Chapter 19 The Portions of the Remaining Six Tribes.

In this chapter an account is given of the lots of the six remaining tribes, and the cities in them, of Simeon, whose cities were chiefly within the tribe of Judah (Jos 19:1); of Zebulun, its border and cities (Jos 19:10); of Issachar, its border and cities (Jos 19:17); of Asher, its border and cities (Jos 19:24); of Naphtali, its border and cities (Jos 19:32); of Dan, its border and cities (Jos 19:40); and lastly of a gift of inheritance to Joshua (Jos 19:49).

Jos 19:1

‘ And the second lot came out for Simeon, for the tribe of the children of Simeon, according to their families, and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah.’

The first lot was of course the children of Benjamin’s (Jos 18:11). This is the second of the seven. The patriarchal name is given without qualification only for Simeon and Issachar. In the other cases only the tribal name ‘children of –’ is given. There is no obvious reason for this unless it is connected with the fact that neither is mentioned as directly spoken to in the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33 – Issachar is included with Zebulun). This might suggest that Joshua or the writer took full note of the blessing of Moses and wished to include Simeon and Issachar in it by codicil.

Why the blessing of Moses excluded a direct reference to them is debatable. It was very possibly because Moses wished deliberately to name only ten names. Numbers had a great significance in those days and ten would for example, parallel the ten words of the covenant. It would also parallel the ten patriarchs in Genesis 5, 11. Thus he deliberately included Issachar with Zebulun. The total omission of Simeon may have been for some judicial reason (e.g. Num 25:14) as an indication of Moses’ displeasure, although he may have seen them as indirectly included with their twin Levi as in Gen 49:5. But the exclusion was not permanent. They were elsewhere regularly mentioned with the twelve. And it may be that it is here seen as partly remedied by Joshua. (If Moses wished to omit two names, sons of Leah were obvious choices due to their preponderance. But the non-mention at all of Simeon must be seen as having some significance even though we may not know what it was).

After Judah had received their portion, with its cities, further consideration made Joshua recognise that Judah had been allocated too much. This is an indication of the genuineness of the narrative. He had to revise his allocations. Thus Simeon was chosen by lot to receive cities in the midst of Judah. This would later bring about a special relationship between the two tribes (Jdg 1:3). But they remained separate tribes although working in close unison and Simeon is regularly mentioned as such in later history (1Ch 4:42-43; 1Ch 12:25 ; 2Ch 15:9; 2Ch 34:6).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jos 19:1-10 Comments – Simeon received an inheritance of seventeen cities within the inheritance of Judah. Since these cities were scattered rather than neighbouring, the tribe of Simeon was eventually assimilated into Judah. This was in fulfilment of the prophecy of Jacob in Gen 49:7, “Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel .”

Jos 19:49-50 Comments – The Inheritance of Joshua Jos 19:49-50 records the inheritance that Joshua received among the children of Israel. He was of the tribe of Ephraim (Num 13:8), so received his inheritance in mount Ephraim. Note how well 1Ti 5:17 addresses this event in Joshua so well. The elders who minister in God’s Word well are to be counted worthy of double honour.

Num 13:8, “Of the tribe of Ephraim, Oshea the son of Nun.”

1Ti 5:17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Possession of Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan

v. 1. And the second lot came forth to Simeon, was drawn forth from the urn, even for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families; and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah. Since the territory assigned to the latter tribe was too large for them, Simeon was given certain cities within their boundaries, the curse of Jacob concerning the distribution of Simeon in Jacob, Gen 49:7, thus being fulfilled. The tribe of Simeon afterwards practically lost its identity, although the genealogical records were carefully preserved.

v. 2. And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, a city known from the time of the patriarchs, in the center of the southern steppes, and Sheba, and Moladah,

v. 3. and Hazar-shual, and Balah, and Azem,

v. 4. and Eitolad, and Bethul, and Hormah, on the extreme southern boundary,

v. 5. and Zik-lag, in the Philistine country, and Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susah,

v. 6. and Beth-lebaoth, and Sharuhen: thirteen cities and their villages:

v. 7. Ain, Remmon, and Ether, and Ashan: four cities and their villages;

v. 8. and all the villages that were round about these cities to Baalath-beer, Ramath of the south. All these cities have already, Jos 15:26-32; Jos 15:42, been enumerated in the list of the cities of Judah, and are again listed 1Ch 4:28-32. That the prophecy of the scattering was literally fulfilled appears even at this point, for the cities inhabited by Simeon were not even grouped according to any definite plan. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families.

v. 9. Out of the portion of the children of Judah was the inheritance of the children of Simeon; for the part of the children of Judah was too much for them; therefore the children of Simeon had their inheritance within the inheritance of them, literally, “in the midst of their inheritance,” and not in a specially defined part of Canaan.

v. 10. And the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun according to their families; and the border of their inheritance was unto Sarid, this city, from the whole description, being the center of the southern boundary;

v. 11. and their border went up, from Sarid, toward the sea, westward toward the Mediterranean, and Mara-lah, and reached to, or struck, Dabbasheth, and reached to, or struck, the river that is before Jokneam, this watercourse very probably being the Kishon, which flows at the foot of the Carmel range;

v. 12. and turned from Sarid, as the starting-point, eastward toward the sun-rising unto the border of Chisloth-tabor, on the slopes of Mount Tabor, and then goeth out to Daberath, also in the foothills of Tabor, a city of the Levites, and goeth up to Japhia, a little farther to the east,

v. 13. and from thence passeth on along on the east, still toward the east, to Gittah-hepher, to Ittah-kazin, and goeth out to Bemmon [-methoar], which is drawn to Neah, thus extending to a place which was somewhat north of Nazareth;

v. 14. and the border compasseth it, the territory of Zebulun, on the north side to Hannathon, this being the eastern boundary, going north; and the outgoings thereof are in the Valley of Jiphthahel, a wide valley extending down toward the Kishon;

v. 15. and Kattath, and Nahallal, and Shimron, and Idalah, and Bethlehem, these cities indicating the western or northwestern boundary of Zebulun: twelve cities with their villages.

v. 16. This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun according to their families, these cities with their villages. It was a fertile country with an outlet to the sea, which assured the inhabitants a participation in its blessings also, as Jacob had foretold.

v. 17. And the fourth lot came out to Issachar, for the children of Issachar according to their families.

v. 18. And their border was toward Jezreel, their territory included the fertile and beautiful Plain of Jezreel, or Esdraelon, and Chesulloth, and Shunem, on the western slopes of the Little Hermon, appearing several times in later history,

v. 19. and Haphraim, or Chepharaim, and Shihon, and Anaharath,

v. 20. and Babbith, and Kishion, or Kedesh, a city of the Levites, and Abez,

v. 21. and Bemeth, and En-gan-nim, another Levitical city, with a rich supply of fine water from large springs above the town, and En-haddah, and Beth-pazzez;

v. 22. and the coast reacheth to Tabor, a city on the boundary of Zebulun, and Sha-hazimah, and Beth-shemesh, in the Jordan Valley, near Mount Tabor; and the outgoings of their border were at Jordan: sixteen cities with their villages.

v. 23. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Issachar according to their families, the cities and their villages. So Issachar was richly blessed with material prosperity and gave himself up to the enjoyment of the pleasures of life.

v. 24. And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher according to their families.

v. 25. And their border was Helkath, a Levitical city northeast of Acco, and Hali, and Beten, and Achshaph,

v. 26. and Alammelech, not far from the Kishon, and Amad, on or near the site of the modern Haifa, and Misheal, a Levitical city on the sea, near Mount Carmel; and reacheth to Carmel westward, and to Shihor-libnath, a small stream on the southern slopes of Carmel;

v. 27. and turneth toward the sunrising to Beth-dagon, and reacheth to Zebulun, and to the valley of Jiphthahel toward the north side of Beth-emek and Neiel, places on the boundary of Zebulun, and goeth out to Cabul on the left hand, on the north side of it, four hours southeast of Acco,

v. 28. and Hebron, or Abdon, and Rehob, and Hammon, and Kanah, even unto great Zidon, the ancient capital of Phenicia.

v. 29. And then the coast turneth to Ramah, and to the strong city Tyre, fortified strongly even at that time, and later the rich and proud capital of Phenicia; and the coast turneth to Hosah; and the outgoings thereof are at the sea from the coast to Achzib, three hours north of Acco;

v. 30. Umnah also, and Aphek, and Rehob, in the foothills of the Lebanon range: twenty and two cities with their villages. Thus the territory of Asher extended from the southern slopes of Mount Carmel to Acco along the Mediterranean Sea, and from there to the northern boundary of Canaan, just skirting the narrow coast country of the Pheriicians, with the cities Tyre and Sidon.

v. 31. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Asher according to their families, these cities with their villages. Asher was also richly blessed, both the agricultural and the commercial possibilities of the country being exceptionally good.

v. 32. The sixth lot came out to the children of Naphtali, even for the children of Naphtali according to their families.

v. 33. And their coast was from Heleph, from Allon to Zaanannim, northwest of the Sea of Merom, and Adami, on the road that leads through the pass toward Baalbek, Nekeb, and Jabneel, unto Lakum; and the outgoings thereof were at Jordan, the upper Jordan, also above the Waters of Merom;

v. 34. and then the coast turneth westward to Aznoth-tabor, and goeth out from thence to Hukkok, and reacheth to Zebulun on the south side, and reacheth to Asher on the west side, and to Judah, here apparently a city on the boundary of Asher; upon Jordan toward the sun-rising, for the upper Jordan was Naphtali’s eastern boundary.

v. 35. And the fenced cities, the fortified towns, are Ziddim, Zer, and Ham-math, Rakkath, and Chinnereth,

v. 36. and Adamah, and Ramah, and Hazor,

v. 37. and Kedesh, and Edrei, not that in Bashan, and En-hazor,

v. 38. and Iron, and Mig-dal-el, Horem, and Beth-anath, and Beth-shemesh, not to be confounded with the cities of the same name in Judah and Issachar: nineteen cities with their villages. So Naphtali’s territory was largely in the forested foothills of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges. The tribe was a liberty-loving mountain people, for which reason they had been compared by Jacob with a hind let loose.

v. 39. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Naphtali according to their families, the cities and their villages.

v. 40. And the seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families.

v. 41. And the coast of their inheritance, west. of Benjamin, north of Judah, south of Ephraim, was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Irshemesh, three cities of Judah which were yielded to the Danites, the last named being assigned to the Levites,

v. 42. and Shaalabbin, and. Ajalon, and Jethlah,

v. 43. and Elon, Thimnathah, and Ekron, Jos 15:10-11,

v. 44. and Elte-keh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath,

v. 45. and Jehud, and Beneberak, and Gath-rimmon,

v. 4. G. and Me-jarkon, and Bak-kon, with the border before Japho, over against Joppa, or Jaffa, that is, extending to the gardens or suburbs of this nourishing seaport.

v. 47. And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them, there was hardly room enough for their rapidly growing tribe; therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, or Laish, in the extreme northern part of Canaan, north of the territory of Naphtali, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem Dan, after the name of Dan, their father. The story of this campaign is related in detail Judges 18.

v. 48. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families, these cities with their villages. The Danites did not occupy the territory allotted to them altogether, being hindered in their attempts by the heathen inhabitants of the plains, Jdg 1:34, and apparently unable to muster men and courage for a successful venture.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

THE LOT OF THE REMAINING TRIBES.

Jos 19:1

And their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah. Literally, in the midst of. , LXX.; in medio, Vulgate (cf. Jos 19:9). Simeon, at the last census (Num 26:14), was the smallest of the tribes of Israel, a fulfilment of the prophecy of Jacob, and possibly the result of the command given in Num 25:5, since the Simeonites were the chief offenders on that occasion (Num 25:14; see also 1Ch 4:27). The distribution of territory was in accordance with this, and it is possible that the lot only determined the priority of choice among the tribes. The territory of Judah seems to have been recognised as too large, in spite of the importance of the tribe. They therefore willingly gave up a portion of their territory to the Simeonites.

Jos 19:2

Beersheba. A locality well known in Scripture, from Gen 21:31 onwards. And Sheba. Some would translate here, or Sheba (see below). No doubt the city, of which nothing further is known, derived its name from Beer-sheba, “the well of the oath,” close by. It is true that some little difficulty is caused by the omission of this city in Chronicles 4:28, by the identification of Shehah with Beer-sheba in Gen 26:33, and by the fact that in Gen 26:6 we are told that there were thirteen cities in this catalogue, whereas there are fourteen. On the other hand, Keil has remarked that in Jos 15:32 the number of names does not correspond to the whole number of cities given; and we have a Shema, probably a mistake for Sheba, in Jos 15:26, mentioned before Moladah among the cities of Judah. And, lastly, we have very few instances in Scripture of the disjunctive use of , though it seems impossible to deny that it is used in this sense in 1Ki 18:27.

Jos 19:3

Hazar-shual. The “hamlet of jackals.” The word Hazar is translated “village” in our version (see note on Jos 15:32). So also with Hazar-susah or Hazar-susim, “the hamlet of horses” (1Ch 4:31) below.

Jos 19:9

Therefore the children of Simeon had their inheritance. Of the later history of the children of Simeon we find a little recorded in 1Ch 4:39-42, and some suppose that the event recorded there is a fulfilment of the prophecy in Oba 1:19. Dr. Pusey mentions a tribe still existing in the south, professing to be of the sons of Israel, and holding no connection with the Arabs of the neighbourhood, and supposes them to be the descendants of the five hundred Simeonites who took possession of Mount Seir in the days of Hezekiah. No border seems to have been given of Simeon.

Jos 19:10

Sarid. This seems to have been a middle point, from which the border is traced eastward and westward, as in Jos 16:6, and perhaps in verse 32. But the LXX. and other versions have a variety of readings here.

Jos 19:11

Toward the sea. Rather, westward. The original is touched or skirted (). River that is before Jokneam. This, with the assistance of Jos 12:22, which mentions Jokneam as near to Mount Carmel, enables us to identify this river (or rather, winter torrent), as “that ancient river, the river Kishon.” Knobel, however, says that if the Kishon had been meant it would have been called by its name, and that we must therefore understand the Wady-el-Mil’h. But this is by no means a safe conclusion.

Jos 19:12

Chisloth-Tabor. The loins or flanks of Tabor. Tabor (the name signifies either quarrysee note on Shebarim, probably a kindred word, Jos 7:5or navel), is one of the most conspicuous mountains of Palestine. Like Soracte, above the Campagna of Rome, “the cone-shaped figure of Tabor can be seen on all sides,” though it rises only 1,750 feet (French) above the level of the sea, 800 above the plain at its northeastern base, and 600 above Nazareth on the north-west (Ritter, 2:311). Chisloth-Tabor was on the northwest side of the base of Tabor. Tabor has been supposed to have been the scene of the Transfiguration. But Ritter points out that from the time of Antiochus the Great, 200 years before Christ, to the destruction of Jerusalem, the summit of Tabor was a fortress. And he notices that while Jerome and Cyril mention this tradition, Eusebius, who lived 100 years earlier, knows nothing of it.

Jos 19:13

Gittah-hepher. Or, Gathhepher (1Ki 14:25) was the birth place of the prophet Jonah. Now el-Mesh-hed, where the tomb of Jonah is still shown. The Rabbinical writers and the Onomasticon mention this tradition.

Jos 19:14

Compasseth it. The verb is here used transitively. The meaning is that the border makes a curve round the city of Neah. Neah seems to have been the extreme eastern border. Methoar is supposed to be the Pual participle, and has been freely translated, “which is marked out,” or, “which belongs to,” Neah. But the passage is obscure. Knobel could alter the reading, in view of the grammatical difficulty. Yet this, perhaps, is not insuperable in view of Jos 3:14. Valley. . (see note on Jos 8:13; Jos 15:8). So in verse 27.

Jos 19:15

Beth-lehem. This name, signifying the “house of bread,” would naturally enough be given to a place in a fertile situation. We are not to suppose that it was “Bethlehem-Ephratah, among the thousands of Jadah” (Mic 5:2). It is now Beit-lahm, about eight miles in a westerly direction from Nazareth.

Jos 19:16

The inheritance of the children of Zebulun. It is strange that the beautiful and fertile land occupied by the tribe of Zebulun does not appear to have brought prosperity with it. Possibly the fact that the “lines” of this tribe had “fallen in pleasant places,” had tended to induce sloth. Certain it is that we hear but little of this tribe in the after history of Israel. They were not, like Reuben, absent from the great battle of Tabor, for there we read that, like Issachar, they “jeoparded their lives unto the death” for their homes and liberties. Yet though they seem thenceforth to have slackened in their zeal, theirs was a fair portion. It bordered on the slopes of Tabor, and seems (though the fact is not mentioned here) to have extended to the Sea of Galilee, as we may gather from Isa 9:1.

Jos 19:18

Jezreel. The valley () of Jezreel, known in later Greek as the plain of Esdrsela or Esdraclon (Judith 1:8; 7:2; 2Mal 12:49) was “the perennial battlefield of Palestine from that time to the present”. Lieut. Conder, however, takes exception to this statement. “The great battles of Joshua,” he says, “were fought far to the south.” We presume he would make an exception on behalf of the action by the waters of Merom, and that he does not wish us to forget that the majority of Joshua’s other “battles” were sieges. “David’s wars were fought with the Philistines,” he continues, “while the invasions of the Syrians were directed to the neighbourhood of Samaria.” But here, again, he would seem to have forgotten 1Sa 29:1, 1Ki 20:26, 2Ki 13:17, 2Ki 13:25, while he expressly admits that the great battles of Gilboa and Megiddo, in which Saul and Josiah were defeated and met their deaths, were fought here. And we have already seen that twice did the Egyptians invade Syria by this plain. One of these invasions took place while Moses was in Egypt, under Thothmes III. The other was the famous expedition of Rameses II. against Syria, about the time of Deborah and Barak. If we add to these the victory of Gideon over the Midianites and the overthrow of Sisera, we shall have reason to think that the epithet “the battlefield of Palestine” applied to this plain is not altogether misplaced, especially if, with a large number of critics, we regard the Book of Judith as founded on fact, but relating to events of some other time than that of Nebuchadnezzar. “Well may it be fertile,” exclaims Mr. Bartlett, “for it has drunk the blood of the Midianite, the Philistine, the Jew, the Roman, the Babylonian, the Egyptian, the Frenchman, the Englishman, the Saracen, and the Turk. It is a singular group to summon up to the imagination, Gideon, Saul, and Jonathan, Deborah, Barak, and Sisera, Ahab, Jezebel, Jehu, Josiah, Omri, and Azariah, Holofernes and Judith, Vespasian and Josephus, Saladin and the Knights Templar, Bonaparte and Kleber.” The list is a striking one. But certain it is that the plains of Jezreel have been noted as the highway of every conqueror who wished to make the fertile fields of Palestine his own. The Israelitish invasion alone seems to have been decided elsewhere than on that plain, stretching as it does from the foot of Carmel in a southeasterly direction, and divided in the direction of Jordan by Mount Gilboa and Little Hermon into three distinct branches, in the midst of the southernmost and most extensive of which stands the famous city of JezreelGod’s acre, or sowing ground, as the name indicates. Here Barak and Deborah fell upon the hosts of Jabin (Jdg 4:14), descending suddenly from the heights of Tabor with 10,000 men upon the vast and evidently undisciplined host that lay in the plain. Here Gideon encountered the vast host of the Midianites (Jdg 7:12), who, after laying waste the south country, finally encamped in this fertile plain (accurately called in Jdg 6:38), and with their leaders Oreb and Zeeb, and their princes Zebah and Zalmunna, were swept away in one of those sudden and irrational panics so often fatal to Eastern armies. Here Saul, hard by Jezreel, dispirited by his visit to the witch of Endor, on the north of Gilboa, gathered his men together as a forlorn hope, to await the attack of the Philistines, their numbers at first swelled by a number of Israelites whom Saul’s tyranny and oppression had driven into exile (1Sa 29:1-11). Advancing to Jezreel, the Philistine host carried all before them, and drove the Israelites in headlong flight up the steeps of Gilboa, where Saul and his sons fell fighting bravely to the last (1Sa 30:1-31). In the later and sadder days of the Israelitish monarchy, when the ten tribes had been carried into captivity by the Assyrian conqueror, Josiah courted disaster by a rash onslaught upon the Egyptian troops as they marched against Assyria. No details of this fight at Megiddo are preserved, save the fatal fire of the Egyptian archers, who marked Josiah as their victim, and drove, no doubt, his leaderless troops from the field (2Ki 23:29; 2Ki 2:1-25. Chronicles 35:22). At Jezreel, too, Ahab made his capital. Hither Elijah, when “the hand of the Lord was upon him” (1Ki 18:46), ran after the wondrous scene on Mount Carmel, when he alone, in a strength not his own, withstood the “prophets of Baal, even four hundred and fifty men.” Here Jehoram stood on the hill, with its commanding view, watching with an uneasy distrust the furious rush of Jehu with his troop from the other side Jordan, and here, in the plat of Naboth the Jezreelite, so fatal to Ahab and his house, did the vengeance decreed overtake the unhappy monarch (2Ki 9:25), The spot may be still identified. It is the modern Zerin. Ritter describes it (and so does Robinson) as standing on the edge of a precipice 100 feet high, and commanding a fine view of the plain of Beth-shean on the east, and of Esdraelon on the west. There is a tower here which commands the same view as the watchmen of Jehoram commanded, bearing witness to the accuracy of the historian. So in 1Ki 4:12, the mention of Taanach, Megiddo, and the region of Beth-shean, as beneath (). Jezreel is another instance of topographical detail which marks the correctness of the record. Another point is that we read in the narrative above mentioned of “chariots.” Wilson (‘Lands of the Bible,’ 2:303) was surprised, on leaving the rugged heights of the hill country, to find how easily, if the civilisation of Palestine permitted, excellent roads might be made throughout this region; and Canon Tristram has remarked on the desolate appearance now presented by that fertile region, the result of the insecurity for life and property which is so commonly remarked by all who have travelled in the East. Here, where under a better rule would be the abode of peace and plenty, no cultivator of the land dare venture to pass the night, exposed to the depredations of the wild tribes that infest the country. Only a mountain fastness, hard to climb and comparatively easy to defend, affords a secure retreat for those who would live peaceably in that once favoured land. Shunem. Now Sulem: the place of the encampment of the Philistines before they “pitched in Aphek” (1Sa 28:4; 1Sa 29:1). It was “five Roman miles south of Mount Tabor” (Vandevelde) and an hour and a half (i.e. about six miles) north of Jezreel (Keil and Delitzsch). Here Abishag the Shunammite lived (1Ki 1:3; 1Ki 2:17, 1Ki 2:21), and here Elisha lodged, and afterwards restored the son of his entertainers to life (2Ki 4:1-44; 2Ki 8:1-29).

Jos 19:21

En-gannim. Supposed to be the same as the “garden house” (the Bethgan of the LXX) mentioned in 2Ki 9:27) where Ahaziah, king of Judah, met with the wound of which he afterwards died at Megiddo. It was one of the Levitical cities of Issachar (Jos 21:29). Robinson, Vandevelde, and others identify it with the modern Jenin, the Ginaea of Josephus. The meaning of the name is “fountain of the gardens” and the present Jenin is situated, so Robinson tells us, in the midst of gardens.

Jos 19:22

The coast reacheth. Literally, the border skirteth, as in Jos 19:11. Tabor. Perhaps the same as Chisloth-Tabor in Jos 19:12 (cf. 1Ch 6:77). It would therefore be, as Mount Tabor certainly was, on the boundary between the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun. Beth-shemesh. Not the well known town in the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:10). The repetition of this name is a proof of the extent to which sun worship prevailed in Palestine before the Israelite invasion.

Jos 19:23

This is the inheritance of the tribe of Issachar. Jacob, whose dying eye pierced far into the future, discerned beforehand the situation of the tribe of Issachar, and its results upon its conduct. Situated in the midst of this fertile plain, accessible alike to Egypt by the way of the Shephelah, and to the east by way of the fords of the Jordan, the tribe of Issachar became in the end the prey of the various nationalities, who made the plain of Esdraelon their battlefield, and it was the first to “bow his shoulder to bear” and to “become a servant unto tribute” (Gen 49:15). It seems to have been to the east of Manasseh (see Jos 17:10), and may have extended much further south than is usually supposed. Since but small mention of the Jordan is made in the boundary of Joseph, it may have extended as far or farther south than the Jabbok (see also note, Jos 17:10). The general belief of explorers at present is that the inheritance of Issachar extended from Jezreel to the Jordan, and from the Sea of Tiberias southward as far as the border of Manasseh, above mentioned.

Jos 19:25

Helkath. A Levitical city (Jos 21:31; 1Ch 6:75, where it is called Hukok).

Jos 19:26

Reacheth. Literally, toucheth, i.e. skirteth, as in Jos 19:11 and Jos 19:22. So in the next verse, with regard to Zebulun. The term appears to be the invariable one when a district, not a particular place, is spoken of. To Carmel westward. The Carmel range appears to have been included in the tribe of Asher. For we read (Jos 17:10, Jos 17:11) that Asher met Manasseh on the north, whence we conclude that it must have cut off Issachar from the sea, and that as Dor was among the towns which Manasseh held within the territory of Issachar and Asher, it must therefore have been within the boundaries of the latter. Shihor-libnath. For Shihor see Jos 13:3. Libnath, which signifies white or shining, has been supposed by some to mean the glassy river, from its calm, unbroken flow, though this appears improbable, since Shihor means turbid. It is far more probable that the current was rendered turbid by a quantity of chalk or limestone which it carried along in its course, and hence the name “muddy white.” Keil thinks it to be the Nahr-el-Zerka, or crocodile river, of Pliny, in which Beland, Von Raumer, Knobel, and Rosenmuller agree with him. But when he proceeds to argue that this river, being blue, “might answer both to shihor, black, and libnath, white,” he takes a flight in which it is impossible to follow him. Gesenius, from the glazed appearance of burnt brick or tiles (l’banah), conjectures,that it may be the Belus, or “glass river,” so called, however, in ancient times because the fine sand on its banks enabled the manufacture of glass to be carried on here. But this, emptying itself into the sea near Acre, has been thought to be too far north. Vandevelde, however, one of the latest authorities, as well as Mr. Conder, is inclined to agree with Gesenius. The difficulty of this identification consists in the fact that Carmel and Dor (Jos 17:11) are said to have been in Asher (see note on Jos 17:10). The Nahr-el-Zerka has not been found by recent explorers to contain crocodiles, but it has been thought possible that they have hitherto eluded observation. Kenrick, however, thinks that as crocodilus originally meant a lizard, the lacertus Niloticus is meant, the river being, in his opinion, too shallow in summa to be the haunt of the crocodile proper. The Zerkais described in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Paper, January, 1874, as “a torpid stream flowing through fetid marshes, in which reeds, canes, and the stunted papyrus grow.” When it is added, “and where alone in Palestine the crocodile is found,” no evidence is given in favour of the statement. It empties itself into the sea between Dor and Caesarea, a few miles north of the latter.

Jos 19:27

Beth-dagon. We learn that Dagon, the fish-god, was worshipped here as well as in the south of Palestine (see Jos 15:41). The Valley of Jiphthah-el. This valley, or gai, is mentioned above, Jos 19:14, as the extreme northern border of Zebulun. Cabul. We read of a Cabul in 1Ki 9:11-13, but it can hardly be this place, though clearly not far off. For we read that the name given to that territory was given then by Hiram. There is a mentioned by Josephus. There is a village four hours northeast of Acre, which still bears this name.

Jos 19:28

Hebron. Rather, Ebron. It is not the same word as the Hebron in Judah, but is spelt with Ain instead of Hheth. In Jos 21:30, 1Ch 6:59, Abdon is the name of the city assigned to the Levites in Asher. Twenty MSS; says Keil, have the same reading here. But the LXX. has here and in Jos 21:30. The Hebrew and are so much alike that there is no doubt that the mistake has arisen earlier than the time when that translation was made. It is true that the lists of Levitical cities in Jos 21:1-45. and 1Ch 6:1-81. do not entirely correspond. But the resemblance here between the names is too striking to allow of the supposition that two different cities are meant. Great Zidon. This city, as well as Tyre, remained unsubdued, although assigned by Joshua to Asher. The boundary of Asher appears to have been traced first towards the west, then eastward, from a middle point on the southern border (see note on verse 11), then to have been carried northward from the same point (the left hand usually means the north; see note on Teman, Jos 15:1), on the east side till it reached Cabul. Then the northern border is traced westward to Sidon. Then the border turned southward along the sea, which is not mentioned, because it would seem to be sufficiently defined by the mention of Ramah and Tyre. Between Hosah and Achzib there would seem to have been a greater paucity of cities, and therefore the sea is mentioned.

Jos 19:29

The strong city Tyre. Rather, the fortified city. The general impression among commentators appears to be that the island city of Tyre, afterwards so famous, had not as yet come into existence. And the word here used, seems to be more in accordance with the idea of a land fortress than of one so exceptionally protected.as an island fortress would be. This expression, like “great Zidon” above, implies the comparative antiquity of the Book of Joshua. The island city of Tyre, so famous in later history, was not yet founded. The city on the mainland (called Ancient Tyre by the historians) was “the chief seat of the population till the wars of the Assyrian monarchs against Phoenicia”. He adds, “The situation of Palae-Tyrus was one of the most fertile spots on the coast of Phoenicia. The plain, is here about five miles wide; the soft is dark, and the variety of its productions excited the wonder of the Crusaders.” William of Tyre, the historian of the Crusades, tells us that, although the territory was scanty in extent, “exiguitatem suam multa redimit ubertate.” The position of Tyre, as a city of vast commercial importance and artistic skill in the time of David and Solomon, is clear enough from the sacred records. It appears still (2Sa 24:6, 2Sa 24:7) to have been on the mainland, for the successors of Rameses II; up to the time of Sheshonk, or Shishak, were unwarlike monarchs, and the Assyrian power had not yet attained its subsequent formidable dimensions. We meet with Eth-baal, or Itho-baal, in later Scripture history, remarkable as the murderer of the last of Hiram’s descendants, and the father of the infamous Jezebel, from which we may conclude that a great moral and therefore political declension had taken place since the days of Hiram. The later history of Tyre may be inferred from the prophetic denunciations, intermingled with descriptive passages, found in Isa 23:1-18, and Eze 26:1-21; Eze 27:1-36.; Joel (Joe 3:3-8) and Amos (Amo 1:9) had previously complained of the way in which the children of Israel had become the merchandise of Tyre, and had threatened the vengeance of God. But the minute and powerful description in Eze 27:1-36, shows that Tyre was still great and prosperous. She was strong enough to resist the attacks of successive Assyrian monarchs. Shalmaneser’s victorious expedition (so Alexander tells us) was driven back from the island fortress of Tyre. Sennacherib, in his vainglorious boast of the cities he has conquered (Isa 36:1-22; Isa 37:1-38), makes no mention of Tyre. Even Nebuchadnezzar, though he took and destroyed Palae-Tyrus, appears to have been baffled in his attempt to reduce the island city. Shorn of much of its ancient glory, Tyre still remained powerful, and only succumbed, after a resistance of seven months, to the splendid military genius of Alexander the Great. But Alexander refounded Tyre, and its position and its commercial reputation secured for it a large part of its former importance. The city continued to flourish, even though Phoenicia was for a long period the battleground between the Syrian and the Egyptian monarchies. To Christian readers, the description by Eusebius of the splendid church erected at Tyre by its Bishop Paulinus will have an interest. He describes it as by far the finest in all Phoenicia, and appends the sermon he preached on the occasion. Even in the fourth century after Christ, St. Jerome (‘Comm. ad Ezekiel,’ Eze 26:7) wonders why the prophecy concerning Tyre has never been fulfilled. “Quod sequitur, ‘nee aedificaberis ultra,’ videtur facere quaestionem quomodo non sit aedificata, quam hodie cernimus nobilissimam et pulcherrimam civitatem.” But the present state of Tyre warns us not to be too hasty in pronouncing any Scripture prophecy to have failed. Even Sidon is not the wretched collection of huts and ruined columns which is all that remains of the once proud city Tyre. And the outgoings thereof are at the sea from the coast to Achzib. Rather, and the western extremity is from Hebel to Achzib. Hebel signifies a region or possession, as in Eze 27:9. Here, however, it seems to be a proper name. Achzib. “A city of Asher, not conquered by that tribe (Jdg 1:31), now the village of Zib, two-and-a-half hours north of Akka,” or Acre (Vandevelde). Keil and Delitzsch make the journey a three hours’ one. But Manndrell, who also corroborates St. Jerome in the distance (nine Roman miles), states that he performed the journey hence to Acre in two hours.

Jos 19:30

Aphek (see Jos 13:4). Twenty and two cities with their villages. The difficulty of tracing the boundary of Asher seems to be that it was traced, not by a line plainly marking out the territory, but less accurately, by a reference to the relative position of its principal cities.

Jos 19:31

This is the inheritance of the tribe of Asher. Asher appears to have been allotted a long but narrow strip of territory between Naphtali and the sea. The natural advantages of the territory must have been great. Not only was it described prophetically by Jacob (Gen 49:20) and by Moses (Deu 33:24, Deu 33:25), but the prosperity of the two great maritime cities of Tyro and Sidon was due to the immense commercial advantages the neighbourhood afforded. St. Jean d’Acre, within the territory once assigned to Asher, has inherited the prosperity, so far as anything under the Turkish rule can be prosperous, once enjoyed by her two predecessors. Maundrell, the acute English chaplain at Aleppo, who visited Palestine in 1696, describes the plain of Acre in his day as about six hours’ journey from north to south, and two from west to east; as being well watered, and possessing “everything else that might render it both pleasant and fruitful. But,” he adds, “this delicious plain is now almost desolate, being suffered, for want of culture, to run up to rank weeds, as high as our horses’ backs.” Asher, however, never employed the advantages its situation offered. They never subdued the Canaanites around them, but, unquestionably at a very early date (see Jdg 5:17) preferred a life of compromise and ignoble ease to the national welfare. But it would be incorrect to suppose that because the tribe is omitted in the list of rulers given in 1Ch 27:1-34; it had ceased to be a power in Israel. For Gad is also omitted in that list, while among the warriors who came to greet David when he became undisputed king of Israel, Asher sent 40,000 trained warriors, a number exceeding the men of Ephraim, and those of Simeon, of Dan, and of the half tribe of Manasseh (see 1Ch 12:1-40), and far exceeding the numbers of Benjamin, which had never recovered the war of almost extermination waged against it, in consequence of the atrocity at Gibeah (Jdg 20:1-48). Possibly the reason why so few are mentioned of the tribe of Judah on that occasion is because so many were already with David. There seems no ground for the idea of Dean Stanley, that the allusion to Asher in Jdg 5:17 is any more contemptuous than the allusion to any other tribe.

Jos 19:33

From Allon to Zaanannim. Or, the oak which is at Zaanannim (cf. Allon-bachuth, the oak of weeping, Gen 35:8). Zaanannim is the same as the Zaanaim mentioned in Jdg 4:11. For (1) the Keri is Zaanannim there, and the word here rightly translated “oak” is rendered there “plain,” as in Gen 12:6 and elsewhere. It has been supposed to lie northwest of Lake Huleh, the ancient Merom, whence we find that the scene of that famous battle was assigned to the tribe of Naphtali. The border of Naphtali is more lightly traced than any previous one, and is regarded as being sufficiently defined, save toward the north, by the boundaries of the other tribes.

Jos 19:34

And then the coast turneth westward. Here the words are literally translated without any confusion between the west and the sea, nor any misapprehension of the meaning of the word . Reacheth. This is the same word translated skirteth above, Jos 19:11, note. We have it here clearly stated that Naphtali was bordered on the south by Zebulun, on the west by Asher, and on the east by “Judah upon Jordan.” To Judah. These words have caused great trouble to translators and expositors for 2,000 years. The LXX. omits them altogether, rendering, “and the Jordan to the eastward.” The Masorites, by inserting a disjunctive accent between them and the words that follow, would have us render, “and to Judah: Jordan towards the sun rising,” or, “is towards the sunrising,” a rendering which gives no reasonable sense. They unquestionably form part of the text, since no version but the LXX. omits them. A suggestion of Von Raumer’s has found favour that the cities called Havoth Jair, which were on the eastern side of Jordan, opposite the inheritance of Naphtali, are meant. Jair was a descendant of Judah by the father’s side, through Hezron. So Ritter, 4:338 (see 1Ch 2:21-23). It would seem that the principle of female inheritance, having once been admitted in the tribe of Manasseh, was found capable of further extension. But to the majority of the Israelites this settlement would no doubt be regarded as an offshoot of the tribe of Judah.

Jos 19:35

And the fenced cities. The remark is made in the ‘Speaker’s Commentary’ that the number of fenced cities in the north were no doubt owing to a determination to protect the northern boundary of Israel by a chain of fortresses. The word fenced is the same that is rendered strong in Jos 19:29, “the strong city Tyre.” Chinnereth (see Jos 11:2).

Jos 19:36

Hazor (see above, Jos 11:1-10).

Jos 19:37

Kedesh (see Jos 12:22). It was the residence of Barak (Jdg 4:6). Known to Josephus (Bell. Jud; 4. 2 3) as Cydoessa, to Eusebius and Jerome as Cydissus; it is now Kedes (see Robinson, ‘Later Biblical Researches’). Edrei. Not the Edrei of Og, which was beyond Jordan.

Jos 19:38

Migdal-el. The Magdala of the New Testament. It lay on the lake of Gennesareth. Beth-shemesh. A common name, derived from the worship of the sun. This is neither Beth-shemesh of Judah nor of Issachar (see Jos 19:22).

Jos 19:39

The inheritance of the tribe of the children of Naphtali. Of Naphtali, Beyond the not too heroic leader Barak, we hear nothing in the after history of Israel, until the fulfilment of the prophecy in Isa 9:1, Isa 9:2. Galilee, the scene of the greater part of our Lord’s teaching and miracles, was divided between Issachar, Asher, Zebulon, and Naphtali. The majority of the places mentioned in the Gospels were Within the borders of Zebulon. But as we learn that our Lord penetrated as far as “the coasts of Caesarea Philippi,” in the extreme north of Palestine, He must have preached also in the cities of Naphtali. Naphtali sent a goodly number of warriors to welcome David as “king over all Israel” (1Ch 12:34). The inheritance of Naphtali was in the main fertile, but there was a large mountain district, known as the mountain region of Naphtali (Jos 20:7). Some of the mountains rose to the height of more than 3,000 feet.

Jos 19:41

Zorah and Eshtaol. On the border between Judah and Dan, but abandoned by the tribe of Judah to the Danites (see Jdg 13:2, Jdg 13:25). “The wild and impassable wadies, the steep, hard, rocky hills, their wildernesses of mastic, clear springs, and frequent caves and precipices, are the fastnesses in which Samson was born, and from which he descended into the plain to harry the Philistines. Robinson identifies Zorah with Surat. Ir-shemesh. Another sign of sun-worship. Ir-shemaesh is “the city of the sun.”

Jos 19:42

Aijalon, or Ajalon (see Jos 10:12). One of the Levitical cities.

Jos 19:43

Ekron (see Jos 13:3).

Jos 19:44

Gibbethon. A Levitical city, as was also Eltekeh (see Jos 21:23). It was the same city as that mentioned as “belonging to the Philistines” in 1Ki 15:27; 1Ki 16:15, 1Ki 16:17.

Jos 19:45

Gathrimmon. Also a Levitical city (see Jos 21:24; 1Ch 6:69). Mejarkon. The waters of the Jarkon.

Jos 19:46

Before. Or opposite. Japho. The Joppa of the New Testament, and the modern Jaffa. It is called Joppa in 2Ch 2:16, in Ezr 3:7, and in the book of Jonah (Jon 1:3), in an which places it is mentioned as a famous seaport, a position it still maintains, being still, as it was of old, the port of Jerusalem. The LXX. and Vulgate have Joppa here, and it is unfortunate that our translators, in this instance only, should have adhered to the Hebrew form. Joppa appears to have been an important city in the time of the Maccabees (see 1 Macc 10:75, 76; and 2 Macc 4:21). Its mention in the New Testament as the place where St. Peter’s vision occurred will be known to all. The name signifies “beauty,” though Joppa does not seem to be distinguished above all other places in Palestine by the beauty of its situation. But according to Hovers, Japho signifies in Phoenician, “high place.” It is certainly built on a range of terraces above the sea, but the term “high place” would seem unsuitable. The soil is very productive, and it is “the only harbour in Central Palestine” (Ritter).

Jos 19:47

Went out too little for them. The Hebrew is, went out from them; i.e; either went out beyond their own borders, or went out too small a distance to be sufficient for them. The first is the explanation of Masius (“extra se migrasse”), the second of Jarchi. Houbigant suggests for “and it went out” “and it was narrow.” But the LXX, has the same reading as ourselves, and the explanation given above is quite consistent with the fact. The border of Dan did “go out” far beyond the borders originally assigned to the tribe, in fact to the extreme northern limit of Palestine. The account of the taking of Laish, or Leshem, is given more fully in Jdg 18:1-31. The inheritance assigned to Dan was extremely small, but it was also extremely fertile.

Jos 19:48

This is the inheritance of the children of Dan. We read little of Dan in the after history of Israel. Samson is the only hero this tribe produced, and his exploits were limited to a very narrow area, and his influence apparently to his own tribe.

Jos 19:49

When they had made an end. The LXX; both here and in Jos 19:51, reads they went. The last thing Joshua thought of was himself. It was only when his work was done, and Israel had received her allotted territory, that Joshua thought it right to take his own inheritance. Calvin remarks that it was “a striking proof of the moderation of this servant of God” that he “thought not of his own interest until that of the community was secured.”

Jos 19:50

The city which he asked. He asked for a city, certainly. But the law of the inheritance was not to be set aside for him any more than for the meanest in Israel. Timnath-serah was in his own tribe. Timnath-serah. Called Thamna by Josephus and the LXX; and Timnath-heres, or Tinmath of the sun by a transposition of the letters, in Jdg 2:9. Rabbi Solomon Jarchi gives a singular reason for the latter name. It came to be so called because there was a representation of the sun upon the tomb of him who caused the sun to stand still. Timnath-serah must not be confounded with Timnah, or Timnathah, in the tribe of Dan (verse 48). For a long time its site was unknown, but within the last 40 years it has been identified with Tibneh, seven hours north of Jerusalem, among the mountains of Ephraim. Dr. Eli Smith was the first to suggest this, and though it was doubted by Robinson, it has since been accepted by Vandevelde and other high authorities. Tibneh seems to have anciently been a considerable town. It is described in Ritter’s ‘Geography of Palestine’ as a gentle hill, crowned with extensive ruins. Opposite these, on the slope of a much higher eminence, are excavations like what are called the Tombs of the Kings at Jerusalem. Jewish tradition, however, points to Kefr Haris, some distance south of Shechem, as the site of Joshua’s tomb, and several able writers have advocated its claims in the papers of the Palestine Exploration Fund, on the ground that on such a point Jewish tradition was not likely to be mistaken.

Jos 19:51

At the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. The lots were drawn under Divine sanction. The ruler of the State and the ruler of the Church combined in this sacred act, hallowed by all the rites of religion, and confirmed by the presence and approbation of the heads or representatives of all the tribes. Accordingly, as has been said above, we hear of no murmurings or disputings afterwards. However much the Israelites may have quarrelled among themselves, there is not a hint of dissatisfaction with the final distribution of territory. Three points may be noticed here

1. The authenticity of the narrative is confirmed by these evidences of the internal agreement of its parts.

2. We learn the value of mutual consultation, of open and fair dealing, from this narrative. The parcelling out of the inheritance of Israel under God’s command was carried out in such a manner as to preclude the slightest suspicion of partiality.

3. The duty of hallowing all important actions with the sanctions of religion, of uniting prayer and a public recognition of God’s authority with every event of moment, whether in the life of the individual or of the body politic, finds an illustration here. An age which, like the present, is disposed to relegate to the closet all recognition of God’s authority, which rushes into wars without God’s blessing, celebrates national or local ceremonials without acknowledging Him, contracts matrimony without publicly seeking His blessing, receives children from Him without caring to dedicate them formally to His service, can hardly plead that it is acting in the spirit of the Divine Scriptures. A well known writer in our age declares that we have “forgotten God.” Though the external and formal recognition of Him may be consistent with much forgetfulness in the heart, yet the absence of such recognition is not likely to make us remember Him, nor can it be pleaded as proof that we do so.

HOMILETICS

Jos 19:1-51

The completion of the work.

The reflections suggested by this chapter are identical with those which have already occurred to us. They are, perhaps, emphasised by Jos 19:51, in which the solemn public division of the land is once more, and yet more plainly, declared to have taken place with the assent of the heads of Church and State, and to have been attended with a religious ceremony. Without pretending to say whose fault it is, or how such a desirable state of things may be once more attained, we may be allowed to lament that what was the rule with our forefathers before the Norman conquest is impossible now. No doubt the separation of ecclesiastical from civil jurisdiction which the Conqueror effected has been to a great extent the cause of this, as that measure was also the cause of an assumption of authority by ecclesiastics which was afterwards found to be intolerable. There should be no separation between the religious and civil interests of the community. Every man in the kingdom is, or ought to be, interested in its ecclesiastical arrangements. No single act of the State ought to be considered as outside the sphere of religious influence. At the same time we must remember that the present state of things is the natural result of religious freedom, a freedom which Christ Himself proclaimed (Joh 18:36), but which was unknown to His Church for many centuries, as also to the Jews before He came (Gen 17:14; Exo 12:15; Exo 30:1-38 :83, 38; Exo 31:14; Le Exo 7:20, 27, etc). As has been already intimated, an example which cannot be fulfilled in the letter may be fulfilled in the spirit. We may strive to hallow great national events with one heart and soul, though with different forms, waiting for the day when “our unhappy divisions” have ceased. We may, however, add one consideration derived from this chapter alone.

SELFISH AIMS OUGHT NOT TO INTRUDE INTO A GREAT CAUSE. This principle is illustrated

(1) by the conduct of Judah,

(2) by the conduct of Joshua.

The rule of the world is

(1) to covet power and possessions, and

(2) that the successful conqueror has a right to be first considered in the division of the spoil.

Observe how completely the narrative of this chapter implicitly rebukes a view of things which is assumed as a matter of course in the ordinary concerns of the world. In past history we read of the greed of individuals and nations for the annexation of territory, and of the wars and bloodshed thus caused. It has been a maxim that any ruler or any nation may, and ought to, add to its territories if it can, without much regard to the principles of justice or the general good. A man, it is still believed, may heap to himself possessions in land or money as much as he chooses, and would be a fool if he did not. The first of these doctrines has only lately begun to be questioned among us. The second is still an established principle of action. Yet Judah voluntarily surrendered its territory to Simeon for the national welfare. And Joshua takes care that every one is served before himself. It is this marvellous self abnegation on the part of the leader of a military expedition, unparalleled until Christianity came into the world, that is the best proof of the claim of the Mosaic dispensation to have been Divine. Cases like those of Cincinnatus cannot be adduced in refutation of this argument. His position is in no way parallel to that of the leader of an expedition like Joshua’s. Such utter self abandonment as was displayed by Moses and Joshua marks them out as men fifteen or twentywe might perhaps say thirtycenturies before their age. The invasion of Canaan has been declaimed against as cruel; but its cruelty was at least the fruit of a moral idea, a righteous indignation against an obscene and ferocious religion, which was itself the cause of infinite misery to mankind; while Joshua’s cruelty was kindness itself compared to the revolting atrocities recorded at their own instance by the Eastern conquerors of old, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Moabite. We hear ad nauseam of the impossibility of God’s ordering the slaughter of the unoffending Canaanites (see this subject further discussed in the Introduction). We hear nothing of the high morality, the sublime disinterestedness, the devotion to a grand and sublime ideal which characterised the giver of the Law and the conqueror of Canaan. Such characters have been rare since Christ came into the world. Save the two great men whom we have just known, they were unknown before it.

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY

Jos 19:9

Brotherhood.

I. THE IDEA OF BROTHERHOOD MUST BE RECOGNISED IN ORDER THAT TRUE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE MAY BE ESTABLISHED. Justice does not imply equality. To deal equally with all is often unjust, since different men have different needs. It would have been unjust to have given equal portions to Judah and Simeon. In the family, justice does not require the treatment of all the children alike, but the treatment of each according to his disposition and requirements. But in order to do this there must be mutual understanding and sympathy Therefore these are necessary for the administration of justice. Rude social equality will not regenerate society. The idea of brotherhood must come first and bring with it the thoughtfulness and sympathy, without which we cannot be just to one another. Note: Providence is often more just than it appears, because it does not aim at establishing a mechanical equality, but studies the individual condition of each man, and acts according to special requirements of special cases which may be entirely unknown to us.

II. THE IDEA OF BROTHERHOOD MUST BE REALISED IF MEN WOULD SEE THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE. Judah had too much. Few men are willing to admit that they have too much, and hence they often wrong others and greedily hold what they do not need. Until men feel their brotherhood with others they will not see the measure by which to judge whether or no they have more than their due share of the advantages of life. Selfishness magnifies a man’s needs and deserts, and minimises the requirements and merits of others. To be just we must conquer selfishness with brotherliness.

III. THE IDEA OF BROTHERHOOD MUST TAKE POSSESSION OF MEN BEFORE THEY CAN PRACTISE THAT MUTUAL ACCOMMODATION WHICH IS REQUIRED BY JUSTICE. The children of Simeon had their inheritance within the inheritance of the children of Judah. This could only be enjoyed peaceably so long as the two tribes lived on terms of brotherly kindness. Justice will not be obtained under a system of jealous competition in a selfish race for wealth. This leads to the weak and unfortunate losing, and the strong and fortunate gaining, more than is fair. The idea of brotherhood will prevent men from taking unfair advantage of one another, will establish the principle of cooperation in place of that of competition, and will substitute the mutual benefits of the family for the selfish profits of a state of internecine warfare.

IV. THE IDEA OF BROTHERHOOD CAN ONLY BE FULLY REALISED UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. Revolutions which have dispensed with Christianity have boasted of their power to realise this idea, but the attempt to do so has too often led through bloodshed to despotism. Christianity realises it

(1) by pointing to a common fatherhood,

(2) by joining to one brother, Christ,

(3) by exalting brotherly charity to the first rank among the Christian graces (1Co 13:13).W.F.A.

HOMILIES BY R. GLOVER

Jos 19:49

Joshua’s portion.

“When they had made an end of dividing the land,” Joshua gets his share. Not first, as kings usually do, but last. When all are helped, then comes his turn. Though he waits longest, yet it does come to him. And when it does come it is all the more welcome from being well earned. Observe two or three things that are thus brought before us.

I. A TRAIT OF HONOUR. Honour is the bloom of uprightness; the finer instinctive working of it in matters too delicate to be touched by law. It is not so common as it ought to be; for our natures are often coarse, and honour is always costly. We prefer going in for cheaper virtues, especially for such of them as are loud and obvious, as well as cheap. Even those who attend to the “honest and just and true” of Paul’s precept, sometimes overlook “the pure and the lovely and that which is of good report.” Here Joshua comes out, as we would expect him, as a man of honour. Such faith as he had never existed in a selfish heart; such courage as marked him, naturally had emotions of similar nobility to keep it company. Doubtless, some foolish and flattering friends urged him to accept his lot first; and pleaded, perhaps, his first right to it, both as faithful spy and successful leader. Something before Shakespeare had whispered

“Love thyself last: let all the ends thou aim’st at
Be thy country’s, God’s, and Truth’s.”

And the still small voice of sacred honour within him did not speak in vain. Like as in a sinking ship, a brave captain is the last to leave her and seek for safety, so Joshua elects to be the last served. All the best bits of the country others eagerly go in for. Joshua sees it disposed of by lot, but is not moved by the sight of its going to envy others, nor does he catch any greed from the contagion of their example. Quite calm, feeling rich in enriching others, at rest in giving others rest, he has rewards above any freehold, and joys above any wealth. There is here an example all ought to follow. The insistance on our rights is sometimes a duty. In the interest of others we may be obliged to resist and dispute injustice. But such insistance ought always to be practised with regret, and avoided wherever possible. The precept requiring us to give the cloak to him who covets the coat certainly inculcates the surrender of rights wherever any moral advantage can accrue from it. For our own sake, to keep the soul in proper and worthy mood, we ought to cultivate this honourableness that thinks of something sublimer than its private rights. And for the sake of others also, for honour is one of the subtlest, but the strongest, forces of good anywhere existent. It allures men to a better way, charms them to integrity, is a root of brotherliness and peace. Especially should all leaders of their fellows cultivate this honour. It is not too common amongst either sovereigns or statesmen. Men are apt to forget that selfishness is vulgar, whether it seeks to get a throne, in ambition, or to keep its halfpence in sordid avarice. All selfishness is mean; and in the great it is greatly mischievous. It breeds civil wars; it corrupts the patriotism of a people; it prevents the rise of that confidence in the justice and the patriotism and the wisdom of the rulers which gives the nations rest. In leaders in smaller circlesboroughs, churchesthere is the same scope for this high principle. Israel was blessed in this, that its most unselfish man was its leader. And he who was highest in place was highest in honour. Secondly observe

II. HONOUR HAS ITS REWARD AT LAST. He had had abundant reward all through. Rivalries and competitions which, under a selfish ruler, would have broken out, and perhaps flamed up into strife and tumult, are repressed by the silent, dignified example of one whose thoughts were above the vulgar delights of wealth. And this reward of being able to compose the conflicting claims of a great multitude was the grandest reward he could have. To win victory over his nation’s foes, and keep contentment and peace in her own borders, was reward indeed. But he does not go without even the material reward. All Israel come and give him Timnath-serah. We cannot identify it now with any definiteness. But it was doubtless worthy of the nation that gave itof the man that received it. Honour often seems, to the coarse hearted, to go without reward. But that is only because the reward is of a sort too subtle for coarse vision to detect. It has always a grand reward in the influence with which it crowns the head of him who practises it. It has, besides, even common outward rewards. The race is not always to the swift, nor the gold to the greedy. We make our own world, and teach men how to deal with us. The world is froward to the froward; it is honourable to the honourable. The fairest treatment men ever give is given to those who treat them fairly. The best masters get the best service. The truest friends form richest friendships. Honourable men rarely meet with dishonourable treatment. And without any clamour or fighting they get a better Timnath-serah than in any other way they could have gained. “Trust in the Lord and do good: so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.” Lastly observe

III. THE INHERITANCE GOT BY DESERT, AND HELD WITHOUT BEING ENVIED, IS THE PERFECTION OF A LOT. Not all riches comfort us. Ill-gotten riches curse us. Riches gotten by others and passed on to us are insipid. Wealth gathered by penury is a burden. But the lot that comes as the reward of diligence, consecration, honour, has a special sweetness, and the man who gets it has a special power of enjoying it. Especially when it is ungrudged; no neighbour coveting it; no peasant thinking that by right it should be his; all men glad to see it in such worthy hands. We shall do well to resolve that we will have no fortune and no inheritance which ages not in its way resemble TIMNATH–SERAH.G.

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY

Jos 19:49, Jos 19:50

Joshua’s inheritance.

I. JOSHUA RECEIVED AN INHERITANCE AMONG HIS BRETHREN. After labour and battle come rest and recompense. Though Joshua was a man of war he was not to spend all his days in fighting. It is sometimes well that the active should have a quiet time of retirement in old age. For all God’s servants there is an inheritance of rest when this world’s work is done (Heb 4:9).

II. JOSHUA‘S INHERITANCE WAS GIVEN ACCORDING TO A DIVINE PROMISE. True devotion is founded on unselfish motives. Yet the prospect of reward is added by God’s grace as an encouragement. Christ looked forward to His reward (Heb 12:2). We are only guilty of acting from low motives when the idea of personal profit is allowed to conflict with duty, or when it is the chief motive leading us to perform any duty.

III. JOSHUA‘S INHERITANCE WAS SIMILAR TO THAT OF HIS BRETHREN. He was the ruler of the people, yet he took no regal honours. He had led them to victory, yet he received no exceptional reward. Like Cincinnatus, he quietly retired to private life when he had completed his great task. This is a grand example of unselfishness, simplicity, and humility. It is noble to covet high service rather than rich rewards. Ambition is a sin of low selfishness cloaked with a false semblance of magnificence. The Christian is called to fulfil the highest service with the lowliest humility (Luk 22:26). Christians are all brethren under one Master (Mat 23:8). Joshua is a type of Christ in his great work and unselfish humility (Joh 13:15-16).

IV. JOSHUA RECEIVED HIS INHERITANCE FROM THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE. He was not forward to take it for himself. He submitted to the choice and will of the people. It is a mark of true magnanimity to refuse to use influence and power to gain personal advantages. Joshua is a noble example of a man who exercised authority over others without developing a spirit of despotism which would fetter the popular choice. It is a great thing to have a strong, united government ruling over a free people.

V. JOSHUA DID NOT RECEIVE HIS INHERITANCE TILL AFTER ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE HAD RECEIVED THEIR POSSESSIONS. He was first in service, last in reward. The true Christian spirit will put self last. He who is rightly devoted to duty will not seek for his reward before his task is completed. The world is too often tardy in recognising these who have rendered it most valuable service.W.F.A.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Ver. 1. And the second lot came forth to Simeon Simeon was the eldest son of Jacob, who still remained unportioned. The lot, directed by an especial Providence, gave him a portion, which fully verified the divine promises and threatenings. Animated by the spirit of God, Jacob, when dying, had declared to Simeon and Levi, that they should be dispersed in Israel, for their cruelty against the Shechemites. See Gen 49:6-7 and Genesis 34. Levi was scattered through all Palestine, and had no separate province: Simeon is, as it were, shut up in the tribe of Judah: and thus was the prediction of the holy patriarch accomplished.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

3. The Territories of the Seven remaining Tribes: Benjamin, Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan; and the Possession of Joshua

Joshua 18, 19

a. Setting up of the Tabernacle at Shiloh. Description of the Land yet to be divided

Jos 18:1-10

1And the whole congregation of the children [sons] of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation there: and the land was subdued before them. 2And there remained among the children of Israel seven tribes, which had not yet [omit: yet] received their inheritance. 3And Joshua said unto the children of Israel, How long are ye slack to go to possess the land which the Lord [Jehovah] God of your fathers hath given you? 4Give out from among [for] you three men for each tribe: and I will send them, and they shall rise, and go [about] through the land, and describe it according to the inheritance of them [their possession]: 5and they shall come again [omit: again] to me. And they shall divide it into seven parts: Judah shall abide in their coast [stand on his border] on the south, and the house of Joseph shall abide in their coasts [stand on their border] in the north. 6Ye shall therefore [And ye shall] describe the land into seven parts, and bring the description [so Bunsen, but properly: them or it] hither to me, that I 7may cast lots for you here before the Lord [Jehovah] our God. But [For] the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the Lord [Jehovah] is their inheritance [possession]: and Gad, and Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance [possession] beyond [the] Jordan on the east, which Moses the servant of the Lord [Jehovah] gave them. 8And the men arose, and went away: and Joshua charged them that went to describe the land, saying, Go, and walk through the land, and describe it, and come again to me, that I may here cast lots for you before the Lord [Jehovah] in Shiloh. 9And the men went and passed through the land, and described it by [the] cities into seven parts in a book, and came again [omit: again] to Joshua to the host [camp] at Shiloh. 10And Joshua cast lots for them in Shiloh before the Lord [Jehovah]: and there Joshua divided the land unto the children of Israel according to their divisions.

b. The Territory of the Tribe of Benjamin

Jos 18:11-28

. Its boundaries

Jos 18:11-20

11And the lot of the tribe of the children [sons] of Benjamin came up according to their families: and the coast [border] of their lot came forth between the children of Judah and the children of Joseph. 12And their border on the north side was [De Wette: began; but properly: There was for them the border, etc.] from [the] Jordan, [Fay: at the Jordan]; and the border went up to the side of Jericho on the north side [omit: side], and went up through [on] the mountains westward; and the goings out thereof were at the wilderness of Beth-aven. 13And the border went over from thence toward Luz, to the side of Luz (which is Beth-el) southward; and the border descended to Ataroth-adar, near [on] the hill [mountain] that lieth on the south side of the nether Beth-horon. 14And the border was drawn thence, and compassed the corner of the sea [and bent around toward the west side] southward, from the hill [mountain] that lieth before Beth-horon southward; and the goings out thereof were at Kirjath-baal (which is Kirjath-jearim), a city of the children [sons] of Judah. This was the west quarter [side].

15And the south quarter [side] was from the end of Kirjath-jearim, and the border went out on [toward] the west, and went out to the well [fountain] of the waters of Nephtoah. 16And the border came [went] down to the end of the mountain that lieth before the valley [ravine] of the son of Hinnom, and [omit: and] which is in the valley of the giants [Rephaim] on the north, and descended to the valley [ravine] of Hinnom, to the side [prop.: shoulder] of Jebusi on the south [De Wette: on the south side of the Jebusite; Fay: on the side of the Jebusite toward the south], and descended to En-rogel, 17and was drawn from [on] the north, and went forth to En-shemesh, and went forth toward Geliloth, which is over against the going up of Adummim, and descended to the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben, 18And passed along toward the side [shoulder] over against [] [the] Arabah [Jordan-valley] northward and went down unto [the] Arabah: 19And the border passed along to the side [shoulder] of Beth-hoglah northward: and the outgoings of the border [it, the border] were at the north bay [tongue] of the salt sea, at the south end of [the] Jordan. This was the south coast [border].

20And [the] Jordan was the border of it [bordered it], on the east side. This was the inheritance of the children [sons] of Benjamin, by the coasts [borders] thereof round about, according to their families.

. Cities of the Tribe of Benjamin

Jos 18:21-28

21Now [And] the cities of the tribe of the children [sons] of Benjamin, according to their families, were Jericho, and Beth-hoglah, and the valley of [Emek] 22Keziz, And Beth-arabah, and Zemaraim, and Beth-el, 23And Avim, and Parah, and 24Ophrah, And Chephar-haammonai, and Ophni, and Gaba; twelve cities with 25[and] their villages: Gibeon, and Ramah, and Beeroth, 26And Mizpeh, and Chephirah, 27and Mozah, And Rekem, and Irpeel, and Taralah, 28And Zelah, Eleph, and Jebusi (which is Jerusalem), Gibeath, and Kirjath; fourteen cities with [and] their villages. This is the inheritance of the children of Benjamin according to their families.

c. The Territory of the Tribe of Simeon

Jos 19:1-9

1And the second lot came forth to [for] Simeon, even [omit: even] for the tribe of the children [sons] of Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance [possession] was within the inheritance [possession] of the children of Judah. 2And they had in their inheritance [possession], Beer-sheba, and Sheba, and 3Moladah, And Hazar-shual, and Balah, and Azem, 4and Eltolad, And Bethul, and 5 6Hormah, And Ziklag, and Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susah, And Beth-lebaoth, and Sharuhen; thirteen cities and their villages: 7Ain, Remmon, and Ether, and Ashan; four cities and their villages: 8And all the villages that were round about these cities to Baalath-beer, Ramath of the south. This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Simeon, according to their families. 9Out of the portion of the children of Judah was the inheritance [possession] of the children [sons] of Simeon: for the part of the children [sons] of Judah was too large for them; therefore [and] the children [sons] of Simeon had their inheritance [possession] within the inheritance [possession] of them.

d. The Territory of the Tribe of Zebulun

Jos 19:10-16

10And the third lot came up for the children [sons] of Zebulun according to their families: and the border of their inheritance was unto Sarid: 11And their border went up toward the sea [westward], and Maralah, and reached to Dabbasheth, and reached to the river [water-course] that is before Jokneam: 12And turned from Sarid eastward, toward the sun-rising, unto the border of Chisloth-tabor, and then goeth 13[and went] out to Daberath, and goeth [went] up to Japhia, And from thence passeth [it passed] on along on the east [toward the east, toward the rising of the sun] to Gittah-hepher, to Ittah-kazin, and goeth [went] out to Remmon-methoar 14[Remmon which stretches] to Neah; And the border compasseth [bent around] it on the north side [northward] to Hannathon: and the out-goings thereof are [were] in the valley of Jiphthah-el: 15And Kattath, and Nahallal, and Shimron, and Idalah, 16and Beth-lehem; twelve cities with [and] their villages. This is the inheritance [possession] of the children [sons] of Zebulun according to their families, these cities with [and] their villages.

e. The Territory of the Tribe of Issachar

Jos 19:17-23

17And [omit: and] the fourth lot came out to [for] Issachar, for the children 18[sons] of Issachar according to their families. And their border was toward Jezreel, 19 20and Chesulloth, and Shunem, And Hapharaim, and Shihon, and Anaharath, And Rabbith, and Kishion, and Abez, 21And Remeth, and En-gannim, and En-haddah, and Beth-pazzez; 22And the coast [border] reacheth to [struck] Tabor, and Shahazimah, and Beth-shemesh; and the out-goings of their border were at [the] 23Jordan; sixteen cities with [and] their villages. This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Issachar, according to their families, the cities and their villages.

f. The Territory of the Tribe of Asher

Jos 19:24-31

24And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children [sons] of Asher according to their families. 25And their border was Helkath, and Hali, and Beten, and Achshaph, 26And Alammelech, and Amad, and Misheal; and reacheth to [it struck] 27Carmel westward, and to [omit: to] Shihor-libnath; And turneth [turned] toward the sun-rising to Beth-dagon, and reacheth to [stuck] Zebulun, and to [omit: to] the valley [ravine] of Jiphthah-el, toward [on] the north side of Beth-emek, and Neiel, and goeth [went] out to Cabul on the left hand, 28And Hebron, and Rehob, 29and Hammon, and Kanah, even unto great Zidon; And then [omit: then] the coast [border] turneth [turned] to Ramah, and to the strong [fortified] city Tyre; and the coast [border] turneth [turned] to Hosah; and the out-goings thereof are 30at the sea from the coast to Achzib [in the district of Achzib]: Ummah also [and Ummah], and Aphek, and Rehob: twenty and two cities with [and] their villages. 31This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Asher according to their families, these cities with [and] their villages.

g. The Territory of the Tribe of Naphtali

Jos 19:32-39

32The sixth lot came out to [for] the children [sons] of Naphtali, even [omit even] for the children [sons] of Naphtali according to their families. 33And their coast [border] was from Heleph, from Allon to Zaanannim, [the oak of Zaanannim], and Adami, Nekeb [or Adami-nekeb], and Jabneel, unto Lakum; and the 34out-goings thereof were at [the] Jordan: And then [omit: then] the coast [border] turneth [turned] westward to Aznoth-tabor, and goeth [went] out from thence to Hukkok, and reacheth to [struck] Zebulun on the south side, and reacheth to [struck] Asher on the west side, and to [omit: to] Judah upon [the] Jordan toward the sun-rising. 35And the fenced [fortified] cities are Ziddim, Zer, and Hammath, 36 37Rakkath, and Cinneroth, And Adamah, and Ramah, and Hazor, And Kedesh, and Edrei, and En-hazor, 38And Iron, and Migdal-el, Horem, and Beth-anath, 39and Beth-shemesh; nineteen cities with [and] their villages. This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Naphtali, the cities and their villages.

h. The Territory of the Tribe of Dan

Jos 19:40-48

40And [omit: and] the seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children [sons]of Dan, according to their families. 41And the coast [border] of their inheritance 42[possession] was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Ir-shemesh, And Shaalabbim, and Ajalon, 43 44and Jethlah, And Elon, and Thimnathah, and Ekron, And Eltekeh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath, 45And Jehud, and Bene-berak, and Gath-rimmon, 46And Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, with the border before [over against] Japho. 47And the coast [border] of the children [sons] of Dan went out too little for them [Fay: went out from them (i.e., the children of Dan extended their border further); De Wette: and the border of the sons of Dan went out (afterwards) further from them; Bunsen: and the border of the children of Dan went yet further than this; Zunz: went beyond these]; therefore [and] the children [sons] of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father. 48This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Dan according to their families, these cities with [and] their villages.

i. Joshuas Possession

Jos 19:49-50

49[And] when they had made an end of dividing the land for inheritance by their coasts [according to its borders], the children [sons] of Israel gave an inheritance 50[possession] to Joshua the son of Nun among them: According to the command [mouth] of the Lord [Jehovah] they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnath-serah, in mount Ephraim; and he built the city, and dwelt therein.

j. Conclusion

Jos 19:51

51These are the inheritances [possessions], which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, divided for an inheritance [possession] by lot in Shiloh before the Lord [Jehovah], at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. So [And] they made an end of dividing the country [land].

c. The Territory of the Tribe of Simeon

Jos 19:1-9

1And the second lot came forth to [for] Simeon, even [omit: even] for the tribe of the children [sons] of Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance [possession] was within the inheritance [possession] of the children of Judah. 2And they had in their inheritance [possession], Beer-sheba, and Sheba, and 3Moladah, And Hazar-shual, and Balah, and Azem, 4and Eltolad, And Bethul, and 5 6Hormah, And Ziklag, and Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susah, And Beth-lebaoth, and Sharuhen; thirteen cities and their villages: 7Ain, Remmon, and Ether, and Ashan; four cities and their villages: 8And all the villages that were round about these cities to Baalath-beer, Ramath of the south. This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Simeon, according to their families. 9Out of the portion of the children of Judah was the inheritance [possession] of the children [sons] of Simeon: for the part of the children [sons] of Judah was too large for them; therefore [and] the children [sons] of Simeon had their inheritance [possession] within the inheritance [possession] of them.

d. The Territory of the Tribe of Zebulun

Jos 19:10-16

10And the third lot came up for the children [sons] of Zebulun according to their families: and the border of their inheritance was unto Sarid: 11And their border went up toward the sea [westward], and Maralah, and reached to Dabbasheth, and reached to the river [water-course] that is before Jokneam: 12And turned from Sarid eastward, toward the sun-rising, unto the border of Chisloth-tabor, and then goeth 13[and went] out to Daberath, and goeth [went] up to Japhia, And from thence passeth [it passed] on along on the east [toward the east, toward the rising of the sun] to Gittah-hepher, to Ittah-kazin, and goeth [went] out to Remmon-methoar 14[Remmon which stretches] to Neah; And the border compasseth [bent around] it on the north side [northward] to Hannathon: and the out-goings thereof are [were] in the valley of Jiphthah-el: 15And Kattath, and Nahallal, and Shimron, and Idalah, 16and Beth-lehem; twelve cities with [and] their villages. This is the inheritance [possession] of the children [sons] of Zebulun according to their families, these cities with [and] their villages.

e. The Territory of the Tribe of Issachar

Jos 19:17-23

17And [omit: and] the fourth lot came out to [for] Issachar, for the children 18[sons] of Issachar according to their families. And their border was toward Jezreel, 19 20and Chesulloth, and Shunem, And Hapharaim, and Shihon, and Anaharath, And Rabbith, and Kishion, and Abez, 21And Remeth, and En-gannim, and En-haddah, and Beth-pazzez; 22And the coast [border] reacheth to [struck] Tabor, and Shahazimah, and Beth-shemesh; and the out-goings of their border were at [the] 23Jordan; sixteen cities with [and] their villages. This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Issachar, according to their families, the cities and their villages.

f. The Territory of the Tribe of Asher

Jos 19:24-31

24And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children [sons] of Asher according to their families. 25And their border was Helkath, and Hali, and Beten, and Achshaph, 26And Alammelech, and Amad, and Misheal; and reacheth to [it struck] 27Carmel westward, and to [omit: to] Shihor-libnath; And turneth [turned] toward the sun-rising to Beth-dagon, and reacheth to [stuck] Zebulun, and to [omit: to] the valley [ravine] of Jiphthah-el, toward [on] the north side of Beth-emek, and Neiel, and goeth [went] out to Cabul on the left hand, 28And Hebron, and Rehob, 29and Hammon, and Kanah, even unto great Zidon; And then [omit: then] the coast [border] turneth [turned] to Ramah, and to the strong [fortified] city Tyre; and the coast [border] turneth [turned] to Hosah; and the out-goings thereof are 30at the sea from the coast to Achzib [in the district of Achzib]: Ummah also [and Ummah], and Aphek, and Rehob: twenty and two cities with [and] their villages. 31This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Asher according to their families, these cities with [and] their villages.

g. The Territory of the Tribe of Naphtali

Jos 19:32-39

32The sixth lot came out to [for] the children [sons] of Naphtali, even [omit even] for the children [sons] of Naphtali according to their families. 33And their coast [border] was from Heleph, from Allon to Zaanannim, [the oak of Zaanannim], and Adami, Nekeb [or Adami-nekeb], and Jabneel, unto Lakum; and the 34out-goings thereof were at [the] Jordan: And then [omit: then] the coast [border] turneth [turned] westward to Aznoth-tabor, and goeth [went] out from thence to Hukkok, and reacheth to [struck] Zebulun on the south side, and reacheth to [struck] Asher on the west side, and to [omit: to] Judah upon [the] Jordan toward the sun-rising. 35And the fenced [fortified] cities are Ziddim, Zer, and Hammath, 36 37Rakkath, and Cinneroth, And Adamah, and Ramah, and Hazor, And Kedesh, and Edrei, and En-hazor, 38And Iron, and Migdal-el, Horem, and Beth-anath, 39and Beth-shemesh; nineteen cities with [and] their villages. This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Naphtali, the cities and their villages.

h. The Territory of the Tribe of Dan

Jos 19:40-48

40And [omit: and] the seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children [sons]of Dan, according to their families. 41And the coast [border] of their inheritance 42[possession] was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Ir-shemesh, And Shaalabbim, and Ajalon, 43 44and Jethlah, And Elon, and Thimnathah, and Ekron, And Eltekeh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath, 45And Jehud, and Bene-berak, and Gath-rimmon, 46And Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, with the border before [over against] Japho. 47And the coast [border] of the children [sons] of Dan went out too little for them [Fay: went out from them (i.e., the children of Dan extended their border further); De Wette: and the border of the sons of Dan went out (afterwards) further from them; Bunsen: and the border of the children of Dan went yet further than this; Zunz: went beyond these]; therefore [and] the children [sons] of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father. 48This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Dan according to their families, these cities with [and] their villages.

i. Joshuas Possession

Jos 19:49-50

49[And] when they had made an end of dividing the land for inheritance by their coasts [according to its borders], the children [sons] of Israel gave an inheritance 50[possession] to Joshua the son of Nun among them: According to the command [mouth] of the Lord [Jehovah] they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnath-serah, in mount Ephraim; and he built the city, and dwelt therein.

j. Conclusion

Jos 19:51

51These are the inheritances [possessions], which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, divided for an inheritance [possession] by lot in Shiloh before the Lord [Jehovah], at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. So [And] they made an end of dividing the country [land].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

As chapters 16. and 17. belonged together, so do these two chapters 18 and 19, which contain the account of the allotments of the remaining seven tribes, Benjamin, Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan. At the end follows a notice of the possession given to Joshua (Jos 19:49-50), with the conclusion of the whole section (Jos 18:28). There are seven tribes only left to be noticed, because the tribe of Levi was to receive no inheritance, as had been already before said (Jos 13:14; Jos 13:33) and repeated (Jos 18:7). This distribution was effected at Shiloh (Jos 18:1), while Judah and the house of JosephEphraim and Manassehhad received their possessions, as may be confidently inferred from Jos 14:6, in the camp at Gilgal (see on 14:6). But before proceeding to divide the land, twenty-one men were sent out to survey and describe it (Jos 18:3; Jos 18:10).

a. Jos 18:1-10. Erection of the Tabernacle at Shiloh. Description of the Land yet to be divided. The whole congregation comes together at Shiloh, where they set up the tent of the congregation (tabernacle). The land is completely subdued, but seven tribes still remain, which have not yet received any possession, since the most powerful tribe of Judah, Ephraim, and the half tribe of Manasseh (to say nothing of the tribes east of the Jordan, previously spoken of), had first obtained their portion (Jos 18:1-2). Joshua reproaches them for their listlessness, and, in order to discharge the remaining duty as impartially as possible, perhaps also bearing in mind the complaint of the sons of Joseph (Jos 17:14-18), he provides that twenty-one men, three from each of the seven tribes, shall first describe the land (Jos 18:3-7). This is done (Jos 18:8-9), and now Joshua casts lots and distributes the still remaining territory (Jos 18:10). Eleazar is not mentioned here, while in Jos 14:1-2 [also 19:51] he and the patriarchs of the tribes are introduced with Joshua.

Jos 18:1. And the whole congregation of the sons of Israel assembled together at Shiloh. The congregation of the sons of Israel, here as Exo 16:1-2; Exo 16:9; more briefly, congregation of Israel, Exo 12:3, or merely the congregation, Lev 4:15. The same is the congregation of Jehovah ( from , for , by aphresis, Gesen.). It is called also (, convocation, from , to call together, in Kal not used while Hiphil is found Num 8:9; Num 10:7; Num 20:8; and Niphal, Num 16:3, and in this passage, Gesen.), Deu 31:30; , Num 16:3; Num 20:4, or simply , Lev 4:13, precisely like . Shiloh ( or , 1Ki 2:27, or , Jdg 21:21, , Jdg 21:19, shortened from , from , to rest, a place of rest), in Joseph. Ant. v. 1, 20, 21. (hence pointing back to the form , from which , 1K. 11:29; 12:15; Neh 11:5, with which Gesen. very aptly compares and , Jos 15:51; 2Sa 15:12), now Seilun, first correctly made out in modern times by Robinson (iii. 84 ff.) from its position, which is accurately given Jdg 21:19. Eusebius and Jerome already give the distances from Neapolis (Onom. art. Selo) incorrectly; the knights of the cross, also, found Silo at Neby Samwil, where the monks and pilgrims continued, with little variation, to seek the place until the middle of the sixteenth century. About this time there appears in Bonifacius (De Perenni Cultu) a more correct view concerning the sites of the holy places, but it was soon lost (Rob. iii. 89). Among the ruins, to which one ascends by a gentle slope, whose fertile soil, when Furrer visited Shiloh, was covered with wheat fields (p. 225), there are still found (Rob. l. c.) many large stones, and some fragments of columns which indicate the site of an ancient town. The tabernacle stood here from Joshua to Samuel (Jos 18:1; 1Sa 4:3). Afterward Shiloh was rejected by God (Psa 78:60-68; 1Sa 3:4; Jer 7:12; Jer 7:14; Jer 26:6), and at a very early period utterly destroyed; for Jerome says: Silo tabernaculum et arca Domini fuit, vix altaris fundamenta monstrantur (von Raumer, p. 221; Rob. l. c.). Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 19) assumes that Joshua brought the tabernacle ( ) to Shiloh, because the place by its beauty seemed to him appropriate, until an opportunity should be offered them to build a temple ( , , ). The site in the midst of the land was very suitable and also very beautiful, so that Josephus may at bottom have very nearly hit the truth. How Gen 49:10 is to he explained does not concern us here. See Lange, Com. on Gen., in l., on the various interpretations of this difficult passage. Finally, let it be noticed that Shiloh lies eight and a half hours north of Jerusalem, and nearly five hours south of Shechem (Furrer, p. 413).

And set up the tabernacle of the congregation there; and the land was subdued before them. As regards the , Luthers translation Stiftshtte, i.e. tent of the covenant, is, as Gesen. remarks, the Greek , Lat. tabernaculum testimonii, according to a derivation from , testari; cf. , tent of the law, Num 9:15. It is more probable that, with Gesen. and after him most of the moderns, is to be derived not from but from (Niph. ), and accordingly we translate tent of the congregation, place where the meets.1 If the national sanctuary is called also (Num 9:15), or (Num 9:15; Num 18:2), the two names agree well with each other, in so far as the tent where the congregation met was, at the same time, the tent in whose most holy recess the law was preserved within the (Exo 25:22). Concerning the construction and interior arrangement of the tabernacle, comp. Winer (ii. 529 ff.) as well as Riggenbach. The land was subdued ( from , prop. to tread under the feet; in the same sense as here, Gen 1:28; Jer 34:16, and with the addition , 2Ch 28:10; Jer 34:11; Neh 5:6; the Niphal, Num 32:22-29, Gesen.) before them. Because the land was subdued it might be divided.

Jos 18:3-10. The mission of the twenty-one men for the description of the land is now related. Knobel refers this section to the Jehovist, and to the second of his documents; on which compare the Introduction. But when Knobel (p. 451) further supposes it improbable that such an occupation of the land would take place under Joshua, and maintains that the taking up the land and people must have been effected at a later period, say in the time of Jdg 1:19-34 f., or Jdg 4:2 ff, we may urge, against this totally unsupported suggestion, that the time of Joshua, when the Canaanites were filled with terror and distress through the strange conqueror (Jos 2:9-11), and had lost all confidence in themselves, was much better suited for the perilous accomplishment of such a result than the following age, in which the Israelites did indeed gain victories but were then immediately enslaved again (Jdg 2:14-23; Jdg 3:8; Jdg 3:13-14; Jdg 6:1, etc.). Besides, a man of the circumspection of Joshua would, surely if any leader of the people, conceive the idea of occupying the land before he went forward hap-hazard to the division of it. For, although he acted under the divine command, he assuredly did not act without human consideration which was not at all excluded thereby. That Joshua, as Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 21) of his own invention relates, sent with these men some skilled in the art of mensuration (. , ), our text is altogether ignorant. Josephus may, indeed, as Keil also (in loc.) observes, have rightly judged when he makes the men attentive to the quality of the soil of Palestine, and assumes that the several inheritances were rather estimated than measured ( ,on account of the diverse quality of the soil , (Ant. v. 1, 21).

Jos 18:3. A reproof to the remaining seven tribes who doubtless could not yet effectually resolve to give up their previous nomadic life, and accustom themselves to settled abodes, especially when these would in great part have yet to be conquered.

Jos 18:4. Joshua will not longer tolerate this lethargy, and therefore demands of each tribe to choose three men whom he will send out, and these shall rise () and go through the land and describe it according to their possession. There were accordingly 7 X 3 = 21 men, and not merely ten as Josephus reports, reckoning one to each tribe (Ant. v. 1, 20), but in all ten (v. 121), because three surveyors were included in the total number. In the description was included particularly, according to Jos 18:9, an accurate designation of the cities, while at the same time situation and soil might be more particularly taken into account. , i.e. with reference to its being taken in possession by the seven tribes (Knobel).

Jos 18:5. More minute statement of the errand of the men sent out, Jos 18:4. They should divide the remaining land into seven parts, yet Judah should remain on his border in the south, and the house of Joseph in the north on his border, that is to say, no change should be made in the possessions of these tribes. With them it should remain as it was.

Jos 18:6. When they had described the land thus into seven parts, they should bring the same, i.e. the list as Bunsen for distinctness translates, to Joshua at Shiloh (Jos 18:4), and then would he cast the lots before Jehovah their God. This last should be done at a consecrated place before Gods face, that it might stand fast inviolably.

Jos 18:7. Reason why there should be only seven parts. First,the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of Jehovah is their possession. Essentially the same reason for the lack of a possession as is given, Jos 13:14; Jos 13:33; yet here instead of the sacrifices of Jehovah, 13:14, or simply Jehovah God of Israel, 13:33, we have the priesthood of Jehovah, as Num 16:10; Exo 29:9; Exo 40:15; Num 3:10; Num 18:1-7; Num 25:13 (Knobel). Second,Gad, and Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their possession beyond the Jordan on the east, etc.

Jos 18:8. At the departure of the men Joshua repeats his command.

Jos 18:9. They go and describe the land according to the cities into seven parts in a book,i.e. they describe it and divide it with special reference to the cities found therein, into seven parts. Rosenmller, incorrectly: , per urbes, i.e. additis etiam et adscriptis urbibus, qu in quaque regione erant; the cities rather give the proper ground of division. How long a time the messengers spent in this service we are not informed. Josephus makes up a story of seven months (Ant. v. 1, 1: , , ). The Jewish historian appears to have been led to the seven months by the seven parts into which the land was divided. The statement is of no value (Bunsen), and is of no more consequence than the assertion of the Rabbins that the division at Shiloh was made seven years after that at Gilgal (Keil).

Jos 18:10. After they have returned Joshua casts lots and effects the division. On , comp. Jos 11:23; Jos 12:7.

b. Jos 18:11-28. The Territory of the Tribe of Benjamin. First are given . its boundaries, Jos 18:11-20, then . its cities, Jos 18:21-28. It was in general mountainous, in part very desert, but in part also, as in the neighborhood of Jericho and Jerusalem (Joseph. Ant. v. 1, 21; Bell. Jud. iv. 8, 3), a well cultivated, fruitful land. The land of Benjamin now makes the impression of solitude and desolation, as if the breath of death rested upon it (Furrer, p. 218327 [Stanley, S. & P. has an instructive chapter on the Heights and Passes of Benjamin]).

a. Jos 18:11-20. Its Boundaries, Jos 18:11. The territory of Benjamin lay, according to this verse, between the sons of Judah on the south, and the sons of Joseph on the north.

Jos 18:12. The border which is here drawn is the north border, on the north side. It went out from the Jordan, and ascended, north of Jericho, on to the mountains westward,i.e. ascended north of Jericho, on the mountain lying west (and northwest) of this city, and already familiar (Jos 16:1). Its goings out were at the wilderness of Beth-aven. In Jos 7:2, Beth-aven is clearly distinguished, as lying east of Beth-el, from this latter city which itself is often called by the prophets (Idol-house, Amo 4:5; Hos 4:15; Hos 5:8; Hos 10:5; Hos 10:8). Since Michmash again, according to 1Sa 13:5, lay east of Beth-aven, this place must have been situated between Beth-el and Michmash. Kiepert has introduced Beth-aven on his map somewhat to the northeast of Michmash, whose immediate surroundings, contrasted with the bare and rocky heights to the east and north, might be called green and fertile (Furrer, p. 217). The bare and rocky heights to the east and north of Michmash are no other than those of Beth-aven.

Jos 18:13. And the border went over from thence toward Luz, to the side of Luz (which is Beth-el) southward. Here the difficulty which we met in Jos 16:2 from the distinction between Beth-el and Luz falls away, since it is said that the border between Benjamin and Ephraim went over out of the wilderness of Beth-aven toward Luz, that is Beth-el, and more particularly on the south side of Luz, thus excluding Beth-el from the cities of Benjamin, while yet, in Jos 18:22, it belongs to them. In this way contradiction would arise which Knobel seeks to obviate, thus: The author does not say that the border went merely to the south side of Beth-el; it went to the south side of the ridge () of Beth-el, i.e. toward Bethel. Beth-el (, Gen 28:11-19; Gen 31:13, earlier = almond-tree), familiar through all the history of Israel, from the patriarchs to the Maccabees (1Ma 9:50), and even later (Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 9, 9), now a seat of the worship of God, again a place of idolatry, lies on the right of the road from Jerusalem toward Shechem (von Raumer, p. 178), is now called Beitin (Robinson, p. 225 ff.), and was first recognized by the Missionary Nicolayson in 1836 (von Raumer, p. 174). Ruins cover three or four acres, and there are interesting remains of a great reservoir which Furrer saw (p. 221). Beitin lies 1,767 feet high, three and three-quarters or four hours from Jerusalem (von Raumer, p. 179; Furrer, p. 413). From this position of Beth-el we may understand how the border went down () from thence toward Ataroth-addar, which is identical with the place of the same name, Jos 16:2, but different from the Ataroth, Jos 16:7. Robinson found an Atara about six miles south, and a second one about four miles north of Gophna. The southern one appears to be the same as Ataroth-addar, past which ran the north border of Benjamin from Beth-el toward lower Beth-horon, Jos 16:2-3; Jos 16:5; Jos 18:13-14. So von Raumer, (p. 175), with whom Knobel agrees, while Robinson himself, according to the passage cited by Knobel (ii. 315), holds that this southern Atara cannot be Ataroth-addar, because it lies too far within the territory of Benjamin. He has been followed by Kiepert, Van de Velde, and Menke on their maps. Von Raumer, also has only marked this northern Ataroth, and entirely omitted the southern one which, according to his view and that of Knobel, should be = Ataroth-addar. We, like Keil (on Jos 16:2), adopt the view of Robinson.

From Beth-el the border went thus northwestwardly toward Ataroth-addar, and thence on toward the southwest, upon (De Wette: on; Bunsen: over) the mountain that lieth on the south side of the nether Beth-horon. This is the north border of Benjamin, which, as far as lower Beth-horon, coincides with the south border of Ephraim. Beth-horon ( = house of the hollow) mentioned, Jos 10:11, in the history of the battle of Gibeon, and in Jos 16:3-5, as here, as a border city between Benjamin and Ephraim, a city of Levites, Jos 21:22, fortified by Solomon, 1Ki 9:17; 2Ch 8:5), spoken of in the Maccaban wars (1Ma 3:15-24; 1Ma 7:39 ff; 1Ma 9:50), and in the history of the wars of the Jews (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 19, 18). There was, as appears from Jos 16:3; Jos 16:5; 1Ki 9:17; 1Ch 7:24; 2Ch 8:5, as well as from the passage before us, an upper and a lower Beth-horon. Both places are still recognized. The upper is now called Beit ur el-Forka, the lower Beit ur et-Tahta. The latter place stands on the top of a low ridge (Robinson, iii. 58 f.) and is separated from the upper Beth-horon by a wady. Robinson and his companion passed through this, and then began to ascend the long and steep pass. The ascent is very rocky and rough; but the rock has been cut away in many places and the path formed into steps; showing that this is an ancient road.. The pass between the two places was called both the ascent () and descent () of Beth-horon, Jos 10:10-11 (Gr.: , 1Ma 3:15-24). (Robinson, 5860). Remains of ancient walls are found in both places as well as in the pass between them (3:58). Furrer (p. 14) found the hill on which stands the village of lower Beth-horon, partly covered with olive trees. The barley fields in the low ground were mingled with patches full of dark green beans. He also describes the pass as rocky, steep, and extremely laborious. Seldom does a trader drive his camels through it (contrast Israels hope, Isa 60:5-6; Isa 60:9). The land on almost all sides is burnt up like a desert, through which no one passes (Furrer, p. 15).

Jos 18:14. At this point, namely, at the mountain south of Lower Beth-horon, the boundary line of Benjamin bends southwardly toward Kirjath-baal, or Kirjath-jearim, separating this territory from that of Dan on the west; while the border of Ephraim runs out in a northwest direction past Gezer to the sea. Of this west border of Benjamin, of which we now read for the first time, it is said: and the border was drawn (, as Jos 15:11, and often) and bent around toward the west side southward from the mountain that lieth before Beth-horon southward; and the goings out thereof were at Kirjath-baal (which is Kirjath-jearim), a city of the children of Judah. This was the west side. = sea-side [side toward the sea]. is properly mouth = to , from (cogn. with ,) to blow; then, like Lat. ora (from os), side, which is turned to any quarter of the heavens. As here , so Jos 18:15 we have ‘ , and Exo 26:20, [comp. Jos 18:12 of this chap.]. Kirjath–baal: see Jos 15:60.

Jos 18:15-19. South Border. This coincides entirely with the north border of Judah, Jos 15:5-9. merely indicates that the south border started from the west and ran toward the east. That Kirjath-baal (Kirjath-jearim) belonged to the cities of Judah and not to those of Benjamin, is plainly apparent from Jos 15:60. The border, therefore, on Kieperts Map requires correction; Menke has drawn it right.

Jos 18:20. The east border consists of the Jordan.

. Jos 18:21-28. Cities of the Tribe of Benjamin. They fall into two groups of twelve and fourteen cities, the former lying in the east, the latter in the west. Jericho, Jos 2:1, and often. Beth-hoglah, Jos 15:6. Emek (vale of) keziz. There is a Wady el-Kaziz east of Jerusalem (Van de Velde, Mem. p. 328, apud Knobel).

Jos 18:22. Beth-arabah, Jos 15:6, now Kaffr Hajla. Zemaraim, probably a place of ruins. Sumrah, northeast of the Wady el-Kaziz, near the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, opposite the Khan Hadschur. See Van de Veldes Map. Bethel, Jos 18:13.

Jos 18:23. Avim. Since Avim () here follows directly after Beth-el, while Ai () which stood near Beth-el (Jos 7:2; Jos 12:9), and to the east of it, is not mentioned, it is natural with Knobel to regard Avim as identical with Ai, which is called also Aiah (Neh 13:11) and Aiath (Isa 10:23). The signification of all these names is essentially the same: ruins, heaps, stone-heaps, Mic 1:6 (see Gesen.). Where Ai lay is not accurately made out. Van de Velde, following Finn, supposes, as may be seen from his map, that it was the same as Tel el-Hadshar (Stone-hill), thirty-five minutes east of Beth-el (ii. 251255, and Mem. p. 282, apud von Raumer, p. 169). Robinson (ii. 119, 312 f.) sought it twice, but after all his investigation only reached the conclusion that the most probable site of Ai is the place of ruins exactly south of Deir Dirvan, one hour distant from Beth-el. The direction would be south-east. Knobel on the passage before us has not kept the two views sufficiently distinct. Furrer also visited the region, but undertook no further researches. He too speaks of many stones existing there (p. 219). [Tristram, 168 f. confidently agrees with Robinsons view.] The tent of Abraham once stood here between Beth-el and Ai (Gen 12:8; Gen 13:3). The history of the conquest of Ai has been treated above, ch. viii. Hitzig (ubi sup. pp. 99, 100) disputes the existence of a city of Ai altogether, and proposes the view that Ai signifies in Turkish moon, and can therefore have been the Scythian, perhaps Amoritish name for Jericho as Dibon was the Hebraized Dirvan Council (??). After the Exile, Benjamites dwelt there again (Neh 11:31; Neh 7:32; Ezr 2:28), so that the city had been rebuilt.

Parah, a place of ruins, Fara, west of Jericho on Van de Veldes Map. Ophrah, in Sauls time attacked by the Philistines (1Sa 13:17), perhaps, as Robinson (ii. 124) conjectures, the modern Taiyibeh. Von Raumer (p. 216, n., 235 c) suggests that Ophrah may be the same as Ephraim or Ephron (Joh 11:54).

Jos 18:24. Chephar-haamonai, Ophni, mentioned only here, and hitherto undiscovered. Gaba ( = ) height, hill. This Gaba is according to Jos 18:28 distinct from Gibeath or Gibeah, with which further 1Sa 13:2-3; Isa 10:29 are to be compared. Now since between Anathoth and Michmash (see Kieperts Map) there is a place called Jeba, the question has arisen whether this Jeba was Gaba or Gibeah. Robinson (ii. 114, 316) was at first inclined to regard Jeba as = Gibeah, the Gibeah of Saul, but afterward became satisfied (comp. Bibl. Sac., Aug. 1844, p. 598) that Gibeah of Saul was rather, as Gross suspected, to be looked for on the hill Tuleil el-Fuleh (hill of beans, Rob. p. 317), where von Raumer also, and Van de Velde, and Kiepert place it, while our Gaba, as the similarity of the name renders probable, has been preserved in the Jeba just spoken of. Knobel on the contrary identifies Gaba and Gibeah of Saul in accordance with Robinsons earlier view, and proposes a variety of conjectures in regard to Gibeath of Jos 18:28. For the distinctness of Gaba and Gibeah of Saul, Isa 10:29 is, we may remark in conclusion, decisive, a passage whose vividness of description Furrer (who likewise regards the two places as clearly different, pp. 212, 213, compared with 215, 216), was constrained on the spot to admire (pp. 216, 217). To this eastern division belong also the two cities of priests, Anathoth and Almon, Jos 21:18, of which more hereafter.

Jos 18:25-28. The fourteen west Benjamite cities.

Jos 18:25. Gibeon,, properly the same name again as , , quite familiar to us from the narrative, in this book, of the wiles of its inhabitants (Joshua 9.) and from the battle at Gibeon (Jos 10:1-15); later (Jos 21:17) a Levite city as well as Geba. It is the modern el-Jib lying on an oblong hill or ridge of limestone rock, which rises above a very fertile and well cultivated plain (Robinson, ii. 135 ff.). Of the fertile plain Furrer also (p. 16) makes mention. He found the hill on which el-Jib is situated well cultivated in terraces. Vines, figs, and olives flourish on the eastern slope, while on the north the Tel falls off somewhat abruptly (Furrer, pp. 16, 17). Historical associations with days subsequent to Joshua attach to this place where stood the Tabernacle under David and Solomon (1Ki 3:5 ff.; 1Ch 16:39; 1Ch 21:29; 2Ch 1:3; 2Sa 20:9). To Gibeon belonged Chephirah (Jos 18:26), Beeroth (Jos 18:25), Kirjath-jearim (Jos 15:9-60; Jos 18:14).

Ramah ( = height, a frequently occurring name of places, on which compare Gesen.), not to be confounded with the Ramah of Samuel or Ramathaim (von Raumer, p. 217, No. 148); near Gibeah (Jdg 19:13; Hos 5:8), noted in the contests with Syria (1Ki 15:17; 2Ch 16:1) and Assyria (Isa 10:29); the place where Jeremiah was set free (Jer 40:1, compared with 31:15); inhabited again after the exile (Ezr 2:26; Neh 7:30; Neh 11:33); now er-Ram (Robinson, ii. 315); a wretched village north of Gibeah, on a hill (Furrer, p. 214). Furrer discovered here remains of Roman milestones, and supposes that a Roman road ran from Gibeah, Rama, Geba down toward the narrow pass of Michmash (p. 215).

Beeroth mentioned, Jos 9:17, as belonging to Gibeon, or allied with Gibeon; home of the murderers of Ish-bosheth (2Sa 4:2), and of Joabs Armor-bearer (2Sa 23:37), likewise rebuilt after the exile (Neh 7:29). Robinson (ii. 132) regards the present Bireh as Beeroth, a village with old foundations, remains of a Gothic church, and about seven hundred Mohammedan inhabitants. With him agree Keil and Knobel, while von Raumer disputes the view of Robinson as contradicting the statements of Jerome (p. 197, n. 187). But compare, for a defense of Robinson, Keil on Jos 9:17.

Jos 18:26. Mizpeh, not the same as the Mizpeh in the lowland, Jos 15:38; already in the time of the Judges a place of assembling for Israel (Jdg 20:1; Jdg 21:1); but specially celebrated on account of Samuel (1Sa 7:5-15; 1Sa 10:17); after the fall of Judah, the seat of the Chaldan governor Gedaliah (2Ki 25:23; 2Ki 25:25; Jer 40:6 ff; Jer 41:1 ff.); now the Nebi Samwil, i.e. prophet Samuel, five hundred feet above the level of the plain, 2,484 feet above the sea (von Raumer, after Symonds, p. 213), with a very rich and extensive prospect (Robinson, ii. 143, 144). Here they would have it that Samuel was buried under the half-decayed mosque on the mountain. Thus Nebi Samwil would be = the Rama of Samuel. Robinson has, however, among others, shown that this is not so, but that Mizpeh is probably to be sought here. He is followed by Keil, Knobel, Tobler, Van de Velde, Kiepert, Furrer (p. 212). The last named writer from the Scopus near Jerusalem perceived Nebi Samwil in the northwest, the high watch-tower of the land of Benjamin.

Chephirah, like Beeroth belonging to Gibeon (Jos 9:17; Ezr 2:25); the present place of ruins Kefir on the mountain east of Ajalon (Jalo). See Robinson (Later Bibl. Res. p. 146). The name is related to , village, instead of which occurs, Neh 6:2. Mozah, mentioned only here and unrecognized.

Jos 18:27. Rekem, Irpeel, and Taralah, also unrecognized, and like Mozah mentioned only in this place,a proof again of the integrity of the LXX. in Jos 15:59.

Zelah (, rib, side), burial-place of Saul and Jonathan (2Sa 21:14); unknown; and so with Eleph.Jebusi, i.e. Jerusalem. See Jos 15:8.

Gibeath (). This is the Gibeah of Saul ( , 1Sa 10:26; 1Sa 11:4; 1Sa 15:34, and often); as was already shown above on Jos 18:24, to be sought on the hill Tuleil el-Ful. Here occurred before Sauls time the outrage reported in Judges 19 which resulted in the destruction of the city, and the extirpation of the Benjamites except six hundred (Judges 20). Comp. also Hos 9:9; Hos 10:9. After Sauls death its inhabitants hung seven of his descendants, on the mountain of Gibeah (2Sa 21:6-9), but Mephibosheth was spared Furrer accomplished the way from Jerusalem to Tel el-Ful, on foot, in one hour and twenty-five minutes (p. 412). He found the summit completely strown with ruins. There the traveller was rewarded with a wide and glorious prospect scarcely inferior to that of Mizpeh. The land of Benjamin with its many famous old cities lay spread out around me. Over the heights of Hizmeh, Anathoth, and Isawijeh, the eye swept downward to the Jordan valley, which here appeared more beautiful than on the mount of Olives. In the southeast the dark blue of the Dead Sea enlivened wonderfully the stiff yellow mountain rocks of its neighborhood. On the far distant horizon the mountain chains of Moab were traced in soft and hazy lines. Northward lay Ramah and the hill of Geba. Further west and around toward the south followed Gibeon, the glorious height, Mizpeh, the queen among the mountains of Benjamin, and then in the south, the most beautiful of all, the Holy City (pp. 212, 213). Excellently descriptive!

Kirjath, not to be confounded with Kirjath-jearim, Jos 18:14, Jos 15:60, which belonged to Judah. Perhaps, as Knobel conjectures, Kerteh, west of Jerusalem (Scholtz, Reise, p. 161).

c. Jos 19:1-9. The Territory of the Tribe of Simeon. The second lot came out for the tribe of Simeon, who, since the portion assigned to the tribe of Judah was too large for them (Jos 19:9), received their possession out of that of Judah; concerning which comp. Gen 49:7. Two groups of cities are enumerated, one of thirteen or fourteen (comp. on this difference, Jos 15:32), all lying in the land of the south, the other of four cities. Of these latter, Ashan and Ether lay, according to Jos 15:42, in the Shephelah. When now Ain and Rimmon, which in Jos 15:32 are ascribed to the Negeb, are here placed with Ashan and Ether, the author seems, as Knobel remarks, to refer them here to the Shephelah also. The dividing line between the Negeb and Shephelah was not so accurately determined. The province of Simeon, although only the cities and villages are mentioned, appears to have been a continuous one, namely the Negeb, with a small part of the Shephelah, while the Levites, as we learn from ch. xxi. acquired particular cities with their appurtenant pasture-ground throughout the whole land. The list of the abodes of Simeon is found again, 1Ch 4:28-32, with slight deviations (see Keil, p. 420). The explanations concerning the places see on Jos 15:24-32; Jos 15:42.

d. Jos 19:10-16. The Territory of the Tribe of Zebulun. The third lot fell to Zebulun (Gen 49:13; Deu 33:19), the bounds of which, from the data given, can be but imperfectly determined. Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 22) assigns the sea of Gennesaret as the eastern border, Carmel and the sea as the western. He says: , . In general this statement agrees with our book, only Zebulun appears not to have reached to the sea. His province was, especially in the interior where it embraced the beautiful valley el-Buttauf (Robinson, iii. 189), fertile, toward the sea of Gennesaret mountainous but pleasant and well cultivated, higher than the plain of Jezreel and lower than the mountains of Naphtali: a land of mountain terraces (Knobel [cf. Robinson, iii. 190]).

Jos 19:10. South Border, given as at Jos 16:6; Jos 19:33, from a central point toward west and east. It went to Sarid. Where this Sarid () lay cannot be made out. Von Raumer is entirely silent concerning it; Masius and Rosemller seek the place south of Carmel, near the Mediterranean Sea, which however does not answer well on account of Jos 19:11; Keil and Knobel, just on account of this verse, place it more in the interior,north or east of Legio (Lejijim) in the plain of Esdraelon (Keil), or one hour southeast of Nazareth (Knobel). The latter, however, supposes no place to be intended but, since Sarid may signify brook, incision (according to , perforavit, and , incidit), the southern mouth of the deep and narrow wady descending from the basin of Nazareth. It is possible that Sarid lay here, and was named after the mouth of this wady. But that this itself was intended appears to me contrary to all analogy in the other determinations of boundary.

Jos 19:11. From hence the boundary went up toward the sea (westward), and (more particularly) toward Maralah, and struck Dabbasheth, and struck the water-course that is before Jokneam. Maralah is unfortunately altogether unknown; perhaps on account of , to which Keil calls attention, to be sought somewhere on Carmel. Dabbasheth (, camels hump, Isa 30:6, therefore a name like ) perhaps situated on the height of Carmel (Keil). Knobel refers to Jebata (Robinson, iii. 201) between Mujeidil and Kaimon, near the edge of the mountains which border the plain of Jezreel, or to Tel Tureh somewhat further toward the southwest (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 115). These are pure conjectures without any firm foundation. The water-course that is before Jokneam (see Jos 12:22) is, without doubt, the Kishon, (, i.e. which curves, winds about, from ), now Nahr el-Mukatta (Mukattua) with clear, green water (von Raumer, p. 50). It flows through the slender valley which separates Carmel from the hills lying along to the north of it. Dense oleander thickets skirt the bed of the brook, and follow its pleasantly winding course (Furrer, p. 280). The Kishon is historically celebrated for the events recorded, Jdg 4:7; Jdg 4:13; Jdg 5:21 (comp. Psa 83:10), and 1 Kings 19:40. With reference to Jdg 5:9, Furrer observes, The water flowed in a swift stream of about a foot in depth, strong enough to carry away corpses. Differing from all other commentators, Knobel will see nothing of the Kishon here, but thinks of the Wady el-Milh on whose eastern bank Kaimea (Jokneam) should lie. The grounds of his view are given in his Commentary, p. 458.

Jos 19:12. As the border turned from Sarid westward, so also it turned from the same point toward the east: Eastward, toward the sun-rising, unto the border of Chisloth-tabor, and went out to Daberath, and went up to Japhia. Chisloth-tabor (, like , Jos 15:10, from , to be strong), probably =, Jos 19:18, in the tribe of Issachar; now Iksal, Ksal, Zal, on a rocky height west of Tabor, with many tombs in the rock (Rob. 3:182). The rocky height on which it stands lies more in the plain (Rob. l. c.). Daberath, a Levitical city, Jos 21:28; 1Ch 6:72, pertaining to Issachar; now Deburijeh, a small and unimportant village lying on the side of a ledge of rocks directly at the foot of Tabor (Rob. iii. 210). Furrer describes its situation thus A little valley running north and south divides Tabor from the low hills in the west. Near the mouth of this wady, in the northeast arm of the valley of Jezreel, lies the village of Deburijeh (p. 306). Japhia (, glancing, Gesen.). Jafa, somewhat over half an hour southwest of Nazareth in another valley. It contains thirty houses with the remains of a church and a couple of solitary palm trees.. The Japha fortified by Josephus was probably the same, a large and strong village in Galilee, afterward conquered by Trajan and Titus under the orders of Vespasian (Rob. iii. 200). When it is said of the border that it ascended () toward Japhia, this is correct, for Monro ascended the Galilean mountains from the plain of Jezreel, in a ravine toward Jaffa (Monro, i. 276 ap. von Raumer, p. 128). With this comp. Knobels remark: stands correctly, since according to von Schubert, iii. 169, the valley of Nazareth lies about four hundred feet higher than the plain at the western foot of Tabor.

Jos 19:13. From Japhia the border ran still in an easterly direction: Eastward, toward the rising (of the sun), to Gittah-hepher, to Ittah-kazin, and went out to Remmon, which stretches to Neah. Gath-hepher (, with local), the birth-place of the prophet Jonah (2Ki 14:25), whose grave is shown in a mosque = el Meschad, one hour northeast of Nazareth (Rob. iii. 209). Robinson says concerning it (note, p. 209): At el-Meshhad is one of the many tombs of Neby Yunas, the prophet Jonah; and hence modern monastic tradition has adopted this village as the Gath-hepher where the prophet was born (2Ki 14:25; Quaresimus, ii. 855). Ittahkazin (, with local), unknown. The name signifies, time of the judge. Remmon, a city of Levites, Jos 21:35; 1Ch 6:62, perhaps the present Rummaneh, north of Nazareth (Rob. iii. 194, 195; von Raum. p. 138). Which extends to Neah. Thus, according to the very simple and therefore obvious conjecture of Knobel: . The LXX. made a proper name out of , , Vulg. Amthar. Frst renders the participle by marked off, staked out. With him agree Knobel and Bunsen. Gesenius, Rosenmller, De Wette, on the other hand, translate it, which stretches toward. Since everywhere else is employed of the boundary, we side with Knobel.2Neah (, perhaps inclination, slope, declivity, r. , Gesen.), unknown; perhaps the same as , Jos 19:27, which lay south of Jiphtha-el, as they said also for , Jos 15:11 (Knobel).

Jos 19:14. And the border bent around it (Neah) northward to Hannathon: and the outgoings thereof were in the valley of Jiphthahel (God opens). Compassed Neah, not Rimmon (Keil), and went in a northerly direction toward Hannathon (, pleasant), in which Knobel and Keil (Bibl. Com. ii. 1, in loc.) suspect the New Testament Cana (Joh 2:1; Joh 2:11; Joh 4:46; Joh 21:2); the present Kana el-Jelil between Jefat and Rummaneh. Jiphtha–el () is perhaps the Japata defended by Josephus, now Jefat, midway between the sea of Tiberias and the Bay of Accho (von Raumer, p. 129; Knobel and Keil). The valley would be, according to this view, the great Wady Abilie, which commences above in the hills near Jefat (Rob. Later Bib. Res. p. 103 f.). It empties into the Nahr Amar (Belus), as Van de Veldes map clearly shows. Comp. Jos 19:27. Keil remarks very correctly, that this verse should describe the northern boundary, but, as is to be inferred also from the other expressions of Keil, does this very imperfectly.

Jos 19:15. This verse beginning with is evidently a fragment. There must something before have fallen out, in favor of which is the circumstance also, that at the close of the verse twelve cities and their villages are summed up, while only five are named. We must conclude, as Keil also assumes, that there is here a chasm in the text where we are left in the lurch even by the LXX., who at Jos 15:59 offered so helpful a supplement. Probably there has dropped out (a) the statement of the west border, which Knobel also feels to be wanting; (b) the enumeration of seven cities among which it is likely that Nazareth would not have failed to be. In respect to this last city, it cannot help striking one without needing to agree with Jerome on Jos 15:59, that here Nazareth is wanting as there Bethlehem. As regards the missing west border, it is indicated Jos 19:27, in connection with Asher, but in a very general and vague manner. The five cities are: Kattath, perhaps = (Jos 21:34), Kireh, a place of ruins one and a half hours south of Kaimon (Knobel, on the authority of Rob. Later Bibl. Res. p. 116). Nahallal or Nahalol, a Levitical city, Jos 21:35; Jdg 1:30; unknown. Shimron (Jos 11:1), likewise. Idalah, the same. Beth-lehem, now Beitlahm, west-northwest of Nazareth (Rob. Later Bibl. Res. p. 113); von Raumer, p. 122.

e. Jos 19:17-23. The Territory of the Tribe of Issachar. The borders of the tribe of Issachar are not particularly noted by the author, having been given by him in connection with the other tribes, except the eastern part of the north border and the east border, Jos 19:22. Issachar touched in the north on Zebulun and Naphtali; in the west on Asher and Manasseh; in the south likewise on Manasseh in part, and in part also (see the maps) on Ephraim; in the east on the Jordan. Its most important and most beautiful section of country was the fertile plain of Jezreel (von Raumer, Palest. p. 39 ff.; Ritter, xvi. 689 ff.; Furrer, p. 258 ff.). Josephus observes concerning the boundaries, merely: , , (Tabor) (Ant. v. 1, 22).

Jos 19:18. Jezreel (), i. e., Gods planting. Esdraela, among the Greeks, from which Stradela; at the time of the crusades, Little Gerinum (Parvum Gerinum); now Zerin (von Raumer, p. 157). It stands on the brow of a very steep rocky slope of one hundred feet or more toward the northeast, commanding a wide and noble view of the country around in all directions (Rob. iii. 161 ff.). The present village is small and poor. The inhabitants live in constant strife with the Bedouins of the plain of Jezreel, who, with violence or craft, practice incessant provocations and robberies on the wretched people (Furrer, pp. 262264). The splendid site induced Ahab and his house to reside here, perhaps more especially in the summer (Keil), to keep court, 1Ki 18:45-46; 1Ki 21:1 ff.; 2Ki 8:29; 2Ki 9:15-37; 2Ki 10:1-11. Hosea refers to the blood-guiltiness of Jezreel (Jos 1:4; Jos 1:11; Jos 2:22). Chesulloth = Chisloth-tabor, Jos 19:12

Shunem, (prop., according to Gesenius, two resting-places, for , for which, as Eusebius informs us, also was employed), now Solam or Sulem (Rob. iii. 169), on the declivity at the western end of Mount Duhy (little Hermon), over against Zerin, but higher. Furrer required one and a half hours between Zerin and Shunem. The ground in the broad valley rose and fell in gentle undulations. The village itself lies behind tall cactus hedges and trees (Furrer, p. 264, 265). Here the Philistines encamped before Sauls last battle (1Sa 28:4). Shunem was the home of Abishag (1Ki 1:3). In the house of a Shunamite woman Elisha often lodged, and her son he raised from death (2Ki 4:8-37; 2Ki 8:1-6). Shunem (Shulem) was probably also the birthplace of the Shulamite (Son 6:12).

Jos 19:19. Chepharaim, perhaps = Chepher, the residence of a Canaanitish king mentioned Jos 12:17; according to the Onom., Affarea, according to Knobel, Afuleh, west of Shulem, and more than two hours northeast of Lejun. Shihon, not found.

Anaharath. According to Knobel either Naurah, on the east side of Little Hermon (Rob. Later Bibl. Res. p. 339) on an elevation, orsince Cod. A of the LXX. gives instead of this name, P and, , therefore Arraneh, north of Jenin, in the plain (in Seetzen, ii. 156; Rob. iii. 157, 160).

Jos 19:20. Rabbith, conjecturably Arabboneh, somewhat further toward the northeast on Gilboa, in Rob. iii. 158 (Knobel).

Kishion, a Levitical city, Jos 21:28, is erroneously called , 1Ch 6:57 (Knobel, Keil). The site is unknown.

Abez, not identified.

Jos 19:21. Remeth, or Ramoth, or Jarmuth, belonging to the Levites (Jos 21:29, 1Ch 6:58); the name signifies height (Knobel). Concerning Knobels further conjectures, see Keil, Bib. Com. on the O. T. ii. 145, rem. Unknown.

En-Gannim,, i.e., Garden-spring, a Levitical city, Jos 21:29, without doubt, as Knobel rightly says, the present Jenin. For, according to Robinson (iii. 155), this town lies in the midst of gardens of fruit-trees, which are surrounded by hedges of the prickly pear; but having for its most remarkable feature a beautiful, flowing, public fountain, rising in the hills back of the town, and brought down so that it issues in a noble stream in the midst of the place. Furrer describes it as an important place on the border of the Samaritan mountain, and mentions not only the copiousness of the water, but the fruitfulness of the gardens there (p. 257). In Josephus (Ant. xx. 6, 1; Bell. Jud. iii. 3, 4), En-gannim is called , from which Jenin has come, as Robinson rightly conjectured (iii. 156, note 1).

En-Haddah and Beth-pazzaz, not yet identified. En-haddah may have been the same as Judeideh or Beit Kad, Kadd on Gilboa (Rob. iii. 157, Knobel.

Jos 19:22. And the border struck Tabor and Shahazimah, and Beth-shemesh; and the outgoings of their border were at the Jordan. In this the eastern part of the north border is given. The western point of beginning was Tabor, here probably not the mountain of this name, but a city lying on this mountain (Knobel and Keil), which was given to the Levites (1Ch 6:62). Remains of walls have been found there by Seetzen, Robinson (iii. 213 ff.), Buckingham, Rusegger, and most recently Furrer (p. 307 ff.). The largest and best preserved mass of ruins is found, according to Furrers representation, on the southeast corner of the plateau of the mountain, where the large closely-jointed blocks of cut stone lie firmly one upon the other, from fifteen to twenty feet high. Shahazimah (the Kethib reads ) = heights, therefore a city lying on a height, perhaps Hazetheth, on the hills east of Tabor toward the Jordan (Knobel). Beth–shemesh, not to be confounded with Beth-shemesh in the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:10, mentioned besides in Jdg 1:33), per haps = Bessum (Rob. iii. 237), a conjecture of Knobels with which Keil agrees. The eastern portion of the north border of Issachar toward Naphtali may have run from Tabor northeastward through the plain to Kefr Sabt, and thence along the Wady Bessum to the Jordan. But how far the territory of Issachar extended down into the Jordan Valley is not stated (Keil).

Sixteen cities. The number is correct if Tabor is taken as a city. This city would then be ascribed here to Issachar, while in 1Ch 6:62 it is reckoned to Zebulun; not a remarkable thing in the case of a border town.

f. Jos 19:24-31. The Territory of the Tribe of Asher. The fifth lot fell to the tribe of Asher, which received its territory on the slope of the Galilean mountains toward the Mediterranean; in general, likewise, a very beautiful and fertile region, whose olive trees (Deu 33:24) were formerly famous for their rich product. Even yet there are in that region ancient olive trees, large gardens with all kinds of southern fruit trees, and green corn-fields (Furrer, p. 291). From the Franciscan cloister at Accho the eye sweeps eastward over the wide, fertile, grassy plains up to the mountains of Galilee (ibid. p. 294). Here Asher had his beautiful possession. This was the of which Josephus speaks: , , (Ant. v. 1, 22). The description begins in the vicinity of Accho (Jos 19:25), goes first toward the south (Jos 19:26-27), then northward (Jos 19:28-30).

Jos 19:25. Helkath, a city of the Levites, Jos 21:31 = Jelka or Jerka, northeast of Accho (Robinson iii. App. p. 133), on the slope of the mountains by a little wady.

Hali, passed over by von Raumer, possibly Julis or Gulis, in the same region, somewhat to the southwest of Helkath and more toward the sea.
Beten (, Belly, = Valley, , Gesen. with which the designation used by Josephus for the whole region is suggestively accordant), not yet identified; according to the Onom. called Beth-beten or , eight Roman miles east of Ptolemais. Von Raumer (p. 121, Rem. 18, E.) inquires whether it is identical with Ekbatana not far from Ptolemais (Plin. v. 17, 5; Reland, p. 617).

Achshaph, Jos 11:1; Jos 12:20.

Jos 19:26. Alammelech. The name is preserved in the Wady el-Malek which empties into the Kishon from the northeast.

Amad. Knobel supposes this to be the modern Haifa, about three hours south of Accho, on the sea, called by the ancients Sycaminon, i e. Sycamore-town, since the Hebrew name must, according to the Arab., be interpreted by Sycomorus. Knobel further thinks that since d passes into r, for which Exo 2:15 is cited, the old name Amad may be preserved in Ammara as the country people call Haifa.

Misheal, a Levitical city (Jos 21:30; 1Ch 6:59), according to the Onom. s. v. Masan, situated on the sea, juxta Carmelum. This suits with the following statement of the direction of the boundary: and struck Carmel westward and Shihor-libnath,Shihor-libnath. The brook of Egypt was called simply , Jos 13:8. Here by is intended not the Belus (Nahr Raaman), which empties into the Mediterranean north of Carmel, but, from the direction which the description takes, and with respect to Jos 17:10, a stream south of Carmel, and quite probably the Nahr Zerka or Crocodile Brook. Its name Zerka, blue, bluish stream, as Knobel and Keil suppose, might answer both to the , black, and to the , white.

Jos 19:27. From that point the border returned toward the sunrising, to Beth-dagon. This Beth-dagon, different from the Beth-dagon in the Shephelah which was assigned to Judah, Jos 15:41, has not been discovered. Proceeding in a northeasterly direction the border struck Zebulun and the ravine of Jiphtha-el, that is, according to the explanations on Jos 19:14, the Wady Abilin, to the north of Beth-emek and Neiel.Beth–emek is not identified. Neiel is perhaps the same as Neah, Jos 19:13.From hence the border went out to Cabul on the left hand, i.e. on the north side of it. Cabul, northeast of the Wady Abilin, four hours southeast of Accho still bears the same name; in the LXX. ; in Josephus (Vit. 43). Comp. Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 88.

Jos 19:28-30. The main province proper of the tribe of Asher having been marked out in the preceding verses, the northern district is now more particularly defined (Knobel).

Jos 19:28. Hebron, probably a mistake of the copyist for Abdon, which is named Jos 21:30; 1Ch 6:59, among the Levitical cities (= ). Not yet recognized; neither is Rehob, Hammon, or Kanah. See Conjectures in Knobel, pp. 464, 465; and Keil, Bibl. Com. ii. 2, in l. [also Dict. of the Bible]. The limitation even unto Great Zidon indicates that these places are to be sought for in that direction. Concerning Sidon, see on Jos 11:8.

Jos 19:29. From Sidon the border returned southward toward Ramah and to the fortified city of Tyre (Zor). Ramah is, according to Robinson (Later Bibl. Res. p. 63), Rameh, southeast of Tyre, on a solitary hill (hence the name) in the midst of a basin of green fields and surrounded by greater heights. Fortress of Zor, i.e. Tyre, is not the island of Tyre, out the city of Tyre standing on the main land, now Sur (Keil). At present the once mighty Tyre is a small and wretched town, in respect to which the predictions of the prophets have been fulfilled (Isa 23:7-8; Ezek. 26:12, 27). For the future also she seems destined to remain necessarily a miserable market spot (Furrer, p. 385). The site is a noble one. The name signifies rock = . Notice the alliteration . Comp. further, Ritter, Erdk. xvii. p. 320 ff. and Movers, Phnizier, ii. 1, 118 ff. (in Keil). Now the border turned toward Hosah, which is unknown, and finally ran out to the sea in the region of Achzib. Achziph. Hc est Ecdippa in nono milliario Ptolemaidis pergentibus Tyrum (Onom.), Now Zib, three hours north of Accho; the or of Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 22). Another Achzib belonged to Judah, Jos 15:44. The name is probably = to , Winter-brook, Gesen. In fact, Pococke saw (ap. Ritter, xvi. 811) a brook pass along on the south side, over which, a beautiful bridge having an arch crossed. By a wide circuit the author has arrived again at the vicinity of Accho.

Jos 19:30. Finally he names still three cities by themselves, Ummah and Aphek, and Rehob, of which only the Aphek on Lebanon, Jos 13:14, can with certainty be made out, as was there stated. Possibly, nay probably, Ummah and Rehob also lay in that mountain region. It is to be noted that the name Rehob (, from , to be wide, spacious) occurs twice in the territory of Asher, namely, here and in Jos 19:28 above. (It is a name precisely analogous to and ). The total twenty-two does not agree with the enumeration, as is often the case.

g. Jos 19:32-39. The Territory of the Tribe of Naphtali. The sixth lot came to the tribe of Naphtali, which is designated in Gen 49:21 as the hind let loose ( ). Their province was bounded east by the sea of Gennesaret and the Jordan, west by Asher, south by Zebulun and Issachar. In the north it reached far up into Cle-syria, and so to the very extremity of west Palestine. The possession of the tribe, through which runs the mountain of Naphtali rising to the height of 3,000 feetthe modern Jebel Safed,sinks down on the west into the plain on the sea, while in the east it falls off to the Jordan valley and the sea of Merom. The soil is, generally speaking, fruitful, the natural scenery of great beauty. Comp. besides the former travellers, Furrer, pp. 306331, for the vicinity of the sea of Merom, p. 361 ff.

Jos 19:33. Knobel assumes that here, as in Jos 19:10 and Jos 16:6, the author, proceeding from a central point, describes the west border first toward the north, then toward the south. To us it appears more simple, since Heleph is not repeated like Sarid (Jos 19:10; Jos 19:12), to understand with Keil that in Jos 19:33 the west border toward Asher, with the north and east border is described, in Jos 19:34 the south border.

Heleph is unknown. On the other hand we know from Jdg 4:11, where Allon, the Oak, i.e., according to Gen 12:6, the oak forest ( taken collect.) near Zaannanim lay, namely, by Kadesh northwest of the sea of Merom. Here Sisera was slain (Jdg 4:21) by Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, who had pitched his tent there (Jdg 4:11). The name is derived from , to wander, a place, therefore, where the tents of the wanderers, the nomads, stand Such a nomadic herdsman was Heber. Even to the present day the Bedouins more or less friendly disposed wander about in the north of Palestine, in the plain of Jezreel, on Gilboa, and on Tabor. Comp. Furrer, p. 311, and often. Robinson notices the oaks growing in this region (3. p. 370; Later Bibl. Res. p. 365 [Stanley, S. & P. pp. 142, 355 n.]). Furrer clearly perceived from Tibnin, looking eastward, near the elevated Biraschit, the mighty Messiah-tree, a solitary, majestic oak (indicated on Van de Veldes Map). Forests, however, nowhere met the view, however eagerly he sought to discern them. He is led accordingly to the remark: Other travellers have praised the abundance of trees in northern Galilee. They could not, I think, have followed my road. An atmosphere of death seemed to me to lie on the holy land here as in Benjamin (Furrer, p. 337).

Adami-nekeb (, i.e. Adami of the depth, hollow, of the pass (Knobel and Keil). The name (reddish) recalls , Jos 3:16.

Jabneel, Lakum, like the preceding, unrecognized, although Knobel thinks he has found Adami-nekeb in Deir-el-ahmar, i.e. red cloister, three hours northwest of Baalbec. See particulars, Knobel, p. 466; a different view, Keil, ii. 1, p. 149.

And the outgoings thereof were at the Jordan (Jos 19:22). The upper Jordan is meant, the Nahr Hasbany, as a source of the Jordan, comp. Num 34:10-12.

Jos 19:34. And the border returned westward,i.e. from the Jordan, the border, namely, the south border of Naphtali turned back, probably following the Wady Bessum westward to Aznath-tabor., as in Jos 19:12. Aznath-tabor is, according to the Onom. a vicus ad regionem Diocsare pertinens in campestribus. Not discovered. From this notice it stood near Diocsarea = Sepphoris = Sefurieh, perhaps, as Knobel and Keil suppose, southeast of this city, toward Mount Tabor. Thence it ran on to Hukkok, which cannot be identified.

And struck Zebulun on the south, and struck Asher on the west, and Judah; the Jordan (was) toward the sun-rising. The south and west boundary is to be understood, which grazed Zebulun in the south, and Asher and Judah in the west, while the Jordan is noticed as the east border. Great difficulties are raised by the enigmatical . The LXX. do not have it, but read: , , . Either the word was wanting in their text, or, which is more likely, they left it out because they knew not what to do with it. The Vulgate translates, disregarding the punctuation of the Masoretes: Et in Juda ad Jordanem. This Luther [and the Eng. Ver.] followed; but von Raumer (p. 233 ff.) has labored to show that this Judah on the Jordan consisted in the sixty Jair villages on the east side of the Jordan. His reason is that Jair, who is brought in, 13:40; Num 32:41, contra morem (i.e. contrary to the rule proposed Num 36:7, as a descendant of Manasseh, from Machir the Manassite) was actually, according to 1Ch 2:5; 1Ch 2:21 f., descended through Hezron, on his fathers side, from Judah, and therefore to be designated properly and regularly a descendant of Judah. Keil also has adopted this view, which, however, after all the care with which von Raumer has labored to develope it, appears not sufficiently established by that solitary passage in Chronicles combined with Josephus, Ant. viii. 2, 3. Rather it is hard to believe that the possession of Jair, which belonged, from Jos 13:30, to Manasseh, could have borne the name of Judah (Bunsen). Not more satisfactory are the attempts of older writers; of Masius, who supposes that a narrow strip of the land of Naphtali stretched along down the west shore of the Sea of Galilee to Judah; of Bachiene, who places a city Judah on the Jordan; of Reland, who says that sometimes all Palestine, the whole land of the twelve tribes, was called Juda, therefore the land east of the Jordan might be so called. Hence alterations of the text have been resorted to. From the omission of by the best Codices of the LXX. (Vat., Alex., and Ald.), Clericus had proposed to treat it simply as not belonging to the text. Maurer, followed by Bunsen, referring to Jos 17:10; Jos 19:22, would read , and, translates accordingly: et terminus eorum erat Jordanus ab oriente. Concerning the LXX. he says briefly and well: Sept. suo Marte omiserunt, cfr. ad Jos 19:15; Jos 19:30; Jos 19:38 al. Knobel thinks it would be more suitable to read , since Naphtali bordered on Issachar on the west and south. He says further, If we retain , we must assume that the part of Issachar bordering on Naphtali was called Judah, of which, however there is no evidence. But what if not an adjacent portion of Issachar, but a place in Asher, which was mentioned immediately before , was so called? And this appears in fact to have been the case, for on Van de Veldes Map there is a place north of Tibnin marked el-Jehudi-jeh, in whose name the old name has been preserved, since Jehudijeh might come from as well as from , Jos 19:45 (see below). Furrer reached this Jehudijeh from Tibnin in an hour (p. 339 1. 11, compared with 1. 4 from bottom). After first descending the steep path, which winds down along the west slope from Tibnin, he went up then out of the ravine (the Wady Ilmah is meant) toward the west, and came to the little village Jehudijeh, Jews village, surrounded by many trees. Of ruins, Furrer found there a finely chiseled block of stone which he regards as the slight trace of a synagogue. In this manner we may solve the riddle, simply and easily, as it seems to us, without any change of the text and holding fast the Masoretic punctuation. If, however, we were to change the text, Maurers conjecture would deserve the preference over that of Knobel, because , from the similarity of the letters, might very easily have arisen from , which is not the case with .

Jos 19:35-39. Fortified Cities of Galilee, ver 35. Ziddim, unknown. Zer, likewise unknown Hammath, to be kept distinct from the often mentioned Hamath, the northern boundary-town of Palestine; a Levitical city; Jos 21:32, called also Hammoth-dor or Hammon (1Ch 6:61). The name indicates warm springs, such as existed at Ammaus south of Tiberias ( in Joseph. Ant. 8:2, 3; Bell Jdg 4:1; Jdg 4:3; see Menkes Map v., side map of Galilee), and still exist.

Rakkath, situated, as the Jews have thought on the site of the later Tiberias.

Cinneroth ( or , Jos 11:2; Targ.: , ,, , Joseph. Bell. Jud. iii. 10, 7, 8), the city already mentioned, Jos 14:2, which gave name to the beautiful and fertile plain, pictured by Josephus (l. c.) in the most splendid colors, and to the sea (Jos 12:3; Jos 13:27; Num 34:11), but which has itself disappeared. Knobel supposes the Khan Minijeh to be the place where it stood. The plain, which is about an hour long and twenty minutes broad, extends from near Mejdel to Khan Minijeh. Comp. further Furrer, p. 319 ff.; Robinson, 3:290). signifies probably low ground, a hollow, , from (Knobel).

Verse 36. Adamah, unknown. Ramah, the present Rameh, southwest of Safed, on a plain, a large, beautiful village surrounded with plantations of olive trees. Hazor, see on Jos 11:1.

Jos 19:37. Kadesh, see on Jos 12:22. Edrei, not to be confounded with Edrei in Bashan, Jos 12:4, unknown. En-hazor, doubtless Ain Hazur south of Rameh.

Jos 19:38. Iron, now Jaron, Jarun, on a height northwest of el-Jisch (Giscala) in a fertile and cultivated region with ruins near by. Seetzen, ii. p. 123 f.; Van de Velde, Narr. i. 174 ff., apud Knobel.

Migdal-el (, Gods tower). The name speaks for Magdala (Mat 15:39), now el-Mejdel, which it is supposed to be by Gesen. and Robinson (iii. 278), only it is remarkable that Migdal-el was not before (Jos 19:35) included in the cities lying on the Sea of Gennesaret, rather than here among such as lie further west. On this account Knobel, contrary to the Masoretic pointing , joins it with the following , and then finds the place in Mejdel Kerum, west of Rama, three hours east of Accho (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 86). Too far west.

Horem, unless one accepts Knobels combination, not yet found. So with Beth-anath (Jdg 1:33), and Beth-shemesh, which is different from Beth-shemesh in Judah (Jos 15:10), and Beth-shemesh in Issachar (Jos 19:22). Nineteen cities. The number detailed is sixteen.

g. Jos 19:40-48. The Territory of the Tribe of Dan. This tribe received the seventh lot, which fell to them in pleasant places (Psa 16:6), west of Benjamin, north of Judah, south of Ephraim. Their country lay mostly in the Shephelah, but hindered by the Amorites (Jdg 1:34) from taking possession of their province, the warlike tribe conquered, besides, a small tract far up in the mountains of the north (Jdg 18:1 ff.). Josephus does not mention this (Ant. v. 1, 27), but our author does (Jos 19:47).

Jos 19:41. Zorah, Eshtaol, and Ir-shemesh, three cities of Judah which were yielded to the Danites, but of which they did not occupy Irshemesh, a city assigned to the Levites (Jos 21:16).

Jos 19:42. Shaalabbin ( or , Gesenius: place of jackals, comp. , Jos 15:28), 2Sa 23:32; 1Ch 11:33; 1Ki 4:9; now Salbit (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 144, n. 3 [Selbit]. Ajalon, Jos 10:12.

Jethlah. According to Knobel contained in the Wady Atallah west of Jalo (Ajalon) (Robinson, Later Bibl Res. pp. 144, 145).

Jos 19:43. Elon, perhaps Ellin (Robinson, iii. Ap. p. 120). Thimnathah, Jos 15:10. Ekron, Jos 15:11.

Jos 19:44. Eltekeh, a city of the Levites, ch.21:23, otherwise unknown.

Gibbethon, Jos 21:23, a Levitical city also. Mentioned 1Ki 15:27; 1Ki 16:15; 1Ki 16:17, in the contests with the Philistines; not yet discovered in modern times.

Baalath, fortified by Solomon, 1Ki 9:18; unknown. Whether identical with Baala, Jos 15:11? (Knobel).

Jos 19:45. Jehud, very probably el-Yehudijeh, two hours north of Ludd (Robinson, 3:45), in a beautiful, well-cultivated plain.

Bene-berak, now Ibn Abrak, one hour to the west of Yehudijeh.

Gath-rimmon, a Levitical city, Jos 21:24; 1Ch 6:54, to be sought according to the Onom. in the vicinity of Thimnah, but not yet discovered (Keil).

Jos 19:46. Me-jarkon (aqu flavedinis, yellow water), unknown.

Rakkon ( from , cheek, Gesen.) unknown.

With the border before Japho. These words indicate that Me-jarkon and Rakkon are to be sought in the region of Japho.

Japho (, beauty) is mentioned elsewhere in the O. T. only 1Ki 5:9; 2Ch 2:16; Eze 3:7; Jon 1:3. Under the Greek name of Lat. Joppe, it occurs often in the books of Maccabees (1Ma 10:74; 1Ma 10:76; 1Ma 12:34; 1Ma 14:15; 1Ma 14:34; 1Ma 15:28; 1Ma 15:35; 2Ma 12:3-7), and in the Acts of the Apostles (Act 9:36-43; Act 10:5; Act 10:8; Act 10:23; Act 10:32; Act 11:5). The place is now called Jaffa, in which the old name Japho is preserved, and it has, since the times of the Crusaders to the present day been the landing-place of pilgrims who go thence to Jerusalem. The population amounts to not far from five thousand souls, including about three thousand Mohammedans, six hundred Christians, and only about one hundred and twenty Jews (von Raum. p. 205). The city is very old, built, as the ancients thought, before the Flood: Est Joppe ante diluvium, ut ferunt condita (Pomp. Mela, 1:11); Joppe Phnicum antiquior terrarum inundatione, ut ferunt (Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 13) (apud von Raumer, p. 204). On the east the town is surrounded by a wide circle of gardens and groves of noble trees. Oranges, almonds, figs, apricots, peaches, pomegranates, apples and plums, sugar-cane and cotton, all flourish admirably here (Furrer, pp. 6, 7). Even to these gardens extended, according to the passage before us, the territory of Dan. Concerning Joppa, comp. further, Ritter, 16:574 ff. [Gages transl. 4:253259]), Winer in the Realwrterbuch, Robinson,3 Tobler, Wanderung, and Nazareth, nebst Anhang u. s. w., p. 302. This author found civilization so far advanced there in 1865 that houses were numbered, and in genuine Arabic numerals, and their gates named, e.g. Tarif el-Baher, Sea-gate.

And the border of the children of Dan went out from them, i.e. the children of Dan extended their territory as is related in Judg. xviii; not, however, in the immediate vicinity, but rather, after having through five scouts become satisfied of the feasibility of their undertaking (Jdg 18:7-10), at the foot of Anti-Lebanon in Laish (, Jdg 18:7; Jdg 18:27), or , as the place is called in the latter half of our verse. The reason for this migration lay in the pressure of the Amorites who did not allow the Danites to spread themselves in the plain (Jdg 1:34). With the peaceful and quiet Sidonians they were able more easily to deal and then conquer them also. For the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem Dan, after the name of Dan their father. This Leshem or Lais which was called Dan by the Danites, and per prolepsin, is called so also in Gen 14:14, is preserved in the present name of the place, Tel el-Kadi (hill of the judge), hill of Dan, for means judge, as Wilson, 2:172, apud von Raumer, p. 125, Rem. 24 a, has pointed out, and with this Gen 49:16 may be compared. It is a pleasant green hill of not more than twenty or thirty feet in height on the north side, while toward the south it falls off to a considerably greater depth (Furrer, p. 365, 366). Furrer saw no trace of an ancient city except some heaps of stones near the southwest edge. The same traveller describes very vividly the capture of Leshem by the Danites, p. 367. Comp. Robinson, 3:351, 358; Later Bibl. Res. p. 392; Ritter, xv. p. 207 [Gages transl. 2:204207], von Raumer, p. 125. The name was most familiar from the expression from Dan to Beersheba, Jdg 20:1; 1Sa 3:20; 1Sa 30:30; 2Sa 17:11. Jeroboam established here the worship of the calves, the Neo-Israelitish worship, 1Ki 12:28-29. Jehu was still devoted to it, 2Ki 10:29; Amo 8:13-14. May not the old name Leshem have been retained in that of the middle source of the Jordan, el-Leddan (Keil, 1:2, p. 53)?

i. Jos 19:49-50. Joshuas Possession. According to his desire, the moderation of which has already been alluded to, Jos 17:14 ff., Joshua received, after the land had been divided, Timnathserah (remaining portion, Gesen.), or Timnathheres (portion of the sun), as a possession, on Mount Ephraim. There on the mountain Gaash was he buried, Jos 24:30; Jdg 2:8-9. It is now Tibneh between Gophnah and el-Mejdel, first discovered by Smith in 1843 on an affluent of the Wady Belat. The ruins are of considerable importance; the tombs there are similar to the royal tombs at Jerusalem (Bib. Sacra, 1843, p. 484 ff. in von Raumer, p. 166). Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 141. Ritter, xvi. p. 562 ff. [Gages transl. 4:246 f.]. The place is not to be confounded with Timnath (Jos 19:43) Jos 15:10.

k. Jos 19:51. Conclusion. This general re mark in closing the narrative, directly refers, by the statement that the division was made in Shiloh, only to Jos 18:1, because there the majority of the tribes had received their portions.

Footnotes:

[1][Professor Plumtre (Dict. of the Bible, p. 3152) leads us rather to the Tabernacle of meeting (meeting-tent?) as the proper equivalent to the Hebrew designation, but with a deeper sense than would commonly be attached to the phrase. He well says: The primary force of is to meet by appointment, and the phrase has therefore the meaning of a place of or for a fixed meeting. The real meaning of the word is to be found in what may be called the locus classicus, as the interpretation of all words connected with the tabernacle, Exo 29:42-46. The same central thought occurs in Exo 25:22, there I will meet with thee (comp. also Exo 30:6; Exo 30:36; Num 17:4). It is clear therefore that congregation is, inadequate. Not the gathering of the worshippers only, but the meeting of God with his people, to commune with them, to make himself known to them, was what the name embodied. Ewald has accordingly suggested Offenbarungs zelt = Tent of Revelation, as the best equivalent (Alterthmer, p. 130). This made the tent a sanctuary. Thus it was that the tent was the dwelling, the house of God (Bhr, Symbolik, 1:81).Tr.]

[2][The author translates precisely with Gesenius, indeed here seems to be little difference in conception between these critics.Tr.]

[3][Robinson gives no original information concerning Joppa; see 3:31, note.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

The division of the land occupies the contents of this chapter. More are the lots of Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan. After the division to the several tribes is ended, Joshua hath an inheritance assigned him by Israel.

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

There is somewhat very interesting in the division of the lands of Canaan to the sons of Israel, both when considered as the fulfillment of the divine promises, and as typical of a better country, that is an heavenly. But, as the names from time have undergone so much change, it is attended with no small difficulty, to ascertain the places with certain precision. Enough, however, may be still traced, to bring us acquainted with the spots rendered more memorable, in the after ages of the church, by our dear Lord’s exercising his own personal ministry in those neighbourhoods. I would have the Reader, therefore, recollect that here it was the Lord Jesus appeared, when he tabernacled in substance of our flesh: and as such, the places are endeared to the true believer. Respecting Simeon’s lot, it is remarkable that Jacob’s prophecy was so literally fulfilled concerning him when he said, I will divide them in Jacob. For Simeon’s lot we find in those verses, was taken out of the lot of Judah. Gen 49:7 .

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 19:1 And the second lot came forth to Simeon, [even] for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah.

Ver. 1. Within the inheritance of the children of Judah. ] The reason whereof, see Jos 19:9 . And Judah yielded, as being rationis mancipium; – the wisdom from above is peaceable, gentle, and easy to be persuaded; – yea, Jam 3:17 Judah parted afterwards with another fleece also. Jos 19:40-41 Concedamus de nostro iure, ut careamus lite. a

a Augustine.

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

NASB (UPDATED TEXT): Jos 19:1-9

1Then the second lot fell to Simeon, to the tribe of the sons of Simeon according to their families, and their inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the sons of Judah. 2So they had as their inheritance Beersheba or Sheba and Moladah, 3and Hazar-shual and Balah and Ezem, 4and Eltolad and Bethul and Hormah, 5and Ziklag and Beth-marcaboth and Hazar-susah, 6and Beth-lebaoth and Sharuhen; thirteen cities with their villages; 7Ain, Rimmon and Ether and Ashan; four cities with their villages; 8and all the villages which were around these cities as far as Baalath-beer, Ramah of the Negev. This was the inheritance of the tribe of the sons of Simeon according to their families. 9The inheritance of the sons of Simeon was taken from the portion of the sons of Judah, for the share of the sons of Judah was too large for them; so the sons of Simeon received an inheritance in the midst of Judah’s inheritance.

Jos 19:1 Part of Judah’s land was given to Simeon. Simeon was incorporated early into Judah and lost its identity. It is not even listed in Moses’ blessings to the tribes in Deuteronomy 33.

Jos 19:2 Beersheba This means well of oath (BDB 92). It is one of the most southern cities. It was part of the idiomatic phrase, from Dan to Beersheba which described the Promised Land.

Sheba In Jos 15:26, it is called Shema which is the Hebrew word to hear so as to do (BDB 1035). It is the name of the famous creedal statement of Deu 6:4-5 (BDB 1033). The NKJV and the JPSOA translations think it was another way of referring to Beersheba or possibly a scribal error in writing the last of the previous city’s name twice. In Jos 19:6 it says 13 cities, but there are 14 names.

Jos 19:4 Bethul This city (man of God, BDB 143) is also in the allocation of Judah (cf. 1Sa 30:27; 1Ch 4:30, spelled Bethuel).

Jos 19:9 This verse explains why Simeon received part of Judah’s land inheritance and also that Judah was having trouble possessing its land.

Simeon’s allotted area was totally surrounded by Judah’s allotment. In time Simeon disappears as an individual tribe. They are not even listed in Moses’ blessings of Deuteronomy 33. In 1Ki 19:3 Beersheba (cf. Jos 19:2) is said to belong to Judah.

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

lot came forth. See note on Exo 28:30. Num 26:55.

children. Hebrew sons.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 19

As you get into the nineteenth chapter, the second lot came forth and it was for the tribe of Simeon. Simeon became the southern most tribe in Israel. The area down around Kadesh-Barnea and desert area, a vast desert area Beersheba, and up almost to Hebron. But that whole southern part was the lot that Simeon received.

Now if you were of the tribe of Simeon you may have thought that you got a bum deal because it’s pretty much desert and wilderness area down there. But there is one nice advantage; it’s sure nice in the wintertime. It’s sort of like Palm Springs in the wintertime. When we go over to Israel now, if we have a day, say, planned to tour through Jerusalem, we wake up in the morning and it’s cold and raining, we’ll head down to Beersheba, and we’ll take the tour through Beersheba, because it’s always so nice and beautiful and warm down there in the wintertime. So we sort of when we’re over there remain flexible according to the weather, we tour. When the days are nice in Jerusalem, then we tour Jerusalem. If the weather gets bad there, we can always know that we can go down to Beersheba and find great weather, because you only get a little more than an inch of rain in that area down there, we go to Masada and Beersheba and it makes a neat day of it, but it is pretty desolate, pretty barren. It was up until of course just recently in the redevelopment of the land, the Jews have channeled now the Jordan River and up above, or up at the area of the Galilee, and they have brought the Jordan River all the way down to this vast area. Now the thing is like the San Joaquin Valley or Imperial Valley. It’s really a tremendous farm area down there because of the irrigation now that they have developed through the water from the Sea of Galilee.

The third lot [in verse ten] came up for the children of Zebulun ( Jos 19:10 ):

And they received the area of the valley of Megiddo, and up in that area up there. So Zebulun was in that vast valley that goes from Haifa on back towards Mount Gilboa.

The fourth lot came up and it was for the tribe of Issachar, [in verse seventeen and they received the area south of the Sea of Galilee]. The fifth lot came out for the children of Asher [in verse twenty-four and they received that beautiful coastal area from Haifa on up to Sidon] ( Jos 19:17 , Jos 19:24 ).

So the area that includes Acco and that neat beautiful area along the Mediterranean there, extremely beautiful area.

In the thirty second verse,

The sixth lot came out for Naphtali, [and they received the area around the Sea of Galilee] ( Jos 19:32 ).

Really here’s one area I wouldn’t mind living at all. The Sea of Galilee is one of the most beautiful places, I love-I can understand why Jesus spent most of His ministry at the Sea of Galilee. It would-it’s almost equivalent to spending your ministry in Hawaii or something. It’s just a neat, beautiful area. Even to the present time it is not really highly developed. Boy, if you had a house there on the Sea of Galilee with a ski boat, oh would you ever have a fabulous set up. It’s just so beautiful. This was given to the tribe of Naphtali.

So there was always, of course, the farming on the hillside along the Sea of Galilee, good water supply, and just a beautiful place indeed. The weather is quite nice there, it does get warm in the summertime, but you are six hundred feet below sea level. So, in that pocket it stays pretty warm, but it is tremendously fertile land and great agricultural area.

The seventh lot came out for the tribe of Dan ( Jos 19:40 ).

In verse forty. Dan was given the area known as the Hula Valley, which is the upper Jordan before it gets to the Sea of Galilee. It is that valley with the Golan on the right, and the Lebanese mountains on the left, and they went clear on up to the Mount Hermon area. In fact, the city of Dan is just, oh, three miles from the base of Mount Hermon. You’re on the foothills there. The city of Dan again was just a fabulously beautiful city, because you had this beautiful river coming by. You’ve never seen anything in Hawaii that is any more beautiful than the sights around the Tel, what they called Tel-Dan or the ruins of the city of Dan over there. So the upper Jordan River area, the Hula Valley was given unto Dan.

Now verse forty-nine,

When they had made an end of dividing the land for the inheritance by their coasts, the children of Israel gave an inheritance unto Joshua: According to the word of the Lord they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnathserah in mount Ephraim: and he built the city, and dwelt there. And these are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, divided for an inheritance ( Jos 19:49-51 )

So they divided out the land and they finally gave a city to Joshua, inasmuch as he was the leader, in the area of mount Ephraim. Which means that it was in the area of the center part of the land, where the ancient city of Samaria or Shechem is and that general area is known as Mount Ephraim. An area that is beautiful with the many, many fruit trees, the terraced hillsides, and the fertile valleys right in the heart of the land and a beautiful place indeed.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

In this chapter we have the account of the distribution of the remainder of the land among the last six tribes- Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan.

Now that all had been provided, Joshua was given a special portion. Moreover, he was given what he asked.

The time and the nature of his choice are alike revelations of the character of the man. As to time, he did not ask for a possession until all had been supplied. He was content to wait, taking only when others had received. Then as to the nature of his choice. He asked for Timnathserah in the hill country of Ephraim. In doing so he chose a city which was hardly a city until it became his. It will be remembered that when Ephraim had complained, Joshua had charged them to go to the mountains and possess their possessions. Now when his opportunity came, he proved that he was prepared to act for himself on the advice he had given. To that very hill country he went, and there is a splended ring of resoluteness in his character in the statement, “He built the city, and dwelt therein.”

Thus the conquered country was now divided, and the division was made under the superintendence of Eleazar the priest, Joshua the leader, and the heads of the tribes of the nation. All this, moreover, was done at the door of the Tent of Meeting and in recognition of those great principles of religious life which lay at the heart of the national life.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

CHAPTER 19

1. The inheritance of Simeon (Jos 19:1-9)

2. The inheritance of Zebulun (Jos 19:10-16)

3. The inheritance of Issachar (Jos 19:17-23)

4. The inheritance of Asher (Jos 19:24-31)

5. The inheritance of Naphtali (Jos 19:32-39)

6. The inheritance of Dan (Jos 19:40-48)

7. The inheritance of Joshua (Jos 19:49-51)

The many names of cities and villages, the inheritance of the remaining six tribes, we must leave untouched. Blessed and deep spiritual lessons are written in all these names. Simeons inheritance is closely connected with that of Judah. Their inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Judah. Simeon means hearing and Judah means praise. Thus the two are linked together. If our hearts are open to hear and our faith appropriates we praise and worship and enjoy our God-given inheritance in the Lord Jesus Christ. And the different cities have a blessed meaning. Diligent and prayerful searching will discover the hidden treasures which faith prizes more than gold, and which are sweeter than honey. Let us glance briefly at Asher to give a little illustration of this. Asher means happy, commonly translated by blessed (Psa 1:1; Psa 32:1; Psa 119:1).

The Lords people must be a happy people. Moses had pronounced them so (Deu 33:29). A few of the cities and boundaries of Asher and their meaning will show in what the happiness of Gods people consists. Helkath means portion; the Lord Himself is the portion of His people. He is our joy and happiness. Hali means an ornament worked out with pain. We possess that which Christ has worked out for us in His death. Ahamelech means God is King. This is a sweet morsel to faith. Amad, an eternal people, speaks of our security, that we belong to God and nothing can separate us from Him. Misheal, feeling after God, tells of the longing of the new nature, which finds happiness in God. Hammon, sunny; Kanah, He has purchased; Zidon, taking the prey; Hosah, trust; Ummah, union; Aphek, strength-these and others are easily seen as giving spiritual lessons on the happiness of the people of God who enjoy in faith the inheritance.

After all had received their portions Joshua received his. It was Timnath-serah, which means an abundant portion. The portion of Joshua is the blessed type of the inheritance, which the Lord Jesus Christ has received. We must not overlook the fact that the children of Israel gave Joshua the inheritance. Christ is our inheritance and we are His inheritance. He has an inheritance in the saints (Eph 1:18). May we give Him that inheritance.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

second lot: Jos 18:6-11

within the: Jos 19:9, Gen 49:5-7

Reciprocal: Gen 15:18 – Unto thy Gen 49:7 – I will divide Num 26:55 – by lot Num 33:54 – give the less inheritance Num 34:17 – are the names Jos 10:40 – all the country Jos 18:5 – Judah shall Jdg 1:3 – Simeon Eze 48:24 – Simeon Rev 7:7 – Simeon

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

The division of the land that followed the survey is found in Jos 18:11-28 ; Jos 19:1-48 . The distribution was made by Joshua, Eleazar the priest and the heads of the tribes in Shiloh. Note Jebus, which was later named Jerusalem, was one of the cities given to Benjamin. Some see this as a fulfillment of the prophecy made by Moses in Deu 33:12 . In any case, the temple was erected in a city within the area alotted to Benjamin.

After all of the tribes had received their inheritance, Joshua received his ( Jos 19:49-50 ). It appears he, like Caleb, had been promised certain land as a reward for his faithfulness when they reported the things they had seen when spying out the land. He was given the city of Timnath Serah in the mountains of Ephraim, which was his tribe ( Num 13:8 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Jos 19:1. The second lot came forth to Simeon God disposed it so by an especial providence, Simeon being the eldest son of Jacob that was unprovided for. Their inheritance was within the inheritance of Judah This also was ordered by Gods providence, partly to fulfil that threatening that he would divide and scatter this tribe in Israel, (Gen 49:7,) which was hereby done in part, because they had no distinct lot, but were as inmates to Judah; partly because now, upon the more exact survey of the land, it appeared that the part given to Judah did far exceed the proportion which they needed, or which the other tribes could expect. And this was the least of the tribes, (Num 26:14,) and therefore fittest to be put within another tribe.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Jos 19:12. Chisloth-tabor, a town at the foot of mount Tabor; as on Hos 5:1.

Jos 19:29. The strong city of Tyre. Hebrews sor, or rock. See note on Isa 23:1.

Jos 19:35. The fenced citiesHammath, a small city, where hot springs rose, and near Rakkath, so as afterwards to become one city. Herod rebuilt Rakkath, and called it Tiberias, in honour of Tiberias Csar.Hazor, Jos 11:1. This city was situate near the north-east point of the lake of Mezom or Semechon. The Canaanites recovered this city, and grievously oppressed the Israelites for twenty years. Judges 4.

Jos 19:49. Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua. Joshua sought the peoples good, but left himself and his house without any lot. He coveted no inviting abode: none among the murmurers could murmur against the servant of the Lord. Happy Israel, to have a first magistrate so pure and disinterested. He left his family undistinguished in the fluctuating dust of the present world: he was by grace more than a Cincinntus.

REFLECTIONS.

The lot of Simeon fell out intermixed with the lot of Judah on its western border. Thus the curse of their father Jacob fell on them for the massacre of the Shechemites. I will divide them in Jacob, and will scatter them in Israel. It is a long time before wicked men have done with the consequences of their crimes. God may forgive on repentance; but the effects of sin remain as a sort of immortal brand to awe the world.

Zebuluns lot turned up on the sea coast; for Jacob had said, Zebulun shall be a haven of ships. These districts were included in Galilee, where our Saviour was the most successful in the work of his ministry.

Issachar, strong and peaceful as the ass, had a pleasant rest. His line, reaching from the Jordan to the western sea, included Shunem, where Elisha lodged; Gilboa, where Saul and Jonathan fell; and Jezreel, where Ahabs palace stood. Judah, Joseph, Benjamin, Reuben, Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, and the most of Levi having received their lot, we cannot but mark the divine hand of providence in causing the sons of Jacobs lawful wives, to inherit before the sons of the dotal maids. Surely this is an argument that the covenant blessings of heaven give a pointed preference to the children born in honourable marriage.

Ashers lot was happy in agricultural abundance; but little remarkable is said of him; except that Anna, the prophetess, who entered the temple when our Saviour was presented, was born of this tribe.

Naphtali had the northern lot; his bounds were not exactly fixed; in that view he was a hind let loose.

Dans lot fell out in Philistia, and he was not able to conquer many of the towns repossessed by the heathen. Therefore part of this lot being wrested from him, and the best part too, Jdg 1:34, he sent out after Joshuas death an armed colony to the north, as far as Leshem, at the foot of mount Lebanon, and called it Dan, after the name of his father. Hence came the phrase, from Dan to Beersheba, the one city being in the north, and the other in the south.

Lastly, we are struck with the disinterestedness of Joshua: like Moses, he sought nothing for himself. He amply rewarded Caleb, as the Lord had promised, and he equally rewarded Machir; but he overlooked himself to the last, and accepted a small gift in his own tribe on the side of a hill, whose town was destroyed. This town he was obliged to rebuild, and in great peace and quiet he spent the remains of life, making no higher figure in Israel than any other head of a great family. In this he was the more strikingly a figure of Jesus Christ, who made the people his portion, and Jacob the lot of his inheritance.

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

Jos 19:6. Sharuhen is interesting as the city to which the Hyksos (pp. 52, 54) or Semitic Shepherd Kings fled when they were driven out of Egypt, and where they are said to have been besieged for six years (Driver, Exodus, p. xliii).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

SIMEON WITHIN JUDAH’S BOUNDARIES

(vs.1-9)

Because Judah’s inheritance was so large, Simeon was given a possession within Judah’s borders. Simeon means “hearkening,” for the one whose habit is to listen to God will certainly praise Him, thus having title to an inheritance within Judah (“praise”). No separating borders are mentioned for Simeon, and God has definite reason for this, but a number of cities with their surrounding villages are listed as belonging to Simeon. Certainly all of these also have spiritual significance which will yield blessing for those who are concerned and enabled to search it out.

ZEBULON’S INHERITANCE

(vs.10-16)

Zebulon means “dwelling.” So that in Israel this implied a permanent abode in the presence of God, a good reminder for us today, for “he who abides (or dwells) in love abides in God, and God in him (1Jn 4:16). The boundaries of Zebulon are not as clearly defined as natural thought would expect, but this itself indicates a spiritual lesson needful for us. Dwelling with God does not need definition, but spiritual enjoyment and exercise. God’s presence is certainly a place of greatest joy for the believer, but also of serious concern that He should be honored in every detail of our conduct.

The area of Zebulon’s possession was north of Manasseh. Twelve cities and their villages are noted as belonging to Zebulon (v.15), a picture of his representing all 12 tribes in the virtuous character of dwelling with God.

ISSACHAR’S POSSESSION

(vs.17-31)

Issachar means “there is reward.” Believers at the judgment seat of Christ will receive reward for what they have done for the Lord (2Co 5:10), so that this tribe appears to emphasize what outward works should be, not simply our inward character. Again, its borders are not clearly defined, as though indicating we should not limit our good works, which are to be exercised toward all mankind, specially those of the household of faith (Gal 6:10). The east border, however, was the Jordan River (v.22), a reminder that death will be the end of any opportunity to earn reward for good work done.

THE INHERITANCE OF ASHER

(vs.24-31)

Asher means “happy,” which surely implies that in our present inheritance “in heavenly places in Christ” we have every reason for rejoicing, so that this is another lovely feature of Christian character as illustrated by the tribes of Israel. Paul tells us in Php 4:4, “Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, Rejoice.” Not that joy is to be an object, for it is “in the Lord,” thus plainly making the Lord the Object, but joy will be the spontaneous result of contemplating Him.

NAPHTALI’S TERRITORY

(vs.32-39)

Naphtali means “my wrestlings,” so that this adds the lesson of overcoming in conflict. In this matter too Naphtali represents all Israel, for in one very real respect every true believer is an overcomer. “Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1Jn 5:5). The victory that overcomes the world is not our works, but our faith (1Jn 5:4). All Israel were overcomers in their overcoming in general the enemies of the land, though in practice they were not by any means always overcomers. Thus believers are all overcomers in principle, and ought to be also in daily practice, for we should be concerned about details as well as overcoming in general.

Naphtali was north of Zebulon and east of Asher (v.34), so that its territory was in the far north of the land, as was Asher, including a number of fortified cities.

DAN’S INHERITANCE

Dan’s name means “judge.” This reminds us that “the saints will judge the world” and will judge even “angels” (1Co 6:2-3). We shall do this as identified with Christ when He takes His great authority. Paul uses this to press upon the Corinthians their responsibility of judging grievances in their assembly rather than allowing such matters to be taken before the courts of the world. Yet also, if we are to ever judge others, we must first learn to judge ourselves, as the Lord Jesus insists in Mat 7:5 : “First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Let us consider seriously that, before we shall have part with the Lord Jesus in judging the world, we shall first be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ (2Co 5:10). Only in having rightly judged ourselves will we be in any proper condition to judge the world.

The inheritance of Dan was near to the sea-coast, west of Ephraim and Benjamin, and north of Judah. But later, in Jdg 18:1 we learn that Dan had not possessed what he was entitled to, so that, after sending spies to the north of the land, who found the Sidonians living in peace without fortifications or armaments, six hundred men from Dan journeyed there and attacked the inhabitants, killing them and burning their city Laish (Jdg 18:27-29), then rebuilding the city for themselves, calling it Dan. Thus the tribe of Dan is thereafter referred to as at the extreme north of the land. Laish is the same as Leshem, noted in verse 47, this verse referring to the conquest of Jdg 18:1-31. Though the area described in verses 41-46 was Dan’s proper inheritance, it seems that they retained little possession of this.

Though Dan’s place among the tribes as referring to judgment is an honourable one, yet his after history was contrary to the truth of his position. Dan was the first to introduce idolatry publicly in their tribe (Jdg 18:30-31). How solemnly this teaches us that, when we are privileged to be in the place of judging for God, we may so assume such authority for ourselves that it amounts to idolatry!

JOSHUA’S INHERITANCE

(vs.49-51)

All the tribes having been given their territory, now we read of that which was given to Joshua. His name is the same as Jesus (in Greek), meaning “Jehovah is Savior,” so that Joshua is a type of Christ as the Leader and Completer of faith. “If others have their particular possessions, how appropriate that Christ should have Timnath Serah, which means “an abundant portion.” This surely causes believing hearts to rejoice, that the One who is supremely worthy receives that which delights His great heart of love. It is His voice we hear in Psa 16:6, “The lines have fallen unto Me in pleasant places; yes, I have a good inheritance.” In Eph 1:18 Paul expresses in prayer his desire that believers might “know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints” etc. Those who are redeemed by His blood and their hearts purified by faith, form His inheritance, which is so valuable and glorious to Him.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

19:1 And the second lot came forth to Simeon, [even] for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance was {a} within the inheritance of the children of Judah.

(a) According to Jacob’s prophecy that he would be scattered among the other tribes.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The inheritance of Simeon 19:1-9

Simeon’s lot fell within the southern portion of the inheritance of Judah because Judah’s portion proved too large for that tribe (Jos 19:9). Simeon received certain towns within Judah’s territory. In this way God fulfilled Jacob’s prediction, at least initially, that Simeon would experience dispersion (Gen 49:5-7).

The Simeonites received two groups of towns (Jos 19:2-8). The first group consisted of 13 towns in the Negev (Jos 19:2-6). The second included four towns, two in the Negev and two in the Shephelah (Jos 19:7). The names of all these towns also occur in Judah’s list (Jos 15:26-32; Jos 15:42).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

CHAPTER XXVI.

THE DISTRIBUTION COMPLETED.

Joshua Chs. 18, 19.

AN event of great importance now occurs; the civil arrangements of the country are in a measure provided for, and it is time to set in order the ecclesiastical establishment. First, a place has to be found as the centre of the religious life; next, the tabernacle has to be erected at that place – and this is to be done in the presence of all the congregation. It is well that a godly man like Joshua is at the head of the nation; a less earnest servant of God might have left this great work unheeded. How often, in the emigrations of men, drawn far from their native land in search of a new home, have arrangements for Divine service been forgotten! In such cases the degeneracy into rough manners, uncouth ways of life, perhaps into profanity, debauchery, and lawlessness, has usually been awfully rapid. On the other hand, when the rule of the old puritan has been followed, “Wherever I have a house, there God shall have an altar”; when the modest spire of the wooden church in the prairie indicates that regard has been had to the gospel precept – “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you,” – a touch of heaven is imparted to the rude and primitive settlement; we may believe that the spirit of Christ is not unknown; the angels of virtue and piety are surely hovering around it.

The narrative is very brief, and no reason is given why Shiloh was selected as the religious centre of the nation. We should have thought that the preference would be given to Shechem, a few miles north, in the neighbourhood of Ebal and Gerizim, which had already been consecrated in a sense to God. That Shiloh was chosen by Divine direction we can hardly doubt, although there may have been reasons of various kinds that commended it to Joshua. Josephus says it was selected for the beauty of the situation; but if the present Seilun denotes its position, as is generally believed, there is not much to corroborate the assertion of Josephus. Its locality is carefully defined in the Book of Judges (Jdg 21:19), – “on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah.” As for its appearance. Dean Stanley says, “Shiloh is so utterly featureless that had it not been for the preservation of its name, Seilun, and for the extreme precision with which its situation is described in the Book of Judges, the spot could never have been identified; and, indeed, from the time of Jerome till the year 1838 [when Robinson identified it], its real site was completely forgotten.” Robinson does not think so poorly of it as Stanley, describing it as “surrounded by hills, and looking out into a beautiful oval basin” (”Biblical Researches,” 2:268).

From the days of Joshua, all through the period of the Judges, and on to the last days of Eli the high priest, Shiloh continued to be the abode of the tabernacle, and the great national sanctuary of Israel. Situated about half-way between Bethel and Shechem, in the tribe of Ephraim, it was close to the centre of the country, and, moreover, not difficult of access for the eastern tribes. Here for many generations the annual assemblies of the nation took place. Here came Hannah from her home in Mount Ephraim to pray for a son; and here little Samuel, ”lent to the Lord,” spent his beautiful childhood. Through that opening in the mountains, old Eli saw the ark carried by the rash hands of his sons into the battle with the Philistines, and there he sat on his stool watching for the messenger that was to bring tidings of the battle. After the ark was taken by the Philistines, the city that had grown up around the tabernacle appears to have been taken and sacked and the inhabitants massacred (Psa 78:60-64). We hear of it in later history as the abode of Ahijah the prophet (1Ki 11:29); afterwards it sinks into obscurity. It is to be noted that its name occurs nowhere among the towns of the Canaanites; it is likely that it was a new place, founded by Joshua, and that it derived its name, Shiloh, “rest,” from the sacred purpose to which it was now devoted.

Here, then, assembled the whole congregation of the children of Israel, to set up the tabernacle, probably with some such rites as David performed when it was transferred from the house of Obed-Edom to Mount Zion. Hitherto it had remained at Gilgal, the headquarters and depot of the nation. The “whole congregation” that now assembled does not necessarily mean the whole community, but only selected representatives, not only of the part that had been engaged in warfare, but also of the rest of the nation.

If we try to form a picture of the state of Israel while Joshua was carrying on his warlike campaigns, it will appear that his army being but a part of the whole, the rest of the people were occupied in a somewhat random manner, here and there, in providing food for the community, in sowing and reaping the fields, pasturing their flocks, and gathering in the fruits. And from the tone of Joshua it would appear that many of them were content to lead this somewhat irregular life. In a somewhat sharp and reproachful tone he says to them, “How long are ye slack to go to possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers has given you?” One of Joshua’s great difficulties was to organize the vast mass of people over whom he presided, to prevent them from falling into careless, slatternly ways, and to keep them up to the mark of absolute regularity and order. Many of them would have been content to jog on carelessly as they had been doing in the desert, in a sort of confused jumble, and to forage about, here and there, as the case might be, in pursuit of the necessaries of life. Their listlessness was provoking. They knew that the Divine plan was quite different, that each tribe was to have a territory of its own, and that measures ought to be taken at once to settle the boundaries of each tribe. But they were taking no steps for this purpose; they were content with social hugger-mugger.

Joshua is old, but his impatience with laziness and irregularity still gives sharpness to his remonstrance, “How long are ye slack to possess the land?” The ring of authority is still in his voice; it still commands obedience. More than that, the organizing faculty is still active – the faculty that decides how a thing is to be done. “Give out from among you three men for each tribe; and I will send them, and they shall rise and go through the land and describe it according to the inheritance of them.”

The men are chosen, three from each of the seven tribes that are not yet settled; and they go through and make a survey of the land. Judah and Joseph are not to be disturbed in the settlements that have already been given to them; but the men are to divide the rest of the country into seven parts, and thereafter it is to be determined by lot to which tribe each part shall belong. It would appear that special note was to be taken of the cities, for when the surveyors returned and gave in their report they “described the land by cities into seven parts in a book.” Each city had a certain portion of land connected with it, and the land always went with the city. The art of writing was sufficiently practised to enable them to compose what has been called the “Domesday Book” of Canaan, and the record being in writing was a great safeguard against the disputes that might have arisen had so large a report consisted of mere oral statement. When the seven portions had been balloted for, there was no excuse for any of the tribes clinging any longer to that nomad life, for which, while in the wilderness, they seem to have acquired a real love.

And now we come to the actual division. The most interesting of the tribes yet unsupplied was Benjamin, and the region that fell to him was interesting too. It may be remarked as an unusual arrangement, that when portions were allotted to Judah and to Ephraim, a space was allowed to remain between them, so that the northern border of Judah was at some distance from the southern border of Ephraim. As Judah and Ephraim were the two leading tribes, and in some respects rivals, the benefit of this intervening space between them is apparent. But for this, whenever their relations became strained, hostilities might have taken place.

Now it was this intervening space that constituted the inheritance of the tribe of Benjamin. For the most part it consisted of deep ravines running from west to east, from the central table-land down to the valley of the Jordan, with mountains between. Many of its cities were perched high in the mountains, as is shown by the commonness of the names Gibeon, Gibeah, Geba, or Gaba, all of which signify “hill “; while Ramah is a ”high place,” and Mizpeh a ”tower.” In the wilderness, Benjamin had marched along with Ephraim and Manasseh, all the descendants of Joseph forming a united company; and after the settlement Benjamin naturally inclined towards fellowship with these tribes. But, as events went on, he came more into fellowship with the tribe of Judah, and though Saul, Shimei, and Sheba, the bitterest enemies of the house of David, were all Benjamites, yet, when the separation of the two kingdoms took place under Rehoboam, Benjamin took the side of Judah (1Ki 12:21). On the return from the captivity it was the tribes of Judah and Benjamin that took the lead (Ezr 1:5), and throughout the Book of Ezra the returned patriots are usually spoken of as “the men of Judah and Benjamin.”

The cities of Benjamin included several of the most famous. Among them was Jericho, the rebuilding of which as a fortified place had been forbidden, but which was still in some degree inhabited; Bethel, which was already very famous in the history, but which, after the separation of the kingdoms, was taken possession of by Jeroboam, and made the shrine of his calves; Gibeon, the capital of the Gibeonites, and afterwards a shrine frequented by Solomon (1Ki 3:5); Ramah, afterwards the dwelling-place of Samuel (1Sa 7:17); Mizpeh, one of the three places where he judged Israel (1Sa 7:16); Gibeath, or Gibeah, where Saul had his palace (1Sa 10:26); and last, not least, Jerusalem. As to Jerusalem, some have thought that it lay partly in the territory of Judah, and partly in that of Benjamin. When certain terms in the description of the boundaries are studied there are difficulties that might suggest this solution. But we have seen that in practice there was a considerable amount of giving and taking among the tribes with reference to particular cities, and that sometimes a city, locally within one tribe, belonged to the people of another. So it was with Jerusalem; locally within the inheritance of Benjamin, it was practically occupied by the men of Judah (see Jos 15:63).

Benjamin was counted the least of the tribes (1Sa 9:21), and when, with other tribes, it was represented by its chief magistrate, it was rather disparagingly distinguished as “little Benjamin with their ruler” (Psa 68:27). Yet it was strong enough, on one occasion, to set at defiance for a time the combined forces of the other tribes (Jdg 20:12, etc.). It was distinguished for the singular skill of its slingers; seven hundred, who were left-handed, “could everyone sling stones at an hair-breadth and not miss” (Jdg 20:16). The character of its territory, abounding in rocky mountains, and probably in game, for the capture of which the sling was adapted, might, in some degree, account for this peculiarity.

Many famous battles were fought on the soil of Benjamin. The battle of Ai; that of Gibeon, followed by the pursuit through Bethhoron, both under Joshua; Jonathan’s battle with the Philistines at Michmash (1Sa 14:1-52); and the duel at Gibeon between twelve men of Saul and twelve of David (2Sa 2:15-16); were all fought within the territory of Benjamin. And when Sennacherib approached Jerusalem from the north, the places which were thrown into panic as he came near were in this tribe. “He is come to Aiath, he is passed through Migron; at Michmash he layeth up his baggage: they are gone over the pass; they have taken up their lodging at Geba: Raniah trembleth; Gibeah of Saul is fled. Cry aloud with thy voice, O daughter of Gallim! hearken, O Laishah! O thou poor Anathoth! Madmenah is a fugitive; the inhabitants of Gebim gather themselves to flee. This very day shall he halt at Nob: he shaketh his hand at the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem” (Isa 10:28-32, R.V.). In later times Judas Maccabeus gained a victory over the Syrian forces at Bethhoron; and, again, Cestius and his Roman troops were defeated by the Jews; and, once more, centuries later, Richard Coeur de Lion and the flower of English chivalry, when they pushed up through Bethhoron in the hope of reaching Jerusalem, were compelled to retire.

Even down to New Testament times, as Dean Stanley remarks, the influence of Benjamin remained, for the name of Saul, the king whom Benjamin gave to the nation, was preserved in Hebrew families; and when a far greater of that name appeals to his descent, or to the past history of his nation, a glow of satisfaction is visible in the marked emphasis with which he alludes to “the stock of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin” (Php 3:5), and to God’s gift of “Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin” (Act 13:21).

There is little to be said of Simeon, the second of the seven that drew his lot. It is admitted that his portion was taken out of the first allotment to Judah (Jos 19:9), which was found to be larger than that tribe required, and many of his cities are contained in Judah’s list. One act of valour is recorded of Simeon in the first chapter of Judges; after the first settlement, he responded to the appeal of Judah and accompanied him against the Canaanites. But the history of this tribe as a whole might be written in the words of Jacob’s prophecy – ”I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.” There is no historical reason for the supposition of Wellhausen that Simeon and Levi were all but annihilated on occasion of their attack on the Canaanites. If Simeon had been virtually extinguished, it would not have had a territory assigned to it in the ideal division of the country by Ezekiel (Eze 48:24), nor would it have afforded the twelve thousand of the “sealed” in the symbolical vision of St. John (Rev 7:7). While the tribe was scattered, the name of its founder survived, and both as Simeon and Simon it was crowned with honour. It was the name of one of the family of Maccabean patriots; it was borne by the just and devout man that waited in the temple for the consolation of Israel; and it was the Hebrew name of the great Apostle whose honour it was to lay the foundation of the Christian Church.

Next came the tribe of Zebulun, the boundaries of which are given with much precision; but as most of the names are now unknown, and there are also appearances of imperfection in the text, the delineation cannot be followed, “The brook that is before Jokneam” is supposed to be the Kishon, and Chisloth-Tabor, or the flanks of Tabor, points to the mountain which is the traditional, though probably not the real scene of our Lord’s transfiguration. Gittah-hepher, or Gath-hepher, was the birthplace of the prophet Jonah. Bethlehem, now Beit-Lahm, is a miserable village, not to be confounded with the Bethlehem of Judah. As no mention is made either of the sea or the lake of Galilee as a boundary, it is probable that Zebulun was wholly an inland tribe. Strange to say, there is no mention, either here or in any part of the Old Testament, of by far the most famous place in the tribe, – Nazareth, the early residence of our Lord. Yet its situation would indicate that it must have been a very ancient place. Nor is it likely to have escaped the notice of the surveyors when they went through the land. The omission of this name has given rise to the opinion that the list is incomplete.

Issachar occupied an interesting and important site. Jezreel, the first name in the definition of its boundaries, is also the most famous. Jezreel, now represented by Zerin, was situated on a lofty height, and gave name to the whole valley around. Here Ahab had his palace in the days of Elijah. By its association with the worship of Baal, Jezreel got a bad reputation, and in the prophet Hosea degenerate Israel is called Jezreel, a name somewhat similar, but with very different associations (Jos 1:4). Shunem was the place of encampment of the Philistine army before the battle of Gilboa, and also the residence of the woman whose son Elisha restored to life. Bethshemesh must not be confounded with the town of the same name in Judah, nor with that in the tribe of Naphtali. Signifying “house of the sun,” it was a very common name among the Canaanites, as being noted for the worship of the heavenly bodies. As we have already remarked in connection with Megiddo which belonged to Manasseh, the valley of Jezreel, now usually called the plain of Esdraelon, was noted as the great battle-field of Palestine.

Asher also had an interesting territory. Theoretically it extended from Carmel to Sidon, embracing the whole of the Phoenician strip; but practically it did not reach so far. Naphtali was adjacent to Asher, and had the Jordan and the lakes of Merom and Galilee for its eastern boundary. It is in the New Testament that Naphtali enjoys its greatest distinction, the lake of Galilee and the towns on its banks, so conspicuous in the gospel history, having been situated there.

These northern tribes, as is well known, constituted the district of Galilee. The contrast between its early insignificance and its later glory is well brought out in the Revised Version of Isa 9:1-2 – “But there shall be no gloom to her that was in anguish. In the former time He brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time hath He made it glorious, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”

Dan was the last tribe whose lot was drawn. And it really seemed as if the least desirable of all the portions fell to him. He was hemmed in between Judah on the one hand and the Philistines on the other, and the Philistines were anything but comfortable neighbours. The best part of the level land was no doubt in their hands, and Dan was limited to what lay at the base of the mountains (see Jdg 1:34-35). Very early, therefore, in the history, a colony of Dan went out in search of further possessions, and, having dispossessed some Sidonians at Laish in the extreme north, gave their name to that city, which proverbially denoted the most northerly city in the country, as Beersheba, in like manner, denoted the most southerly.

The division of the country was now completed, save that one individual was still unprovided for. And that was Joshua himself. As in a shipwreck, the captain is the last to leave the doomed vessel, so here the leader of the nation was the last to receive a portion. With rare self-denial he waited till every one else was provided for. Here we have a glimpse of his noble spirit. That there would be much grumbling over the division of the country, he no doubt counted inevitable, and that the people would be disposed to come with their complaints to him followed as matter of course. See how he circumvents them! Whoever might be disposed to go to him complaining of his lot, knew the ready answer he would get – you are not worse off than I am, for as yet I have got none! Joshua was content to see the fairest inheritances disposed of to others, while as yet none had been allotted to him. When, last of all, his turn did come, his request was a modest one – “They gave him the city that he asked, even Timnath-serah in the hill country of Ephraim.” He might have asked for an inheritance in the fertile and beautiful vale of Shechem, consecrated by one of the earliest promises to Abraham, near to Jacob’s well and his ancestor Joseph’s tomb, or under shadow of the two mountains, Ebal and Gerizim, where so solemn a transaction had taken place after his people entered the land. He asks for nothing of the kind, but for a spot on one of the highland hills of Ephraim, a place so obscure that no trace of it remains. It is described in Jdg 2:9 as “Timnath-heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Gaash.” The north side of the mountain does not indicate a spot remarkable either for amenity or fertility. In the days of Jerome, his friend Paula is said to have expressed surprise that the distributer of the whole country reserved so wild and mountainous a district for himself.

Could it have been that it was a farm rejected by every one else? that the head of the nation was content with what no one else would have? If it was so, how must this have exalted Joshua in the eyes of his countrymen, and how well fitted it is to exalt him in ours! Whether it was a portion that every one else had despised or not, it undoubtedly was comparatively a poor and far-off inheritance. His choice of it was a splendid rebuke to the grumbling of his tribe, to the pride and selfishness of the “great people” who would not be content with a single lot, and wished an additional one to be assigned to them. “Up with you to the mountain” was Joshua’s spirited reply; “cut down the wood, and drive out the Canaanites!”

And Joshua was not the man to give a prescription to others that he was not prepared to take to himself. Up to the mountain he certainly did go; and as he was now too old to fight, he quite probably spent his last years in clearing his lot, cutting down timber, and laboriously preparing the soil for crops. In any case, he set a splendid example of disinterested humility. He showed himself the worthy successor of Moses, who had never hinted at any distinction for his family or any possession in the country beyond what might be given to an ordinary Levite. How nobly both contrasted with men like Napoleon, who used his influence so greedily for the enrichment and aggrandisement of every member of his family! Joshua came very near to the spirit of our blessed Lord, who “though He was in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, made Himself of no reputation, and took on Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man.” As we see the Old Testament Jesus retiring in His old age, not to a paradise in some fertile and flowery vale, but to a bleak and rocky farm on the north side of the mountain of Gaash, or to a shaggy forest, still held by the wolf and the bear, we are reminded of the Joshua of the New Testament: “Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary