, however, on the northwest spur of Mount Ephraim, the children of Joseph had had cities in the plain assigned to them, namely, Taanach, and Megiddo (Dor lay further west on the sea) in the plain of Jezreel (Jos 17:11). Ibleam and Bethshean also (Jos 17:11) lay west and east of Mount Gilboa, being spoken of again in Jos 17:16. Knobel (p. 450) says: Whether the author thinks also of the Little Hermon lying further north, and so refers to Endor, is doubtful, and we not only share his doubt but go a step further and consider it quite improbable, since Robinson (iii. p. 171) speaks of that mountain as a desert, shapeless mass, and Furrer (p. 308) notices the yellow nakedness of the Jebel Duhy, or Dachi.
Cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim, if Mount Ephraim is too narrow ( here in a different sense from Jos 10:13). Cornel. a Lapide (in Keil, p. 411 f.) long ago hit upon the thought that here and in Jos 17:18, by the forest the Perizzites and the Rephaim were to be understood, thus assuming that there was a metaphor. He says: Est metaphora, terram enim a Chananis occupatam vocat sylvam, eo quod sicut sylva exscindi debet, ut locus arari possit; sic exscindendi erant Pherizi, ut eorum terram occuparent Josephit.
Him Ewald follows, as Keil has pointed out, when he represents the import of Jos 17:15 in the following manner: not at a loss for the answer, he (Joshua) replied: if they were so numerous (and Mount Ephraim as hitherto occupied by them too small) then they need only move into the forest (i.e. into the thickly settled and cultivated plain) and laboriously cut down for themselves there the tall, profitable trees. In other words they should enter the plain surrounding the mountain on which they dwelt, where, however, the Perizzites and Rephaim (that is, the enemy) still lay in dense masses, whom the tribe (instead of envying other tribes their inheritance), ought themselves long ago to have destroyed and so to have doubled their possession. A purely arbitrary explanation, which may be pardoned to old Cornelius a Lapide, but so much the less readily to Ewald, as he arrogates too much to himself, when, with well-known dogmatism, he says (p. 315, note 2): Already the LXX. failed to understand this ancient passage, hard to be comprehended by reason of its biting scorn (sic!), and still less have the moderns understood it. Wherein the fault of the LXX. consists in this respect, we are unable, after repeated comparison of the original with their version, to discover, unless in the fact that the LXX. venture to render (quite properly in our humble opinion) by , while Ewald prefers to make of it march into the plain. Of the biting scorn of Joshua we will presently speak again.
Jos 17:16. The sons of Joseph answer, that the mountain really will not suffice for them, while the Canaanites in the valley-land () have iron chariots. They appear as if they had not heard a syllable of going up into the forest.
Is not enough. Here is used as in Zec 10:10; Num 11:22 (Knobel and Keil). LXX.: , according to the correct text, instead of . Comp. also LXX., Num 11:22. The iron chariots of the Canaanites were greatly feared by the Israelites, and were the main reason why the Hebrews could not establish themselves in the plains (Jos 11:4; Jdg 1:19; Jdg 4:3; 1Sa 13:5). Israel adopted this species of weapons not until the time of David and Solomon (2Sa 8:4; 1Ki 5:6; 1Ki 9:19; 1Ki 10:26) (Knobel). That the Canaanites had these iron chariots did not hinder the children of Joseph from occupying the forest region (Keil), but the plain, as Knobel rightly perceived, since the chariot-cavalry (Winer, ii. 671), very dangerous in the plains, could not well get on in the mountain, as the passage of Vegetius (Mil. iii. 24), cited by Winer, shows: Quadrig falcat ut primo magnum intulere terrorem, ita postmodum fuere derisui. Nam difficile currus falcatus planum semper invenit campum et levi impedimento detinetur, unoque afflicto aut vulnerato equo decipitur.
Jos 17:17. Joshua does not allow them to slip out, but holds fast to his declaration already made, the sense of which has been exhibited above.
Jos 17:18. Continuation.A mountain shall be thine, for it is a forest. The mountain of Ephraim is meant. This mountain should fall to the lot of the strong and able house of Joseph, because it was adapted to them as being woodland to be cleared up by them. As the result of this clearing the one lot should become two, as it were, to which Joshua plainly points, Jos 17:17.
Thou shalt cut it down, and the out-goings () of it shall be thine. We cannot with Knobel understand the sense of these words so that according to Jos 17:15, the one of these out-goings or spurs, the northwestern one, toward Carmel, and according to this verse the other, northeastern, Gilboa, were to be granted in addition to what they had received; for in this case Joshua would have made a concession to his fellow tribesmen, and so broken the point of the whole transaction. Rather, the sons of Joseph have indeed Mount Ephraim proper, as they themselves say (Jos 17:16), already in possession, and, in the vicinity of those two spurs to the northwest and northeast, the cities mentioned in Jos 17:11 had been allotted. If now they have not room enough, they should, partly on Mount Ephraim, and partly on the heights which rose above those cities, in the territory of the Perizzites and Rephaim, cut down the woods and so make themselves new abodes, as, modest in his claims, Joshua himself did (Jos 19:50). To convince and encourage them Joshua adds:
For thou wilt drive out the Canaanites, for they have iron chariots, for they are strong. Male Dathius, alii, quamvis currus ferreos habeunt et potentes sint.significat nam. Sensus: hanc ipsam ob causam, quod currus ferreos habent et potentes sunt, vos, Ephraimit et Manassit, eos aggrediamini, quippe qui estis populus numerosus et potens (Jos 17:17). So Maurer, and De Wette, Keil, Knobel likewise. When the LXX. render the last words: by , they either read: , or, which is to me more likely, allow themselves a variation. The Vulg. translates very freely: Et poteris ultra procedere, cum subverteris Chananum, quern dicis ferreos habere currus et esse fortissimum.
At this place we may appropriately return to Ewalds account of the transaction. He comments on Jos 17:16-18, thus: but when to this sharp answer (he means the decision of Joshua given in Jos 17:15), they go on to reply that, that did not suit, that the mountain was enough for them, since the Canaanites living in the plain had the dangerous iron chariots. Joshua carries still further the figure of forest and mountain, even to the uttermost, and, in order to finish the matter with one blow, turns off the importunate petitioners who desire much and yet, out of vain fear, will not exert themselves to obtain their wish, by the still more pointed insult (sic!) that they should by all means, since they were a very numerous and strong tribe, have not merely one lot! Rather should they, besides the mountain which they already possessed, and yet did not truly possess, have also another, namely, that forest, which they would have first with bitter toil to clear off and make useful, i.e. the Canaanites, whom to subdue in spite of, and indeed precisely on account of, their mighty armor, and to render serviceable was their second portion yet to be acquired; and in this, fear and trembling would be of no avail! A biting sarcasm, worthy of a Samson! And so the most ancient legend, as it appears in this narrative, conceived of Joshua also as the hero who contended by his humiliating wit against the presumption of the men of his tribe,a true man of the people, in the best sense of the word.
Against this, aside from what we have already said in opposition to the figurative interpretation of the forest and mountain, two remarks are appropriate: (1) Jos 17:16 is treated quite arbitrarily when Ewald, in his note, p. 316, writes: In Jos 17:16, is, against the Masora, to be separated as no! and to be written. Thus he would bring out exactly the opposite sense, namely, that the mountain was enough for them, although the sons of Joseph, in Jos 17:14, complain of that very thing, that their district was too small for so numerous a people; (2) the more pointed insult, which Ewald, resting on Jos 17:17-18 puts into the mouth of Joshua, presupposes that his answer in Jos 17:15 also was pointed, and moreover a pointed insult, as indeed he finds in the whole passage nothing but biting mockery (p. 315, note 2). Fine irony, a noble humor, we also recognize in the replies of Joshua as well in Jos 17:15 as in Jos 17:17-18, but between this and biting mockery there is a great difference. Irony is morally allowable, mockery and insult not. He who employs the latter is a bad man, and will never be regarded as a true man of the people in the best sense of the word, which the most ancient myth is here said to have made Joshua. Joshua was certainly a true peoples man; certainly our author will, in this old, precious narrative, so represent him, but as a peoples man who has gained his popularity not through sharp and sharper sarcasms, but through his unselfishness and noble preminence. For, that any one should have become a favorite by insulting mockery, would no more occur in Joshuas time than in ours. We must, therefore, deny the biting scorn which Ewald here scents out. Malicious teazing lay far enough remote from so noble a hero as Joshua. He knew nothing of it.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The narrative, Jos 17:14-18, can, on the one hand, be employed to show Joshua as a pattern of an unselfish, noble, and prudent popular leader and statesman; and, on the other, to set home his decision toward the house of Joseph, as an impressive lesson to all at the present day who desire everything from the state, but would themselves put forth the least possible exertion. So in reference to the age in general; but the passage admits of an individual application also to all idle men who will not labor, for instance, in new founded colonies, where a sermon on this text would, under certain circumstances, be very much in place.
Starke: That is the way with the covetous man, that the more he has the more he desires to have, and cannot but grudge his neighbor what belongs to him. One should be content with that which God gives. Those who are appointed to the duty of distributing goods and lands, however faithfully they may perform the service, yet commonly get no great thanks therefor.
An original remark occurs in the Bibl. Tub. on Jos 17:15 : It is a duty of the magistrate, among others, this, namely, for the benefit of the inhabitants when there are many of them, to prepare the yet uncultivated land for cultivation, that the people may derive from it so much the more revenue and support.
Lange: So it goes also with many an insincere combatant in the kingdom of God, that they would fain have many spiritual gifts but without a strife.
Kramer: Prayer, labor, and trust in God must go together, Psa 127:2.
[Matt. Henry: Many wish for larger possessions, who do not cultivate and make the best of what they have, think they should have more talents given them, who do not trade with those with which they are intrusted. Most peoples poverty is the effect of their idleness; would they dig they need not beg.Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1]Perhaps the connection of this verse, and its own meaning may best be represented thus: Jos 16:8. This is the possion. . Jos 16:9. And [also] the cities which were separated for the sons of Ephraim in the midst of the possession the sons of Manasseh, etc.Tr.]
[2][Jos 16:9. These cities had Ephraim in the midst of the cities of Manasseh. And the border of Manasseh was on the north side of the water-course.Tr.]
[3][Mr. Grove, in the Dict, of the Bible (e g. 1:752 b, note) repeatedly says that should be rendered simply Jordan-Jericho, and that by or near, has no business there. This is strange, since the natural sense of the words in such connection is much rather Jericho-Jordan, the Jordan of Jericho, i.e. that part of the Jordan which touches upon the territory of Jericho (Knobel on Num 22:1). Comp. Stanley (Sin. and Pal. p. 292, n. 6). This is most conveniently expressed as in the English Version.Tr.]
[4]Robinson expressly denies the probability that Ain Tana is the ancient Taanath-shiloh]
[5] , hence properly to be written in Eng. Zelophchad, not Zelophehad.
[6][Cf. Grove in Dict. of Bible, art. Michmethah.]
[7][Knobels supposition is better, namely, that is there felt to be equivalent to receive, possess, have.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This Chapter contains the account of the portions of Joseph and of Ephraim. But inasmuch as they expelled not the Canaanites from among them, they bear the reproach.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Joseph as a type of the ever blessed Jesus, had eminent distinctions assigned him by his Father. He was among the youngest of Jacob ‘ s children, but yet, after Judah, is one of the first to be provided for, in his tribe. If the Reader be curious to observe the boundaries of Joseph, he will discover that his lot was very favourably cast, being in the very heart of Canaan. And is not Jesus, whom Joseph typified, the sum and substance and centre of Heaven? Doth he not reign in the very heart of his people? Reader! do not forget to read Moses ‘ s prophetic dying blessing concerning Joseph. Deu 33:13-17 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Distribution
Joshua 15-19
LOOKING at these chapters is like looking at infinite rocks. Most stony are these verses. The eye is affrighted by these Hebrew and other polysyllables. The land is being allotted and distributed. Why then dwell upon a picture whose chief feature seems to be its inhospitableness? Because the picture is full of suggestion, and full of abiding and useful truth. One tribe is ordered to the right hand, another to the left; one north, another south; one into the valley, another to the mountains; one to places where fountains spring, another is commanded to go to the wood country and cut down trees and clear a space for itself make a civilisation. This is but an analogy of higher distributions. Is there not a great law of distribution in all human life? We have but to open our eyes and look upon it. We cannot alter it. We may here and there modify it a little, or pass laws concerning it, or make it a subject of scientific inquiry: but there is the law, and there is no lasting escape from its operation. Nor need there be in order to prove the goodness of God and the riches of his mercy. The whole globe is allotted. Every continent has its own people, every island its own socialism. Wherever man can be placed he is set down there by a law which he cannot control a marvellous, but gracious predestination. We feel it to be so. Who does not know a foreigner the moment he sees him? We say within ourselves, if not in articulate speech, This man is a long way from home. Who said so? By what right do we determine his relation to the globe? We cannot tell, but we do it. Instantaneously we see that the man has come from over seas thousands of miles away; his colour, his dress, his aspect something about him says, I do not belong to this part of the land, I am a foreigner here: have regard for me upon that ground; I speak your language imperfectly: do not impose upon me because of my ignorance, but guide me, protect me, and show me hospitality whilst I linger within your borders. Who made the difference? What is the meaning of the difference? Why are some men put in tropical climates, and others are set among the eternal ice? And why this spirit of contentment more or less evident in every land? Because, whilst we would regard the man as a foreigner, we must remember that, were we visiting his country, he would regard us, even us great and glorious and all but infallible Englishmen as foreign! It is sad to think of! It is sometimes intolerable. But even an Englishman may happen to know the mystery of the misfortune of being a foreigner in some parts of the world an idea almost impossible to drive into the English mind, for an Englishman, whilst hating all boasting on the part of other people, spends his time in boasting about himself. But there is the law the unwritten law the imperious and unchangeable law. The bounds of our habitation are fixed. We are tethered to certain localities; we have a fatherland, whether it be here or there; we have an appointed place, where our dead are buried, where our battles are fought, where our progress is developed: hence the spirit of patriotism that marvellous spirit that burns within us when the country is the question. We feel, therefore, in perusing silently these wondrous chapters in Joshua that distribution is perfectly familiar to us: we see it in every part of the globe; we see it in men, in animals, in plants. There is no monotony in the divine allotment; it burns with colour; and in so far as it accepts the law, it throbs with music, with lofty, grateful song.
So it is with talent and faculty. The kingdom of heaven is as a man who took his journey into a far country, and distributed to his servants various talents to one five, to another two, to another one, to every man according to his several ability. There is the fact. Why enter into pedantic discussions about the parable, and the allotment, and the outworking of the little drama? Here in our own circle and within our own consciousness we have the parable itself in every detail and syllable. We may covet one another’s allotment, but we cannot cross the hedge, or steal the talent that we envy. Who would not play upon the musician’s harp? Who would not wear a poet’s mantle? Who would not dream great dreams, the very beauty of which creates a language of its own, purifying all common terms and making refined gold of them, and jewels precious as rubies? Who would not be a great merchantman, knowing things, as it were, without study? Where other men toil towards conclusions, the greater mind moves to them with natural ease and dignity, seizes them and applies them to wealth-producing purposes. Who would not be the heroic soul that never goes out but when the wind blows from the north, and then in great gusts and thunder-blasts? the man who would not sail over a smooth sea, but wait till the wind seizes the infinite deep and torments it into agony? Who would not be so brave as to wait till the war is at the thickest, and then plunge into the very midst of it, and ask only for the privilege of fighting the strongest man? But we cannot interfere with the operation of the law. Some men cannot sing: there is no poetry in their being; they never dream; they never see heaven opened and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God; they never rise to that high ecstasy which treats miracles as trifles, as occurrences that transpired millions of miles beneath them. Others are without courage, except the courage of subtle impertinence, which suggests that everything must be attempered to their timidity, and nothing must be done that can affright their souls. Did they but know they were mean and small and worthless, they might be forgiven, but they do not, and therefore they keep society at prayer, for nothing but the profoundest prayer can enable us to tolerate their presence. Why is not every man as able as his brother? Why is one man eloquent, and another speechless? Why is one man gifted with the power of acquisitiveness in intellectual directions, and another unable to learn his first lesson? If we imagine that all these things can be rectified, in the sense of making all men equal, we shall toil at abortive reforms, and have nothing at the end but empty hands and disappointed hearts. The question is, What can be done? What is the divine will? Or, if we shrink from theological or biblical terms, still we need not surrender our reason: we might stand back and make a philosophy of that of which we decline to make a theology: the conclusion is the same; the fact abides.
The same law applies to distribution in heaven. All the beings, white-robed, unstained, beautiful with purity, do not stand upon an equal plane in the celestial country. There are angels and archangels; cherubim and seraphim; beings all fire, beings all vision, typical of wisdom all but immeasurable; quick-flying angels speeding with messages from the throne, and brooding spirits hovering over our life, appointed to watch little children: in heaven their angels do always behold the face of Christ’s Father. In heaven there is variety of mental stature, spiritual service, a great distribution of faculty and force and ministry. And this is essential, from our point of view, to a complete and beautiful heaven. We must give up the idea of monotony. If we still think of heaven as a place of harps and harping and songs, we are quite right, the meaning being that all true life blossoms up into song: we could not complete any pillar of logic or of fact without putting upon the top of it the lilywork of music and gladness and victory. We have painted heavens the colour of which wears off, monotonous heavens that become burdensome, small heavens picked out for ourselves and our friends. We must burn these heavens, and let them pass away with a small noise, for such heavens could never make a great one. The true heaven is one of glorified earth, glorified facts as we know them; heaven of variety and position, locality, service. We know now what it is. We do not need to die to be in heaven, or to know it and speak about it familiarly: the kingdom of heaven is within, in the deepest, truest, most living sense. There are father-spirits, and mother-angels, and little people children playing. The child that does not play ought to be looked after, and the case should be inquired into with awful solemnity. Children must play everywhere at church and in heaven. A glorious paradise that, by reason of its variety, personality, faculty, and colour, and engagement! In it there is room for you, for me, for greatest, smallest, richest, poorest: “in my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.”
Remember that every man begins with gifts. This is the very law of these chapters of allotment. The people have something to begin with. No man made his first dowry; it was in him, or handed to him; he did nothing towards the first germ, the plasm of his fortune and his destiny. This is often forgotten in estimating human position and human progress. Every man has a faculty given to him a first thing a nest-egg a wonderful beginning! God gives us the light, the air, the land, the sea. We did not kindle the sun; we do not loose the winds from their tabernacles; and no man ever made one inch of land, or added one pebble to the earth’s surface. In this particular we are very limited and very small. Think! the man who built the greatest cathedral that ever domed itself out towards the skies never added an atom to the sum-total of the earth. He worked with stones that were laid up for him, banked for him in the treasure-house of the earth. So when the Lord goes into a far country he leaves with every man something which the man did not make five talents, two talents, one talent, whatever it may be; that germ or starting-point or protoplasm was given. So we begin with grace, privilege. We are trustees to start with. With all this ability and wonderful inventiveness we have never invented a new pebble, in the sense of adding to the earth’s stones something that was not in the earth and hidden there by its Maker. If we leave that central or primal thought, we get into detail that vexes us, then we begin to manipulate and rearrange and redistribute; but it all comes at last to this fact, that every man has something to start with, a wealth that cannot be communicated, a property his alone; and that must be inquired into at the final audit.
Some possessions come as rewards:
“And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife” ( Jos 15:16 ).
Compromises are sometimes inevitable. This is made clear by the sixty-third verse of the fifteenth chapter:
“As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.” ( Jos 15:63 )
Prayer
Almighty God, in whom can we put our trust but in the Living One? Death is written upon all other securities. Thou remainest evermore the same, and in thy righteousness is no change. We hasten therefore unto thee as men hasten to the rock in which they can be protected against the tempest and the storm. Thou art indeed a refuge from the tempest. Thou dost hide thy people in thy pavilion from the strife of tongues; thou dost call them into the chamber in the rock until the storm be overpast. Enable us to take refuge in the Son of God, to find our home and our heaven in his protection; and thus shall our life be spent wisely, and our strength shall go out from us to return again abundantly enriched and honoured. We would live in thy fear, we would work in thy love, we would be comforted with thy consolations and none other. Heal our diseases; direct our steps; keep us in the time of strife, and give us solidity of confidence in the day of distress. We bless thee for all thy care, so patient, so tender, so minute, covering all things, and attending to each as if it were a solitary concern. This is thy greatness, thou Infinite One, that nothing is too little for thy notice. We put ourselves into thy hands. We would have no will of our own; we would listen for thy voice morning, noon, and night, and answer it with the readiness of love We own our sins. We will not count them, for no number can set them forth; nor will we speak of them, for we cannot state them as they are in thy sight; but we will look towards the Cross of Christ; we will fix our attention upon the Son of God as he expires in agony. When sin torments us most, we will remember what Jesus, Son of man, Son of God, did in Gethsemane and on the Cross, and therein shall we find perpetual comfort. Enable thy servants to work better than they have ever done. Enable all to whom the ministry of suffering is entrusted to suffer patiently, unmurmuringly, and hopefully; yea, may they so suffer as to awaken the wonder of those who look on, because of gentleness, meekness, and patience. When we read thy Book, first read it to us, utter the music in our souls; then shall we see thy meaning, and answer it instantly and lovingly. Remain with us; yea, tarry with us, lingeringly, as if thou couldst not leave us: and in that lingering we shall see a pledge of eternal fellowship. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
The Distribution of the Land
Joshua 15-19
WE have taken our first survey of the distribution of the land, and noticed several particulars of some consequence to ourselves; other particulars are now to be noticed. The inquiry will be, How far the distribution and the particulars associated with it are true to human nature as we know it. In answering this inquiry we shall soon see whether the Bible is an old book, in the sense of being obsolete and pointless, so far as the conditions and requirements of this day are concerned. The case is a very simple one. The land is to be divided among a given number of people. How they took the distribution or accepted the circumstances is an important inquiry.
We soon come upon a line that might have been written yesterday. It was not enough to have a great general distribution, but there must be some particular and singular allotment, to one person at least. She had a petition to offer; she offered it, and the supplication was answered. She asked through another a request from her father. Her father had received his portion, even Hebron and the region round about, and his daughter Achsah would have a little gift all her own. She would say, “Give me a blessing.” That is vague. Not only would she have a benediction, but a portion quite a little one, but still a portion, belonging, as it were, to herself a jewel for her own neck, a ring for her own finger. Who does not like to have something particularly his own? It is well to have some general stake in the country, but to have a little private piece of land one little bubbling, singing, fountain; a corner quite one’s own is not that the very joy of proprietorship? No doubt there is a general sense of wealth, so general indeed as to be of little particular service under the occasional pressure of necessity: but when the child has six inches of garden-land all its own at the back-door, there is, after all, a landlordly feeling in the young heart that finds frequent expression. Caleb’s daughter would have” a field:” “she lighted off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wouldest thou?” She answered, “Give me a blessing.” That she could have in a moment, but said she, Give me more, “give me also springs of water in addition to the south land.” “And he gave her the upper springs, and the nether springs” ( Jos 15:18-19 ). To whom did she pray? To her father. Have we not a Father to whom we can pray for springs of water? Yes, we have such a Father, and from him we can have the upper springs and the nether springs. The river of God is full of water. It cannot be drained off. It sets a-going all the fountains of creation, and is more at the end than at the beginning the very fulness of God; a contradiction in words, but a grand reality in experience. The sun lights every lamp, and not a beam the less is his infinite glory. We therefore may have a special portion, a little all our own; yea, a double portion of the Spirit may be ours. Do not let us be content with the general blessing of the Church. That, indeed, is an infinite comfort. But that general blessing is a pledge of particular donations on the part of the Father of lights. Here we can pray without covetousness; here we can be ambitious without selfishness; here we can have great desires, and be enlarged in our generosity by their very operation in the heart. Let each say to the Father, Give me a field; give me a faculty; give me some dear, sweet consciousness of thy nearness and lovingness something that nobody else can have just as I have it; whisper one word to me that no one in all the universe but myself can hear, and that whisper shall be to me an inspiration, a comfort, a security, a pledge; not that others may not enjoy the same in their own way, but I want something mine own. To that prayer who can measure the reply, if spoken in faith and love and noble unselfishness?
Now another voice is heard. Joshua was not going the right way about the work, in the estimation of some people:
“And the children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the Lord hath blessed me hitherto?” ( Jos 17:14 ).
“And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee” ( Jos 17:15 ).
Joshua, continuing the high satiric strain, said:
“Thou art a great people, and hast great power: thou shalt not have one lot only: but the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong” ( Jos 17:17-18 ).
We come now to another set of circumstances. It appears that when all was done up to this point, a good deal still remained to be accomplished. We read of this in chapter Jos 18:2-7 :
“And there remained among the children of Israel seven tribes, which had not yet received their inheritance” ( Jos 18:2 ).
And has Joshua nothing in all this the great man himself, so quiet, so gentle? Caleb asked for his portion right boldly, but he asked as a heroic man should ask for difficulties. At eighty-five he wanted to prove that he was as young as he was at forty. Joshua might have taken that opportunity of saying, Caleb, I was with you in that matter of the espial of the land; if you want your portion now, I may as well have mine at the same time. Nothing of the kind. Joshua waited until the very last. So we read:
“When they had made an end of dividing the land for inheritance by their coasts, the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of Nun among them: according to the word of the Lord they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnath-serah in mount Ephraim: and he built the city, and dwelt therein” ( Jos 19:49-50 ).
A very tender word is found in regard to some of the tribes. “Gad, and Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance beyond Jordan.” Sweet words! ” beyond Jordan.” By a very legitimate accommodation these words may be applied to many a Christian. Some Christians have but little portion this side of the river; their lot is a small one; their riches could all be hidden in one hand; yet how bright they are! as radiant as a summer dawn, as songful as a wood in spring-time, when all the birds are swelling their feathery throats with song. Why? Because the refrain of their hymn is “beyond Jordan.” The crown is on the other side of the river; the city lies beyond the stream; the great inheritance is at the other end of the valley of the shadow of death: they are “begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” So their citizenship being in heaven, they have learned in whatsoever state they are, therewith to be content. Blessed are they who are rich in faith; yea, blessed with sevenfold blessing they who can say that their souls are already in heaven, and the consciousness of the heavenly possession creates contempt for the vanities of time.
Looking at the whole matter practically, let us not forget that the land was given to be cultivated. This is not a mere matter of enjoyment. When Palestine was seized, it had to be brought under agricultural treatment, and men were to enjoy the fruit of their labour even in the Land of Promise. There was fighting to be done, there were trees to be cut down; the centre of the country was a great forest, and the foresters must go into it and bring down the timber and root out the old roots, and make flowers and fruits grow in the old forests of Palestine. Life is given to us to cultivate. We are not called upon to do merely the work if so it may be termed of appreciation and enjoyment; we are called to battle, to cultivation, to toil, to service, to disappointment, and to some fruition of our hope and love.
Nor must we forget that variety did not excite discontent. The lots were not all equal. Judah had twenty-nine cities and the villages thereof; Benjamin, fourteen cities with the villages; Joshua had Timnath-serah, in Mount Ephraim. So it is possible for us now to have variety of lot, and yet a sweet content of heart. The kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called together his servants, and gave to one five talents, to another two, to another one representing talent and opportunity and capacity. The Lord must distribute as he pleases. The great lesson for us to learn is, that it is possible for us to have little, and yet not to want more; to be called to a great opportunity, and yet not to boast over those whose limitation is so obvious. This sweet content, this hallowed peace, can only be enjoyed in proportion as we abide in Christ, like living branches in a living vine. This miracle is not a trick of the human hand; it is the miracle of the Holy Ghost.
Selected Note
Eccentric Boundaries of the Tribes (Joshua 15-19). Thomson, in “The Land and the Book,” writes: “The reason why the boundaries of the different tribes were so eccentric originally, and are now so difficult to follow, was that the ‘lots’ were not meted out according to geographical lines; but lands of certain cities lying more or less contiguous were assigned to each tribe. These cities were the capitals of small principalities or districts, just as Tibnin, and Hunin, and Bint-Jebail are now. The territory of one might extend far to the east of the city, that of the next to the west. It is now absolutely impossible to draw lines around the separate ‘lots’ with any degree of certainty. Their general positions with relation to each other, however, can be ascertained with sufficient exactness for all important purposes in the study of Biblical geography.”
Prayer
O thou who art the refuge of men, let us flee unto thee, assured that the door of thy mercy will not be closed against us. We have sung for a lifetime of Jesus as the refuge of the soul. We have found him to be a covert from the storm. We would abide in him, let come what may, strong in his strength, confident in the immutableness of his love. This is our daily thought and this our nightly rest: a very song in our mouth; a perpetual joy, like a singing angel hovering over the life, We turn and think of Christ, and behold our thought makes us glad. We muse about the Son of God in holy wonder, and as we muse the fire burns, and by its glow we know he is near who is the light of heaven. We would dwell upon the thought of his life; we would count his words as men count jewels; we would number them, and set them in order, and preserve them with all the eagerness of unutterable love, accounting each one necessary to the perfectness of the whole. Whilst we thus treasure thy Word, and find in it our true wealth, thou wilt not forsake us; thou wilt make us stronger, younger, happier, as we proceed in this faithful and delightful service. Reveal thy word to us day by day a new light, a new beauty, a new possibility; may it be unto our eyes as the dawn of heaven, and unto our ears as the music of the skies. According to our necessity may thy word present itself to us now a staff to lean upon, now a sword with which to fight, now a light that shall be as a lamp unto our feet, and now an unspeakable comfort, making even sorrow itself welcome, because sorrow brings the Saviour nearer. Thy word abideth for ever; thy word is patient like thyself, waiting for its opportunity, standing at the door of the attention and knocking and waiting until we be ready to hear what it has to say. It has waited for us many a year. When we hear it, we know it to be thy word, because there is an answering spirit in our own hearts which says, This is none other than God’s word a very speech from the heart of the universe. We thank thee for all thy mercies. Though thou hast set us in a time of depression, yet do we see that the stars are all in their places. It is indeed night-time with many, by reason of difficulty, poverty, distress, and hardship; yet not one star has gone out, and the heavens look brighter sometimes than they ever did. Thou hast not forsaken thy people, nor left in desolation those that trust in thee. This is their confidence and their song; yea, it has become their boast and their sure refuge in time of difficulty. Even now thy mercies are more than we can number: even when winter has set in and all the flowers have hidden themselves, thy mercies are full and thy compassion is near and thy kindness is lovingkindness. Even in the midnight of the year we can sing praises unto our God and shake down the prison of our distress. Help us in all things to see thy hand, and to say, All is well. Enable us to prove our faith by the nobleness and clearness of our testimony. May we be enabled to say, Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him, and though the night be dark and dreary, it is but short at most, and the morning is already dawning on the higher hills. We commend one another to thy loving care; they are well kept whom thou dost keep; in their hearts shall be no unrest, but one continual radiant Sabbath-day; no lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast go up thereon, it shall not be found there; all holy thoughts shall dwell there, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away, like birds of the night, afraid of the sunshine, terrified by the day. We are found again at the Cross. We wait at the altar of the atonement wrought by him who is thy Son, our Saviour. His blood is our prayer, bis sacrifice our plea. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXII
CONQUEST OF THE NORTHERN TRIBES; ALLOTMENT OF TERRITORY; ESTABLISHMENT OF A CENTRAL PLACE OF WORSHIP.
Joshua 11-21
This section commences with Joshua II and closes with Jos 21 . That is to say, we must cover in this discussion eleven chapters,, and the matter is of such a nature that one cannot make an oration on it, nor can one give a very interesting discussion on it. It would be perfect folly for me to take up the chapters verse by verse, when all you have to do is to look on your map in the Biblical Atlas and glance at any commentary and get the meaning and locality of each town mentioned. All of the matters that require comment will be commented on in these eleven chapters.
The first theme is the conquest of the tribes in the northern part of the Holy Land, just as the preceding chapter considered the central and southern part of the land. You know I told you that Joshua, by entering the country at Jericho and then capturing Ai, occupied a strategical position, the mountains on the right hand and the left hand and they forced a passway by which he could go in any direction. We found that all the southern part of the country, after the capture at Jericho and Ai, was practically brought about by one decisive battle, the battle of Beth-horon, where the Almighty thundered and sent his hailstones and where the sun stood still. Now, the northern conquest was brought about by one decisive battle, all of the details that it is necessary for me to give are these: When the northern tribes learned of the subjugation of the southern tribes they saw that it was a life and death matter.
From this viewpoint they would be conquered in detail. As Benjamin Franklin said in a speech at the Continental Congress, “Gentlemen, we cannot evade this issue; we must either hang together or hang separately, every one of us if we don’t unite will be hanged.” Now, that was in the minds of those northern kings. We have had the account of Adonizedek, the king of Jebus. Hazor was a well-known place in the history of the countries. We will have it up again in the book of Judges. It was not very far from Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his great confession in the time of our Lord.
I will not enumerate the tribes and the names of the several kings that were brought into this second league It not only included the central and northern tribes, but they sent an invitation to the remnant of the tribes that had been conquered. The place of rendezvous, or assemblage, for all of these armies of these several kings was Lake Merom. You will recall that in describing the Jordan, rising in the mountains, after running a while, it spreads out into Lake Merom, and lower down it spreads into the Sea of Galilee. Well, now around that Merom Lake the ground is level, very favorable for calvary and war chariots. For the first time the war chariot was introduced. The war chariot was more, in general, the shape of a dray than anything else two wheels, steps behind that one could go down, and one chieftain and two or three captains stood up and drove two or three horses, and they always drove the horses abreast, no matter how many. The men who drove were very skillful but unless they were very lucky they would fall to the ground. In the time of Cyrus the Great, he built one with blades that went out from the sides, so that it not only crippled those he ran over but the scythes on each side would mow them down.
Joshua learned of this combination of tribes and, under the direction of the Almighty, he smote them before they could organize. He was a Stonewall Jackson kind of a man and struck quick and hard. He pressed and pursued them and led his army up the valley of the Jordan by swift marches and instantly attacked the enemy when he got upon the ground and before they were prepared. Their defeat was the most overwhelming in history. All of the leaders were captured and slain; they dispersed in three directions specified in the text, and he pursued them in all three directions. He gave them no time to rally, and when they had been thoroughly discomfited, he took the towns. That battle was practically the end of the war of conquest. We may say the whole thing was decided in this battle; there were some details of conquest later, but this is Joshua’s part of it. I must call attention specifically to this fact, overlooked by many commentaries, that the general statement of the conquest is given in the book of Joshua and the details of some of these general statements are given more elaborately, indeed the last great item, the migration of Dan, in the book of Judges. All that happened before Joshua died. Therefore the book of Judges and the book of Joshua overlap as to time. And for this reason, that as soon as Joshua got through with his conquest, and the distribution of territory, he retired from leadership, living years afterward. The instant the war was over, Joshua surrendered the general leadership.
Just here I wish to answer another question. While the record notes that Joshua conquered all the land that Jehovah had originally promised to those people, yet the book of Joshua also states that there remained certain portions of the land that had not been conquered. The backbone of the opposition was broken by these two battles and by the cities that he captured after these battles, but the enemy would come back and occupy their old position and some of the walled towns were not taken.
I once heard the question asked a Sunday school, Why did God permit the remnants that you will find described later on in this section, the parts not subjugated, to remain? Nobody in the Sunday school could answer. Now, you will find the answer to the question in Num 33:55 ; Jos 23:13 ; Jdg 2:3 . Moses says, “If you do not utterly destroy these people leaving none, then God will permit those remnants that you spare to become thorns in your side, and whenever you are weak they will rise against you; whenever you are disobedient to God they will triumph over you.” It is stated here that the number of the kings of the separate tribes overcome by Joshua was thirty-one Part of this section says that Joshua waged war a long time with these kings. While this battle was fought and became decisive of the general results, the going out and capturing the different towns, completing the different details, required a long time.
Now we come to the next theme of our lesson, viz.: The distribution of the land, or allotment of specific parts of the territory to the tribes. We have already found in the books of Moses just how the eastern side of the Jordan was conquered and the allotment made to Reuben just above Moab, and to Gad just above Reuben and to the half-tribe of Manasseh way up in Gilead. This is on the east side of the Jordan, and the Biblical Atlas will show you at the first glance where they are. So that is the first distribution: Reuben, Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh.
The next distribution takes place under the commandment of God. Joshua is old, well stricken in years and wants the land divided while he lives because he knows it will be divided right, and this, too, is the land allotted to Judah and the land allotted to Joseph, or Ephraim, and the half tribe of Manasseh. So we have two and one-half tribes receiving their portion on the west side of the Jordan. That leaves seven tribes who have not yet received their land. In giving Judah his part three interesting events occurred, all of which were in connection with Caleb. Caleb is one of the original twelve men sent out by Moses to spy out the land, and because of his fidelity God promised that he should have Hebron, Abraham’s old home, which is not far from the Dead Sea. It has always been a noted place and is yet. Before this division took place, Caleb presented himself and asked for the fulfilment of the promise by Moses, that his particular part should be Hebron and when that was done, Caleb’s daughter, Achsah, steps forward and asks of her father springs of water, and he gave her the upper and nether springs.
The third fact is related at length in Judges, but it occurs at this time. Caleb having the certain portion, Kiriathsepher, the enemy of Hebron, he said that whoever should go over into that city first and capture it, he should have his daughter for a wife, and a very brave fellow, a nephew of Caleb, determined to try it and he took that city and got the girl. Now, that was a deed of daring, and like it was in the Middle Ages where a knight went forth and sought adventures that would entitle him to be his lady’s husband. All young fellows feel that they would surmount any difficulty to win a girl. I have felt that way. I felt that way when I was seven years old and about a certain young lady. There isn’t anything too dangerous or too great a sacrifice for a man to make in a case of that kind.
I told you when Judah received his part that Joseph’s tribe received theirs. Now we come to an interesting episode; the tribe of Joseph, and particularly the tribe of Ephraim, was always a tough proposition. You will find that all the way through the Old Testament and even when you come to the New Testament. Ephraim came up and when the allotment was made he said, “We are not satisfied.” Did you ever hear of people who were not satisfied about a division of land? Joshua said, “What is the trouble?” “Well, they said, “we are a big tribe, many men of war, and we are cooped up too much. We cannot go far west for there are the mountains, and then all around are woods.” Now, what did Joshua say to them? He said, “Well, you are indeed a big tribe and you have many men of war; now go up and cut down those woods and expand'” He determined to rest some responsibility upon the tribes after the allotment had been made. It is a fine piece of sarcasm. So Ephraim had to take to the woods.
Now before any other division takes place a very notable event occurred affecting the future history of the nation, and that was the establishment of a central place of worship, finding a home for the tabernacle. The tabernacle was established at Shiloh, and this brings us to another general question. How long did that tabernacle stay at Shiloh? How long did the ark stay, and when it left there, where did it go, and where was the ark finally brought? Trace the history of the ark from Shiloh to where it was set up in the tent, and then I want you to tell what became of the tent and tell how long it stayed there and what became of it. What became of the tabernacle? Some of the most interesting things in history and song are found in the answer to those questions.
I here propound another question. Which tribe had no inheritance, no section of the country allotted to it, and why? This tribe that had no particular section allotted to it was scattered over the whole nation and that leads to the next question that you are to answer. Where do you find the prophecy in the Pentateuch, in which book, and where, that this tribe and another one, Simeon, should be scattered over Israel? Where does Moses prophesy just what comes to pass? If not Moses, then somebody else, and you are to find out who did and when and where. The next general remark that I have to make is that this section tells us that Dan was shut up in a pretty tight place. Three strong tribes, Judah, Benjamin and Ephraim held them on one side and the Philistines on the other side, but Dan didn’t come to Joshua. Perhaps he thought it but took the question into his own hands. I suppose that he was afraid that as Joshua told Ephraim to go to the woods, he would tell Dan to capture those Philistine cities, and so Dan sent out some spies and found a good place to settle, and the story of the emigration of Dan is told at great length in the book of Judges. Some of it is told in the book of Joshua; that he took Laish and called it Dan and that became its name. So we say, “from Dan to Beersheba.” We will see all about how Dan improved it when we get to the book of Judges. I am showing you that it occurred, but when you get to the book of Judges you will have a detailed account of it.
The next thought in these eleven chapters is that Joshua, having ended his wars, obeyed God with singular fidelity. (I don’t believe I explained that after they came to Shiloh where he set the ark, the other tribes received their portion by lots. Now your map will show you where Shiloh was and Ephraim and Dan and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and all the others. All you have to do is to look on your map and see their location.) He, having finished the wars, asked a small inheritance for himself, a little bit of a place. How that does shine in comparison with the other great conquerors! When they come to the division, they take the lion’s share. Joshua took a very modest little place in his own tribe. His retiring from public life devolved the work upon the tribes themselves, and to their own judgment. He remained in seclusion until he comes out to be considered in the next section.
This leaves for consideration only two other thoughts in the distribution of the territory, and I shall embody these thoughts in questions for you to answer. Look at the six cities of refuge established, three east of the Jordan and three west of the Jordan. You can find them on a good map, and as you look at them on the map, you are struck with the wisdom of their locality when you consider the purpose of these cities of refuge. And now what was the intent of these cities of refuge? A thousand preachers have preached sermons on the cities of refuge Spurgeon has one remarkable sermon. The allusions to them are very frequent, so that every one of you ought to have in your heart and on your brain a clear conception of what is meant by the cities of refuge. I am going to give you a brief answer, but you can work this answer out and make it bigger.
Under the Mosaic law there was no sheriff in cases of homicide, the killing of a man. In our cities the police go after the murderer, and the sheriff in the country, but under the Mosaic law the next of kin was made the “avenger of blood.” If I, living at that day, had been slain, without raising a question as to how it was done, my brother, J. M. Carroll, or my son, B. H. Carroll, Jr., under the law would be the sheriff, and his injunction would be to start as soon as he heard of the killing and to kill the killer on sight. Well, for us in that kind of a sheriff-law this difficulty would arise: Suppose in the assumed case Just now that, while I had been killed, it had been accidental; that we were all out hunting and a man with me accidentally discharged his gun and it killed me. Or suppose that, as Moses described it, two men were chopping and one went to make a big lick with an axe and the axe flew off and hit the other one and killed him, yet that law says that life was a sacred thing. Now, as there are several cases of manslaughter, of innocent men with no purpose to kill them, so there must be a distinction made between accidental homicide and willful murder.
The object of the cities of refuge, distributed as you see over the country, was to provide a place where one who had killed another, not intending to commit murder, might find a place of shelter until the matter could be investigated, and so, just as soon as a man killed another, he turned and commenced running. The avenger of blood, as soon as he heard of it, went after him and it was a race for life and death, to see which could get there first. Therefore the roads were kept in splendid condition, no rocks were left that the man fleeing for his life should stumble and be slain. The rabbis say they would not allow a straw to be left on the road lest they should stumble and fall.
Now, I close with just this question. I told you that one tribe had no inheritance, no lot of land all together and they had to go somewhere. So for that tribe certain cities with their suburbs were set apart. Now, on your map look for the cities of this tribe that had no inheritance.
QUESTIONS
1. Describe the strategical position of Jericho and Ai.
2. By what battle was the south country practically conquered?
3. What decisive battle brought about the northern conquest? Describe it. With whom is Joshua as a general compared?
4. What the connection between the book of Joshua and the book of Judges?
5. How do you harmonize the statements that Joshua conquered all the land that Jehovah had promised them and that there remained certain portions of the land that had not been conquered?
6. Why did God permit the remnants not subjugated to remain in the land? Where in the Pentateuch do you find the answer?
7. Explain the expression, “Joshua waged war a long time with these kings.”
8. Locate the tribes on the east of the Jordan.
9. What the second distribution, and to whom?
10. What 3 interesting events in connection with giving Judah his portion?
11. What complaint was made by Ephraim, and Joshua’s reply?
12. Where was the central place of worship located? How long did the ark stay there? When it left where did it go? Where finally brought? How long did the tent, or tabernacle, stay there? What finally became of it?
13. What tribe had no inheritance & why? Where do you find the prophecy in the Pentateuch that this tribe & Simeon should be scattered over Israel?
14. How does Joshua’s spirit compare with the spirit of the other great conquerors?
15. How did Dan get out of his straits?
16. Name and locate the cities of refuge. What the intent of these cities?
17. Locate the cities of the tribe that had no inheritance.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Jos 16:1 And the lot of the children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto the water of Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho throughout mount Bethel,
Ver. 1. And the lot of the children of Joseph. ] See Jos 15:1 .
From Jordan by Jericho.
Unto the water of Jericho.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED TEXT): Jos 16:1-3
1Then the lot for the sons of Joseph went from the Jordan at Jericho to the waters of Jericho on the east into the wilderness, going up from Jericho through the hill country to Bethel. 2It went from Bethel to Luz, and continued to the border of the Archites at Ataroth. 3It went down westward to the territory of the Japhletites, as far as the territory of lower Beth-horon even to Gezer, and it ended at the sea.
Jos 16:1 the lot See note at Jos 14:2.
Jos 16:2 Bethel to Luz This text implies that Bethel and Luz are two different cities, but other texts state they are different names for the same city (cf. Jos 18:13; Gen 28:19; Gen 35:6; Jdg 1:23).
the Archites One of David’s counselors was from this family group (cf. 2Sa 15:32; 2Sa 16:16), but this is all moderns know of this non-Israelite clan (BDB 74). The same is true for the Japhletites (BDB 812).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
the lot. See note on Jos 14:1.
children = sons.
fell = came forth, i.e. from the bag behind the High Priest’s breastplate, the Thummim meaning “Yes”. See notes on Exo 28:30 and Num 26:55.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 16
In chapter sixteen he describes the areas that were given then to Manasseh, and to Ephraim, the sons, or the descendants of Joseph. Now part of the tribe of Manasseh settled on the east banks of the Jordan River, but the other part settled on the west banks of the Jordan from the area of Jericho, on up through Bethel, and the area basically just north from the area of Jerusalem, and going north from there north of Judah.
So verse ten, chapter sixteen,
They drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and they serve under tribute ( Jos 16:10 ).
So again the failure of totally conquering the land. As we get into the book of Judges, we’ll see the cost of this disobedience of failing to totally take the land, but allowing some of the people to remain. As the scripture predicted they did become thorns in their sides, and pricks, and they became a real problem to them in time to come. We’ll cover that as we move on into Judges. But we’ll finish the book of Joshua next Sunday.
Now in some of the reading that we skipped over tonight, the listing of all those names, you can’t even find the ruins of all those cities anymore. So it’s no sense of reading all the things, when you get to those listing of names, just jump over them, else your Bible reading will become tedious indeed. So just jump over whenever you start getting a list of a lot of names.
Now I do suggest that you get a good Bible map of the division of the land to the twelve tribes. And a good map will do a lot more for you to understand the places where the twelve tribes lived than trying to read the borders of the cities that don’t even exist anymore. So just get you a good Bible map and you can study it on a good Bible map, the portion out of the land.
Now what they did is that they would draw out the area, and then they would have all the tribes’ names in a little box or something, and they’d put, say, “Okay now this area on down from Jerusalem on south”, and so forth, and say, “All right now who’s gonna have this?” They’d draw the lot and “Oh Judah”, “Okay that’s Judah’s”. So they apportioned the land by lot, by the drawing of lots. They would circumscribe an area, then draw lots and it would go to that tribe whose was drawn for that particular area.
So next week we move on to the finishing of the apportioning of the land to the various tribes, and to Joshua’s final charge to the people, and his death.
Shall we stand?
May the Lord bring you into a special consciousness of His presence, of His love, of His interest in your life. May you walk in the consciousness of God’s grace, and be led by His Spirit. May you come into a new relationship with God, a very personal relationship with God. In Jesus’ name. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Next in order we have an account of the inheritance of Joseph divided between his sons Ephraim and Manasseh. The part allotted to Ephraim was a fertile and beautiful district, perhaps in many respects the most desirable in all the country. Nevertheless, it was a place of peculiar difficulty at the time from the fact that it lay still wholly in the power of the Canaanites. The campaigns of Joshua had not perfectly dealt with it and cities possessed by the Canaanites existed.
This, in itself is suggestive so far as Ephraim’s responsibility was concerned. The richest tracts of country in the possessions which God intends for His people can be possessed only by victories over the strongest foes. The whole history of Ephraim was a sad one for long centuries and their failure began here and is recorded in the words, “And they drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim unto this day, and are become servants to do task-work.”
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
4. The Portion of Ephraim
CHAPTER 16
1. The lot for the children of Joseph (Jos 16:1-4)
2. Ephraims portion (Jos 16:5-9)
3. Ephraims failure (Jos 16:10)
A wonderful lot was that of Joseph, beginning at Jordan, the river of death, up to Bethel, which means the house of God. Then the portion of Ephraim comes first. Ephraim with the blessed inheritance to be doubly fruitful (the meaning of Ephraim) fails. They drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer. Josephus, the Jewish historian, remarks on this: They grew effeminate as to fighting any more against their enemies, but applied themselves to the cultivation of the land, which producing them great plenty and riches, they indulged in luxury and pleasure. No doubt this tradition is correct. How this has been repeated in Christendom! What Ephraim became, joined to idols, we read in the prophet Hosea.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
fell: Heb. went forth
the water: Jos 8:15, Jos 15:61, Jos 18:12, 2Ki 2:19-21
Reciprocal: Gen 48:5 – two sons Gen 49:22 – a fruitful Num 33:54 – give the less inheritance Jos 18:5 – the house Jos 18:11 – between the children Jos 18:19 – this was the Jdg 1:22 – the house 1Ch 7:29 – In these dwelt Eze 48:5 – Ephraim Joh 11:54 – Ephraim
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jos 16:1. The lot of the children of Joseph That is, of Ephraim, and that half of the tribe of Manasseh which was not yet provided for, Jos 16:4. One cannot but observe the providence of God in bringing up their lot next to Judahs. For as he had the prerogative of being made the chief of all Jacobs children, (Gen 49:10,) so Joseph had that privilege of the firstborn, a double portion, transferred to his family. And therefore they have their inheritance assigned them before any of the other tribes except Judah.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jos 16:1. The water of Jericho. These waters being bitter, Elisha obtained by his prayers the power to heal them by a handful of salt. 2Ki 2:21.
Jos 16:2. Beth-el to Luz. Luz was the town, Beth-el a place of trees adjoining, where Jacob saw the vision. Gen 28:19.
Jos 16:8. The sea, or the salt sea, the Mediterranean: the sea of Sodom was Asphaltic.
Jos 16:9. Among the inheritance of Manasseh. Ephraims possessions indented into the district of Manasseh. To divide possessions was difficult.
REFLECTIONS.
The conduct of Ephraim in this chapter brands his character with everlasting reproach, and furnishes instruction to us. Josephs children were almost the only tribe that made complaint concerning the deficiency of their lot, Jos 17:14; and yet, strange as it may appear, Ephraim made a league with the Canaanites in Gezer, and received their tribute. Hereby he transgressed the law so often repeated, that Israel was to make no covenant with them or their gods. So they remained till the king of Egypt drove them out, and gave the district as a portion to his daughter, on her marriage with Solomon. This is not the worst. Ephraim, long corrupted by those ungodly neighbours, was the first to forsake the true religion, and to worship the calf in Beth-el. Let the christian world receive instruction from this sad case. That man, who, instead of crucifying the flesh, and executing on his sins the required vengeance of God; that man who shall basely make a covenant with his sins, will find them awful to his soul at a future day. The dallying with but one sin, (and the sacred writings abound with examples) may give him in the hour of temptation an awful wound. And what can he expect but Ephraims punishment, when he turns coward in the warfare with the flesh, and basely accepts a tribute of pleasure or of profit from his sins.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joshua 16 f. This section deals with the inheritance of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. It is composite, but the different parts are easily separated. The old narrative speaks of the tribe of Joseph, the new, i.e. P, of Ephraim and Manasseh. The section begins with three verses (Jos 16:1-3) from the older source which give the dividing line of the lot of Joseph, i.e. the boundary between the N. and S.; the line goes from Jordan near Jericho, leaving Jericho on the S., and is drawn by Bethel, Bethhoron, and Gezer. One would naturally expect that this line would be the same as the southern border of Ephraim which P gives in the following verses (Jos 16:4-9). But for some reason, which we can only conjecture, the borders of Ephraim are confused and unintelligible. It has been suggested that as P was written after the Exile by a scribe in Judah, his knowledge of the northern part of Palestine would be very imperfect, hence the unsatisfactory nature of the account. Jos 16:10, which states that the inhabitants of Gezer maintained their ground, is another fragment of the same kind, as Jos 15:63, and like it, has a duplicate in Judges 1, viz. in 29.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
EPHRAIM’S BORDER
(vs.1-10)
The border of Ephraim did not adjoin Judah, for Benjamin and Dan came between them; but Ephraim’s borders are discussed after Judah, for fruitfulness (of which Ephraim speaks) is a proper result of praise, the meaning of Judah. The borders, both on the south and the north, stretched from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, the Jordan being the east border and the sea the west. Again, the names of the points along the border are significant, though perhaps these should be left for personal study.
However, Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer (v.10). Gezer means “a portion as cut off.” speaking spiritually of a sectarian principle that too often persists among the people of God, and which we find hard to expel. Also, they were Canaanites, meaning “traffickers,” for a sectarian attitude is often closely allied with a desire for material gain, which is foreign to true Christianity.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
16:1 And the lot of the {a} children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto the water of Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho throughout mount Bethel,
(a) That is, to Ephraim and his children: for Manasseh’s portion follows.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
4. Joseph’s inheritance chs. 16-17
The writer may have dealt with the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh together since Jacob had given Joseph the second largest blessing after Judah (Genesis 49). Moreover half the tribe of Manasseh had already received its inheritance, and the remaining half would have been small compared with the other tribes. These one and one-half tribes together formed a large group of Israelites. Their lot fell in central Canaan, and their territory consisted of two parts with Ephraim settling in the southern portion and Manasseh in the northern.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The writer described the whole territory of Joseph first.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER XXV.
THE INHERITANCE OF JOSEPH.
Joshua Chs. 16, 17.
NEXT to Judah, the most important tribe was Joseph; that is, the double tribe to which his two sons gave names, Ephraim and Manasseh. In perpetual acknowledgment of the service rendered by Joseph to the family, by keeping them alive in the famine, it was ordained by Jacob that his two sons should rank with their uncles as founders of tribes (Gen 48:5). It was also prophetically ordained by Jacob that Ephraim, the younger son, should take rank before Manasseh (Gen 48:19). The privilege of the double portion, however, remained to Manasseh as the elder son. Hence, in addition to his lot in Gilead and Bashan, he had also a portion in Western Palestine. But Ephraim was otherwise the more important tribe; and when the separation of the two kingdoms took place, Ephraim often gave his name to the larger division. And in the beautiful prophetic vision of Ezekiel, when the coming re-union of the nation is symbolized, it is on this wise: “Son of man, take thou one stick and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions; then take another stick and write upon it. For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions, and join them for thee one to another into one stick, that they may become one in thine hand” (Eze 37:16-17). The superiority allotted to Ephraim was not followed by very happy results; it raised an arrogant spirit in that tribe, of which we find some indications in the present chapter, but more pronounced and mischievous manifestations further on.
The delimitation of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is not easy to follow, particularly in the Authorized Version, which not only does not translate very accurately, but uses some English expressions of uncertain meaning. The Revised Version is much more helpful, correcting both classes of defects in its predecessor. Yet even the Revised Version sometimes leaves us at a loss. It has been supposed, indeed, that some words have dropped out of the text. Moreover, it has not been found possible to ascertain the position of all the places mentioned. Uncertainty as to the precise boundaries cannot but prevail, and differences of opinion among commentators. But the uncertainty applies only to the minuter features of the description, it bears chiefly on the points at which one tribe adjoined another. The portion of the land occupied by Ephraim and Manasseh is, on the whole, very clearly known, just as their influence on the history of the country is very distinctly marked.
In point of fact, the lot of Joseph in Western Palestine was, in many respects, the most desirable of any. It was a fertile and beautiful district. It embraced the valley of Shechem, the first place of Abraham’s sojourn, and reckoned by travellers to be one of the most beautiful spots, some say the most beautiful spot, in Palestine. Samaria, at the head of another valley celebrated for its “glorious beauty,” and for its “fatness ” or fertility (Isa 28:1), was at no great distance, Tirzah, a symbol of beauty, in the Song of Solomon (Son 6:4) was another of its cities, as was also Jezreel, “a lovely position for a capital city” (Tristram). On the other hand, this portion of the country laboured under the disadvantage of not having been well cleared of its original inhabitants. The men of Ephraim did not exert themselves as much as the men of Judah. This is apparent from what is said in Jos 16:10, ”They drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer “; and also from Joshua’s answer to the request of Ephraim for more land (Jos 17:15-18).
As we have said already, we have no information regarding Joshua’s conquest of this part of the country. It seems to have been run over more superficially than the north and the south. Consequently the ancient inhabitants were still very numerous, and they were formidable likewise, because they had chariots of iron.
In the definition of boundaries we have first a notice applicable to Joseph as a whole, then specifications applicable to Ephraim and Manasseh respectively. The southern border is delineated twice with considerable minuteness, and its general course, extending from near the Jordan at Jericho, past Bethel and Luz, and down the pass of Bethhoron to the Mediterranean, is clear enough. The border between Ephraim and Manasseh is not so clear, nor the northern border of Manasseh. It is further to be remarked that, while we have an elaborate statement of boundaries, we have no list of towns in Ephraim and Manasseh such as we have for the tribe of Judah. This gives countenance to the supposition that part of the ancient record has somehow dropped out. We find, however, another statement about towns which is of no small significance. At Jos 16:9 we find that several cities were appropriated to Ephraim that were situated in the territory of Manasseh. And in like manner several cities were given to Manasseh which were situated in the tribes of Issachar and Ashen Of these last the names are given. They were Bethshean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo. Some of them were famous in after history. Bethshean was the city to whose wall the bodies of Saul and his sons were fixed after the fatal battle of Gilboa; Ibleam was in the neighbourhood of Naboth’s vineyard (2Ki 9:25; 2Ki 9:27); Endor was the place of abode of the woman with a familiar spirit whom Saul went to consult; Taanach was the battle-field of the kings of Canaan whom Barak defeated, and of whom Deborah sung, –
“The kings came and fought; Then fought the kings of Canaan, In Taanach by the waters of Megiddo: They took no gain of money ” (Jdg 5:19).
As for Megiddo, many a battle was fought in its plain. So early as the days of Thotmes III. of Egypt (about 1600 B.C.) it was famous in battle, for in an inscription on the temple of Karnak, containing a record of his conquests in Syria, Megiddo flourishes as the scene of a great conflict. The saddest and most notable of its battles was that between King Josiah and the Egyptians, in which that good young king was killed. In fact, Megiddo obtained such notoriety as a battle-field that in the Apocalypse (Rev 16:16) Armageddon (Har-magedon, R.V.) is the symbol of another kind of battle-ground – the meeting-place for ”the war of the great day of God the Almighty.”
We can only conjecture why these cities, most of which were in Issachar, were given to Manasseh. They were strongholds in the great plain of Esdraelon, where most of the great battles of Canaan were fought.
For the defence of the plain it seemed important that these places should be held by a stronger tribe than Issachar. Hence they appear to have been given to Manasseh. But, like Ephraim, Manasseh was not able to hold them at first. ”The children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen strong that they put the Canaanites to task-work, and did not utterly drive them out” (R.V.). This last verse appears to have been inserted at a later date, and it agrees with 1Ch 7:29, where several of the same towns are enumerated, and it is added, “In these dwelt the children of Joseph, the son of Israel.”
Undoubtedly these sons of Joseph occupied a position which gave them unrivalled opportunities of benefiting their country. But with the exception of the splendid exploit of Gideon, a man of Manasseh, and his little band, we hear of little in the history that redounded to the credit of Joseph’s descendants. Nobility of character is not hereditary. Sometimes nature appears to spend all her intellectual and moral wealth on the father, and almost to impoverish the sons. And sometimes the sons live on the virtues of their fathers, and cannot be roused to the exertion or the sacrifice needed to continue their work and maintain their reputation. A humorous saying is recorded of an eminent pastor of the Waldensian Church who found his people much disposed to live on the reputation of their fathers, and tried in vain to get them to do as their fathers did; he said that they were like the potato – the best part of them was under the ground. If you say, ”We have Abraham for our father,” take care that you say “it in the proper sense. Be sure that you are following hard in his footsteps, and using his example as a spur to move your languid energies, and not as a screen to conceal your miserable defects. If you think of Abraham or of any forefather or body of forefathers as a cover for your nakedness, or a compensation for your defects, you are resorting to a device which has never proved successful in past ages, and is not likely to change its character with you.
After the division, the vain, self-important spirit of Ephraim broke out in a characteristic way. ”Why,” said he to Joshua, ”hast thou given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as hitherto the Lord hath blessed me?” A grumbling reference seems to be made here to his brother Manasseh, who had received two lots, one on each side of the Jordan. At first it appears that there was some reason in the complaint of Ephraim. The free part of his lot seems to have been small, that is, the part not occupied by Canaanites. But we cannot think that the whole inheritance of Ephraim was so small as we find represented in the map of Major Conder, of the Palestine Exploration Fund, in his “Handbook to the Bible,” because it is said, both in the Authorized and in the Revised Version, that his western boundary extended to the sea, while Major Conder makes it cease much sooner. But, looking at the whole circumstances, it is probable that Ephraim’s complaint was dictated by jealousy of Manasseh, who certainly had received the double inheritance.
Alas, how apt is the spirit of discontent still to crop up when we compare our lot with that of others! Were we quite alone, or were there no case for comparison, we might be content enough; it is when we think how much more our brother has than we, that we are most liable to murmur. And, bad though murmuring and grieving at the good of our brother may be, it is by no means certain that the evil spirit will stop there. At the very dawn of history we find Cain the murderer of his brother because the one had the favour of God and not the other. What an evil feeling it is that grudges to our brother a larger share of God’s blessing; if at the beginning it be not kept under it may carry us on to deeds that may well make us shudder.
Joshua dealt very wisely and fearlessly with the complaint of Ephraim, though it was his own tribe. You say you are a great people – be it so; but if you are a great people, you must be capable of great deeds. Two great undertakings are before you now. There are great woodlands in your lot that have not been cleared – direct your energies to them, and they will afford you more room for settlements. Moreover, the Canaanites are still in possession of a large portion of your lot; up and attack them and drive them out, and you will be furnished with another area for possession. Joshua accepted their estimate of their importance, but gave it a very different practical turn. What they had wished him to do was to take away a portion from some other tribe and give it as an extra allotment to them, so that it would be theirs without labour or trouble. What Joshua did was to spur them to courageous and self-denying exertion, in order that their object might be gained through the instrumentality of their own labour. For the sickly sentiment that desires a mine of gold to start into being and scatter its untold treasure at our feet, he substituted the manly sentiment of the proverb, “No gains without pains.” ”The soul of the sluggard desireth and hath nothing; but the hand of the diligent maketh rich.” If they wished more land they must work for it; they must not take idleness for their patron-saint.
We have all heard of the dying father who informed his sons that there was a valuable treasure in a certain field, and counselled them to set to work to find it. With great care they turned up every morsel of the soil; but no treasure appeared, till, observing in autumn what a rich crop covered the field, they came to understand that the fruit of persevering labour was the treasure which their father meant. We have heard, too, of a physician who was consulted by a rich man suffering cruelly from gout, and asked if he had any cure for it. ”Yes,” said the doctor, “live on sixpence a day, and work for it.” The same principle underlay the counsel of Joshua. Of course it gratifies a certain part of our nature to get a mass of wealth without working for it. But this is not the best part of our nature. Probably in no class has the great object of life been so much lost, and the habit of indolence and selfindulgence become so predominant as in that of young men born to the possession of a great fortune, and never requiring to turn a hand for anything they desired. After all, the necessity of work is a great blessing. We speak of the curse of toil, but except when the labour is excessive, or unhealthy in its conditions, or when it has to be prosecuted in sickness or failing strength, it is not a curse but a blessing. Instead of being ashamed of labour, we have cause rather to be proud of it. It guards from numberless temptations; it promotes a healthy body and a healthy mind; it increases the zest of life; it promotes cheerfulness and flowing spirits; it makes rest and healthy recreation far sweeter when they come, and it gives us affinity to the great Heavenly Worker, by whom, and through whom, and for whom are all things.
This great principle of ordinary life has its place too in the spiritual economy. The age is now past that had for its favourite notion, that seclusion from the world and exemption from all secular employment was the most desirable condition for a servant of God. The experiment of the hermits was tried, but it was a failure. Seclusion from the world and the consecration of the whole being to private acts of devotion and piety were no success. He who moves about among his fellows, and day by day knows the strain of labour, is more likely to prosper spiritually than he who shuts himself up in a cell, and looks on all secular work as pollution. It is not the spiritual invalid who is for ever feeling his pulse and whom every whiff of wind throws into a fever of alarm, that grows up to the full stature of the Christian; but the man who, like Paul, has his hands and his heart for ever full, and whose every spiritual fibre gains strength and vitality from his desires and labours for the good of others. And it is with churches as with individuals. An idle church is a stagnant church, prone to strife, and to all morbid experiences. A church that throws itself into the work of faith and labour of love is far more in the way to be spiritually healthy and strong. It was not for the good of the world merely, but of the church herself likewise, that our Lord gave out that magnificent mot d’ordre – “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Before we pass from the inheritance of the sons of Joseph, it is proper that we should direct attention to an incident which may seem trifling to us, but which was evidently regarded as of no little moment at the time. What we refer to is the petition presented by the five daughters of Zelophehad, a member of the tribe of Manasseh, for an inheritance in their tribe. Their father had no son, so that the family was represented wholly by daughters. No fewer than four times the incident is referred to, and the names of the five girls given in full (Num 26:33; Num 27:1-11; Num 36:11; Jos 17:3). We know not if there be another case in Scripture of such prominence given to names for no moral or spiritual quality, but simply in connection with a law of property.
The question decided by their case was the right of females to inherit property in land when there were no heirs male in the family. We find that the young women themselves had to be champions of their own cause. Evidently possessed of more than ordinary spirit, they had already presented themselves before Moses, Eleazar the priest, and the princes of the congregation, at the door of the tabernacle, and formally made a claim to the inheritance that would have fallen to their father had he been alive. The case was deemed of sufficient importance to be laid before the Lord, because the decision on it would settle similar cases for the whole nation and for all time. The decision was, that in such cases the women should inherit, but under the condition that they should not marry out of their own tribe, so that the property should not be transferred to another tribe. In point of fact, the five sisters married their cousins, and thus kept the property in the tribe of Manasseh.
The incident is interesting, because it shows a larger regard to the rights of women than was usually conceded at the time. Some have, indeed, found fault with the decision as not going far enough. Why, they have asked, was the right of women to inherit land limited to cases in which there were no men in the family? The decision implied that if there had been one brother, he would have got all the land; the sisters would have been entitled to nothing. The answer to this objection is, that had the rights of women been recognised to this extent, it would have been too great an advance on the public opinion of the time. It was not God’s method to enjoin laws absolutely perfect, but to enjoin what the conscience and public opinion of the time might be fairly expected to recognise and support. It may be that under a perfect system women ought to inherit property on equal terms with men. But the Jewish nation was not sufficiently advanced for such a law. The benefit of the enactment was that, when propounded, it met with general approval.
Certainly it was a considerable advance on the ordinary practice of the nations. It established the principle that woman was not a mere chattel, an inferior creature, subject to the control of the man, with no rights of her own. But it was far from being the first time when this principle obtained recognition. The wives of the patriarchs – Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel – were neither chattels, nor drudges, nor concubines. They were ladies, exerting the influence and enjoying the respect due to cultivated, companionable women. And though the law of succession did not give the females of the family equal rights with the males, it recognised them in another way. While the eldest son succeeded to the family home and a double portion of the land, he was expected to make some provision for his widowed mother and unmarried sisters. In most cases the sisters came to be provided for by marriage.
It is the circumstance that among us so many women remain unmarried that has drawn so keen attention to their rights, and already caused so much to be done, as no doubt more will be done speedily, for enlarging their sphere and protecting their interests.
No doubt these spirited daughters of Zelophehad conferred a great benefit on their sex in Israel. Their names are entitled to grateful remembrance, as the names of all are who bring about beneficial arrangements that operate in many directions and to all time. Yet one would be sorry to think that this was the only service which they rendered in their day. One would like to think of them as shedding over their households and friends the lustre of those gentle, womanly qualities which are the glory of the sex. Advocacy of public rights may be a high duty, for the faithful discharge of which the highest praise is due; but such a career emits little of the fragrance which radiates from a female life of faithful love, domestic activity, and sacred devotion. What blessed ideals of life Christianity furnishes for women even of middling talent and ordinary education! It is beautiful to see distinguished talents, high gifts, and persuasive elements directed to the advocacy of neglected claims. ”And yet I show unto you a more excellent way.”