Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Joshua 17:1

There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh; for he [was] the firstborn of Joseph; [to wit], for Machir the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead: because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan.

Ch. Jos 17:1-6. The Inheritance of Western Manasseh

1. There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh ] Although the tribe of Manasseh had already, as we have seen, obtained an extensive inheritance east of the Jordan, where a portion of the warlike descendants of Machir had left their families, the rest of the tribe now claimed a further grant of land in addition to what they had acquired by force of arms.

for he was the firstborn of Joseph ] Comp. Gen 41:51, “And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh (a forgetter); for God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house.” And again, Gen 48:14, “And Israel stretched out his left hand, and laid it upon Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.” The birth of this child in Egypt, before the commencement of the famine, was the first alleviation of Joseph’s sorrows since he left his home and his father, who loved him with such passionate affection.

for Machir ] The eldest son of the patriarch Manasseh. His mother was an Araman or Syrian concubine (1Ch 7:14-15). Her name is not preserved, but her children are commemorated as having been caressed by Joseph before his death; “the children also of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were brought up ( borne, marg.) upon Joseph’s knees (Gen 50:23).

the father of Gilead ] The word “Gilead” here in the original has the article. This denotes not a person, but the province, or district of Gilead, and the word rendered father = “lord,” or “possessor.” The expression “father of Gilead” therefore = “lord” or “possessor of Gilead.”

therefore he had Gilead and Bashan ] Machir is here used for his family, for it was not he himself, but his descendants Jair and Nobah, who conquered the territory east of the Jordan. Jair captured the whole of the tract of Argob (Deu 3:14), and in addition took possession of some nomad villages in Gilead, which he called after his own name, Havoth-Jair (Num 32:41; 1Ch 2:23). Nobah possessed himself of the town of Kenath and the hamlets dependent upon it, and gave them his own name (Num 32:42). For the territory of the half tribe of Manasseh east of the Jordan, see above, ch. Jos 13:29-32. The district called “Gilead” is also sometimes called “Mount Gilead” (Gen 31:25); sometimes “the land of Gilead” (Num 32:1); and sometimes simply “Gilead” (as here, and Gen 37:25; Psa 60:7). The name signifies the physical aspect of the country = a “hard rocky region.” It extended from the parallel of the south end of the Sea of Galilee to that of the north end of the Dead Sea, about 60 miles, and its average breadth scarcely exceeded 20. See Smith’s Bibl. Dict.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Manasseh, as the first-born, was to receive not only the territory on the east of Jordan won by the valor of the Machirites, but also a portion with the other tribes on the west of Jordan, the holy land of promise strictly so called. Thus, though Ephraim took precedence of Manasseh, according to the prediction of Joseph Gen 48:20, yet Manasseh received the double portion which was the special privilege of the first-born Deu 21:17.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Jos 17:1-18

Zelophehad . . . had no sons, but daughters.

The rights of women

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. 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. 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. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)

Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities.–What with could not in the one, and would not in the other, the enemies of peace and purity were allowed to remain. But why was it, but because of the cowardice and unbelief of could not? for no rebellion and opposition of would not could hold out against the strength of Israels sword. It is not so correctly our cannot as our will not that so many hold a share in our hearts to their annoyance and pollution; for what enemies might not a Christian conquer, what achievements not make, in the spiritual warfare, who goes forth in the strength of the Lord, and in the power of His might? (W. Seaton.)

What hinders

No, as they were then, and as just then they were going on, they could not drive out the Canaanites–that was true enough.

1. Their mood was wrong. They preferred ease to energy. Josephus tells us: After this the Israelites 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 neglected the regular disposition of their settlement, and indulged themselves in luxury and pleasures. The Benjamites, to whom belonged Jerusalem, permitted its inhabitants to pay tribute; the rest of the tribes, imitating Benjamin, did the same; and, contenting themselves with the tributes which were paid them, permitted the Canaanites to live in peace. In such a mood of course they could not.

2. Lapped thus in luxury, and thinking more of their own pleasant ease than of their nobler duty, these Israelites had lost practical and prevailing faith in God. And so, of course, letting the weapon of their faith rust in a bad non-use they could not drive these Canaanites from their strongholds.

3. Lying thus in this enervating ease, and losing thus their practical faith in God, the dangers and difficulties in the way of the extirpating these Canaanites were, to their thought, correspondingly increased. The strongholds, to their fearful ease-loving feeling, grew very strong; the fortresses perched upon the rocky hill-tops seemed very unassailable; the chariots of iron–which, drawn by maddened horses and horrible with long, sharp knives, would come dashing upon their ranks–grew awfully terrible. And thus again, of course, they could not.

4. But think now of these Israelites marshalled and armed for their duty; as ready to obey their Gods command; as determined to put Jehovah to the proof, and to go forth relying on His promise. How plain it is that the could not would have belonged to the Canaanites, and the would would have been the word for these Israelites. Then we had had Scripture of another sort, viz., And the children of Manasseh would drive out the inhabitants of those cities, and the Canaanites could not dwell in that land. (W. Hoyt, D. D.)

Little will, and thus no way

I. Inability in its relation to unbelief. The promises of God had been many, and the warnings urgent (Exo 34:10-17; Num 33:50-56, &c.). They who begin by disbelieving God may well fear to encounter powerful enemies.

II. Inability in its relation to indisposition. The indisposition that comes–

1. Through fear of men.

2. Through love of ease.

3. Through undervaluing the importance of Gods command.

III. The inability of God-aided men presently shown to be a mere pretence and a poor excuse.

1. The revelation which comes through transgressors themselves. When the children of Israel were waxen strong, they put the Canaanites to tribute. Could not is here seen to be would not. That tribute told the entire story in its true colours. Tribute goes on telling secrets still. The tribute of Judas burned into his very soul, till he threw the thirty pieces on the temple floor, and cried over them in agony. The tribute of the craft by which Demetrius had his wealth let out the secret reason of his great love for the despised Diana (Act 19:24-27). The dishonest merchant cannot keep his gains from preaching. Transgressors win their way to success unobserved, and then betray themselves with the very gains they have won.

2. The revelation which comes through those who succeed transgressors. Out of this very section of the tribe of Manasseh arose Gideon, of the family of the Abi-ezrites (verse 2). On this very ground of the half-tribe of Manasseh was fought the great battle which delivered Israel from the Midianites. And how was it fought? By an army from which more than thirty thousand had been sent to their homes; by a small force of three hundred men, who merely brake their pitchers, and held their torches on high, shedding light on a truth afterwards embodied in one of the famous sayings of Israel, The battle is the Lords. It was as though God were purposely reproving the faint-heartedness and idleness of these men who had lived in the days of Joshua. (F. G. Marchant.)

Why hast thou given me but one lot?—

The complaining of Ephraim

A grumbling reference seems to be made here by Ephraim to his brother Manasseh, who had received two lots, one on each side of the Jordan. 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 Gods 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 s 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. We have all heard of the dying father who informed his sons that there was a valuable treasure in 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 self-indulgence 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. 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. 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. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)

Discontentment

I. The easy way to discontentment. Anybody can complain. Everybody is tempted to complain. Most of those who murmur think that they can show good cause for their complaints. No man is rich enough to be out of the reach of discontent. No man is poor enough to be below the possibility or: happiness.

II. The unfailing testimony of discontentment.

1. Complaints furnish no trustworthy evidence about a mans lot. How can they, when so many murmur in every kind of lot which the world knows?

2. Complaints bear unfailing witness against the murmurer himself. Scripture often condemns the man who complains, apart from considering the cause of complaining.

III. The true answer to discontentment.

1. Joshua was too wise to dispute the assumption of greatness (verses 15-17). He who tries to argue a discontented man out of his favourite assumptions does but waste breath.

2. Joshua turned the plea of greatness back on those who used it: If thou be a great people, then–work, fight.

3. Joshua sought to cure the murmuring of the heart through the diligence of the hand. The energy which is absorbed in gloomy thoughts, and poured out in bitter complaints, would generally double the small inheritance, if it were rightly directed. Apart from this industry and courage ever tend to happiness.

4. Joshua encouraged these murmurers to think that to the people of God no difficulties were insuperable. He would have them think of the invincible might which had promised to support their faithful efforts (Deu 20:1-4), and make them victorious. The after history shows us that, a discontented spirit is not easily cured. These people showed the same haughty dissatisfaction again and again after the death of Joshua (Jdg 8:1-3; Jdg 8:12. I-6). He who has cultivated contentment through faith in God is not readily disturbed; while the man who has learned, in whatsoever state he is, to find some fault with his fellows, has given room in his heart for a demon that is not easily expelled. (F. G. Marchant.)

The self-aggrandising spirit

They did not use the power which God gave them for the execution of His commands and for driving out the Canaanites, but they misapplied it to their own self-aggrandisement, and to the indulgence of their own covetousness; and they were not content with the lot they had received, although it was the most fruitful part of Palestine; but in a boastful spirit of self-adulation they said, I am a great people; they claimed a larger portion for themselves, in order that they might be enriched thereby. Here is an example of that self-idolising and self-aggrandising spirit in nations and in Churches which seek to extend themselves by colonisation and conquest, and even by missionary enterprise, not so much that they may gain kingdoms for Christ, and win subjects to Him, but in order that they may have vassals and tributaries to themselves. Is there not here a solemn warning to such nations as England, which publicly and privately derives an immense revenue from her two hundred millions of subjects in India, and yet has done little hitherto to bring them into subjection to Christ? (Bp. Chris. Wordsworth.)

Discontented with our lot

When the last national census was when it would have been an interesting question to have asked just how many people were where they wanted to be. I fear that the really contented souls would have been a very small minority. Contentment with ones spiritual condition is quite too common; and of such low-grade Christians there is not much hope of improvement. But those who are really contented with their present lot, present place of residence, present circumstances or fields of labour, are not in the majority. Take, for example, the ministers of the Gospel and see how many will say: Well, my place of labour has peculiar difficulties; it is a hard field, and I have a great deal to encounter, and if I could get a first-rate call to some better place I would be off in a minute. Very probably you would. But, my good brother, if you will discover any parish on this round globe that has not some peculiar difficulties to encounter, then you wilt have found a people so perfect that they will not need any preaching. Mary Lyons noble advice to her pupils at Mount Holyoke Seminary was: When you choose your field of labour for Christ, go where nobody else is willing to go. Heaven is the only place I have ever heard of where there is no hard work or no difficulties. (T. L. Cuyler.)

Restless discontent to be avoided

My first parish was a very discouraging one, and I was just threatening to play Jonah and leave it when the Lord poured out His Spirit on the little flock and we had a revival that taught me more than six months did in a theological seminary. Many years afterwards I was sorely harassed with doubt whether I should remain in a certain pulpit or go to a very inviting one nearly a thousand miles away. I opened Richard Cecils Remains–a volume of most valuable thought–and my eyes fell on these pithy words: Taking new steps in life are very serious dangers, especially if there be in our motives any mixture of selfish ambition. Wherefore gaddest thou about to change thy way? I turned up that text in the book of Jeremiah; it decided me not to gad about or change my field of labour, and I have thanked God for a decision that resulted in my happy thirty years pastorate in Brooklyn. There are un questionably times and circumstances in which a minister or any Christian worker should change his place of labour, but never under the promptings of a restless, discontented, or self-seeking spirit. (T. L. Cuyler.)

The Lord hath blessed me hitherto–

Retrospect

I. A confession: The Lord hath blessed me hitherto. I will not at present speak to those of you upon whom the blessing of God has never rested. Re member, that every man is either under the curse or under the blessing. They that are of the works of the law are under the curse. Faith in Him who was made a curse for us is the only way to the blessing. But I speak to as many as have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the Lord saith, Surely, blessing I will bless thee. You can say at this time, God hath blessed me hitherto.

1. He has blessed you with those blessings which are common to all the house of Israel. You and I, who are in Christ, are partakers of all covenant blessings in Christ Jesus. If children, then heirs; and if we are children of God, then we are heirs of all things. Ye are Christs, and Christ is Gods, and therefore all things are yours. Can you not say–The Lord hath blessed me hitherto? Has He ever denied you one of the blessings common to the covenanted family? Has He ever told you that you may not pray, or that you may not trust? Has He forbidden you to cast your burden on the Lord? Has He denied to you fellowship with Himself and communion with His dear Son? Has He laid an embargo on any one of the promises? Has He shut you out from any one of the provisions of His love?

2. But then, besides this, Ephraim and Manasseh had special blessings, the peculiar blessing of Joseph, which did not belong to Judah, or Reuben, or Issachar. Each saint may tell his fellow something that he does not know; and in heaven it will be a part of the riches of glory to hold commerce in those specialities which each one has for himself alone. I shall not be you, neither will you be me; neither shall we train be like another two, or the four of us like any other four, though all of us shall be like our Lord when we shall see Him as He is. I want you each to feel at this hour–The Lord hath blessed me hitherto. Personally, I often sit me down alone, and say, Whence is this to me? I cannot but admire the special goodness of my Lord to me.

3. I think, besides this, that these two tribes which made up the house of Joseph, also meant to say that, not only had God blessed them with the common blessings of Israel, and the special blessing of their tribe, but also with actual blessings. As far as they had gone they had driven out the Canaanites, and taken possession of the country. They had not received all that was promised; but God had blessed them hitherto. Come, we have not driven out all the Canaanites yet, but we have driven out many of them. We are not what we hope to be, but we are not what we used to be. We cannot yet see everything clearly, but we are not blind, as once we were, We have not seen our Lord as He is, but we have seen Him; and the joy of that sight will never be taken from us. Therefore, before the Lord and His assembled people, we joyfully declare that The Lord hath blessed us hitherto.

Let us expand this confession a little, and speak thus:

1. All the blessings that we have received have come from God. Do not let us trace any blessing to ourselves, or to our fellow-men; for though the minister of God may be as a conduit-pipe to bring us refreshing streams, yet all our fresh springs are in God, and not in men. Say, The Lord hath blessed me hitherto.

2. And, mark you, there has been a continuity of this blessing. God has not blessed us, and then paused; but He has blessed us hitherto. One silver thread of blessing extends from the cradle to the grave. There is an unconquerable pertinacity in the love of God: His grace cannot be baffled or turned aside; but His goodness and His mercy follow us all the days of our lives.

3. In addition to that continuity there is a delightful consistency about the Lords dealings. The Lord hath blessed us hitherto. No curse has intervened. He has blessed us, and only blessed us. There has been no yea and nay with Him; no enriching us with spiritual blessings, and then casting us away. He has frowned upon us, truly; but His love has been the same in the frown as in the smile. He has chastened us sorely; but He has never given us over unto death.

4. And, what is more, when my text says, The Lord hath blessed me hitherto, there is a kind of prophecy in it, for hitherto has a window forward as well as backward. You sometimes see a railway carriage or truck, fastened on to what goes before, but there is also a great hook behind. What is that for? Why, to fasten something else behind, and so to lengthen the train. Any one mercy from God is linked on to all the mercy that went before it; but provision is also made for adding future blessing. All the years to come are guaranteed by the ages past.

II. The argument: Forasmuch as the Lord hath blessed me hitherto.

1. This is cause for holy wonder and amazement. Why should the Lord have blessed me?

2. Be full of holy gratitude. Get into the state of that poor man who was so greatly blessed to pious Tauler. He wished the man a good-day. The man replied, Sir, I never had a bad day. Oh, but I wish you good weather. Said he, Sir, it is always good weather. If it rains or if it shines, it is such weather as God pleases, and what pleases God pleases me. Our sorrows lie mainly at the roots of our selfishness, and when our self-hood is dug up, our sorrow to a great extent is gone. Let us, then, utter this text, Forasmuch as the Lord hath blessed me hitherto, with hearty gratitude for His holy will. Summing up gains and losses, joys and griefs, let us say with Job, The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, and blessed be the name of the Lord.

3. Say also, with holy confidence, The Lord hath blessed me hitherto. Speak as you find. If any inquire, What has God been to you? answer, He hath blessed me hitherto. The devil whispers, If thou be the son of God; and he then insinuates, God deals very hardly with you. See what you suffer. See how you are left in the dark! Answer him, Get thee behind me, Satan, for surely goodness and mercy have followed me all the days of my life; and if God takes from me any earthly good, shall I receive good at the hand of the Lord, and shall I not receive evil? He who can stand to this stands on good ground. In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly. But he that gets away from this drifts I know not where.

4. Furthermore, if this be true, let us resolve to engage in enlarged enterprises. If the Lord has blessed us hitherto, why should He not bless us in something fresh? (C. H. Spurgeon.)

If thou be a great people, then get thee up.

Encroachments not permissible

Encroachments were not to be made upon their brethren, but new inroads upon their enemies, whom it had become their duty utterly to exterminate. This was the work which Providence had assigned to them, both for the enlargement of the portion, and for the exercise of their piety; and therefore the straitness in which they were placed, intended as it was for an excitement to diligence, fortitude, and faith, was no real crook in the lot. What employs mens hearts and hands for God must be a work with a blessing annexed to it, and always attended with its own reward. In the cultivation of Messiahs kingdom, the assigned inheritance of the Church, and extension of its borders in the world there are many wastes of sin to be taken in, many longstanding thickets of corruption to be hewn and cleared away. The straitened boundaries of Immanuels land require many spiritual, never-weary labourers in well-doing. How much ought it to be the grief of every pious mind, and the matter of his most anxious concern, in seeing those vast territories yet the possessions of enemies worse than the Perizzites and giants on the borders of Ephraim. Whatever presses on the view to desist from undertakings to which we have the Lords special call, or the token of His marked approbation, the considerations of His power and promise are quite sufficient to encourage exertions. In a spiritual view all the Lords people are a great people, and having great power are destined to mighty enterprises and achievements. In themselves and outward condition, none are more weak and contemptible; yet in their infinitely glorious Lord and Captain they are both great and powerful, so that through grace strengthening them they can do all things, even cut through the greatest obstructions, and conquer the most formidable enemies. Success was to crown action. Neither the axe nor the sword would be employed in vain; the woodland instrument nor the warlike weapon. Reward, though but in promise, sweetens labour, and the hope of triumph emboldens to conflict; but how much more the assurance of both! The Christian has no less encouragement in all the enterprises assigned him; for whether in works of faith, in labours of love, or in the toils of conflict, this is the invigorating address: Be not weary in well-doing, for in due season ye shall reap if ye faint not. They had only to work and the way would open; to fight, and the enemy would yield to the sword, as the thicket to the axe. The possession was theirs, and needed only to be claimed. Who would not thus have his coast enlarged? for the inheritance that improves, and widens beneath its owners own hand and eye has far more charms, and yields higher satisfaction than the seat of ease obtained by others. Heaven will be but the sweeter, the more welcome and valued, after the labours of this mortal life, and its conquests close in eternal triumphs. (W. Seaton.)

Labour the price of excellence

This is the voice of Gods providence to every soul that has dreamed of greatness, or of the possession of unfolded powers and abilities. By labour show your talent. Express what you are by what you do. Michael Angelo once exhibited a rare specimen of his art, and it was pronounced beautiful and wonderful. Months passed, and visitors saw nothing more in his studio, and when he was asked what he had been doing Angelo answered that he had been at work on the same statue, reducing this feature and developing that; and his visitors said those were but trifles, and he should be engaged on something great. To this he replied, Trifles make perfection, and perfection itself is no trifle. That was a noble answer. Indeed, genius may be defined as that power which best magnifies trifles. It sees the worth of everything, it glorifies the small because of their relation to the great. The most finished actor of our age, on retiring from his profession, and on receiving a public testimonial as having made the best impression on his age in reference to his art, made the memorable remark, Whatever is excellent in art must spring from labour and endurance. That sentiment may well be written on the shield of every aspiring young man. Greatness is from culture, rather than from genius; and if it had a voice for the world, it would sing of The high endeavours and the glad success. There are unquestionably some instances of that original intensity of a mental faculty by which the mind springs, as it were, at a leap, to the results it desires; but it is certain that many of the most remarkable men have attributed to patient labour what the world have attributed, in them, to endowment. That Newton attributed his success to greater patience with the minute is well known, and Sir Joshua Reynolds held that superiority resulted from intense and constant application of the strength of intellect to a specific purpose. Genius, he said, is the art of making repeated efforts. The first effort he made with his pencil was the perspective of a book-case from sheer idleness; but his father saw it, encouraged him, and he went on by labour to success. Benjamin West, when he drew the babes face as he watched it in the cradle, was kissed by his mother for the effort, and was wont to say, That kiss made me a painter. And to every department of artistic, mechanical, and professional life the advice of Sir Joshua Reynolds to his scholars is adapted, where he said, Make no dependence on your own genius. If you have great talents, labour will improve them; if you have poor talents, labour will increase them. Nothing is denied to well-directed labour. Nothing is to be obtained without it. Napoleon well said, when once asked to create a marshal out of a man who belonged to a noble family, but who had no other claim, It is not I that make marshals, but victory. What we attribute to some gift may be traced to the kindling and concentrating power of feeling or passion, as is illustrated in the many instances where the greatest mental effort has sprung from passion. Scorched and stung by a Scottish reviewer, Byron wrote a poem, and he who was deemed but a simple rhymester became a poet, as he himself once said, I went to bed one night, and woke up to find myself famous. So in sharp debates, in violent controversy, the most remarkable things have been uttered; men have gone beyond themselves and have astonished the world. A mighty intensity of thought has burned within them, and they have brought the whole stock of intellectual attainment to bear upon the matter before them. The best things of many men in all departments of effort have been unpremeditated; but this gives no argument against labour, study, and forecast, because these men have been made capable of these great or uncommon efforts, by the wealth of mind stored up. The ripe things of nature fall into hands prepared to receive them; and in a profound sense may the wise mans words be applied beyond religion, where he says, The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him. Genius, therefore, is really intensity of thought, feeling, emotion, activity. All the faculties of the man are in earnest. The whole man is glorified by the intensity of the determined spirit, and what is done is done with every energy–with a resoluteness that means with persistence of effort to conquer if such a thing can be. Take up any mans life who has risen to real, permanent eminence, and you see there the marks of labour; so that it may be said of many, as was said of Piso, What he withdrew of application he deducted from glory. Goethe said truly, What is genius but the faculty of seeing and turning to advantage everything that strikes us? And so thought the celebrated French landscape painter, Poussin, who, when asked how he was able to give such an effect to his paintings, simply answered, I have neglected nothing. The price of excellence, then, is labour. What most we need is to intensify our love of God and His gospel–to make faith more a fire–a fire that rouses up to action every inmate of the house, and shows what wonders can be wrought. A fire that demands more and more fuel, when it is rightly confined to its place, and that bids us go out of our Mount Ephraim, into the land of the giants, and cut wood. (Henry Bacon.)

The responsibility of greatness

1. It is not a brave and wholesome thing to be too eager for favours and for help from others. There are men of this class in every community. They want to rise in the world, but they would rise on the exertions and sacrifices of others–not their own. We find the same in spiritual life. There are those who sigh for holiness and beauty of character, but they are not willing to pay the price. They would make prayer a substitute for effort, for struggle, for the crucifying of self. They want a larger spiritual inheritance, but they have no thought of taking it in primeval forests which their own hands must cut down. The truth is, however, that God gives us our inheritance just as He gave Josephs lot to him. Our promised land has to be won, every inch of it. You must train your own faith. You must cultivate your own heart-life. You must learn patience, gentleness, and all the lessons of love yourself. No one can give you any Christian grace.

2. True friendship ofttimes declines to do for men what they can do for themselves. If you can wake up a young man, arouse his sleeping or undiscovered powers, so that he will win a fortune with his own hands and brain, that is an infinitely better thing to do for him than if you were to give him a fortune as a present. In the former case, in getting his fortune, he has gotten also trained powers, energy, strength, self-reliance, disciplined character and all the elements that belong to strong manhood. In the other case he gets nothing but the money. A little poem tells the story of two friends. One brought a crystal goblet full of water which he had dipped from flowing streams on far-off mountain heights. The hills were his, and his the bright, sweet water. But the water did not refresh his friend. The other looked upon him kindly, saw his need, and gave him–nothing. With a face severe he bade him seek his own hard quarry, hew out the way for the imprisoned waters, and find drink for himself. He obeyed, and the water gave him satisfaction. That is Gods way with us. He does not make life easy for us. Surely it is a wiser love that puts new strength into your heart and arm, so that you can go on with your hard duty, your heavy responsibility, your weight of care, without fainting, than would be the love which should take all the load away and leave you free from any burden.

3. True greatness should show itself, not in demanding favours or privileges, but in achieving great things. The way a commander honours the best regiment on the field of battle is, not by assigning it to some easy post, to some duty away from danger. He hot, ours it by giving it the most perilous post, the duty requiring the most splendid courage. So it is in all life–the place of honour is always the hardest place, where the most delicate and difficult duty must be done, where the heaviest burden of responsibility must be borne. It is never a real honour to be given an easy place. Instead of demanding a place of honour as a favour of friendship, which gets no seat of real greatness upon our brow, we should win our place of honour by worthy deeds and services. The truth is far-reaching in its applications. It should sweep out of our thought for ever all feeling that others owe us favours; all that spirit which shows itself in self-seeking, in claims for place or precedence over others. The law of love is that with whatsoever we have we must serve our fellow-men. The most highly dowered life that this world ever saw was that of Jesus Christ. Yet He demanded no recognition of men. He claimed no rank. He never said His lowly place was too small, too narrow, for the exercise of His great abilities. He used His greatness in doing good, in blessing the world. He was the greatest among men, and He was the servant of all. This is the true mission of greatness. There is no other true and worthy way of using whatever gifts God has bestowed upon us. Instead of claiming place, distinction, rank, position, and attention, because of our gifts, abilities, wisdom, or name, we must use all we have to bless the world and honour God. (J. R. Millar, D. D.)

The proof of greatness

Petty jealousies are harder to deal with than anything else. Joshua had not only to conquer but also to divide the country. It was divided into several parts. Jealousy was aroused. Some said, You have not considered my greatness as you did that of Ephraim. In the present day a worker for God has need to pray for tact to deal with others. Our text is very suggestive, and may be applied in many ways. Prove thy greatness by clearing the forest. Pretension proved by achievement; thus prove thy strength by thy actions.

1. If great, why not clear the forest? Great power demands corresponding enterprise! Some financially are great; if so, let your contributions be beyond others who are not in such a position. If possessed of a superior education, prove it by your exertions to benefit others. Some are great in position as standard-bearers in Gods army; prove it by your faith; show what faith will do; go up and clear the forest by your zeal and consecration–the more advantages we claim the more obligations we contract.

2. If cramped for room, why not clear the ground you have? Some are always asking for more scope, from the village to the town, from the town to the city, forgetting that in their own sphere they have not done all they could do. When this is done God will open up a larger sphere. Do thoroughly all that in which you are engaged. The man who looks after the ones and twos God will bless with other larger spheres for usefulness. Greatness does not lie in pretensions but in actions. (A. G. Brown.)

Cure for complaining

This, then, is the cure for our complainings–the memory of the Lords promises of help; and then the brave going forth against the causes of the complainings, and thus the curing of them.

1. Apply this cure for complainings to the winning of culture. How often we complain, in our circumstances, with our limitations, with our business, &c., no chance for culture. And we settle to the newspaper or fill up the chance moments with a hurried reading of the last novel–not the last best; too often the last worst. But the cure for such complainings is, with Gods help, to go forth and seize culture. Take up the Chautauqua scheme for reading, for example. Take it up, go through with it, put the energy into doing your work and not into complaining, and you will grow in culture surprisingly.

2. Apply this cure for complainings to the maintaining a consistent Christian profession. Think of the saints in Caesars household. By Gods help determine to be a saint, whatever your circumstances.

3. Apply this cure for complainings to the duty of becoming Christian. What Canaanites and Perrizzites of objections men are apt to make–e.g., do not understand whole Bible; it is a hard thing to serve God; it is gloomy to be Christian; I am afraid God will not receive me; so many hypocrites among professing Christians; I dont know that I am one of the elect; I have not time; I am not fit; I will meet a good deal of opposition; I dont feel; I am afraid if I do become a Christian I will not hold out; I cannot believe; I am willing to be a secret Christian, &c., illimitably. But stop complainingly conjuring such objections. Go forth in the promised help of Christ to Christ, any way. So at once get cure for your complainings and surely find the forgiveness and peace of Christ. (W. Hoyt, D. D.)

Thou shalt drive out the Canaanites.–

Driving out the Canaanites and their iron chariots

I. We must drive them out. Every sin has to be slaughtered. Not a single sin is to be tolerated.

1. They must all be driven out, for every sin is our enemy. Any pretence of friendship with iniquity is mischievous.

2. Sin is our Lords most cruel enemy. Saved by Jesus, will you not hate sin as He did? Would any person here lay up in his drawer as a treasure the knife with which his father was murdered? Our sins were the daggers that slew the Saviour. Can we bear to think of them?

3. Remember, also, that a man cannot be free from sin if he is the servant of even one sin. Here is a man who has a long chain on his leg–a chain of fifty links. Now, suppose that I come in as a liberator, and take away forty-nine links, but still leave the iron fastened to the pillar, and his leg in the one link which is within the iron ring, what benefit have I brought him? How much good have I done? The man is still a captive.

II. They can be driven out. I do not say that we can drive them out, but I say that they can be driven out. It will be a great miracle, but let us believe in it; for other great wonders have been wrought.

1. Note first that you and I have been raised from the dead. Is it not so? You hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins. If a dead man has been raised, then anything can be done with the man who is now made alive.

2. You have also by Divine power been led to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. If you have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as the result of Divine grace within your heart, what is there that you cannot do? If you have been enabled to believe, you can be enabled to be holy. He that led you to exert faith, can lead you, by faith, to overcome any and every iniquity.

3. You have already conquered many sins. He that has helped you so far can surely help you even to the conclusion of the fight. Do not doubt that the almighty power of Divine grace, which has achieved so much, can achieve yet more. Be strong and very courageous, for the Lord of hosts Himself is at your side.

4. Have you not seen other Christians conquer? Oh, let your memory charge you now with brethren and sisters in whom you saw great infirmities and sins at the commencement of their spiritual career; but how they have grown! How they have vanquished inbred sin! What God has done for them He can do for you.

III. They shall be driven out.

1. This is what Christ died for, to save His people, not from some of their sins, but from all their sins.

2. This is what Christ lives for. Christ in heaven is the pattern of what we shall be, and He will not fail to mould us after His own model. We shall one day be perfectly conformed to His image, and then we shall be with Him in glory. Our Lords honour is bound up with the presentation of all His saints in spotless purity to Himself in the day of His glorious marriage.

3. This is what the Holy Spirit is given for. He is not given to come into our hearts, and comfort us in our sins, but to deliver us from all evil, and to comfort us in Christ Jesus. He quickens, He directs, He helps, He illuminates; He does a thousand things; but, chiefly, He sanctifies us. He comes into the heart to drive out every other power that seeks to have dominion there. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

All sins to be conquered

They must all be conquered, every one. Not one single sin must be allowed to occupy the love of our heart and the throne of our nature. There are certain sins that, when we begin to war with them, we very soon overcome. These Israelites, when they were up in the mountains, and in the woods, soon got at the hill-country Canaanites and destroyed them; but down in the plain, where was plenty of room for horses and chariots, the Israelites were puzzled what to do; for some of these Canaanites had chariots of iron, which had scythes fixed to the axles, and when they drove into the ranks of an army, they mowed down the people as a reaping machine cuts down the standing corn. For a while this seems to have staggered the Israelites altogether; it was a terrible business to think about, and fear exaggerated the power of the dreadful chariots. Dread made them powerless, till they plucked up courage, and when they once plucked up courage, they found that these chariots were not nearly so terrible as they were supposed to be. There were ways of managing and mastering them, if Israel would but trust in God, and play the man. When a man is converted by Divine grace, certain sins are readily overcome: they fly away home at once, never to return. Swearing is a kind of Canaanite that is soon settled off–driven out and slain. So it is with many other forms of evil. We get our sword at their throats quickly, and by Gods grace we are clean rid of all temptation to return to them. Such sins, though once powerful, are left dead on the field of battle. I know that some of you could bear testimony that your favoured sins became so disgusting to you that you have never had a temptation to wander in that direction; and if a desire towards them has crossed your mind, you have revolted against it, and cast it away from you with indignation. But certain other sins are much tougher to deal with. They mean fight, and some of them seem to have as many lives as a cat. There is no killing them. When you think that you have slain them, they are up and at you again. They may be said to have chariots of iron.

1. These sins are sometimes those which have gained their power–their chariots of iron-through long habit. Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? No, he never shall, but the grace of God can work the change.

2. Some sins get their chariots of iron from being congenial to our constitution. Certain brethren and sisters are sadly quick-tempered; and as long as ever they live, they will have to be on their guard against growing suddenly angry, and speaking unadvisedly with their lips. They are quick and sensitive, and this might not in itself be a serious evil; but when sin wields that quickness and sensitiveness, evil comes of it. How many a sincere child of God has had to go for years groaning, as with broken bones, because of the quickness of his temper! As for these constitutional sins, you must not excuse them. Everything that is of nature–ay, and of your fallen nature when it is at its best–has to be put under the feet of Christ, that grace may reign over every form of evil.

3. Frequently the chariot of iron derives its force from the fact that a certain sin comes rushing upon you on a sudden, and so takes you at a disadvantage. Yet we must not say, because of this, I cannot help it, for we ought to be all the more watchful, and live all the nearer to God in prayer.

4. Sometimes these sins get power from the fact that, if we do not yield to them, we may incur ridicule on account of them. I would not, if I could, prevent any of you from being persecuted in your measure. Should not soldiers fight? I would stay the persecution for the sake of the persecutor; but for the sake of you who have to bear it, I would hardly lift a finger to screen you, because the trial is an education of the utmost value.

5. Perhaps one of the things that is worst of all to a Christian is, that certain sins are supposed to be irresistible. It is a popular error, and a very pernicious one. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XVII

The lot of the half tribe of Manasseh, 1, 2.

Case of the daughters of Zelophehad, 3-6.

The borders of Manasseh described, 7-11.

The Canaanites dwell among them, but are laid under tribute,

12, 13.

The children of Joseph complain of the scantiness of their lot,

14-16.

Joshua authorizes them to possess the mountainous wood country

of the Perizzites, and gives them encouragement to expel them,

though they were strong and had chariots of iron, 17, 18.

NOTES ON CHAP. XVII

Verse 1. There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh] It was necessary to mark this because Jacob, in his blessing, (Ge 48:19-20), did in a certain sense set Ephraim before Manasseh, though the latter was the first-born; but the place here shows that this preference did not affect the rights of primogeniture.

For Machir – because he was a man of war] It is not likely that Machir himself was now alive; if he were, he must have been nearly 200 years old: It is therefore probable that what is spoken here is spoken of his children, who now possessed the lot that was originally designed for their father, who it appears had signalized himself as a man of skill and valour in some of the former wars, though the circumstances are not marked. His descendants, being of a warlike, intrepid spirit, were well qualified to defend a frontier country, which would be naturally exposed to invasion.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

He was the first-born of Joseph: the sense is, though Ephraim was to be more potent and numerous, yet Manasseh was the first-born, and had the privilege of the first-born, which was translated to Joseph, to wit, a double portion; and therefore though this were but half the tribe of Manasseh, yet they are not made inmates to Ephraim, but have a distinct lot of their own, as their brethren or other half tribe had beyond Jordan. Machir; the only son of Manasseh, who therefore is here, and Jdg 5:14, put for the whole tribe. The first-born; so even only sons are sometimes called, as Mat 1:25; see Poole “Exo 4:22“.

The father of Gilead; or, and the father, or who was also the father of Gilead; not of the land of Gilead, but of the man Gilead, who was Machirs son, Num 26:29.

He was a man of war; he, i.e. Machir, had given great proof of his valour in his generation, (though the particular history be not mentioned,) and his posterity were no degenerate sons, but had his valiant blood still running in their veins. Gilead and Bashan, i.e. part of those countries; for part of them was also given to the Reubenites, and part to the Gadites, as appears from Jos 13:30,31. This may be added as a reason, either,

1. Why he got those places from the Amorites; or,

2. Why they were allotted to him or his posterity, because this was a frontier country, and the outworks to the land of Canaan, and therefore required such valiant persons to defend it.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1-6. There was also a lot for thetribe of ManassehEphraim was mentioned, as the more numerousand powerful branch of the family of Joseph (Gen 48:19;Gen 48:20); but Manasseh stillretained the right of primogeniture and had a separate inheritanceassigned.

Machirhis descendants.

the father of GileadThoughhe had a son of that name (Num 26:29;Num 27:1), yet, as is evident fromthe use of the Hebrew article, reference is made, not to the person,but the province of Gilead. “Father” here means lord orpossessor of Gilead. This view is confirmed by the fact that it wasnot Machir, but his descendants, who subdued Gilead and Bashan(Num 32:41; Deu 3:13-15).These Machirites had their portion on the east side of Jordan. Thewestern portion of land, allotted to the tribe of Manasseh, wasdivided into ten portions because the male descendants who had sonsconsisted of five families, to which, consequently, five shares weregiven; and the sixth family, namely, the posterity of Hepher, beingall women, the five daughters of Zelophehad were, on application tothe valuators, endowed each with an inheritance in land (see on Nu27:4).

Jos17:7-11. THIS COAST.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh,…. As well as for the tribe of Ephraim:

for he [was] the firstborn of Joseph; and therefore ought to have his part and share in the lot of the children of Joseph, though Ephraim was preferred before him in the blessing of Jacob. Some think this is given as a reason why he had a double portion, one on the other side Jordan, and another in the land of Canaan:

[to wit], for Machir, the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead; who was the only son of Manasseh, and so through him, and by his son Gilead, the whole tribe sprung from that patriarch: and

because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan; which were given to his posterity by Moses, and lay on the other side Jordan, see De 3:13. This Machir very likely had shown his warlike disposition and courage in Egypt, and had fought under the kings there against the common enemy of that country; for it is highly probable he was dead before the children of Israel came out from thence, but the same warlike spirit continued in his posterity; they had their part assigned them on the other side Jordan, to defend that country, while the tribes of Reuben and Gad attended to the care of their flocks and herds.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The inheritance of Manasseh on this side of the Jordan was on the north of Ephraim.

Jos 17:1-6

Before proceeding to the more detailed description of the inheritance, the historian thinks it necessary to observe that the Manassites received a double inheritance. This remark is introduced with the words “ for he was the first-born of Joseph.” On this account, in addition to the territory already given to him in Gilead and Bashan, he received a second allotment of territory in Canaan proper. With the word (for Machir) the more minute account of the division of the Manassites commences. is first of all written absolutely at the beginning of the sentence, and then resumed in : “ to Machir, the first-born of Manasseh … to him were Gilead and Bashan assigned, because he was a man of war,” i.e., a warlike man, and had earned for himself a claim to the inheritance of Gilead and Bashan through the peculiar bravery which he had displayed in the conquest of those lands. By Machir, however, we are not to understand the actual son of Manasseh, but his family; and does not mean “father of Gilead,” but lord (possessor) of Gilead, for Machir’s son Gilead is always called without the article (vid., Jos 17:3; Num 26:29-30; Num 27:1; Num 36:1; 1Ch 7:17), whereas the country of that name is just as constantly called (see Jos 17:1, the last clause, Jos 17:5; Jos 13:11, Jos 13:31; Num 32:40; Deu 3:10.). “ And there came, i.e., the lot fell (the lot is to be repeated from Jos 17:1), to the other descendants of Manasseh according to their families,” which are then enumerated as in Num 26:30-32. “ These are the male descendants of Manasseh.” must not be altered, notwithstanding the fact that it is preceded and followed by ; it is evidently used deliberately as an antithesis to the female descendants of Manasseh mentioned in Jos 17:3.

Jos 17:3-6

Among the six families of Manasseh (Jos 17:2), Zelophehad, a descendant of Hepher, left no son; but he had five daughters, whose names are given in Jos 17:3 (as in Num 26:33; Num 27:1; Num 36:10). These daughters had petitioned Moses for a separate portion in the promised land, and their request had been granted (Num 27:2., compared with Josh 36). They therefore came before the committee appointed for dividing the land and repeated this promised, which as at once fulfilled. Consequently there were ten families of Manasseh who had received portions by the side of Ephraim, five male and five female. “ And (Jos 17:5) there fell the measurements of Manasseh (as) ten,” i.e., ten portions were assigned to the Manassites (on the west of the Jordan), beside the land of Gilead, because (as is again observed in Jos 17:6) the daughters of Manasseh, i.e., of Zelophehad the Manassite, received an inheritance among his sons (i.e., the rest of the Manassites).

Jos 17:7-11

Boundaries and extent of the inheritance of the ten families of Manasseh. – Jos 17:7-10, the southern boundary, which coincides with the northern boundary of Ephraim described in Jos 16:6-8, and is merely given here with greater precision in certain points. It went “ from Asher to Michmethah, before Shechem.” Asher is not the territory of the tribe of Asher, but a distinct locality; according to the Onom. ( s. v. Asher) a place on the high road from Neapolis to Scythopolis, fifteen Roman miles from the former. It is not to be found, however, in the ruins of Tell Um el Aschera ( V. de Velde) or Tell Um Ajra ( Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 310, 327), an hour to the south of Beisan, as Knobel supposes, but in the village of Yasir, where there are magnificent ruins, about five hours and ten minutes from Nabulus on the road to Beisan ( V. de Velde, Mem. pp. 237, 289; R. ii. p. 295). Michmethah, before Shechem, is still unknown (see Jos 16:6). Shechem was founded by the Hivite prince Shechem (Gen 33:18), and is frequently mentioned in the book of Genesis. It stood between Ebal and Gerizim, was given up by Ephraim to the Levites, and declared a free city (city of refuge: Jos 21:21; Jos 20:7). It was there that the ten tribes effected their separation from Judah 1Ki 12:1.), and Jeroboam resided there (1Ki 12:25). In later times it was the chief city of the country of Samaria, and the capital of the Samaritans (Joh 4:5); and the name of Neapolis, or Flavia Neapolis, from which the present Nabulus or Nablus has come, was given to it in honour of Vespasian (see v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 161ff.). From this point the boundary went (i.e., either “ to the right side,” the south side, or to Yamin), “ To the inhabitants of En-tappuah.” Whether Yamin is an appellative or a proper name is doubtful. But even if it be the name of a place, it is quite certain that it cannot be the village of Yamn, an hour to the south-east of Taanuk ( Rob. iii. pp. 161, 167, etc.), as this is much too far north, and, judging from Jos 17:11, belonged to the territory of Asher. In the case of En-tappuah, the inhabitants are mentioned instead of the district, because the district belonged to Manasseh, whilst the town on the border of Manasseh was given to the Ephraimites. The situation of the town has not yet been discovered: see at Jos 16:8. From this point the boundary ran down to the Cane-brook (see Jos 16:8), namely to the south side of the brook.

“ These towns were assigned to Ephraim in the midst of the towns of Manasseh, and (but) the territory of Manasseh was on the north of the brook.” The only possible meaning of these words is the following: From Tappuah, the boundary went down to the Cane-brook and crossed it, so that the south side of the brook really belonged to the territory of Manasseh; nevertheless the towns on this south side were allotted to Ephraim, whilst only the territory to the north of the brook fell to the lot of the Manassites. This is expressed more plainly in Jos 17:10: “ To the south (of the brook the land came) to Ephraim, and to the north to Manasseh.” In Jos 17:10 the northern and eastern boundaries are only briefly indicated: “ And they (the Manassites) touched Asher towards the north, and Issachar towards the east.” The reason why this boundary was not described more minutely, was probably because it had not yet been fixed. For (Jos 17:11) Manasseh also received towns and districts in (within the territory of) Issachar and Asher, viz., Beth-shean, etc. Beth-shean, to the wall of which Saul’s body was fastened (1Sa 31:10.; 2Sa 21:12), was afterwards called Scythopolis. It was in the valley of the Jordan, where the plain of Jezreel slopes off into the valley; its present name is Beisan, a place where there are considerable ruins of great antiquity, about two hours from the Jordan (vid., Seetzen, ii. pp. 162ff.; Rob. iii. p. 174; Bibl. Res. p. 325; v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 150-1). This city, with its daughter towns, was in the territory of Issachar, which was on the east of Manasseh, and may have extended a considerable distance towards the south along the valley of the Jordan, as the territory of Manasseh and Ephraim did not run into the valley of the Jordan; but Asher (Yasir) is mentioned in Jos 17:7 as the most easterly place in Manasseh, and, according to Jos 16:6-7, the eastern boundary of Ephraim ran down along the eastern edge of the mountains as far as Jericho, without including the Jordan valley. At the same time, the Ghor on the western side of the Jordan below Beisan, as far as the plain of Jericho, was of no great value to any tribe, as this district, according to Josephus (de Bell. Jud. iv. 8, 2, and iii. 10, 7), was uninhabited because of its barrenness. The other towns, Ibleam, etc., with the exception of Endor perhaps, were in the territory of Asher, and almost all on the south-west border of the plain of Esdraelon. Ibleam, called Bileam in 1Ch 6:55 (70), a Levitical town (see at Jos 21:25), was not very far from Megiddo (2Ki 9:27), and has probably been preserved in the ruins of Khirbet-Belameh, half an hour to the south of Jenin; according to Schultz, it is the same place as Belamon, Belmen, or Belthem (Judith 4:4; 7:3; 8:3). With the construction changes, so that there is an anacolouthon, which can be explained, however, on the ground that may not only mean to be assigned to, but also to receive or to have. In this last sense is attached. The inhabitants are mentioned instead of the towns, because the historian had already the thought present in his mind, that the Manassites were unable to exterminate the Canaanites from the towns allotted to them. Dor is the present Tortura (see at Jos 11:2). Endor, the home of the witch (1Sa 28:7), four Roman miles to the south of Tabor ( Onom.), at present a village called Endr, on the northern shoulder of the Duhy or Little Hermon (see Rob. iii. p. 225; Bibl. Res. p. 340). Taanach and Megiddo, the present Taanuk and Lejun (see at Jos 12:21). The three last towns, with the places dependent upon them, are connected more closely together by , the three-hill-country, probably because they formed a common league.

Jos 17:12-13

The Manassites were unable to exterminate the Canaanites from these six towns, and the districts round; but when they grew stronger, they made them tributary slaves (cf. Jos 16:10).

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

The Inheritance of Joseph’s Children.

B. C. 1444.

      1 There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh; for he was the firstborn of Joseph; to wit, for Machir the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead: because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan.   2 There was also a lot for the rest of the children of Manasseh by their families; for the children of Abiezer, and for the children of Helek, and for the children of Asriel, and for the children of Shechem, and for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida: these were the male children of Manasseh the son of Joseph by their families.   3 But 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.   4 And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore according to the commandment of the LORD he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father.   5 And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, beside the land of Gilead and Bashan, which were on the other side Jordan;   6 Because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance among his sons: and the rest of Manasseh’s sons had the land of Gilead.

      Manasseh was itself but one half of the tribe of Joseph, and yet was divided and subdivided. 1. It was divided into two parts, one already settled on the other side Jordan, consisting of those who were the posterity of Machir, v. 1. This Machir was born to Manasseh in Egypt; there he had signalized himself as a man of war, probably in the contests between the Ephraimites and the men of Gath, 1 Chron. vii. 21. His warlike disposition descended to his posterity, and therefore Moses gave them Gilead and Bashan, on the other side Jordan, of which before, ch. xiii. 31. It is here said that the lot came to Manasseh, for he was the first-born of Joseph. Bishop Patrick thinks it should be translated, though he was the first-born of Joseph, and then the meaning is plain, that the second lot was for Manasseh, because, though he was the first-born, yet Jacob had preferred Ephraim before him. See the names of those heads of the families that settled on the other side Jordan, 1 Chron. v. 24. 2. That part on this side Jordan as subdivided into ten families, v. 5. There were six sons of Gilead here named (v. 2), the same that are recorded Num. xxvi. 30-32, only that he who is there called Jezeer is here called Abiezer. Five of these sons had each of them their portion; the sixth, which was Hepher, had his male line cut off in his son Zelophehad, who left daughters only, five in number, of whom we have often read, and these five had each of them a portion; though perhaps, they claiming under Hepher, all their five portions were but equal to one of the portions of the five sons. Or if Hepher had other sons besides Zelophehad, in whom the name of his family was kept up, their posterity married to the daughters of Zelophehad the elder brother, and in their right had these portions assigned them. See Num. xxxvi. 12. Here is, (1.) The claim which the daughters of Zelophehad made, grounded upon the command God gave to Moses concerning them, v. 4. They had themselves, when they were young, pleaded their own cause before Moses, and obtained the grant of an inheritance with their brethren, and now they would not lose the benefit of that grant for want of speaking to Joshua, but seasonably put in their demand themselves, as it should seem, and not their husbands for them. (2.) The assignment of their portions according to their claim. Joshua knew very well what God had ordered in their case, and did not object that they having not served in the wars of Canaan there was no reason why they should share in the possessions of Canaan, but readily gave them as inheritance among the brethren of their father. And now they reaped the benefit of their own pious zeal and prudent forecast in this matter. Thus those who take care in the wilderness of this world to make sure to themselves a place in the inheritance of the saints in light will certainly have the comfort of it in the other world, while those that neglect it now will lose it for ever.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Joshua Chapter 17

Daughters of Zelophehad, vs. 1-6

After the allotment for Ephraim came that of his brother tribe, Manasseh, the older son of Joseph, who according to Jacob’s prediction would not be as great as Ephraim (Gen 48:19). Manasseh’s oldest son was Machir, and it was his famous warrior descendant who had received the allotment on the east side of Jordan with Reuben and Gad. His name was Gilead, and he gave his name to a large area of that land which was conquered there before Moses’ death. Gilead is here called a man of war; he probably was a leader in the conquest of that country. The very able Jephthah, who led the eastern tribes to victory over the Ammonites, was a Gileadite (Judges, chapters 11, 12).

Six other families of the Manassites remained to whom an allotment must be made on the west side of Jordan. These six are named in verse 2. In passing we may note that Abiezer had a famous descendant among the judges also, Gideon (Judges, chapters 6-8).

An interesting fact emerges with reference to the family of Hepher. Hepher’s son, Zelophehad, who had died in the wilderness, had no sons to receive the inheritance which was his due.

Therefore his five daughters had requested of Moses that they receive their father’s portion (Num 26:33; Num 27:1-11; Num 36:1-12). The Lord had instructed Moses to grant their request, with the provision that they should marry within their tribe, which they did.

Now they come to Joshua and Eleazar to ask for their portion of the land, and they are duly awarded their inheritance.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

The historian returns to the tribe of Manasseh with the view of confirming what we formerly saw with regard to the daughters of Selophead. For though it was a novelty for females to succeed indiscriminately with males, yet as five of them had survived their father, they proved it to be equitable that they should be admitted to a portion, lest while he was innocent he should lie under the reproach of having died childless. God had replied to Moses by his oracle, that in regard to succession they should be counted as one head. They now demand that the decision thus given by the mouth of the Lord shall be carried into effect. As to the name of first-born, still given to Manasseh, it must be understood so as not to be at variance with the prophecy of Jacob; or rather his primogeniture is here in a manner buried, and his dignity restricted to the past. Here, however, it is to be observed, that men are so tenacious and so much devoted to their own interests, that it seldom occurs to them to give others their due. The daughters of Selophead had obtained a portion by a heavenly decree; nor had any one dared to utter a word against it; and yet if they had remained silent no regard would have been paid to them. Therefore, lest the delay should prove injurious to them, they apply to Joshua and Eleazar, and insist that they shall not be deprived of their legitimate succession. No delay is interposed by Joshua to prevent their immediately obtaining what is just, nor is there any murmuring on the part of the people. Hence we infer, that all were disposed to act equitably; but every one is occupied with his own interest, and too apt carelessly to overlook that of others.

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

Jos. 17:1. A lot for the tribe of Manasseh] The families of the tribe as a whole are here taken into account, the notice of them extending to the close of the sixth verse. Machir] Cf. on chap. Jos. 13:31. The father of Gilead] The ruler or possessor of the land of Gilead. This is apparent from the fact that Machir does not stand for any individual in this passage, but for an entire family, and also from the use of the article before Gilead, which always denotes the province (cf. Num. 32:40; Deu. 3:10, sqq.; Jos. 13:11; Jos. 13:31; Jos. 17:1; Jos. 17:5); whereas Machirs son or grandson of that name is invariably called; Gilead (without the article), as in Num. 26:29; Jos. 17:3; 1Ch. 7:17. [Keil.]

Jos. 17:2. The rest of the children of Manasseh] Cf. passages indicated in margin,

Jos. 17:3. No sons, but daughters] The case of the daughters of Zelophehad not only caused this provision to be made for them, but supplied an opportunity for special regulations for all similar cases (cf. Num. 27:1-11, Num. 27:36.).

Jos. 17:5-6. Ten portions, etc.] On account of the daughters of Zelophehad inheriting their fathers estate, the lot of the half-tribe of Manasseh. west of the Jordan, had first to be divided into six portions, according to the number of the families. Then the Hepherite inheritance for the five daughters had again to be divided into five portions, one for each daughter, thus making ten portions.

Jos. 17:7-10. From Asher to Michmethah, etc.] It is generally agreed that Asher must be read as the name of a town, and not as indicating the territory of the tribe of that name, but so little is known of the places mentioned in this and the following verses, that it has been found impossible to trace the border with any assurance of correctness.

Jos. 17:10. They met together in Asher] Heb., they touched upon Asher, etc. The pl. pronoun, of course, refers to the children of Manasseh, and not to the two tribes previously named; i.e., the Manassites touched upon Asher, the people being put for their territory.

Jos. 17:11. Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher, etc.] To which the clause of Jos. 17:10, just noticed, refers. As the children of Ephraim had separate cities in the lot of Manasseh (chap. Jos. 16:9), so the children of Manapseh had separate cities within the borders of Issachar and Asher. Bethshean] Also Bethshean in Jdg. 1:27; but later on, oftener Bethshan (1Sa. 31:10; 2Sa. 21:12). It is frequently named in connection with the Maccabees, where it is also called Scythopolis (2Ma. 12:29). It is now Beisn, lying in the Jordan valley between the river and Mount Gilboa. Ibleam] Where Ahaziah was mortally wounded, and near the ascent to Gur (2Ki. 9:27). Dor] Now Tantra. It was formerly a royal city of the Canaanites (chap. Jos. 11:2, Jos. 12:23), and was subsequently the local centre where, as one of his twelve officers, or purveyors, Solomon stationed his son-in-law Abinadab (1Ki. 4:11). In the time of the Maccabees, Dor was besieged by Antiochus Sidetes (1 Mace. Jos. 15:11-14). Endor] Lit., Ain-Dor, the eye or spring of Dor, but in no way connected with the Dor just noticed. Eusebius placed it four miles south of Tabor. It was long famous as the scene of the victory over Sisera and Jabin (Psa. 83:10), and for Sauls interview with the witch (1Sa. 28:7). Taanach Megiddo] Cf. on; chap. Jos. 12:21. Three countries] Heb., three heights. 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. [Fay]

Jos. 17:14. One lot and one portion] As stated also in chap. Jos. 16:1, on which see note. The single drawing, however, did not necessarily limit the portion. Referring to their conduct as stated in Jdg. 8:1; Jdg. 12:1. Crosby remarks that the Ephraimites were probably the principal complainers. This is the more likely when we remember that they may have presumed on their relation to Joshua, who was of their tribe (Num. 13:8). The complainers did not come to Eleazar, like the daughters of Zelophehad (Jos. 17:4), although the high priest stood first in the matter of directing the lots (cf. chap. Jos. 14:1); but, as though they counted on his interest, they brought their case, craftily stated, to Joshua.

Jos. 17:15. The wood country] Heb., forest. The mountain range (Jos. 17:18), then covered with timber trees, to which Joshua (like the prophet Amo. 2:9), compares the tall Canaanites. This view seems more probable than that of Stanley (Sinai and Pal., p. 518) and others, who locate this forest on the other side of Jordan, and make it identical with the wood of Ephraim, where Absalom met his fate (2Sa. 18:6). It is true that the Rephaim or giants, were once in that locality, but they were settled in many other places, and we do not read of Perizzites east of Jordan. [Groser.] Keils remark, however, on the places named in the next verse, disposes of any doubt which might remain: This clearly proves that hayydar (the forest) refers to the mountains of Gilboa, which were bounded on the east by Bethshean, and on the west by the plain of Jezreel.

Jos. 17:16. The hill is not enough] Or, the mountain, as it is again called in Jos. 17:18. Probably the children of Joseph alluded to the hill-land generally, including the Gilboa region, or forest-land which Joshua had just offered them. Chariots of iron] Cf. on chap. Jos. 11:4.

Jos. 17:17. And Joshua spake, etc.] He repeated, still in ironical reproof of their covetousuess and fear, what he had previously said. He uses their own talk about their greatness as the greatest possible argument against the spirit which they manifest.

Jos. 17:3-4.THE INHERITANCE OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD

Men are so much devoted to their own interests, that it seldom occurs to them to give others their due. The daughters of Zelophehad had obtained a portion by a heavenly decree, nor had any one dared to utter a word against it; and yet, if they had remained silent, no regard would have been paid to them. Therefore, lest the delay should prove injurious to them, they apply to Joshua and Eleazar, and insist that they shall not be deprived of their legitimate succession. No delay is interposed by Joshua to prevent their immediately obtaining what is just, nor is there any murmuring on the part of the people. Hence we infer that all were disposed to act equitably; but every one was occupied by his own interest, and too apt carelessly to overlook that of others. [Calvin.]

THE INFLUENCE OF SELF IN OUR FORGETFULNESS OR REMEMBRANCE OF THE DIVINE COMMANDMENTS

The remarks quoted above, coupled with the history in Num. 27:1-7, suggest some important considerations on the way in which men read the Scriptures. Men insensibly teach the Bible from their own standpoint. Self is a much more important factor in the practical results of our reading the Bible than most of us are aware of, or would be ready to admit. What seems not to bless us we are continually overlooking; that which promises us something we see very readily indeed; and that which is obscure, and can be construed to our personal advantage, seldom finds us troubled with the obscurity or in the least doubtful about the meaning.

I. The words of the Lord utterly forgotten through self-seeking. The Israelites seem to have been caring each for the things that were his own. Gods words, apparently, had simply passed out of mind. Some of the people may have been guilty intentionally, but probably most of them transgressed unconsciously. There is a great deal of the book of God forgotten like this every day now. Many who learned whole chapters under their mothers teaching, or in Sunday-schools, have been so eagerly pursuing their own things in the world, that they have not remembered for years any single verse which would tend to diminish their inheritance and increase that of their neighbours. Many have remembered such words, but they have kept them secret. They have hidden them even from their own hearts.

II. The words of the Lord neglected under the pressure of temporal cares. Many good men, who would have reminded the leaders of Israel of this promise, had been so busy that it had not occurred to them. Eleazar had forgotten the words, and Joshua had forgotten them: Caleb, whose way it had been for many years to follow the Lord fully, had thought of his own inheritance a great deal, but not anything about the inheritance of these fatherless and brotherless women. The whole tribe of the disinterested Levites appear to have forgotten the words also. Just then, life was so hurried; there had been so much for men to think about, and so much to do. How much Bible is there forgotten in our great cities every day from like causes? How much is forgotten on Change? How much in merchants offices, in busy manufactories, in shops, and in homes? How much Scripture is forgotten, under pressure of work, by the farmer in his fields? how much by the labourer who toils for him?

III. The words of the Lord remembered and pleaded under the influence of personal interest. Although the Israelites, by hundreds of thousands, had forgotten the command of God, these daughters of Zelophehad had not forgotten. How readily we all remember such words of Scripture as tend to our personal benefit! Men remember words which support their individual claims. They remember words which seem to exonerate themselves. They remember words which reflect on others. What is remembered through personal interest is generally pleaded with readiness and urgency. Our very faculties tend to partiality. Memory and eloquence are quickened by nothing so much as by individual interest. Only let there be something to inherit, and forthwith the meanest capabilities become efficient.

Jos. 17:12-13.LITTLE WILL, AND THUS NO WAY.

I. Inability in its relation to unbelief. The promises of God had been many, and the warnings urgent (Exo. 34:10-17; Num. 33:50-56, etc.). They who begin by disbelieving God may well fear to encounter powerful enemies.

II. Inability in its relation to indisposition. The indisposition that comes

(1) through fear of men,
(2) through love of ease,
(3) through undervaluing the importance of Gods command.

III. The inability of God-aided men presently shewn to be a mere pretence and a poor excuse.

1. The revelation which comes through transgressors themselves. When the children of Israel were waxen strong, they put the Canaanites to tribute. Could not is here seen to be would not. That tribute told the entire story in its true colours. It was a history in a word. Tribute goes on telling secrets still. Probably nothing else in this world tells so many. The tribute of Judas burned into his very soul, till he threw the thirty pieces on the temple floor, and cried over them in agony, I have betrayed innocent blood. The tribute of the young rulers great possessions became a text from which Christ preached, How hardly shall they that have riches, etc. The tribute of the craft by which Demetrius had his wealth, let out the secret reason of his great love for the despised Diana (Act. 19:24-27). The tribute of the world betrayed the reason why Demas forsook Paul. It is ever thus. The robbers biggest trouble is with his spoil. The ambitious man mounts the pedestal which he has long been striving to climb, and then tells his secret on the top. The dishonest merchant cannot keep his gains from preaching. Transgressors win their way to success unobserved, and then betray themselves with the very gains they have won.

2. The revelation which comes through those who succeed transgressors. Out of this very section of the tribe of Manasseh arose Gideon, of the family of the Abi-ezrites (cf. Jos. 17:2). On this very ground of the half-tribe of Manasseh was fought the great battle which delivered Israel from the Midianites. And how was it fought? By an army from which more than thirty thousand had been sent to their homes; by a small force of three hundred men, who merely brake their pitchers, and held their torches on high, shedding light on a truth afterwards embodied in one of the famous sayings of Israel, The battle is the Lords. It was as though God was purposely reproving the faintheartedness and idleness of these men who had lived in the days of Joshua. He who says to us by His apostle, Prove all things, will not fail to establish the truth of His own word. It was not Gods promises which had proved weak when the children of Manasseh could not conquer those cities in their new lot; it was the children of Manasseh themselves who were weak. God revealed this in the taking of the tribute, and still more fully in the victory of the reduced army which only began to fight when the battle was won. Probably the future will declare, no less fully, that all our failures have been in no measure Gods, but entirely ours.

Jos. 17:14-18.DIVINE METHODS OF INHERITING.

The tribe of Ephraim and the half-tribe of Manasseh appear to have had the position of their inheritances indicated by a single lot. According to the principles regulating the division of the land, this would in no measure have restricted the extent of their possessions (cf. Num. 26:54). Thus this tribe and a half of the descendants of Joseph, in saying, Why hast thou given us but one lot? were endeavouring to make capital by an equivocal representation. In view of that wrong spirit, Joshua answered them. He treated their request with the rejection which it deserved. In taking this course we feel at once that Joshua followed the mind and will of God.

I. In the Divine plan there is little room for inheriting by what men suppose to be their own inherent merits. I am a great people. Many people feel that they are the same. They think that their greatness ought to be recognised both by Providence and by men. They are quite sure that they ought to stand higher up in life. If a man had his deserts, there would be few above him! Gods answer, through His servants, and through all the inspired voices of life, is: Prove your greatness. Do something with it. Level the woods; clear the mountains; make the giants give place before you; thus you will assert your greatness in a way beyond contradiction, and men will recognise it. Our greatness is not to consist in pride. It is not to be established by advertisements. No tongue is eloquent enough to proclaim its owners worth. In the advocacy of our personal merits only actions can be allowed to speak. The tongue has never been elected to this parliament.

II. In the Divine plan of inheriting, past blessing gives no immunity from present or future labours. The Lord hath blessed me hitherto. True; God had blessed Joseph through his father, Jacob, through Moses, and through the actual multiplication of his children. And the good people found this kind of thing very comfortable. It was very nice to be blessed. Why should they not be blessed always? Because an opportunity had now come for work; and if they wanted to utilise even past blessings, they must do so through work. Some people are always remembering how they used to be favoured. God blesses us gratis when we are children. God blesses us for nothing when we are in the desert, and have little opportunity for service. When the field for service is before us, then, lest our very blessings should turn into curses, the Lord ever says by some voice or other: If you would be blessed any more, you must work. Henceforth your labour shall be the channel through which my mercies shall run to refresh your life. If we stop up the channel, we must not wonder if the streams of Divine favour are turned in some other direction. No man can afford to live on his past.

III. In the Divine plan there is no room for selfishness, and no place for unfair patronage. And Joshua answered, etc. They had come, not to Eleazar, like the daughters of Zelophehad (Jos. 17:3-4), but to Joshua, who was their relative (Num. 13:8), thinking, probably, that the leader of Israel would be disposed to favour his own tribe. To increase the greatness of Ephraim would be to act kindly by his own people; to increase the greatness of Ephraim would be to add to his own greatness. Put plainly, that seems to have been their real argument. Joshua rejects the pleadings, both the manifest pleadings and the hidden. The recognition of adventitious circumstances is not Gods way of inheriting. A mans greatness must be within him, not upon him.

IV. In the Divine plan the way to a larger inheritance is ever through the expulsion of enemies. If thou be a great people, then, etc. (Jos. 17:15-18).

1. Our increase of inheritance is not to come through robbing our brethren of some of theirs. To straiten the lot of Benjamin and Issachar, in order to increase the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, is not the way of the God of Israel. It is not by robbing another that a man can increase his own. The robber always loses more manhood than he gets land.

2. Our increase of inheritance is to be through conflict with the foes of God and truth. The relation of Israel to the Canaanites was special, and the like can never occur between man and man now. But we have spiritual foes against whom we are each bidden to contend (cf. Eph. 6:10-18). We have error to oppose, and new territory to win for the occupation of truth.

V. The Divine plan may have many difficulties, but it also reveals great encouragements. Thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.

1. Error may be tenacious, but so is truth. The idolatry of the land of Canaan could only be removed by the removal of the idolaters. Error holds as strongly to the human heart as ever. But truth is not less strong. Every man who fairly lodges a new and holy truth in the heart of his fellow has planted what can never be wholly removed again. He who has sown new truths abroad in the world has sown for immortality. Every plant which your heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up, said the Saviour. Surely what He has planted cannot be uprooted. Some one has said:

The truth once uttered, and tis like
A star new-born, that drops into its place,
And which once circling in its placid round,
Not all the tumult of the earth can shake.

The labour of getting truth to take the place of error is arduous, but the results are abiding.

2. Enemies may be strong, but God is greater than them all. These men of Ephraim and Manasseh were alarmed at the Perizzites and the Rephaim; but Joshua, who knew the sufficiency of the help of the Lord, could say unhesitatingly, Thou shalt drive them out. The Christian man who has only learned the strength of his enemies may well be sad; he who has proved the arm of Jehovah will need to contemplate nothing but victory.

DISCONTENTMENT

I. The easy way to discontentment. Anybody can complain. Everybody is tempted to complain. Most of those who murmur think that they can shew good cause for their complaints. No man is rich enough to be out of the reach of discontent. No man is poor enough to be below the possibility of happiness. Poor and content is rich, and rich enough. It was from a life very great in its experience of suffering that there came forth to the world that ever memorable utterance, I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.

II. The unfailing testimony of discontentment.

1. Complaints furnish no trustworthy evidence about a mans lot. How can they, when so many murmur in every kind of lot which the world knows?

2. Complaints bear unfailing witness against the murmurer himself. Scripture often condemns the man who complains, apart from considering the cause of complaining. The words murmur, impatience, covetous, envy, are always treated as so many synonyms for sin, quite irrespective of the circumstances which men treat as justifying such states of mind. Shakspeare wrote:

My crown is in my heart, not on my head;
Not decked with diamonds and Indian stones,
Nor to be seen: my crown is called content;
A crown it is that seldom kings enjoy.

The owner of the humblest inheritance may say that; every Christian should say it. It was He who said, The Son of man hath not where to lay His head, who presently added, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. This worlds great legacy of joy came to it from the Man of sorrows.

III. The true answer to discontentment.

1. Joshua was too wise to dispute the assumption of greatness (Jos. 17:15; Jos. 17:17). He who tries to argue a discontented man out of his favourite assumptions does but waste breath.

2. Joshua turned the plea of greatness back on those who used it: If thou be a great people, thenwork, fight.

3. Joshua sought to cure the murmuring of the heart through the diligence of the hand. The energy which is absorbed in gloomy thoughts, and poured out in bitter complaints, would generally double the small inheritance, if it were rightly directed. Apart from this, industry and courage ever tend to happiness.

4. Joshua encouraged these murmurers to think that to the people of God no difficulties were insuperable. He would have them think of the invincible might which had promised to support their faithful efforts (cf. Deu. 20:1-4), and make them victorious.

The after history shews us that a discontented spirit is not easily cured. These people shewed the same haughty dissatisfaction again and again after the death of Joshua (cf. Jdg. 8:1-8; Jdg. 12:1-6). He who has cultivated contentment through faith in God is not readily disturbed; while the man who has learned, in whatsoever state he is, to find some fault with his fellows, has given room in his heart for a demon that is not easily expelled. This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

IDLENESS, COVETOUSNESS, etc. 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. [Lange.]

Many wish for larger possessions, who do not cultivate and make the best of what they have. They think they should have more talents given them, and 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. [Henry.]

That is the way with the covetous man, that the more he has, the more he desires to have, and cannot but grudge his neighbour 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. [Starke.]

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Inheritance of Manasseh West Jos. 17:1-13

There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh; for he was the first-born of Joseph; to wit, for Machir the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead: because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan.
2 There was also a lot for the rest of the children of Manasseh by their families; for the children of Abiezer, and for the children of Helek, and for the children of Asriel, and for the children of Shechem, and for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida: these were the male children of Manasseh the son of Joseph by their families.
3 But 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.
4 And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore according to the commandment of the Lord he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father.
5 And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, beside the land of Gilead and Bashan, which were on the other side Jordan;
6 Because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance among his sons: and the rest of Manassehs sons had the land of Gilead.
7 And the coast of Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethah, that lieth before Shechem; and the border went along on the right hand unto the inhabitants of En-tappuah.
8 Now Manasseh had the land of Tappuah: but Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim;
9 And the coast descended unto the river Kanah, southward of the river: these cities of Ephraim are among the cities of Manasseh: the coast of Manasseh also was on the north side of the river, and the outgoings of it were at the sea:
10 Southward it was Ephraims, and northward it was Manassehs, and the sea is his border, and they met together in Asher on the north, and in Issachar on the east.
11 And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher Bethshean and her towns, and Ibleam and her towns, and the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, and the inhabitants of En-dor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Taanach and her towns, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns, even three countries.
12 Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.
13 Yet is came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute; but did not utterly drive them out.

1.

Who was Machir? Jos. 17:1

Machir was the eldest son of Manasseh. This inheritance had already been given to him (Num. 32:39-42). His people had led in conquering Bashan, and his descendants were given the territory as an inheritance. This land lay east of the Sea of Galilee and was the north end of the territory east of Jordan. Their fierce warring had earned for Machir the title of a man of war. Their land had formerly been the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan.

2.

How many sons did Manasseh have? Jos. 17:2

Six other sons of Manasseh were listed in addition to Machir. The men listed were not the men who settled the land but the sons of Manasseh from whom those Israelites of Joshuas day were descendants. The total of these men was 52,700 as they were numbered before crossing the Jordan into Canaan (Num. 26:34).

3.

Who was Zelophehad? Jos. 17:3

Zelophehad was a descendant of Manasseh who had no sons to inherit his land. His daughters petitioned Moses in this respect. Moses and the elders decided that it was proper for them to inherit as long as they married men who were members of their own tribe (Numbers 36). This became a statute in Israel. Such a provision prevented the womans inheriting land in her tribe and her husbands inheriting land in another tribe. At the same time, it gave recognition to the woman as an heiress, The five daughters were given by name here and in Numbers 36,

4.

Did the territory of Manasseh include Shechem? Jos. 17:7

Some confusion exists in the minds of some commentators who study these statements about the land, but it seems apparent from the text that the land of Manasseh stopped at Michmethah which lay before Shechem. Other passages of Scripture bear out the fact that Ephraim possessed Shechem. Manassehs territory lay north of Shechem. Shechem was an important site. Abraham first stopped there when he entered Canaan (Gen. 12:6). Jacob bought land there when he returned from Haran (Gen. 33:19). In the present time, it is the center of bustling activity; and it has always been an important site in Palestine,

5.

Who possessed Tappuah? Jos. 17:8

The city of Tappuah belonged to Ephraim. Men of Ephraim possessed it. At the same time it is clear that it lay on the border of Ephraim and Manasseh. The men of Manasseh probably possessed the fields around Tappuah on the north, but the town itself was inhabited by the Ephraimites. Many important border towns enjoyed this kind of situation. Although legally belonging to one tribe, some of these cities fell largely under the commercial and social influence of a neighboring tribe.

6.

Where was the river Kanah? Jos. 17:9

The river Kanah rose in the hill country of Ephraim and made its way westward to the Mediterranean Sea. It was a natural boundary between Ephraim and Manasseh. Manasseh had the land lying on the north and Ephraim possessed the land on the south of the river. The stream was not navigable; but it did provide water, especially in the rainy season. Its chief importance, however, was in its being a landmark which served as a boundary.

7.

What sea was Manassehs west border? Jos. 17:10 a

The Mediterranean Sea formed the west border of Manasseh. The maritime plain was theirs for the taking. The sloping hills which rose up from the sea were also available to the men of Manasseh. This gave the people an outlet to the sea and its commerce as well as access to the rich marine life which was in the sea. Since both Ephraim and Manasseh failed to drive out the Philistines who lived along the seacoast, neither of these Israelite tribes became great seafaring people.

8.

What were the northern and eastern borders of Manasseh? Jos. 17:10 b

On the north, Manasseh reached to the territory of the tribe of Asher. On the east, these people reached to the territory of the tribe of Issachar. In actuality, his east border reached to the Jordan River, but the southern border of Issachar ran in a diagonal line from the northwest to the southwest and thus formed much of Manassehs northeastern border.

9.

Why did Manasseh possess cities in Issachar? Jos. 17:11

Beth-shean, Ibleam, Dor, En-dor, and Megiddo, with their towns, were listed as cities which were in Issachar but possessed by the people of Manasseh. Natural borders, such as the Kishon River, apparently made it practical for Manasseh to possess these rather than Issachar, since they lay south of the river and across the river from the main part of Isaachars territory. V. G. Blaikie, (The Book of Joshua, The Expositors Bible, page 304), says that these cities were very important to the defense of the Esdraelon Plain and that it was therefore necessary that they be held by some tribe stronger than Issachar.

10.

Why could Manasseh not drive out the Canaanites? Jos. 17:12

Manasseh may have been numerous and strong, but she was not able to do all God expected the people to do. They possessed many cities, even taking possession of some which lay in the territory of her neighbors, but the people could have done better. Perhaps they trusted in their rich heritage and did not reach the potential which was possible for them. Heredity is never a guarantee of success; success takes hard work.

11.

How did most of the children of Israel deal with the Canaanites? Jos. 17:13

God had commanded the children of Israel to drive out the Canaanites. He expected His people to exterminate them, lest they pollute the people with their idolatrous ways. Evidently, the rest of the children of Israel were like the children of Manasseh. They were not strong enough or ambitious enough to do what God commanded them to do. They allowed the Canaanites to be subject to task work. This was the agreement made with the Gibeon-ites who had deceived Joshua. The Gibeonites were made to be hewers of wood and drawers of water (Joshua 9). The people of Israel put the Canaanites under tribute and made them perform servile tasks.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

MANASSEH’S LOT IN WESTERN PALESTINE, Jos 17:1-13.

1. Manasseh, the firstborn of Joseph, and retaining the rights of primogeniture, is put second because of Ephraim’s political superiority. Compare note at the beginning of chap. 16. Thus the prophetic words of their grandfather Jacob are fulfilled: “Ephraim will be greater than Manasseh.” Gen 48:5; Gen 48:14-19. Machir designates not the man but the family. His descendants, Jair and Nobah, conquered Bashan. Num 32:41-42. The portion of the half tribe of Manasseh east of the Jordan is here brought in to give a complete view of the settlement of that tribe. See note on Jos 13:29.

For he was the firstborn of Manasseh And therefore was honourably entitled to a share of the good land promised to the fathers.

The father of Gilead Literally, the father of the Gilead; that is, the country, as designated by the Hebrew article. He had a son by that name. Num 26:29. The term father, when followed by the name of a country, signifies lord or possessor, and is usually applied to the conqueror of the country. The Machirites had already received their portion east of Jordan. See Jos 13:29-33.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Chapter 17 The Allotment to Manasseh – Joseph’s Complaint.

In this chapter Manasseh’s allotment is described, as part of the allotment to the tribe of Joseph. Ephraim and Manasseh then complain that there is not sufficient room for them and are told to use their initiative and cut down the forests so that they have virgin land on which to live.

Jos 17:1

‘ And this was the lot for the tribe of Manasseh, for he was the firstborn of Joseph. As for Machir, the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead, because he was a man of war therefore he had Gilead and Bashan.’

It was possibly because of its relationship with Ephraim that Manasseh was such a mixture of a tribe. It was not centrally unified and the section who remained in Transjordan were clearly a militant lot, useful to have guarding the northern borders from the Aramaeans and wandering desert tribes, but more brotherly at a distance. Although the tribe of the firstborn of Joseph, Manasseh were from the beginning secondary to Ephraim (Gen 48:10-22). At this time it was a separate tribe and yet not a separate tribe.

“Because he was a man of war.” This may suggest that in Egypt Machir had been a military commander and had influenced his family in that direction so that certain sections of them had become military specialists. or it may just suggest that they had inherited his fierceness. ‘Father of Gilead’ may here, in contrast to Jos 17:3, be referring to that portion of Manasseh seen as ‘Gilead’ because of their residence in Transjordan. But there may be a play on the names.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jos 17:4  And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore according to the commandment of the LORD he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father.

Jos 17:4 “The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren” – Comments – See this reference in Num 27:1-11.

Num 27:5-7, “And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Boundaries and Cities

v. 1. There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh, namely, that east of Jordan, which has already been described several times; 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 he had Gilead and Bashan. Deu 3:15. Since Manasseh was the first-born of Joseph, therefore his descendants, in whom the rights of Joseph were vested, received not only a portion in the conquered territory of Og, but also a lot in Canaan proper.

v. 2. There was also a lot for the rest of the children of Manasseh by their families, not only for the descendants of Machir: for the children. of Abiezer, and for the children of Heiek, and for the children of Asriel, and for the children of Shechem, and for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida, Num 26:30-32; these were the male children of Manasseh, the son of Joseph, by their families, the distinction being expressly made in this instance on account of the next statement.

v. 3. But Zeiophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters, Num 26:33; Num 27:1; Num 36:2; and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. According to the precept which was formulated at the request of the daughters of Zeiophehad at that time, women in a similar position were known as heir-daughters.

v. 4. And they came near before Eleazar, the priest, and before Joshua, the son of Nun, and before the princes, the official representatives of the people, saying, The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren, Num 27:2-11. Since the land was now being divided, they claimed their right. Therefore, according to the commandment of the Lord, he, Joshua, gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father.

v. 5. And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, in the country west of Jordan, beside the land of Gilead and Bashan, which were on the other side Jordan,

v. 6. because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance among his sons; and the rest of Manasseh’s sons, those of the line of Machir, had the land of Gilead. The statement concerning the ten portions allotted to the Manassites is to be understood as follows: “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 granddaughters, the five daughters of Zelophehad, who married men of the other families of their paternal tribe and received each her special share of the land. ” (Keil. )

v. 7. And the coast of Manasseh was from Asher, a city some sixteen miles northeast of Shechem, to Michmethah, that lieth before Shechem, Jos 16:5; and the border went along on the right hand, probably on the south side, unto the inhabitants, that is, the territory, of En-tappuah, the whole region being mentioned in this case on account of the following statement.

v. 8. Now, Manasseh had the land of Tappuah, the entire country which had formerly been a Canaanitish city-state; but Tappuah, on the border of Manasseh, belonged to the children of Ephraim, for it is the south boundary of Manasseh which is here described;

v. 9. and the coast descended unto the river Kanah (reed-brook), southward of the river, the brook being the boundary, Jos 16:8. These cities of Ephraim. are among the cities of Manasseh, that is, the territory on the south side of the brook really belonged to Manasseh, but the cities on the south side of the brook were Ephraim’s. The coast of Manasseh also was on the north side of the river, and the outgoings of it were at the sea.

v. 10. Southward it was Ephraim’s, and northward it was Manasseh’s, and the sea, the Mediterranean Sea, is his (western) border; and they met together in Asher on the north and in Issachar on the east. Their territory bounded that of the tribe of Asher north of them, and that of the tribe of Issachar east of them, or to the northeast. The description makes it doubtful whether the portions of Ephraim and Manasseh were intended to be effectually separated. Cf Jos 16:1-4.

v. 11. And Manasseh, in addition to the territory as now described, had in Issachar and in Asher, in the territories of these two tribes, Bethshean and her towns, on the edge of the Jordan Valley, east of Mount Gilboa, and Ibleam and her towns, and the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Endor and her towns, 1Sa 28:9; Psa 83:11, and the inhabitants of Taanach and her towns, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns, even three countries, three heights; for three of the cities, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo, were situated on hills, and the last-named cities were in the territory of Asher, on the southwest border of the Plain of Esdraelon.

v. 12. Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities, they made no real effort to exterminate the heathen; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land, in the cities allotted to Manasseh.

v. 13. Yet it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute; but did not utterly drive them out. They were content with making the heathen tributary servants, lacking the spirit which was needed to exterminate them according to the word of the Lord. To become indifferent in the Lord’s battle is often equivalent to a surrender to the enemy’s forces.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Jos 17:1

There was also a lot. The preferable translation is, “and the lot for the tribe of Manassehfor he was the firstborn of Josephwas (or fell) to Machir the son of Manasseh. That is to say, the proper possession of the tribe of Manasseh fell to Machir and his descendants only, because of their warlike spirit, and possibly on account of their numbers also. They were sufficient to occupy the land of Gilead and Bashan, extensive and powerful though it was, while the rest of the tribe had a share in the inheritance westward of Jordan (see also Jos 13:29-31). For he was the firstborn of Joseph. There has been much discussion why these words were introduced. It is probable that they are intended as an explanation of the existence of Ephraim and Manasseh as separate tribes; or possibly this is introduced to suggest the reason for mentioning the tribes in this order since Ephraim was not the firstborn (see Gen 48:5, Gen 48:14). The father of Gilead. There seems no reason to accept Keil’s dictum, that because Gilead here has the article, whereas in other places where it signifies Machir’s son it has not, the country and not the man is meant, and “father” must be taken as equivalent to “lord.” The usage is found in Arabic and Ethiopic, but not in Hebrew. The reason why Gilead as the name of the individual has the article here is most likely because he gave his name to the territory mentioned immediately afterwards. Therefore he had. There is no “therefore” in the original, where we find “and he had.” We must understand this as spoken of the tribe, not personally of Machir, who had been long dead (see note on Jos 6:25).

Jos 17:2

There was also a lot. Or, and (the lot) was (or fell). Abiezer (see Jdg 6:11; Jdg 8:2). Gideon, therefore, was of the tribe of Manasseh. He is called Jeezer in Num 26:30. The male children. Rather, the male descendants. None of the persons here mentioned were (Num 26:30, Num 26:31; 1Ch 7:18) the sons of Manasseh.

Jos 17:3

Zelophehad (see Num 36:1-13). The inheritance here described as being given to the daughters of Zelophehad was so given on condition of their marrying within the limits of their own tribe, a condition which was fulfilled. Thus the name of Zelophehad, and the portion of land belonging to him, was not blotted out from the memory of his descendants.

Jos 17:4

And they came near. In order to demand the fulfilment of the decree of Moses just referred to, to which they appeal in support of their claim (see also Num 27:1-7).

Jos 17:5

And there fell ten portions. Literally, and the measured portions of Manasseh fell ten (in number). It will be observed that the descendants of Manasseh, exclusive of Hepher, are five in number. These, with the five portions allotted to the family of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, made up ten.

Jos 17:6

The rest of Manasseh’s sons. Namely, the descendants of Machir (see verse 1). The ambiguity is due to the indefinite way in which “son” is used in Scripture. Thus the B’ne Israel, which we translate “children of Israel,” is literally, “sons of Israel,” or Jacob. So the sons of Manasseh, in like manner, are Manasseh’s descendants.

Jos 17:7

Coast. Rather, border. Asher. This has been supposed not to be the tribe of Asher, for this was on the north, but a city which has been identified with the modern Yasir, about five hours’ distance from Nablous, or Neapolis, on the road to Beisan,or Beth-shean, where, says Delitzsch, there are “magnificent ruins” now to be seen. See, however, note Jos 17:10. Michmethah (see Jos 16:6). This place has not been identified. All we know is that it is opposite () Shechem. Some have thought that this is simply the denominative of Asher, to distinguish it from the tribe, and that for “Asher to Michmethah” we should read “Asher-ham-Michmethah.” But this could hardly be the Yasir above, since it is opposite Shechem. Shechem. Now Nablous. This place is famous both in the Old and the New Testament. We first read of it, under the name of Sichem, in Gen 12:6. It was the abode of Shechem and Hamor his son, when Jacob abode in Canaan after his return from Padan-aram. It was situated between Gerizim and Ebal, and became an important city in the days of the Judges (Jdg 9:1-57). It was destroyed by Abimelech (Jdg 9:45), but it seems to have recovered. It was thither that Rehoboam went to be crowned, and there that his injudicious answer alienated forever the ten tribes from his rule. Jeroboam made it his capital and is said to have “built” it (I Kings 12:25). He afterwards, however, abandoned it for Penuel, and Penuel again apparently for Tirzah (1Ki 14:17), and Tirzah for Jezreel, which remained the capital until Omri built Samaria (1Ki 16:24). It is no doubt the Sychar mentioned in St. Joh 4:1-54. Most travelers have admired the picturesque situation of Shechem. It has even extorted a tribute from Dr. Peterman, in his ‘Reisen im Orient,’ a work which, however full of valuable information regarding the condition and customs of the people, does not abound m description of scenery. He becomes almost poetical as he speaks of this town, resting on the slopes of Gerizim, a mountain fruitful to its summit, and having opposite the bare, stony el Ebal, its outline unrelieved by verdure, the haunt of jackals, whose howls, like the cry of wailing children in distress, disturb the silence of the night. Thomson thus describes the scene: “A valley green with grass, grey with olives, gardens sloping down on each side, fresh springs rushing down in all directions; at the end a white town embosomed in all this verdure lodged between the two high mountains which extend on each side of the valley; this is the aspect of Nablous, the most beautiful, perhaps it might be said the only beautiful, spot in Central Palestine. Thirty-two springs can be traced in different parts. Here the bilbul delights to sit and sing, and thousands of other birds delight to swell the chorus.”

Jos 17:9

Southward of the brook. It would seem as if some words had fallen away here also. The LXX. adds Jariel, translates (these) by terebinth, and omits the word “cities.” The cities southward of the brook belonged of course to Ephraim. But what is meant here is that Ephraim had cities north of the brook. That the border of Manasseh lay to the northward of the brook is asserted twice over in the latter part of this and the next verse. These cities of Ephraim are among (literally, in the midst of) the cities of Manasseh (see Jos 16:9). If exact and minute accuracy is found in this record, how is it that accusations of inaccuracy are so readily made against its author, when his narrative is clearly very much abbreviated, and where a fuller knowledge of the facts might possibly clear up what now appears obscure? Our present text has not the names of these cities.

Jos 17:10

And they met together. Rather, they (i.e; the Manassites) impinged (this is the very same word as the Hebrew ), i.e; “touched upon.” There has been great discussion concerning this passage. The literal meaning is clearly that Manasseh was bordered by Asher on the north, and Issachar on the east. The idea of an Asher-ham-Michmethah must be given up if we take this rendering of the Hebrew. Its only justification is the fact that if Michmethah be at once the northern border of Ephraim and Manasseh, the territory of Manasseh is cut almost in half. And, in fact, such a supposition makes confusion worse confounded. Is it probable that in verses 7 and 10 Asher-ham-Michmethah is meant; that the town Asher is mentioned in similar terms to the tribe Issachar in the latter verse; and that in verse 11, without a single intimation of the change of meaning, the tribes Issachar and Asher are mentioned? Again: if Dorconsiderably to the south of Mount Carmelwas within the territory of Asher (verse 11), how can we possibly, as Conder’s ‘Handbook’ does, place the limits of Asher at Accho, and bring Zebulun to the sea (which it never reaches, for “toward the sea,” in Jos 19:11 clearly means “westward”), interposing a large strip of territory between Manasseh and Asher, placing Dor, in spite of verse 11, far within the limits of Manasseh, and giving this last tribe, or rather half tribe, an extraordinarily disproportioned share of the land? (See the complaint in verse 16). Zebulun, too, was on the eastern border of Asher (Jos 19:27), and it is by no means certain that Shihor Libnath (see Jos 19:26) is not the Wady Zerka, south of Dor. This is the view of Knobel, a commentator by no means void of acuteness. This contraction of Manasseh’s territory explains why cities had to be given to it out of Asher and Issachar, as well as the complaint in the latter part of this chapter. Issachar, too, must have stretched considerably southward. But the vagueness of the description of Manasseh’s border, especially on the north, prevents us from assigning any limits to Issachar in this direction; while it is impossible, with a writer in the Quarterly Papers of the Palestine Exploration Fund, to suppose that it extended from Jezreel and Shunem and Endor on the north as far as Jericho to the south.

Jos 17:11

And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher (see Jos 16:9). Beth-shean. Afterwards called Scythopolis, now Beisan. It was a “noble city” in the days of Eusebius and Jerome. Many travellers have remarked on its splendid situation, “in this vast area of plain and mountains, in the midst of abundant waters and exuberant fertility” (Robinson, ‘Later Bibl. Res.’ sec. 7). “Just beyond, and separated by a narrow ridge, is another stream, also perennial, and on the peninsular formed by these two, with a bold, steep brow overlooking the Ghor, stood the citadel of ancient Beth-sheana sort of Gibraltar on a small scaleof remarkable natural strength, and inaccessible to horsemen. No wonder that it was long ere Israel could wrest it from the Canaanites. The eastern face rises like a steep cone, most incorrectly stated by Robinson to be ‘black, and apparently volcanic;’ and by Porter, ‘probably a crater.’ Certainly there are many blocks of basalt lying about, but the hill is simply a limestone bluff.”. He goes on, “How clearly the details of the sad end of Saul were recalled as we stood on this spot” (the summit of the cone). “There was the slope of Gilboa, on which his army was encamped before the battle. Round that hill he slunk by night, conscience stricken, to visit the witch of Endor. Hither, as being a Canaanitish fortress, the Philistines most naturally brought the trophies of the royal slain, and hung them up just by this wall. By the Yasir, and across that plain below us, the gallant men of Jabesh-Gilead hurried on their long night’s march to stop the indignity offered to Israel, and to take down the bodies of their king and his sons.” Jabesh-Gilead was not far off, and though in full view of the mountain, yet the men of Jabesh could creep along the Ghor by night and climb the steep face of the rock unsuspected by the warriors above; while the roar of the brook would drown all the sounds they might make. And her towns. Literally, daughters, LXX.; viculi, Vulgate. Canon Tristram remarks how each hill in some parts of Palestine is crowned by a village, a number of which still cluster, as of old, round the chief city of the district. So in Italy we may see how times of unsettlement led to a similar policy. The fear of the northern pirates led to the planting the mediaeval towns on hills, and the disturbed state of the country kept them there till a comparatively late period. But many of them are deserted in this more peaceful age. Ibleam. Only known as near the place where Jehu gave Ahaziah his death blow. It was near Megiddo (see 2Ki 9:27). Dor (see above Jos 11:2). Keil thinks that Dor and all the cities after it are in the accusative to “could not drive out” in the next verse. But it is more probable that was an anacolouthon. Vandevelde (‘Travels,’ 1.333) says that he did not wonder that the fainthearted Manassites shrank from attacking Dor when he saw its formidable position, Endor. This, the abode of the famous witch, still bears the old name. It is four miles south of Mount Tabor, in a country honeycombed with caves, and it stands on the shoulder of Little Hermon. The word signifies the “fount of Dor,” or “the dwelling.” Taanach. For this and Megiddo see Jos 12:21. Three countries. Rather, three hills, or elevated spots (Napheth, see note, Jos 11:2). Gesenius compares the name Temont. The reference is to Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo. Keil suggests province, but he does not explain how a derivative of can have this latter signification (cf. Psa 48:3. Beautiful for its height () is Mount Zion). The LXX. and Vulgate regard it as a proper name, and translate, “the third part of Nopheth.” They are puzzled by the expression here, as in Jos 11:2.

Jos 17:12

Would dwell. The LXX. and Vulgate translate, “began to dwell,” an obvious mistake here, though the word sometimes has this signification. They willed to dwell there, in spite of their defeats, and their purpose was not frustrated.

Jos 17:14

And the children of Joseph. The attitude of the children of Joseph throughout the history of the twelve tribes is in precise accordance with the hint given here. They were proud of their numerical preponderance over the remaining tribes. Thus they, and they only, ventured to remonstrate with Joshua about the inadequacy of the portion allotted to them. Such a sensitiveness was likely to degenerate into insolence when the authority of the great leader was removed. And the history of Gideon (Jdg 8:1-3) and of Jephthah (Jdg 12:6) shows that this was actually the case. Here, again, we have a sign of that deep undercurrent of consistency which underlies our history, and is a guarantee of its authenticity. Seeing I am a great people. The tribe of Joseph, at the census described in Num 1:1-54; outnumbered every tribe but that of Judah. At the census in the plains of Moab (Num 26:1-65) the tribe of Joseph outnumbered them all, though the relative proportions of Ephraim and Manasseh were altered, the latter being now considerably the larger of the two tribes. The whole number of the fighting men of Israel underwent a slight diminution during the passage through the wilderness. But the demand of the tribe of Joseph seems to have been a little unbecoming, since Joseph had obtained two lots and two portions, since half the tribe of Manasseh had settled on the east of Jordan. Hence no doubt the covert sarcasm of Joshua’s reply, for, as Delitzsch shows, Judah, and even Dan, considerably outnumbered Ephraim and the half tribe of Manasseh. Part, however, of their complaint was no doubt caused by the idea that Joshua, as one of themselves, ought to have taken more care of the interests of his own tribe. Joshua, however, as a true servant of God ought to be, was above such petty considerations, though many who live under a higher dispensation find it impossible to emancipate themselves from such bondage. Forasmuch as the Lord hath blessed me hitherto. Or, hath blessed me to this extent (but see Exo 7:16). There is doubtless here an allusion to Jacob’s blessing (Gen 48:20; Gen 44:22-26), the fulfilment of which would naturally make a deep impression on the minds of the children of Joseph. Blessing was the word reiterated over and over again by the dying patriarch as he gazed upon the children of his best-beloved son. Here, again, we have one of those delicate touches, impossible to a writer of fiction, which show that we have here an authentic record of facts. No doubt the consciousness of the enthusiastic language of Jacob, reiterated upon an almost equally solemn occasion by Moses (Deu 33:13-17), coupled with the obvious fulfilment of these predictions, led the tribe of Joseph to demand as a right the leadership in Israel, and no doubt predisposed the other tribes to concede it. The rivalry of Judah, to which reference has already been made, and which culminated in the sovereignty of David, was calculated to produce a beach which it required the utmost tact to heal. Pity it was that the Ephraimites and Manassites forgot the fact that the blessing was conditional, and neglected to lay to heart the terrible warnings in Deu 28:1-68. But it is too often so with men. They expect the fulfilment of prophecies which predict their aggrandisement, and too often strive themselves to hasten the hand of God, while the warnings of God’s Word, since they are less pleasant to the natural man, are permitted to pass by unheeded (see Deu 28:12, Deu 28:13, which was the first step on the downward road).

Jos 17:15

If thou be a great people. As though Joshua would say, “You are ready enough to boast, but unwilling to act. If your tribe be as large as you say it is, it is capable of taking care of itself. There is the vast forest of Central Palestine before you. Do not complain to me, but go and take possession of it.” Get thee up into the wood country. The word “country” is not in the original, which is, strictly speaking, in the direction of the wood. Whether this be the “wood of Ephraim” mentioned in 2Sa 18:6 has been much disputed. For not only David is related to have crossed the Jordan, but Absalom also, in hot pursuit of his father (see 2Sa 17:22, 2Sa 17:24). Neither army is mentioned as having recrossed the river; and it is a question whether it is more probable that there happened to be a “wood of Ephraim” on the other side of Jordan, or that Joab and Absalom, with their respective armies, recrossed Jordan without a word being said of the fact by the historian; the more especially as David (see 2Sa 19:15-17, 2Sa 19:31) remained on the other side Jordan, while yet it was possible for the Ethiopian attendant, as well as Jonathan, to run to him with tidings of the defeat and death of Absalom. For the wood country in this neighbourhood cf. Psa 132:6. Ewald would regard the language here as figurative, and the wood as referring to the powerful Phoenician tribes in the neighbourhood. He regards this answer as a sign of Joshua’s “wit.” But the interpretation seems far fetched and improbable. Cut down. Or, make a clearing, just as emigrants do now in the primeval forest. This wood, or forest, has now disappeared, though sufficient wood still remains to testify to the correctness of, the history. Perizzites and of the giants. The Rephaim (see notes on Jos 3:10; Jos 12:4). If Mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee. This fastness in the heart of the land, the refuge of Ehud, the dwelling place of Deborah, the early home of Samuel, was well adapted to purposes of secrecy and defence, but not so well suited for a place of habitation.

Jos 17:16

And the children of Joseph said. This reply justifies Joshua’s sarcasm. The Ephraimites and Manassites blame Joshua when they ought to be blaming themselves. They excuse themselves from a task which they are too idle to execute, and wish Joshua to make arrangements for them which are wholly unnecessary. The hill is not enough for us. Literally, the hill is not found for usthat is, is not sufficient (see Num 11:9.2; Zec 10:10). Of the valley of Jezreel. Rather, in the valley of Jezreel. The word for valley in this verse is (see note on Jos 8:13). Jezreel abutted on the great plain of Esdraelon, a name which is but a corruption of Jezreel (see note on Jos 19:18), where the chariots of iron could be used with effect, a thing impossible in the mountain districts. Hence the fact that the hill country of Palestine was more rapidly and permanently occupied than the plains. Here, once more, we have a proof that we have real history before us, and not a collection of poetic myths.

Jos 17:18

But the mountain shall be thine, for it is a wood. This passage makes it clear that it was not the whole territory of Mount Ephraim, but only the portion habitable at present, that was too small for Ephraim and Manasseh. When cleared it would afford them more space. But Joshua also recommends them to extend their operations beyond its borders, as is clear from the mention of the “plain,” and the “chariots of iron” (see next note). The outgoings. Not only the mountain itself, but the country to which the mountain passes led. Thou shalt drive out. Perhaps thou mayest drive outi.e; it is in thy power. Though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong. “No weapon can prosper” against him who trusts in the Lord. Yet, in spite of the encouragement given by Joshua, the children of Joseph did not drive the Canaanites out, as verses 11-13 show. The only reason of this was that they did not trust in Gad, but preferred an unworthy compromise with neighbours who, however rich in warlike material, were sunk in sensuality and sloth. Keil would render “because” for “though,” and regard the very fact of the strength of the Canaanites as the reason that the sons of Joseph would subdue them. But Exo 13:17; Psa 49:17 supply us with other instances of . in the sense of although, which certainly is the best sense here. “Let it be remembered how long it was before the Saxons were firmly established in Britain, the Islamite Arabs in Egypt. Israel could look for no reinforcements from kindred left behind. So much the worse might afterwards be the position of the nation, left alone without hope of kindred auxiliaries to meet the repeated outbreaks of the half-subdued Canaanites” (Ewald, ‘Hist. Israel,’ 2 2. c).

HOMILETICS

Jos 17:18

The lot of Joseph.

I. NO COMPROMISE WITH SIN. The Israelites, as we have seen, were promised the possession of Palestine on condition that they should exterminate its inhabitants. They did not do this, either

(1) because they were indisposed to the exertion, as in the case of the Jebusites (Jos 15:63), or

(2) because they found the process of exacting tribute more convenient.

No type of the ordinary conduct of Christians is more precisely accurate. Constantly in youth they either

(1) will not give themselves the trouble to root out evil habits, but give way to them, because the task is so difficult, or

(2) indulge themselves in sin because it is so pleasant. The consequences are a disastrous captivity to sinful habits which lasts half a lifetime, and leaves its mark upon the sinner for his whole life. Great and mighty deliverers may arise within, as they did in Israel, but there is a liability to relapse, which long asserts itself. Instances of these truths are hardly difficult to find.

II. THEY THAT TOUCH PITCH SHALL BE DEFILED THEREWITH. The command to exterminate the Israelites was not an arbitrary one. It was given because of the terrible depravity of the Phoenician people, and because of the equally terrible attractiveness of their sins. God well knew (and the narrative in Num 26:1-65. is sufficient to prove it to us) that the Israelites could not resist the contamination of this evil influence if they allowed themselves to be exposed to it. But they did not, or would not, believe this. And consequently, till the Babylonish captivity, with its stern lessons, taught them better, they continued to fall lower and lower into the abominations of the abominable, revolting, and unfeeling worship of their neighbours; nor was it surprising, when we find that Solomon, with all his wisdom, could not escape the contagion. We may learn thus that neither intellect, nor prudence, nor even the sanctifying influences of a holy calling, will enable us to resist the allurements of bad company, when we voluntarily surrender ourselves to them. The only safe way for the Israelites to meet the Canaanites was in battle array, with arms in their hands. So the Christian’s only safeguard against evil company is never to enter it, save on the path of duty, and never to part with his weapons of faith and prayer. “Surely,” then, “in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird” (Pro 1:17).

III. WE MUST MAKE THE MOST OF THE OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE. Ephraim complained of the narrowness of his lot, instead of cutting down the woods and thus finding room in what had been assigned to him. He is the type of many Christians who complain of the scantiness of their opportunities, while they are leaving one half of them unemployed. God will not vouchsafe us more opportunities if we neglect those He gives us. He did not give five more talents to the man who kept the one he had wrapped in a napkin.

IV. WE MUST NOT MAKE CIRCUMSTANCES A REASON FOR NOT DOING OUR DUTY. The Ephraimites wanted an increase of territory, no doubt at some one else’s expense, while they did not make the most of their own. They not only did not cut down the wood, but they assigned as a reason for not driving out the Canaanites that they had chariots of iron, in spite of the promise God had given them that these should not be a hindrance to their success. So men assign circumstances now

(1) as a reason why they succumb to temptation,

(2) as a reason why they do not combat evil habits,

(3) as a reason why they leave work undone which they ought to have undertaken and carried out.

Let such remember Joshua’s words, “Thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.”

V. GOD‘S BLESSINGS WILL NOT BE GIVEN TO THOSE WHO NEGLECT THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY WERE PROMISED. Ephraim had inherited blessings, and was fully conscious of the fact. Yet he makes this a reason why God should prosper him without any effort on his own part. So Christians very often expect God to work out their salvation for them without any labour or effort of their own. They permit evil tempers to take root in their hearts, and to grow and flourish there. They make no effort to cast them out, because “God hath blessed them hitherto.” They are called to inherit God’s blessings, and so they think they will have them without any trouble. They are “called to be saints,” and expect to be so without the self discipline saintliness requires. God will not fulfil such expectations. He has promised “His Holy Spirit to them that ask it,” but He expects them to “work out their own salvation” with His aid. Those who would appropriate the promises of Christianity without the endeavour necessary to give them effect, either become self-deceiving professors, who “have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof,” or if more sincere in heart and less capable of hypocrisy, fall back into a state of indifference because their Christian calling has failed to realise all the hopes that they had formed,

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY

Jos 17:3, Jos 17:4

Woman’s rights.

I. WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS WHICH MEN COMMONLY DENY THEM. The justice of the Mosaic law and the just privileges accorded to women in the Jewish state stand out in favorable contrast with the almost universal injustice which marks the historic relations of men with women. In barbarous nations women are required to do the hardest manual labour. In semi-civilised nations they are kept in ignorance, idleness, and jealous seclusion. In more advanced nations they are hampered with needless social restrictions which prevent them from enjoying their fair privileges as human beings. This injustice may be traced to

(1) the superior brute force of men,

(2) the natural retiring nature of woman, and

(3) false sentiment which dishonours true modesty.

Chivalrous customs and domestic affection may soften the effects of injustice, but they do not remove the fact.

II. WOMEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROVE THEIR OWN RIGHTS AND CAPACITIES. Hitherto one half of the human race has taken upon itself to settle the position and destiny of the other half. Women have been treated as though men knew their rights and capacities better than these were known to themselves. It is at least just that women should be allowed some liberty of choice, some opportunity for proving their capacities to the world. If they then fail they take a lower position fairly. But it is most unreasonable to assert that they have not certain capacities, while men are jealously closing every channel through which they might prove the existence of those capacities by putting them into practice.

III. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES REQUIRE JUSTICE TO WOMEN. This is required by the law (Num 27:8). It is still more fully required by Christianity. The spiritual privileges of the gospel are equally open to men and women. The elevation of women is one of the most beneficial fruits of the gospel (Mat 26:13; Luk 10:38-42; Php 4:3).

IV. JUSTICE TO WOMEN DOES NOT IMPLY THE EQUALITY OF WOMEN WITH MEN. There must ever remain essential differences between the careers of men and women in many directions, owing to the essential differences of their physical and mental natures. Justice does not demand that all should receive the same privileges, and perform the same duties, but that there should be fairness in the distribution.

V. THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS BY WOMEN CARRIES WITH IT THE OBLIGATION OF CORRESPONDING DUTIES. Duty corresponds to right. The extension of rights increases the obligation of duties. If women obtain larger privileges, in justice they will be called upon to undertake heavier responsibilities. Happily this was realised in Scripture history. The women of the Bible enjoying greater advantages than their neighbours are often distinguished by peculiarly noble conduct. Women are conspicuous for devotion and sacrifice among the early disciples of Christ (Luk 8:2, Luk 8:8). Much of the best work of Christendom has been done by good women. There is large work in the Church for women now.W.F.A.

HOMILIES BY R. GLOVER

Jos 17:6

Woman’s rights.

This is rather a remarkable case. The family of Machir, one of the most warlike in Israel, had contributed more to the conquest of Gilead than any other, and there had been accordingly allotted to them a large share of it. It so happened that in one branch of the family there was not a single male among the children. Five women alone represented a warlike sire. They appeal to Moses, with an energy derived from their great ancestor, to prevent the passing of their property out of their hands. It is apparently the last cause which comes before Moses before his death. The great lawgiver takes occasion from it to make a general law applicable to all such cases. If there be a son left, then the son inherits; the daughter being supposed to find her provision in that of the husband she marries, and to be supported by her brother till she does so. But in the case of there being no brother, they were to inherit their father’s land, and marry in their own tribe, so that the tribe might still retain its possessions intact, and all families have maintenance for their representatives, even though male issue should fail. It falls to Joshua to apply the principles Moses laid down, and accordingly he gives the five ladies “an inheritance amongst the sons” of Manasseh. We do not suggest that Moses legislated in the spirit of the advanced theorists on woman’s rights; it would have been impossible for one so wise to legislate some thousands of years ahead of the general sentiments of mankind. But it is worth noting how ready Moses was to do justice by the weaker sex; and to pass a law, doubtless little to the mind of the rough men who would look enviously on women inheriting considerable estates. It raises the question how far Moses would have sanctioned the views of those who plead that men and women should stand on exactly equal platforms before the law. We can only briefly suggest the answer to this question. Every woman under the Mosaic legislation was more or less sufficiently provided for. The double portion of the firstborn was, by the usage of the East, assigned him chiefly that he might support his widowed mother and unmarried sisters. When marriage was universal, a temporary provision of this kind was all that was required. And where land was not wealth, but only the material out of which it could be gathered, we do not wonder at the law dividing the land (after the eldest son’s double portion) equally among the other sons. Wherever, on the other hand, no sons were left, then the daughters divided equally the property between them, subject to the restriction that they should marry within their own tribe. We may venture to suggest that the spirit of these laws would, in the altered circumstances of our country, be altogether in favour of the equal distribution of property between sons and daughters. The patriarchal system that gave the widow and the unmarried daughters an established home in the old family house which the elder brother inherited, and made their maintenance a charge upon the double birthright, has passed away; and it is no longer the case that sisters share whatever an elder son inherits. Marriage is neither so early nor so universal now. And in the multiplicity of remunerative pursuits open to men in our land there is no longer any special reason for restricting the inheritance of the land to those able personally to work upon it. Thus woman has less protection if unprovided for, less certainty of the resource of marriage; and man less need for special provisions in his favour. In these altered circumstances it is probable that what Moses ruled for the daughters of Zelophehad he would have expanded into a larger rule, and would have required invariably the equal division of all property amongst sons and daughters alike. If we are right in urging this, a few conclusions of practical moment emerge from it.

I. Parents who, in their wills, make the shares of their sons much larger than those of their daughters, take a course which the spirit of Bible legislation forbids, and are guilty of grave injustice.

II. The laws of every country ought, with especial care, to protect the property of women, as being the weaker parties in disputes and the likeliest, therefore, to suffer.

III. A considerable improvement in the position of women would be ejected by the general adoption of such rules by parents and by states. Probably, if women in all directions found equal justice yielded them with men, the equality of legislative power and influence which some seek would be found superfluous.G.

Jos 17:14, Jos 17:15

Greed and grumbling.

Josephi.e; Ephraim and Manassehwants a larger lot. He pleads his numbers, as giving him a right to more. There is, perhaps, in his discontent a modicum of justice. They were very numerous, and part of the land allotted them was that valley of Jezreel, which, though the richest part of Palestine, from its being good for cavalry, had been as yet retained by the enemy. There was, however, more of discontent than of hardship. One half of Manasseh had already had a large part of Gilead assigned them. The shares allotted to Ephraim and the other half were amplein fact, probably double as large in proportion to their numbers as some of the adjoining tribes. But Ephraim, descended from Joseph, the saviour of Israel, the tribe of Joshua, its great captain, wanted to take the lead as the governing tribe. They feel, accordingly, that while their wants are met their dignity is not sufficiently endowed. “They are a great people,” therefore Joshua should have allowed them a larger portion. It is not unusual for those consciouslegitimately or otherwiseof greatness to make somewhat loud complaints and large demands. But Joshuathe embodiment of justicecannot be unfair, even when his own tribe solicit him. He meets their claim in a fine spirit. He admits their greatness, but argues otherwise from it. They are so many? Why, then, not clear the mountain of its forests and find thus an easy and unselfish enlargement? It is true the Canaanites hold Jezreel, and they are not yet in possession of the fertile plain. But Joshua argues that that is a reason for fighting their enemies with courage, and not for filching from their brethren, with meanness. “Thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they be strong,” he says, with a fine, genial, bracing blending of irony and encouragement. We have thus a fine example of a question with two sides; a necessity with two ways of meeting it; a fact with two conclusions. “I am numerous. There are foes on my land,” says Joseph; “therefore give me a slice off what has fallen to Judah.” “Thou art numerous, and enemies are still on thy land,” says Joshua; “therefore clear the mountain of its forests and the plains of thine enemies.” The example of Manasseh and Ephraim here, and the reply of Joshua to them, has much in it suggestive. Observe first

I. A LITTLE HEART SOMETIMES SPOILS GREAT POWERS. The complaint from which Ephraim was suffering was this: his heart was too little for his body; poor circulation of the vital elements. These tribes had plenty of power, plenty of stalwart men to clear the waste or to conquer their enemies; but they had not moral force to match. They were short of enterprise, resource, courage. What they could easily have won by work or war they prefer that others should give them. The breath they should have kept for conflict they waste in grumbling. They want to be the dominating tribe, without paying the price of lordship in daring and willingness to encounter difficulty and hardship. There are many Ephraims in the world who have it in their power to make for themselves any lot they like, who, instead of improving, merely lament their lot. Many keep troubling friends to do for them what it is quite within their power to do for themselves. Some are merely indolentcapable of work, but disinclined to do it. Some suffer from a feebleness which exists only in their imagination, but which prevents their working more than actual frailty would. Some are merely proud, and think they have a right to something more in the world than they have got. So some grumble for want of earthly comforts they are too dull to get for themselves. So some go about expecting to get by “interest” and “favour” what they would be wiser to seek by self reliance and energy. So some in the realm of religion go to God and complain they have not larger delights and richer usefulness and more power, when, as a matter of fact, all these things are within their reach if they would only put forth the powers they already have. This is a very general ailment. Few have the energy, the earnestness, the faith to do with their powers anything like the whole of what is possible to them. We are engines, built to work up to 30 lbs. pressure on the square inch, and we only work up to seven and a half. Seek not so much greater powers as the heart to use the powers you have. Observe secondly

II. TRUE KINDNESS OFTEN DECLINES TO DO FOR MEN WHAT THEY CAN DO FOR THEMSELVES. When Ephraim has the power to win as much land as he needs, it is better that he be set to win it for himself. Men can rarely keep well any more than they can win bravely. To give Ephraim what he wants would be only to increase his indolence, his arrogance, and his weakness. To set Ephraim to get what he wants by his own prowess, increases his enterprise, his brotherliness, his courage, his diligence, his self respect. We learn best what we learn ourselves. We profit most by our own experience. It is no kindness to grant the requests of indolence and greed. The true kindness is Joshua’sto point out how much is within the reach of the aspiring, and set them to conquer it for themselves. Lastly observe

III. GREATNESS SHOULD DWELL UPON ITS DUTIES RATHER THAN ON ITS CLAIMS. “I am a great people give me,” is the tone which a great multitude, besides Ephraim, assume. “I am a great people therefore ought to work and fight,” is the tone they ought to use. True greatness speaks in the latter, bastard greatness in the former tone. Sometimes it is an aristocracy that declares itself to be the most important class in a country, and with something of Ephraim’s pitiable lament presents its claims for more consideration and influence. Sometimes a priestly order will, on the score of its greatness and importance, claim more authority than the people are disposed to grant it. Sometimes an ignorant class, puffed up with ambition, will desire more power than it has got. It is well to remember greatness is not given us to constitute a claim on others’ services, but as a power to serve them and ourselves together. He is greatest who is servant of all, and he is chief who ministers to all. If you and Ephraim are so great and worthy, use your greatness and power for the good of yourselves and others, and none will grudge you what in this way you win.G.

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY

Jos 17:14-18

Self-help.

I. IT IS FOOLISH TO COMPLAIN OF OUR LOT UNTIL WE HAVE MADE THE BEST USE OF IT. The Ephraimites had not cleared their forest, yet they complained of the narrowness of their possession. We do not know the extent of our advantages till we try them. In murmuring at the privations of life we spoil the enjoyment of its blessings. Hardships which we ascribe to the arrangements of Providence may often be traced to our own indolence. The one talent is buried because it is not five. We have no excuse for complaints before we have made the full use of what we possess. This may be applied to

(1) abilities,

(2) opportunities of service,

(3) means of self improvement, and

(4) sources of enjoyment.

II. OUR LOT IN LIFE WILL IMPROVE AS IT IS USED WELL. Joshua showed to the complaining Ephraimites that if they cleared their forest and so recovered the waste land, their lot would thereby be doubled. The neglected inheritance runs to weeds and becomes worthless. The cultivated possession improves with cultivation. Exercise strengthens the weak. If we make a good use of what opportunities for service we now possess, these will develop new and better opportunities. If we use well what powers God has given us, these will grow more effective. The talent that is not neglected produces other talents.

III. GREAT CLAIMS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED BY GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS. The Ephraimites claim to be great, and therefore deserving of a great inheritance. Joshua replies, “If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country and cut down for thyself there,” etc. High rank should justify itself by high service, large wealth by large beneficence, titles of honour by deeds of sacrifice. Duty is proportionate to faculty. The more advantages we claim the more obligations shall we contract.

IV. THE BEST RIGHT TO A POSSESSION IS TO HAVE OBTAINED IT THROUGH THE EXERTION OF OUR OWN ENERGIES. Joshua bids the Ephraimites increase their lot, by the exercise of their valour in exterminating the Canaanites, and of their industry in felling the forest.

(1) It is unworthy to look to personal favour to secure us a position in the world not earned by merit or work. Joshua belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, and the Ephraimites seem to have expected favours on this account, but in vain.

(2) It is weak to depend on the paternal interference of the State when our own industry should obtain our rights.

(3) It is wrong to wait idly for a providential interposition on our behalf. God will give us our inheritance, but we must conquer it and cultivate it. He helps us when we do our best, but never so as to justify our indolence.W.F.A.

HOMILIES BY E. DE PRESSENSE

Jos 17:14-18

The Division of the Land

Let us make some further observations on the division of the land of Canaan among the tribes of Israel. The descendants of Joseph receive but a small lot. They complain bitterly of this, saying, “We are a great people.” Joshua replies that, just because they are a great people, they may be contented with the share assigned them, for they will have the opportunity of perpetually extending their borders. “The mountain shall be thine; for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots and though they be strong” (verse 18). In this passage of their history there is a beautiful SYMBOL OF THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD. Manasseh and Ephraim have no assured possession. In order to retain what they have and to acquire sufficient territory, they must be ever fighting. Ever fresh conquests are the necessary conditions of their retaining that which they already possess. If they do not strengthen their position and enlarge their borders, they will be at once invaded by their enemies. Such is the position of the Church in the world.

(1) For the Church too, conquest is the condition of security. Pressed on every hand by a hostile world, it must be ever in an attitude of active self defence: it must ever have in its hand the sword of the Spirit. As soon as it falls asleep, in a supposed peaceful security, it finds itself assailed, and the enemy is in its midst before it is aware. Nothing is more easy, nothing of more frequent occurrence, than this intrusion of the world into the Church. Therefore the Church is bound to be ever armed with all the panoply of God, and ready for the fight. “We wrestle not,” says the apostle, “against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph 6:12). This defensive warfare is also in a manner aggressive; forevery new generation born within the outward precincts of the Church needs to be won afresh for Jesus Christ. No one is born a Christian, though it may be a great advantage to be born in a land of historic Christianity. It is necessary, therefore, constantly to reconquer from the world and from the merely natural life, the posterity of Christians. In this primary sense the Church cannot hold its own without ever fresh conquests.

(2) Nor is this enough. Antichrist, under the form of paganism, or of simple infidelity, is still a formidable power on every hand. He who said to His disciples, “Go and teach all nations,” opened before them a limitless field of conquest. The mission of the Christian Church is the fulfilment of the command of Joshua to Ephraim and Manasseh: “Thou art a great people and hast great power; get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the giants” (verse 15). The might which is in the Church, though invisible, is greater than that of the giants of antichrist, for it is the strength of Him who said, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Mat 28:20).E. DE P.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Ver. 1. There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh, &c. As if it were said, “A lot for Manasseh after Ephraim, though Manasseh was the first-born.” Or, rather, these words form a parenthesis, as our version gives it, the design of which is, to show the reader that Jacob had testified some preference for Ephraim. Gen 48:19-20. However, he did not pretend to take from Manasseh the least privilege to which he might have a right. Both being sons of Joseph, they drew but one lot, and their estates and cities were, in some degree, mixed together; but, after having described the portion of the lot which fell to Ephraim, it was proper, in like manner, to describe the portion of his brother Manasseh. Machir, the only son of Manasseh, Num 26:28-29 must have been either dead, or one hundred and eighty years of age, at the time of the division of the country by Moses. This is proved from his son Gilead’s being himself born while Joseph was living. Machir, therefore, must have had the honour of passing for a man of war, by some warlike exploit performed during his stay in Egypt, and perhaps in the bloody quarrels which early subsisted between the Ephraimites and Manassites. 1Ch 7:21. Others think, that the name of father is here put to signify the whole family; as if the author had said, because the children of Machir were men of war. God, on account of the valour of the Gileadites, who were as courageous as Machir from whom they descended, had settled them in a part of the country of Bashan, and in a part of that of Gilead; ch. Jos 13:11; Jos 13:31. The latter bore the name of Gilead so early as in the time of Jacob, Gen 31:21. Gilead never set foot in it himself, as he was not born before the death of Joseph; but he occupied it by his posterity, who were there settled.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

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 is but a continuation of the former chapter, inasmuch as the same subject is continued. The children of Joseph, in the half tribe of Manasseh, have their portion assigned them. They petition for more. Joshua gives them an answer.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Nothing can be more clear and evident than that it is the Lord who fixeth the bounds of our habitation; and although in the first view of things, men seem to be guided by their own choice and humour; yet, whoever looks deeper into the matter, and especially, if he be enabled to wait the issue, all will be found to have originated in divine appointment. A sweet thought this at all times to God’s people, in the recollection of that covenant which is ordered in all things and sure: and, when the language of the heart to a God in Christ is, Lord! thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. 2Sa 23:5 ; Psa 90:1 .

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 17:1 There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh; for he [was] the firstborn of Joseph; [to wit], for Machir the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead: because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan.

Ver. 1. For he was the firstborn of Joseph. ] And so had right to a double portion. Deu 21:17

For Machir the firstborn of Manasseh. ] Indeed, his only son. See the like expression in Mat 1:25 .

Because he was a man of war. ] Machir was: or if he was dead by this time, – as he was, or else he was very old, – by Machir is meant his posterity the Machirites (Num 26:29 ; compare Jdg 5:14 ).

Therefore he had Gilead, ] i.e., Half Gilead; for Reuben had the other half.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

NASB (UPDATED TEXT): Jos 17:1-6

1Now this was the lot for the tribe of Manasseh, for he was the firstborn of Joseph. To Machir the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead, were allotted Gilead and Bashan, because he was a man of war. 2So the lot was made for the rest of the sons of Manasseh according to their families: for the sons of Abiezer and for the sons of Helek and for the sons of Asriel and for the sons of Shechem and for the sons of Hepher and for the sons of Shemida; these were the male descendants of Manasseh the son of Joseph according to their families. 3However, Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, only daughters; and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. 4They came near before Eleazar the priest and before Joshua the son of Nun and before the leaders, saying, The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brothers. So according to the command of the LORD he gave them an inheritance among their father’s brothers. 5Thus there fell ten portions to Manasseh, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which is beyond the Jordan, 6because the daughters of Manasseh received an inheritance among his sons. And the land of Gilead belonged to the rest of the sons of Manasseh.

Jos 17:1 This refers to land on the eastern side of the Jordan, north of the plains of Moab.

because he was a man of war Military heroes were honored and rewarded for their service.

the father of Gilead The name (BDB 166) has several different references.

1. an area of land on the eastern side of Jordan between the Arnon and Yarmuck rivers, Gen 31:21; Gen 31:23; Gen 31:25; Gen 37:25; Num 32:1; Num 32:26; Num 32:29; Num 32:39; Jos 22:9

2. an Israelite of the tribe of Manasseh (apparently named after the land Moses gave his father, cf. Num 32:40; Deu 3:15), Num 26:29-30

3. a clan from Gilead, son of Machir, Num 26:29; Num 27:1; Num 36:1; Jos 17:1-3

Jos 17:2 Shechem This term (BDB 1014), similar to Gilead, refers to a city and a person.

1. a city – Gen 12:6; Gen 33:18; Jos 21:21

2. a person

a. Gen 33:19; Gen 34:2; Gen 34:4; Gen 34:6; Gen 34:8; Gen 34:11; Gen 34:13; Gen 34:18; Gen 34:20; Gen 34:24; Gen 34:26; Jos 24:32

b. Num 26:31; Jos 17:2; 1Ch 7:19

See Shechem in NIDOTTE, vol. 4, pp. 1213-1216; or ABD, vol. 5, pp. 1174-1186

Jos 17:3-4 See Num 26:33; Num 27:1-11; Num 36:2-4.

Jos 17:5-6 This explains why the tribe of Manasseh has land on both sides of the Jordan. It was the daughters who had no brothers who settled in Canaan.

Next to Judah, the largest land allotment went to Manasseh.

Jos 17:5

NASB, NKJV,

NRSV, NJBportions

TEV, REB,

NETshares

JPSOAdistricts

This term (BDB 286) originally meant a rope or cord which was used to measure. Here it takes on a metaphorical extension for the land allotted to the tribes.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

a lot = the lot. Compare Jos 16:1, above.

firstborn of Joseph. Gen 41:51; Gen 46:20; Gen 50:23. Nah 32:39.

man = Hebrew. ish. App-14.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Let’s turn now to Joshua, chapter seventeen, as we begin our study this evening.

As we get into the seventeenth chapter, we find that the land has continued to be divided by Joshua, and the portion that was to be given to a half of the tribe of Manasseh. Now Manasseh took part of its inheritance on the other side of the Jordan River, a half of a tribe. And then the other half was to settle on the western bank on what is actually the west bank today in the land of Israel. Part of that did belong to Manasseh at the time of the dividing of the land.

When we get down to verse twelve we read again of the failure of the children of Israel to completely drive out the enemy.

Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in the land. Yet it came to pass, when the children of Israel were stronger, that they put the Canaanites to tribute; but they did not utterly drive them out ( Jos 17:12-13 ).

This was a failure on the part of the children of Israel to enter into the complete victory and the complete conquering of the land.

Now we have pointed out to you in the past how that the whole experience of the children of Israel coming out of the bondage of Egypt, passing through the wilderness, coming into the Promised Land, is a spiritual allegory. It is representative of we as Christians coming out of Egypt, the bondage in sin. The Red Sea is equivalent to our baptism coming into a new relationship with God. How that God has promised unto us, a life of victory over our flesh, coming into the walk and the life of the Spirit that God wants each of you to experience and to know. He desires that we take full victory over every area that the enemy has had a stronghold in our lives. If we allow any of these strongholds of the enemy to remain, they are going to be a continual and constant problem to you in your spiritual growth.

Now many of these areas of our flesh, maybe it is a bad temper, maybe it is anger, maybe it is other types of characteristics, pride or whatever that you have to deal with in your life. Now God wants to give you complete and full victory over these areas of your flesh. He has provided all that you need. But many times, even as the children of Israel failed to utterly drive out the enemies, but yet in time to come, their failure to drive out the enemy utterly worked to their own disadvantage. So many times in our own lives where we fail to enter into the full victory of that very area where we haven’t really gone in and laid claim to our victory in Christ, is the very area where we find ourselves attacked by Satan in the future, and oftentimes defeated in the future because we failed to fully take the promise that God has given to us and lay claim to the full victory that we can have as we walk in the Spirit.

So the failure of complete victory is one of the sad tragic, well one of the little notes of Joshua all the way through. You see that they did not utterly drive out the inhabitants, that they did not take fully the land. That they did not conquer all that God had given, and it later worked to their own harm. So let us not follow after the same example, but let us impressing into our walk in the Spirit, enter into the fullness.

I was talking with a group of ministers yesterday from Germany that were visiting here some sixty Lutheran ministers from Germany, and I told them that I desire to be totally open to God for all that God has for my life. I don’t want to close any doors to God by my presuppositions, by my theological background, or training, I don’t want to have any closed doors to God. I want to be totally open for whatever God might have in mind for me, for my life. Because number one, I need every bit of help I can get. Thus I don’t want to fall short of anything that God may have for me. I want to be open to it. I want to always have a total openness when I approach God. “God, whatever You have in mind, whatever Lord, You have there to give to me, Lord, I desire it. I need it. I want it.”

I feel sorry for many people who have such a concept of God that they can’t open themselves totally up to God. But they put the limitation. “Now God, I really don’t want this. Lord, I don’t need that.”

They’ll put limitations on God, as though God is going to give something to me that is not going to really be a benefit or blessing to me. I don’t want to put any kind of strings upon what God might want to do for my life, in my life, or through my life. I want to be totally open before God in all things. So I want to gain every victory that God has for me. I want to possess all of the promises that God has given to me. I want to claim the whole land. Why should I come short of the fullness that God wants to work in my life? Why should I stop short when God is urging me to go on? Why should I allow or tolerate an area of my flesh that is still not committed to the Spirit and under the control of the Spirit? Why should I set up a peaceful co-existence with some weakness of my own flesh? I desire to know the full complete victory of Jesus Christ in every area of my life. I want to keep pressing on and laying claim, until I have conquered through Christ all that has been promised to me. God laid out the borders and I don’t want to come out short of anything that God has for me.

But the children of Israel tragically did. They did not conquer all of the land. They left enemies and pockets of the enemies within the land. When they became stronger rather than driving them out, they just taxed them, and made slaves of them. But there was a failure. Verse fourteen,

The children of Joseph spake to Joshua, saying, Why has thou given us but one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing that we are a great people, forasmuch as the Lord has blessed me hitherto ( Jos 17:14 )?

Now Ephraim and Manasseh were two of the larger tribes, and they were the sons of Joseph. So that when it refers here to the tribe of Joseph, it is actually referring to the double tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Because they had so many they said, “Why have you just given us one lot? We really are so big we should have two lots.” That is in the casting of lots they would, they divided off the land, they made a map and divided off the map, and then they would cast lots, who would get this portion, and they said, “We’ve got so many people we really need two lots for the tribe of Joseph.

So Joshua agreed to it that there should be two lots given to them. So they drew another lot so that Manasseh was dwelling next to Ephraim on the West Bank, and the other part of Manasseh, of course, was over on the east bank on the other side of the Jordan River.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

It is interesting to note that in the territory allotted to Manasseh, some of the cities of Ephraim are included; and, moreover, that some of the cities of Manasseh are within the territory of Asher and Issachar. The reason for this may be, in the first case, to mark the unity between Ephraim and Manasseh as the sons of Joseph; and, in the second case, because Asher and Issachar, especially the latter, were not strong enough to subdue the territory committed to them.

Ephraim was discontented with the portion allotted to it and complained to Joshua. The newer he gave was characteristic of him and a revelation of the greatness of his statesmanship. He manifested an understanding of the weakness of these tribes and of the principles on which alone they might become strong. He did not deny their declaration that they were a great people, but with what would seem to have been a touch of irony, he charged them to demonstrate their greatness by taking possession of what they had. He instructed them to go up to the mountains and cut down the trees and drive out their foes. The principle thus revealed is of perpetual application. If the Church of God would possess its possessions it would be far more powerful.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

5. The Portion of Manasseh

CHAPTER 17

1. Their names (Jos 17:1-6)

2. Their border (Jos 17:7-13)

3. The complaint and the answer (Jos 17:14-18)

Half of the tribe of Manasseh had their inheritance on the other side of Jordan, having joined themselves to Reuben and Gad. The rest of Manasseh are now named according to their families. These are: Abiezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Hepher and Shemida, The son of Hepher, Zelophehad, had no sons (see Num 27:1-11); the names of the five daughters are given here again. They claim now the inheritance which the Lord had given to them. They, too, exhibit the courage of faith. May we also claim in faith that inheritance which belongs to us through the grace of God.

The complaint of the children of Joseph shows dissatisfaction with their lot; it was selfishness. Joshua takes them by their word. His answer reminds us of the divine command given in chapter 13. Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. Yonder were the stately forests, the wooded hills and mountains, inhabited still by the Perizzites and the giants. All they needed to do was to go there and drive them out and they would possess a larger portion. But this answer but brings out their unbelief and failure. They plead weakness; it was nothing less than unbelief, for they looked to the iron chariots the Canaanites possessed, instead of looking to the Lord and trusting His power. They refused to meet the enemy and have their borders enlarged under these conditions. What a contrast with bold and humble Caleb! And yet Joshua encourages them. He urges them to go forward and possess the forest and cut it down. It was his challenge to their faith. Faith does not reckon with chariots, with difficulties.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

the firstborn: Gen 41:51, Gen 46:20, Gen 48:18, Deu 21:17

Machir: Gen 50:23, Num 26:29, Num 27:1, Num 32:39, Num 32:40, Jdg 5:14, 1Ch 2:23, 1Ch 7:14, 1Ch 7:15

Gilead: Num 26:29, Num 32:33, Num 32:40, Deu 3:13-15

Reciprocal: Num 1:34 – Manasseh Num 33:54 – give the less inheritance Deu 3:15 – Machir Jos 22:7 – General Jdg 20:1 – with the 2Sa 17:26 – General 1Ch 12:31 – the half tribe Psa 60:7 – Gilead Eze 48:4 – Manasseh

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jos 17:1. There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh That half of it which had no portion on the other side Jordan. For he was the firstborn of Joseph The sense of this, as it here stands, is very obscure. But if the particle , ki, here rendered for, be translated though, as it often is, and as Bishop Patrick thinks it ought to be here, the meaning is plain, that the second lot was for Manasseh, because, though he was the firstborn of Joseph, yet Jacob had preferred Ephraim before him, Gen 48:19-20. Or the sense may be, though Ephraim was to be more potent and numerous than Manasseh, according to the prophecy of Jacob, yet this should be no prejudice to Manasseh, nor deprive him of any privilege to which he might lay claim as the elder. Both being sons of Joseph, drew but one lot; and their estates and cities were in some degree mixed together; but after having described the portion of the lot which fell to Ephraim, it was proper in like manner to describe the portion of his brother, as being the first born. Dodd. For Machir The only son of Manasseh, who, therefore, is here put for the whole tribe. The firstborn So even only sons are sometimes called, as Mat 1:25. Because he was a man of war That is, had given great proof of his valour, (though the particular history be not mentioned,) and his posterity were no degenerate sons, but had his valiant blood still running in their veins. Gilead and Bashan Part of those countries; for part of them was given to the Reubenites, and part to the Gadites. This may be added as a reason, either, 1st, Why he got those places from the Amorites. Or, 2d, Why they were allotted to him or his posterity, because this was a frontier country, and the outworks to the land of Canaan, and therefore required valiant persons to defend it.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Jos 17:14. Why hast thou given me but one lot? Joshua added mount Ephraim: though it was a military country, and though the Canaanites had chariots of iron; yet with the help of Ephraim, they must be driven out. Whereas the Ephraimites made a covenant with them, and took their tribute. Joshua seems to have his greatest difficulties in adjusting the lots of the two half tribes.

REFLECTIONS.

We here find Machir rewarded for his valour, as Caleb had been for his faith. A choice lot in Gilead and Bashan fell to his enjoyment: and if God is not wanting to reward the faith and virtues of men, it is wise in the civil government to reward heroic and virtuous actions. Rewards so conferred elevate the national character, and very much contribute to the safety of the state, by exciting confidence in the government, and emulation among equals.

The complaints which Manasseh here brings, are not founded on the want of land, for Gods lot could not be unfair, but on the mountains being covered with woods, and the plains inhabited by the Canaanites, whom they could not drive out. And why could they not drive them out? Because alas, they had giants, and because they had chariots armed with scythes. Terrors which had affrighted their fathers at Kadesh-barnea. And why, it is farther asked, could they not drive them out? Was it for the want of men? Nay, for this tribe had eighty five thousand able to go forth to war. They had the fine example of Caleb to encourage them, who had expelled the enemy, and destroyed the giants in his lot; they had all the promises in common with Israel. But in vain does God work miracles, in vain does he load a people with privileges, if they do not help themselves by improving his grace.

Did Joshua, the hero of his people, admit the propriety of pleas founded on fear? Quite the contrary: he commanded them to relieve themselves by industry and valour, to clear the woods with the axe, and the plains with the sword. He would allow of no pleas drawn from the giants, and from the chariots of iron. Let us hence learn to supply our temporal wants by the blessing of God crowning our industry, and all our spiritual wants by pleading the promises, and by so fighting against our spiritual foes as not to be afraid of any adversary. Complaints originating in cowardice and sloth will find no redress with God.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Jos 17:1-10, from a Priestly writer, describes the inheritance of Manasseh. In Jos 17:7-10 the boundaries are given, but as in the case of Ephraim, no definite boundary line can be drawn from the names given in the text. The only point of interest is the assignment of inheritance to the daughters of Zelophehad in accordance with Num 27:1 ff. There Moses ordains that the daughters of a man who has no sons shall take their fathers inheritance. This is in opposition to ancient law, which recognised the sons only as heirs. Later feeling was against this, and the writer of Num 27:1 ff. gave effect to it by the imaginary instance of Zelophehad and his daughters. For a discussion of this kind of legal fiction, see W. R. Smith, OTJC2, p. 386. The remainder of the chapter (Jos 17:11-18) consists of two passages from an older source, the first of which states that Manasseh could not drive out the Canaanites from Bethshean and some other cities. This resembles Jos 15:63, and should be compared with Jdg 1:27. The second passage (Jos 17:14-18) gives the demand of Joseph for an extension of territory. The request is granted, but in somewhat obscure terms. The statement ascribed to the Joseph tribe, Thou hast given me but one lot, shows that the oldest tradition knew nothing of any territory E. of the Jordan being assigned to Manasseh by Moses, and this view is supported by the fact that in the song of Deborah, Machir, which is only another name for Manasseh, is regarded as a W. Jordan tribe. It has therefore been argued with great probability that the settlements of the Manassite clans E. of the Jordan were subsequent to the settlements on the W. But the passage in the text does not put this definitely; accordingly Budde emends Joshuas answer as follows: But the hill country of Gilead shall be thine. Whether this emendation is accepted or not, a large number of scholars are agreed that the first settlements of Manasseh were in W. Palestine and that those in the E. were acquired later; the present passage, with its distinct statement about the one lot, certainly supports that view.

The first verse of ch. 18 belongs to P, and its original position was before Jos 14:1. It was placed here by the editor before what is probably a Deuteronomic passage (Jos 17:2-10) with which it does not connect very well. So far, only Judah and Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) have had their inheritance assigned to them by lot. The old tradition was that Judah and Joseph were the first to obtain their territory by conquest; the way in which P conformed to this was by saying that their inheritance was assigned to them first by lot when the whole of the W. Jordan territory was divided. The writer of Jos 17:2-10 (D?) apparently follows the older narrative, that Judah and Joseph obtained their lands by conquest, but thinks that the remaining seven tribes obtained theirs by lot. This the editor retained. But the passage has suffered from subsequent revision, for the LXX shows that it did not originally contain the references to Shiloh in Jos 17:8-10. These references were inserted to make the passage agree with Jos 17:1. After this passage, P is resumed and the lots of the seven tribes given in the remainder of Joshua 18 and in Joshua 19. In Jos 19:47, we have a fragment of the older history, or rather the fragment of a fragment. The meaningless words went out beyond them should be were too narrow for them. This restores sense to the passage as it stands. But the original passage, as we see it from the LXX, corresponded to Jdg 1:34, from which it appears that the Amorites effectually prevented the Danites from settling in the SW. of Palestine. The last editor of Joshua desired that this should not remain on record, and accordingly cut down the original passage to its present form.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

THE WESTERN HALF TRIBE OF MANASSEH

(vs.1-13)

Manasseh’s territory was immediately north of Ephraim, spreading from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Manasseh means “forgetting reminding us of Paul’s words in Php 3:13, “forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” Thus Manasseh and Ephraim go together. Manasseh was born first, but teaches us that we are to forget what we were in mere fleshly advantage, for that which is first is not spiritual, but natural. Thus, Ephraim was given the first place, which speaks of the positive bearing of fruit. For the positive must always take the precedence over the negative. Yet Manasseh has his place also, for we must all learn to put behind us all that is merely to the credit of the flesh.

One man is mentioned by name in verse 1, Machir, the firstborn of Manasseh, “because he was a man of war.” Manasseh had died long before Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, but Machir succeeded to the place of the firstborn. He was given Gilead and Bashan, which were on the east side of Jordan.

Other children of Manasseh are listed in verse 2 as being given territory in the bounds of the tribe. But more than that, five daughters of one man, Zelophehad, were given the inheritance that would have been the possession of their father if he had not died before. The daughters had been promised this by Moses (Num 27:1-11), and now in boldness of faith they claim the inheritance (vs.3-4). Certainly also, believing women are as fully entitled to a spiritual inheritance in heavenly places as are men. This blessing for them is wonderful, though of course it does not do away with God’s governmental order as to the relative place and responsibilities of the man and the woman in the assembly or in public testimony. In this there are distinctions that must always be maintained.

Verse 5 speak of ten shares taken by Manasseh on the west side of Jordan, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan on the east. Thus, verse 1 refers to the east side of Jordan and verses 2-4 the west side. The daughters of Zelophehad received their inheritance among the sons mentioned in verse 2, and the rest of Manasseh’s sons had the land of Gilead.

Manasseh had a relatively large possession, its border on the south adjoining Ephraim, the Mediterranean Sea being its west border and the river Jordan the east, though Issachar was on its north-east border, and Asher on the north (v.10).

A number of towns are mentioned in verse 11 which were in the territory given to Manasseh and Issachar, but Manasseh could not drive out the Canaanites who lived there. When Manasseh was strong enough, they put these Canaanites under forced labor, but did not drive them out (vs.12-13). Sadly, the territory of the church today is still compromised by the presence of people and principles that are not consistent with the pure truth of God.

COMPLAINTS RIGHTLY ANSWERED

(vs.14-18)

Though the territory allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh was large, yet they complained to Joshua that they had so little to inherit, saying that they were a great people, the Lord having blessed them. Did Ephraim think that, since Joshua was of Ephraim he would give them special recognition?

But Joshua was a man of God: he had been guided by God in the allotment of territory, and was not partial to his own tribe. His answer was wise and to the point, “If you are a great people, then go up to the forest country and clear a place for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and the giants, since the mountains of Ephraim are too confined for you” (v.6). This was land to which they had title, but they had not taken possession of it. They were much like many believers today, who would like to have what others had fought for, but are afraid of the conflict necessary to possess what they are entitled to.

They objected to Joshua that they need more than the mountain country, and that the valley areas were possessed by Canaanites who had chariots of iron (v.16). Joshua, courageous man of war as he was, considered this a feeble argument. He reminded them a second time of their own words, they were a great people, and if so, had great power. They were able to cut down the trees of the mountains and were also able to defeat and drive out the Canaanites, though they had chariots of iron (vs.17-18). Caleb had not let the formidable opposition of giants defeat him (ch.14:6-12), and faith will never be defeated by the appearance of great power on the part of the enemies of God. Thus Joshua silenced the arguments of Ephraim and Manasseh. He had the last word. How could they deny its appropriateness?

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

These verses describe the territory of the half tribe of Manasseh west of the Jordan and north of Ephraim. It extended north to the valley of Jezreel. The Manassehites also failed to exterminate all the Canaanites in their area (Jos 17:12-13).

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.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary