JOSHUA 16 COMME TARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE

Allotment for Ephraim and Manasseh

1 The allotment for Joseph began at the Jordan, east of the springs of Jericho, and went up from there through the desert into the hill country of Bethel.

BAR ES, "To the wilderness - Strike out “to,” for the word is in apposition to “lot.” The wilderness is Jos_18:12 “the wilderness of Bethaven.”

CLARKE,"The children of Joseph - Ephraim and Manasseh, and their descendants. The limits of the tribe of Ephraim extended along the borders of Benjamin and Dan, from Jordan on the east to the Mediterranean on the west.

GILL, "And the lot of the children of Joseph fell,.... Or, "went out" (a); of the pot or urn, this being the next lot that was drawn to that of Judah, the government being Judah's, and the birthright Joseph's, 1Ch_5:2; and by his children are here meant the tribe of Ephraim, and the tribe of Manasseh: or the line and border according to the lot went forth

from Jordan by Jericho unto the water of Jericho on the east; by which it appears, that this was the southern border of the lot; for the tribe of Benjamin, in which Jericho was, lay between Judah and Ephraim, and the border began at Jordan, where it flowed near Jericho, and proceeded to a water which belonged to that city, and is generally thought to be the waters Elisha healed, 2Ki_2:19,

to the wilderness that goeth up throughout Mount Bethel; this was the wilderness of Bethaven, Jos_18:12; Jarchi interprets it of the border that went up through Mount Bethel; which is true, and so might the wilderness also, for which the Targum is express; mention is made of a mountain on the east of Bethel, Gen_12:8.

HE RY 1-4, "Though Joseph was one of the younger sons of Jacob, yet he was his eldest by his most just and best beloved wife Rachel, was himself his best beloved son,and had been the greatest ornament and support of his family, kept it from perishing in a time of famine, and had been the shepherd and stone of Israel, and therefore his posterity were very much favoured by the lot. Their portion lay in the very heart of the land of Canaan. It extended from Jordan in the east (Jos_16:1) to the sea, the Mediterranean Sea, in the west, so that it took up the whole breadth of Canaan from side to side; and no question the fruitfulness of the soil answered the blessings both of Jacob and Moses, Gen_49:25, Gen_49:26, and Deu_33:13, etc. The portions allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh are not so particularly described as those of the other tribes; we have only the limits and boundaries of them, not the particular cities in them, as before we had the cities of Judah and afterwards those of the other tribes. For this no reason can be assigned, unless we may suppose that Joshua being himself of the children of Joseph they referred it to him alone to distribute among them the several cities that lay within their lot, and therefore did not bring in the names of their cities to the great council of their princes who sat upon this affair, by which means it came to pass that they were not inserted with the rest in the books.

JAMISO ,"Jos_16:1-4. The general borders of the sons of Joseph.

the lot of the children of Joseph fell—Hebrew, “went forth,” referring either to the lot as drawn out of the urn, or to the tract of land thereby assigned. The first four verses describe the territory allotted to the family of Joseph in the rich domains of central Palestine. It was drawn in one lot, that the brethren might be contiguously situated; but it was afterwards divided. The southern boundary only is described here; that on the north being irregular and less defined (Jos_17:10, Jos_17:11), is not mentioned.

water of Jericho— (2Ki_2:19), at the joint of its junction with the Jordan.

mount Beth-el— the ridge south of Beth-el. Having described the position of Joseph’s family generally the historian proceeds to define the territory; first, that of Ephraim.

K&D 1-4, "Territory of the tribe of Joseph. - Jos_16:1. “And there came out the lot of the children of Joseph from Jordan by Jericho.” “The lot came out,” viz., from the turn (cf. Jos_19:1, Jos_19:17, Jos_19:24). The expression “came up” is used in the same sense in Jos_18:11. The connection of these two words with the rest of the sentence, “from Jordan by Jericho,” may be explained on the supposition that the lot which came out of the urn determined the inheritance that fell to the tribe, so that we might paraphrase the verse in this manner: “There came out the lot to the children of Joseph, namely, the inheritance, which goes out from, or whose boundary commences at, the Jordan by Jericho,” i.e., from that part of the Jordan which is opposite to Jericho, and which is still more precisely defined by the additional clause, “by the water of Jericho eastward.” The water of Jericho is the present fountain of es Sultan, half an hour to the north-west of Riha, the only large fountain in the neighbourhood of Jericho, whose waters spread over the plain, and form a small brook, which no doubt flows in the rainy season through the Wady Kelt into the Jordan (see Rob. ii. pp. 283-4; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 558-9). “The wilderness” is in opposition to “the lot,” so that the sense is, “namely, the desert going up from Jericho to the mountains to Bethel.” According to Jos_18:12, the

reference is to the desert of Beth-aven, which was on the east of Bethel, between the Wady Suwar (Tuwar) and Mutyah (see at Jos_7:2). Towards the east this desert terminates with the Jebel Kuruntul (Quarantana) on the north-west of Jericho, where it descends precipitously into the valley of the Jordan, or v. v., where it rises out of the Jordan valley. According to Jos_18:12, the same boundary went up by the shoulder of Jericho towards the north, i.e., along the northern range of mountains by Jericho, which cannot be any other than the “conspicuous double height, or rather group of heights,” in front of the mountain of Quarantana, at the eastern foot of which lies the fountain of Ain es Sultan (Rob. ii. p. 284). In all probability, therefore, the boundary ran up towards the north-west, from the Sultan fountain to Ain Duk, and thence in a westerly direction across to Abu Seba (along which road Robinson had a frightful desert on his right hand: Pal. ii. p. 310), and then again towards the north-west to Beitin (Bethel), according to Jos_18:13, along the southern shoulder (or side) of Luz, i.e., Bethel.

CALVI , "1.And the lot of the children of Joseph fell, etc The sacred writer first

states what the lot was which fell to the two children of Joseph, and then describes

the lot of Ephraim. It is strange, however, that when the half of the tribe of

Manasseh had already been settled beyond the Jordan, more words are employed in

describing the remaining half than in describing the whole of the inheritance of the

tribe of Ephraim, though the latter was the more populous, and justly claimed for

itself a larger territory. But the longer detail given concerning the posterity of

Manasseh is owing to particular circumstances. First, the writer repeats how a

settlement had been given them without lot in the country of Basan. Secondly, he

mentions the ratification by Joshua of the command which Moses had given by

divine authority in regard to the daughters of Selophead. Seeing, then, there was no

doubt in regard to the boundaries of Ephraim, and there was no danger of dispute,

their allocation is only briefly glanced at.

But here a new question arises. When the right of primogeniture had passed from

Manasseh to Ephraim, how did the posterity of that tribe which had precedence in

rank obtain their cities among the children of Manasseh? For theirs seems in this

way to have been the inferior condition. My explanation is this, When the portion of

Manasseh was too extensive in proportion to the amount of population, a calculation

was made, and certain cities were deducted to complete the just share of the tribe of

Ephraim; not that they were mixed up with the children of Manasseh, to hold their

dwellings among them by a precarious tenure, (153) but their boundaries were

merely extended in the direction of the Manassites whom a narrower possession

might suffice.

In the end of the chapter, Ephraim is severely censured for his effeminacy in not

having expelled the Canaanites from Gezer. For had they proceeded in a manly and

hearty manner to make good their right to the land which had fallen to them by lot,

the victory was in their hands. There would have been no temerity in the attempt,

since the decision of the lot was as valid as if the Lord himself had stretched forth

his hand from heaven. But their disgraceful sloth is more clearly expressed and their

culpability greatly heightened by the fact, that they made tributaries of those with

whom it was not lawful to enter into any kind of arrangement. Seeing, then, God

had distinctly forbidden his people to transact business of any kind with those

nations, and least of all to enter into pactions with them, stipulating for their pardon

and safety, the Ephraimites sinned much more grievously in exacting tribute than if

they had tolerated them without paction. (154)

BE SO ,"oshua 16:1. The lot of the children of Joseph — That is, of Ephraim, and

that half of the tribe of Manasseh which was not yet provided for, Joshua 16:4. One

cannot but observe the providence of God in bringing up their lot next to Judah’s.

For as he had the prerogative of being made the chief of all Jacob’s children,

(Genesis 49:10,) so Joseph had that privilege of the firstborn, a double portion,

transferred to his family. And therefore they have their inheritance assigned them

before any of the other tribes except Judah.

TRAPP, " And the lot of the children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto

the water of Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho

throughout mount Bethel,

Ver. 1. And the lot of the children of Joseph.] See Joshua 15:1.

From Jordan by Jericho.] On the north of Canaan, as Judah’s had fallen on the

south: that these two strongest tribes might be as bulwarks to both sides of the

kingdom. So in their march through the wilderness, in their several companies or

brigades, God put a strong tribe to two weak tribes, as Judah to Issachar and

Zebulon, &c. See Isaiah 26:1; Isaiah 40:11.

Unto the water of Jericho.] Afterwards made no less famous than wholesome by

Elisha’s healing of them. [2 Kings 2:21]

PETT, "Chapter 16 The Lot For the Children of Joseph.

In this chapter the lot allocated to the children of Joseph, seen as one tribe and yet

two, is described. It was the portion north of that of Benjamin and Dan. It was not

necessary to deal with it in such detail because it was discernible from the

boundaries of the other tribes. Their prospective possessions occupied the centre of

Palestine, bounded on the north by the Plain of Esdraelon, and the territories of

Asher and Issachar, and on the south by those of Dan (Joshua 19:41-46) and

Benjamin (Joshua 18:11-28). o list of towns is given, possibly because of the stress

on their need to clear the forest land (Joshua 17:15-18). That was what they should

have been concentrating on rather than towns. Furthermore their area included

Shechem and its related towns which were probably to be left alone having joined

the tribal confederacy. o suggestion was to be given that they had been possessed.

Verse 1

Chapter 16 The Lot For the Children of Joseph.

In this chapter the lot allocated to the children of Joseph, seen as one tribe and yet

two, is described. It was the portion north of that of Benjamin and Dan. It was not

necessary to deal with it in such detail because it was discernible from the

boundaries of the other tribes. Their prospective possessions occupied the centre of

Palestine, bounded on the north by the Plain of Esdraelon, and the territories of

Asher and Issachar, and on the south by those of Dan (Joshua 19:41-46) and

Benjamin (Joshua 18:11-28). o list of towns is given, possibly because of the stress

on their need to clear the forest land (Joshua 17:15-18). That was what they should

have been concentrating on rather than towns. Furthermore their area included

Shechem and its related towns which were probably to be left alone having joined

the tribal confederacy. o suggestion was to be given that they had been possessed.

Joshua 16:1

‘And the lot for the children of Joseph went out from the Jordan at Jericho, at the

waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness going up from Jericho through the

hill country to Bethel.’

Once again the sacred lot was called on to determine the land allocated to Ephraim

and Manasseh. Yet as the other large tribe, their activity in the Central Highlands

was necessary. Thus did the sacred lot and what was necessary for success go hand

in hand.

The border parallels that of Benjamin, but here was looking northward,

commencing with ‘the Jordan of Jericho’, that part of the Jordan close to Jericho

(compare umbers 22:1). The ‘waters of Jericho on the east’ refers to some copious

spring on the east of, and connected with, the wilderness going up from Jericho

through the hill country to Bethel.

COFFMA ,"Verse 1

Joshua 16 and Joshua 17 outline the territory of Joseph's two sons Ephraim and

Manasseh. They had been officially adopted by Jacob as his own sons, endowing

them with status equal in every way to the remainder of the Twelve Patriarchs. By

this maneuver, Jacob gave the "double portion," one of the prerogatives of the

birthright to Joseph, the oldest son of his favorite (and only lawful) wife Rachel.

That, of course, would have made Thirteen Patriarchs instead of Twelve Patriarchs,

but Levi did not inherit with the others because "The Lord was his portion."

All of the scholars speak of the uncertainty, confusion, and inadequate nature of the

instructions here given. Surely, when compared with the detailed account of all

those cities conveyed to Judah, this seems to fall far short. Matthew Henry

complained that, "For this, no reason can be assigned."[1] However, we believe the

reason lies in the fact that God, who must be understood as the author here, had no

particular interest in A Y of the tribes except that of Judah, through whom the

Messiah would eventually be delivered to mankind. The record here is merely to

show that ALL the tribes received their inheritance as God had promised, but that

they failed to drive out the pagan influence that eventually ruined them.

Many witnesses of the confusion and uncertainty attending these descriptions might

be cited: "The border of Joseph is very slightly traced out."[2] "It is by no means

easy to define the boundaries of the tribes."[3] "It is hardly possible to avoid the

conclusion that a passage is missing here."[4] "The material exhibits considerable

disarray, as if its order has been disturbed."[5] "This list must be compared with

Joshua 18:12-13, which describes the northern border of Benjamin."[6] "We may

conclude that all of these passages were abbreviated from full descriptions to suit

the author's purpose."[7] Cook also affirmed that, "From the abrupt manner in

which the statements are introduced, as well as from their imperfect character,

there is probability in the conjecture that some words, in these verses, have fallen

out of the text."[8]

Despite whatever insufficiencies are alleged to characterize the instructions here, the

principal facts are plain enough, and, through comparison with the boundaries of

the other tribes, scholars are able to give accurate outlines of the territories assigned

to Joseph's two sons:

"The territory of the tribes of Joseph was drawn as one allotment. Afterward, it was

divided between Ephraim (the southern part), and the half-tribe of Manasseh (the

northerm part. ote that Ephraim's border is outlined first, although that tribe was

smaller ( umbers 26:34,37), and Ephraim was younger than Manasseh. This was

because the birthright of Joseph's sons had been transferred to Ephraim (Genesis

48:9-20)."[9]

"And the lot came out for the children of Joseph from the Jordan at Jericho, at the

waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness, going up from Jericho through

the hill country to Bethel; and it went out from Bethel to Luz, and passed along the

border of the Archites to Ataroth; and it went down westward to the border of the

Japhletites, unto the border of Beth-horon the nether, even unto Gezer; and the

goings out thereof were at the sea. And the children of Joseph, Manasseh and

Ephraim took their inheritance." One problem here is that Bethel and Luz are often

understood as two different names for the same place; but as Plummer noted: "The

new city did not coincide precisely in its site with the old."[10] It was like old and

new Carthage, or the old Jericho and new Jericho, as we observed in the .T.

othing is known of the Japhletites. The The ew Bible Dictionary does not even

have an entry under that title.

What did this allotment include? Dummelow has given a summary of what was

included:

"The territory of the two tribes, described in Joshua 16:1-4, comprised the central

and most fertile part of Palestine. The south border ran from Jericho to Bethel and

Beth-horon to the sea (the Mediterranean); and the north border ran from Mount

Carmel, along the southern border of the plain of Esdraelon to the Jordan."[11]

Despite the fact of Ephraim's border reaching the Mediterranean at a point

coinciding with the northwest comer of Judah's territory, it appears that Dan also

had a stake in the towns around Joppa (Joshua 19:45-46), thus sharing that part of

the seacoast with Ephraim.

CO STABLE, "Verses 1-10

4. Joseph"s inheritance chs16-17

The writer may have dealt with the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh together since

Jacob had given Joseph the second largest blessing after Judah ( Genesis 49).

Moreover half the tribe of Manasseh had already received its inheritance, and the

remaining half would have been small compared with the other tribes. These one

and one-half tribes together formed a large group of Israelites. Their lot fell in

central Canaan, and their territory consisted of two parts with Ephraim settling in

the southern portion and Manasseh in the northern.

ELLICOTT, "I HERITA CE OF JOSEPH—i.e., of Ephraim and Manasseh

(Joshua 16:1 to Joshua 18:1, inclusive).

(1) The lot of the children of Joseph.—The order of precedence among the tribes of

Israel was always Judah first and the sons of Joseph second. In the words of 1

Chronicles 5:2, “Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief

ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s.” Accordingly in the division of the land of

Canaan under Joshua, there are three successive stages: first, the settlement of the

tribe of Judah in the strongholds of the south of Palestine; secondly, the

establishment of Ephraim and Manasseh in the centre of the country, and in some

strong positions towards the north; thirdly, the settlement of the remaining tribes,

so as to fill up the gaps left between Judah and Joseph, and also upon the outskirts

of their territory, so as to be, as it were, under the shadow of their wings.

In the inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh we observe some features which

distinguish this description from that of Judah’s inheritance in Joshua 15. The

boundaries of the territory are given, but there is no catalogue of cities. There is also

another peculiarity: the tribe of Ephraim is interlocked with the tribe of Manasseh,

and the tribe of Manasseh again with Issachar and Asher, by the possession of cities

in the territory of these other tribes.

(1-3) Comp. Joshua 18:12-14. The south border of Joseph was the north border of

Benjamin. (See Conder’s Bible Handbook, p. 260, and Ordnance Map, sheets 14, 15,

and 18)

Archi is ’Ain ’Arîk (sheet 14).

Ataroth is Ed-Dârieh (sheet 18).

Japhleti is not identified.

Beth-horon is Beit ’Ur.

Gezer is Tell Jezer.

WHEDO , "1. Children of Joseph — That is, Ephraim and the western half of

Manasseh. Their lots were first drawn together that these brothers might be

contiguous, but there was a subsequent division of their joint territory.

The lot… fell — Hebrew, went forth; that is, from the urn in which the lots were

cast. See note on Joshua 13:6. “It is remarkable that of the whole inheritance

assigned to the children of Joseph only the southern boundary is given. But this may

be explained partly on the ground that this double tribe had no definite boundary

on the north, but merely had a number of cities allotted to them within the line

which formed the boundary of Asher and Issachar, (Joshua 17:10-11,) and partly

from the fact that the Josephites did not expel the Canaanites from the northern

part of the territory assigned them, but only gradually brought them into subjection

and dwelt among them. Hence the limits of their land in this direction were not

always the same; and at one time, when they expressed some discontent at the

portion allotted to them, Joshua told them that they might enlarge their possessions

if they could drive out the Canaanites. Joshua 17:12-18.” — Keil.

From Jordan by Jericho — Literally, Jordan of Jericho; that is, a part of the Jordan

directly opposite Jericho, and which might therefore be regarded as belonging

especially to Jericho.

The water of Jericho — This has been commonly understood of the fountain Es

Sultan, a mile northwest of Riha, and probably the scene of Elisha’s miracle. 2

Kings 2:19-22. As the border ran on the north side of Jericho, (Joshua 18:12,) and

on the east of the wilderness, (for so the Hebrew should here be rendered,) it seems

to have turned northward from the water of Jericho, and went up so far as to

include in Benjamin’s territory Zemaraim, the modern Es Sumra, about five miles

north of Jericho. Accordingly we understand this border between Ephraim and

Benjamin to have commenced at a point of the Jordan directly opposite Jericho,

perhaps at the mouth of Wady awaimeh, and, running westward, fetched a curve

near Jericho and its great fountain, thence, passing northward along the eastern

side of the wilderness that stretches east of Beth-el, it went up to Es Sumrah, and

then passed westward to Ophni, the modern Jifna, which was also assigned to

Benjamin. Joshua 18:24.]

The wilderness — The wild region of country that lies on the east of Beth-el, and is

called in Joshua 18:12, the wilderness of Beth-aven.

Mount Beth-el — The mountain range on which Beth-el was situated.

Verses 1-4

OUTLI E OF JOSEPH’S LOT, Joshua 16:1-4.

[Chapters 16 and 17 belong together, and describe the allotment made to the house

of Joseph, composed of the two powerful tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. “We are

so familiar,” says Stanley, “with the supremacy of the tribe of Judah, that we are

apt to forget that it was of comparatively recent date. For more than four hundred

years — a period equal in length to that which elapsed between the orman

Conquest and the Wars of the Roses — Ephraim, with its two dependent tribes of

Manasseh and Benjamin, exercised undisputed pre-eminence. Joshua, the first

conqueror; Gideon, the greatest of the judges, whose brothers were ‘as the children

of kings,’ and whose children all but established hereditary monarchy in their own

line; Saul, the first king, belonged to one or the other of these three tribes.

“It was not till the close of the first period of Jewish history that God ‘refused the

tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: but chose the tribe of

Judah, even the Mount Zion which he loved.’ Psalms 78:67. That haughty spirit

which could brook no equal or superior, which chafed against the rise even of the

kindred tribe of Manasseh, in the persons of Gideon and Jephthah, (Judges 8:1;

Judges 12:1,) and yet more against the growing dominion of Judah in David and

Solomon, till it threw off the yoke altogether and established an independent

kingdom, would naturally claim, and could not rightly be refused, the choicest

portion of the land. ‘Blessed of the Lord be his land; for the precious things of

heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, and for the precious

fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon,

and for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the

lasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth and the fulness thereof, and for

the good will of him that dwelt in the bush, let the blessing come upon the head of

Joseph.’ If Judah was the wild lion that guarded the south, and couched in the

fastness of Zion, so Ephraim was to be the more peaceful but not less powerful

buffalo, who was to rove the rich vales of Central Palestine, and defend the frontier

of the north. ‘His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the

horns of unicorns, (buffaloes;) with them shall he push the people together to the

ends of the earth, and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the

thousands of Manasseh.’” Deuteronomy 33:13-17.

PULPIT, "THE I HERITA CE OF EPHRAIM A D MA ASSEH.

Joshua 16:1

Fell. Literally came forth, i.e; out of the urn. The water of Jericho. "This is the

present fountain of es Sultan, half an hour to the west of Ribs, the only large

fountain in the neighbourhood of Jericho, whose waters spread over the plain and

form a small brook" (or small stream, according to Von Schubert)," which flows in

the rainy season through the Wady Kelt into the Jordan" (Keil and Delitzsch). This

spring, which rises amid the nebek trees and the wheat fields, "springs from the

earth at the eastern base of a little knoll; the water is sweet, clear, and agreeable,

neither cold nor warm" (Ritter). It flows, he adds, into a basin nine feet broad, in

which many fish may be seen playing. This border coincides with the northern

border of Benjamin (see Joshua 18:11-20). Ritter mentions another spring, nearer to

the Kuruntul or Quarantania range, and adds that, "under the wise management of

an efficient government, and with the security of the district from the depredations

of predatory savages, the oasis of Jericho might unquestionably resume the

paradisaical aspect it once bore." To the wilderness. Or, by or along the wilderness.

The Hebrew requires some preposition to be supplied. This wilderness is the same

as that spoken of as the wilderness of Bethaven in Joshua 18:12. Throughout Mount

Bethel. The Vulgate has, "to Mount Bethel." The LXX. renders, "unto the hill

country unto Bethel." The Hebrew may be rendered, "along the hill country unto

Bethel" (see Joshua 18:12). The Syriac renders, "up to the mountain which goeth

unto Bethel;" but we must understand this of a range of mountains, and then we

can identify the border with the double rocky ridge which stretches from the Mons

quarantania, of which we have already heard (Joshua 2:1-24), and from the pool of

Ain es Sultan, just mentioned, as far as Bethel.

EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY

THE I HERITA CE OF JOSEPH.

Joshua Chs. 16, 17.

EXT to Judah, the most important tribe was Joseph; that is, the double tribe to

which his two sons gave names, Ephraim and Manasseh. In perpetual

acknowledgment of the service rendered by Joseph to the family, by keeping them

alive in the famine, it was ordained by Jacob that his two sons should rank with

their uncles as founders of tribes (Genesis 48:5). It was also prophetically ordained

by Jacob that Ephraim, the younger son, should take rank before Manasseh

(Genesis 48:19). The privilege of the double portion, however, remained to

Manasseh as the elder son. Hence, in addition to his lot in Gilead and Bashan, he

had also a portion in Western Palestine. But Ephraim was otherwise the more

important tribe; and when the separation of the two kingdoms took place, Ephraim

often gave his name to the larger division. And in the beautiful prophetic vision of

Ezekiel, when the coming re-union of the nation is symbolized, it is on this wise:

"Son of man, take thou one stick and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children

of Israel his companions; then take another stick and write upon it. For Joseph, the

stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions, and join them for

thee one to another into one stick, that they may become one in thine hand" (Ezekiel

37:16-17). The superiority allotted to Ephraim was not followed by very happy

results; it raised an arrogant spirit in that tribe, of which we find some indications

in the present chapter, but more pronounced and mischievous manifestations

further on.

The delimitation of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is not easy to follow,

particularly in the Authorized Version, which not only does not translate very

accurately, but uses some English expressions of uncertain meaning. The Revised

Version is much more helpful, correcting both classes of defects in its predecessor.

Yet even the Revised Version sometimes leaves us at a loss. It has been supposed,

indeed, that some words have dropped out of the text. Moreover, it has not been

found possible to ascertain the position of all the places mentioned. Uncertainty as

to the precise boundaries cannot but prevail, and differences of opinion among

commentators. But the uncertainty applies only to the minuter features of the

description, it bears chiefly on the points at which one tribe adjoined another. The

portion of the land occupied by Ephraim and Manasseh is, on the whole, very

clearly known, just as their influence on the history of the country is very distinctly

marked.

In point of fact, the lot of Joseph in Western Palestine was, in many respects, the

most desirable of any. It was a fertile and beautiful district. It embraced the valley

of Shechem, the first place of Abraham's sojourn, and reckoned by travellers to be

one of the most beautiful spots, some say the most beautiful spot, in Palestine.

Samaria, at the head of another valley celebrated for its "glorious beauty," and for

its "fatness " or fertility (Isaiah 28:1), was at no great distance, Tirzah, a symbol of

beauty, in the Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 6:4) was another of its cities, as

was also Jezreel, "a lovely position for a capital city" (Tristram). On the other hand,

this portion of the country laboured under the disadvantage of not having been well

cleared of its original inhabitants. The men of Ephraim did not exert themselves as

much as the men of Judah. This is apparent from what is said in Joshua 16:10,

''They drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer "; and also from Joshua's

answer to the request of Ephraim for more land (Joshua 17:15-18).

As we have said already, we have no information regarding Joshua's conquest of

this part of the country. It seems to have been run over more superficially than the

north and the south. Consequently the ancient inhabitants were still very numerous,

and they were formidable likewise, because they had chariots of iron.

In the definition of boundaries we have first a notice applicable to Joseph as a

whole, then specifications applicable to Ephraim and Manasseh respectively. The

southern border is delineated twice with considerable minuteness, and its general

course, extending from near the Jordan at Jericho, past Bethel and Luz, and down

the pass of Bethhoron to the Mediterranean, is clear enough. The border between

Ephraim and Manasseh is not so clear, nor the northern border of Manasseh. It is

further to be remarked that, while we have an elaborate statement of boundaries,

we have no list of towns in Ephraim and Manasseh such as we have for the tribe of

Judah. This gives countenance to the supposition that part of the ancient record has

somehow dropped out. We find, however, another statement about towns which is of

no small significance. At Joshua 16:9 we find that several cities were appropriated

to Ephraim that were situated in the territory of Manasseh. And in like manner

several cities were given to Manasseh which were situated in the tribes of Issachar

and Ashen Of these last the names are given. They were Bethshean, Ibleam, Dor,

Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo. Some of them were famous in after history.

Bethshean was the city to whose wall the bodies of Saul and his sons were fixed after

the fatal battle of Gilboa; Ibleam was in the neighbourhood of aboth's vineyard (2

Kings 9:25; 2 Kings 9:27); Endor was the place of abode of the woman with a

familiar spirit whom Saul went to consult; Taanach was the battle-field of the kings

of Canaan whom Barak defeated, and of whom Deborah sung, -

"The kings came and fought; Then fought the kings of Canaan, In Taanach by the

waters of Megiddo: They took no gain of money " ( 5:19).

As for Megiddo, many a battle was fought in its plain. So early as the days of

Thotmes III. of Egypt (about 1600 B.C.) it was famous in battle, for in an inscription

on the temple of Karnak, containing a record of his conquests in Syria, Megiddo

flourishes as the scene of a great conflict. The saddest and most notable of its battles

was that between King Josiah and the Egyptians, in which that good young king was

killed. In fact, Megiddo obtained such notoriety as a battle-field that in the

Apocalypse (Revelation 16:16) Armageddon (Har-magedon, R.V.) is the symbol of

another kind of battle-ground - the meeting-place for ''the war of the great day of

God the Almighty."

We can only conjecture why these cities, most of which were in Issachar, were given

to Manasseh. They were strongholds in the great plain of Esdraelon, where most of

the great battles of Canaan were fought.

For the defence of the plain it seemed important that these places should be held by

a stronger tribe than Issachar. Hence they appear to have been given to Manasseh.

But, like Ephraim, Manasseh was not able to hold them at first. ''The children of

Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites

would dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were

waxen strong that they put the Canaanites to task-work, and did not utterly drive

them out" (R.V.). This last verse appears to have been inserted at a later date, and it

agrees with 1 Chronicles 7:29, where several of the same towns are enumerated, and

it is added, "In these dwelt the children of Joseph, the son of Israel."

Undoubtedly these sons of Joseph occupied a position which gave them unrivalled

opportunities of benefiting their country. But with the exception of the splendid

exploit of Gideon, a man of Manasseh, and his little band, we hear of little in the

history that redounded to the credit of Joseph's descendants. obility of character is

not hereditary. Sometimes nature appears to spend all her intellectual and moral

wealth on the father, and almost to impoverish the sons. And sometimes the sons live

on the virtues of their fathers, and cannot be roused to the exertion or the sacrifice

needed to continue their work and maintain their reputation. A humorous saying is

recorded of an eminent pastor of the Waldensian Church who found his people

much disposed to live on the reputation of their fathers, and tried in vain to get

them to do as their fathers did; he said that they were like the potato - the best part

of them was under the ground. If you say, ''We have Abraham for our father," take

care that you say "it in the proper sense. Be sure that you are following hard in his

footsteps, and using his example as a spur to move your languid energies, and not as

a screen to conceal your miserable defects. If you think of Abraham or of any

forefather or body of forefathers as a cover for your nakedness, or a compensation

for your defects, you are resorting to a device which has never proved successful in

past ages, and is not likely to change its character with you.

After the division, the vain, self-important spirit of Ephraim broke out in a

characteristic way. ''Why," said he to Joshua, ''hast thou given me but one lot and

one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as hitherto the

Lord hath blessed me?" A grumbling reference seems to be made here to his

brother Manasseh, who had received two lots, one on each side of the Jordan. At

first it appears that there was some reason in the complaint of Ephraim. The free

part of his lot seems to have been small, that is, the part not occupied by Canaanites.

But we cannot think that the whole inheritance of Ephraim was so small as we find

represented in the map of Major Conder, of the Palestine Exploration Fund, in his

"Handbook to the Bible," because it is said, both in the Authorized and in the

Revised Version, that his western boundary extended to the sea, while Major

Conder makes it cease much sooner. But, looking at the whole circumstances, it is

probable that Ephraim's complaint was dictated by jealousy of Manasseh, who

certainly had received the double inheritance.

Alas, how apt is the spirit of discontent still to crop up when we compare our lot

with that of others! Were we quite alone, or were there no case for comparison, we

might be content enough; it is when we think how much more our brother has than

we, that we are most liable to murmur. And, bad though murmuring and grieving at

the good of our brother may be, it is by no means certain that the evil spirit will stop

there. At the very dawn of history we find Cain the murderer of his brother because

the one had the favour of God and not the other. What an evil feeling it is that

grudges to our brother a larger share of God's blessing; if at the beginning it be not

kept under it may carry us on to deeds that may well make us shudder.

Joshua dealt very wisely and fearlessly with the complaint of Ephraim, though it

was his own tribe. You say you are a great people - be it so; but if you are a great

people, you must be capable of great deeds. Two great undertakings are before you

now. There are great woodlands in your lot that have not been cleared - direct your

energies to them, and they will afford you more room for settlements. Moreover, the

Canaanites are still in possession of a large portion of your lot; up and attack them

and drive them out, and you will be furnished with another area for possession.

Joshua accepted their estimate of their importance, but gave it a very different

practical turn. What they had wished him to do was to take away a portion from

some other tribe and give it as an extra allotment to them, so that it would be theirs

without labour or trouble. What Joshua did was to spur them to courageous and

self-denying exertion, in order that their object might be gained through the

instrumentality of their own labour. For the sickly sentiment that desires a mine of

gold to start into being and scatter its untold treasure at our feet, he substituted the

manly sentiment of the proverb, " o gains without pains." ''The soul of the

sluggard desireth and hath nothing; but the hand of the diligent maketh rich." If

they wished more land they must work for it; they must not take idleness for their

patron-saint.

We have all heard of the dying father who informed his sons that there was a

valuable treasure in a certain field, and counselled them to set to work to find it.

With great care they turned up every morsel of the soil; but no treasure appeared,

till, observing in autumn what a rich crop covered the field, they came to

understand that the fruit of persevering labour was the treasure which their father

meant. We have heard, too, of a physician who was consulted by a rich man

suffering cruelly from gout, and asked if he had any cure for it. ''Yes," said the

doctor, "live on sixpence a day, and work for it." The same principle underlay the

counsel of Joshua. Of course it gratifies a certain part of our nature to get a mass of

wealth without working for it. But this is not the best part of our nature. Probably

in no class has the great object of life been so much lost, and the habit of indolence

and selfindulgence become so predominant as in that of young men born to the

possession of a great fortune, and never requiring to turn a hand for anything they

desired. After all, the necessity of work is a great blessing. We speak of the curse of

toil, but except when the labour is excessive, or unhealthy in its conditions, or when

it has to be prosecuted in sickness or failing strength, it is not a curse but a blessing.

Instead of being ashamed of labour, we have cause rather to be proud of it. It

guards from numberless temptations; it promotes a healthy body and a healthy

mind; it increases the zest of life; it promotes cheerfulness and flowing spirits; it

makes rest and healthy recreation far sweeter when they come, and it gives us

affinity to the great Heavenly Worker, by whom, and through whom, and for whom

are all things.

This great principle of ordinary life has its place too in the spiritual economy. The

age is now past that had for its favourite notion, that seclusion from the world and

exemption from all secular employment was the most desirable condition for a

servant of God. The experiment of the hermits was tried, but it was a failure.

Seclusion from the world and the consecration of the whole being to private acts of

devotion and piety were no success. He who moves about among his fellows, and day

by day knows the strain of labour, is more likely to prosper spiritually than he who

shuts himself up in a cell, and looks on all secular work as pollution. It is not the

spiritual invalid who is for ever feeling his pulse and whom every whiff of wind

throws into a fever of alarm, that grows up to the full stature of the Christian; but

the man who, like Paul, has his hands and his heart for ever full, and whose every

spiritual fibre gains strength and vitality from his desires and labours for the good

of others. And it is with churches as with individuals. An idle church is a stagnant

church, prone to strife, and to all morbid experiences. A church that throws itself

into the work of faith and labour of love is far more in the way to be spiritually

healthy and strong. It was not for the good of the world merely, but of the church

herself likewise, that our Lord gave out that magnificent mot d'ordre - "Go ye into

all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

Before we pass from the inheritance of the sons of Joseph, it is proper that we

should direct attention to an incident which may seem trifling to us, but which was

evidently regarded as of no little moment at the time. What we refer to is the

petition presented by the five daughters of Zelophehad, a member of the tribe of

Manasseh, for an inheritance in their tribe. Their father had no son, so that the

family was represented wholly by daughters. o fewer than four times the incident

is referred to, and the names of the five girls given in full ( umbers 26:33; umbers

27:1-11; umbers 36:11; Joshua 17:3). We know not if there be another case in

Scripture of such prominence given to names for no moral or spiritual quality, but

simply in connection with a law of property.

The question decided by their case was the right of females to inherit property in

land when there were no heirs male in the family. We find that the young women

themselves had to be champions of their own cause. Evidently possessed of more

than ordinary spirit, they had already presented themselves before Moses, Eleazar

the priest, and the princes of the congregation, at the door of the tabernacle, and

formally made a claim to the inheritance that would have fallen to their father had

he been alive. The case was deemed of sufficient importance to be laid before the

Lord, because the decision on it would settle similar cases for the whole nation and

for all time. The decision was, that in such cases the women should inherit, but

under the condition that they should not marry out of their own tribe, so that the

property should not be transferred to another tribe. In point of fact, the five sisters

married their cousins, and thus kept the property in the tribe of Manasseh.

The incident is interesting, because it shows a larger regard to the rights of women

than was usually conceded at the time. Some have, indeed, found fault with the

decision as not going far enough. Why, they have asked, was the right of women to

inherit land limited to cases in which there were no men in the family? The decision

implied that if there had been one brother, he would have got all the land; the sisters

would have been entitled to nothing. The answer to this objection is, that had the

rights of women been recognised to this extent, it would have been too great an

advance on the public opinion of the time. It was not God's method to enjoin laws

absolutely perfect, but to enjoin what the conscience and public opinion of the time

might be fairly expected to recognise and support. It may be that under a perfect

system women ought to inherit property on equal terms with men. But the Jewish

nation was not sufficiently advanced for such a law. The benefit of the enactment

was that, when propounded, it met with general approval.

Certainly it was a considerable advance on the ordinary practice of the nations. It

established the principle that woman was not a mere chattel, an inferior creature,

subject to the control of the man, with no rights of her own. But it was far from

being the first time when this principle obtained recognition. The wives of the

patriarchs - Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel - were neither chattels, nor drudges, nor

concubines. They were ladies, exerting the influence and enjoying the respect due to

cultivated, companionable women. And though the law of succession did not give

the females of the family equal rights with the males, it recognised them in another

way. While the eldest son succeeded to the family home and a double portion of the

land, he was expected to make some provision for his widowed mother and

unmarried sisters. In most cases the sisters came to be provided for by marriage.

It is the circumstance that among us so many women remain unmarried that has

drawn so keen attention to their rights, and already caused so much to be done, as

no doubt more will be done speedily, for enlarging their sphere and protecting their

interests.

o doubt these spirited daughters of Zelophehad conferred a great benefit on their

sex in Israel. Their names are entitled to grateful remembrance, as the names of all

are who bring about beneficial arrangements that operate in many directions and to

all time. Yet one would be sorry to think that this was the only service which they

rendered in their day. One would like to think of them as shedding over their

households and friends the lustre of those gentle, womanly qualities which are the

glory of the sex. Advocacy of public rights may be a high duty, for the faithful

discharge of which the highest praise is due; but such a career emits little of the

fragrance which radiates from a female life of faithful love, domestic activity, and

sacred devotion. What blessed ideals of life Christianity furnishes for women even

of middling talent and ordinary education! It is beautiful to see distinguished

talents, high gifts, and persuasive elements directed to the advocacy of neglected

claims. ''And yet I show unto you a more excellent way."

BI 1-10, "The lot of . . . Joseph.

The inheritance of Joseph

Next to Judah, the most important tribe was Joseph; that is, the double tribe to which his two sons gave names, Ephraim and Manasseh. In perpetual acknowledgment of the service rendered by Joseph to the family, by keeping them alive in the famine, it was ordained by Jacob that his two sons should rank with their uncles as founders of tribes (Gen_48:5). It was also prophetically ordained by Jacob that Ephraim, the younger son, should take rank before Manasseh (Gen_48:19). The privilege of the double portion, however, remained to Manasseh as the elder son. Hence, in addition to his lot in Gilead and Bashan, he had also a portion in Western Palestine. But Ephraim was otherwise the more important tribe; and when the separation of the two kingdoms took place, Ephraim often gave his name to the larger division. And in the beautiful prophetic vision of Ezekiel, when the coming reunion of the nation is symbolised, it is on this wise (Eze_37:16-17). The superiority allotted to Ephraim was not followed by very happy results; it raised an arrogant spirit in that tribe. The delimitation of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is not easy to follow, particularly in the A.V., which not only does not translate very accurately, but uses some English expressions of uncertain meaning. The R.V. is much more helpful, correcting both classes of defects in its predecessor. Yet even the R.V. sometimes leaves us at a loss. It has been supposed, indeed, that some words have dropped out of the text. Moreover, it has not been found possible to ascertain the position of all the places mentioned. The portion of the land occupied by Ephraim and Manasseh is, however, on the whole, very clearly known, just as their influence on the history of the country is very distinctly marked. In point of fact, the lot of Joseph in Western Palestine was, in many respects, the most desirable of any. It was a fertile and beautiful district. It embraced the valley of Shechem, the first place of Abraham’s sojourn, and reckoned by travellers to be one of the most beautiful spots, some say the most beautiful spot, in Palestine. Samaria, at the head of another valley celebrated for its “glorious beauty,” and for its “fatness” or fertility (Isa_28:1), was at no great distance. Tirzah, a symbol of beauty, in the Song of Solomon (Son_6:4) was another of its cities, as was also Jezreel, “a lovely position for a capital city.” On the other hand, this portion of the country laboured under the disadvantage of not having been well cleared of its original inhabitants. The men of Ephraim did not exert themselves as much as the men of Judah. This is apparent from what is said in verse 10, and also from Joshua’s answer to the request of Ephraim for more land (Jos_17:15-18). In the definition of boundaries we have first a notice applicable to Joshua as a whole, then specifications applicable to Ephraim and Manasseh respectively. The southern border is delineated twice with considerable minuteness, and its general course, extending from near the Jordan at Jericho, past Bethel and Luz, and down the pass of Bethhoron to the Mediterranean, is

clear enough. The border between Ephraim and Manasseh is not so clear, nor the northern border of Manasseh. It is further to be remarked that, while we have an elaborate statement of boundaries, we have no list of towns in Ephraim and Manasseh such as we have for the tribe of Judah. This gives countenance to the supposition that part of the ancient record has somehow dropped out. We find, however, another statement about towns which is of no small significance. At verse 9 we find that several cities were appropriated to Ephraim that were situated in the territory of Manasseh. And in like manner several cities were given to Manasseh which were situated in the tribes of Issachar and Asher. Of these last the names are given (Jos_17:11). They were Bethshean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo. Some of them were famous in after-history. Bethshean was the city to whose wail the body of Saul and his sons were fixed after the fatal battle of Gilboa; Ibleam was in the neighbourhood of Naboth’s vineyard (2Ki_9:25; 2Ki_9:27); Endor was the place of abode of the woman with a familiar spirit whom Saul went to consult; Taanach was the battlefield of the kings of Canaan whom Barak defeated, and of whom Deborah sang (Jdg_5:19). As for Megiddo, many a battle was fought in its plain. We can only conjecture why these cities, most of which were in Issachar, were given to Manasseh. They were strongholds in the great plain of Esdraelon, where most of the great battles of Canaan were fought. For the defence of the plain it seemed important that these places should be held by a stronger tribe than Issachar. Hence they appear to have been given to Manasseh. But, like Ephraim, Manasseh was not able to hold them at first. Undoubtedly these sons of Joseph occupied a position which gave them unrivalled opportunities of benefiting their country. But with the exception of the splendid exploit of Gideon, a man of Manasseh, and his little band, we hear of little in the history that redounded to the credit of Joseph’s descendants. Nobility of character is not hereditary. Sometimes nature appears to spend all her intellectual and moral wealth on the father and almost to impoverish the sons. And sometimes the sons live on the virtues of their fathers, and cannot be roused to the exertion or the sacrifice needed to continue their work and maintain their reputation. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.).

2 It went on from Bethel (that is, Luz),[a] crossed over to the territory of the Arkites in Ataroth,

BAR ES, "Of Archi - (Read “of the Archite,” also a designation of David’s friend Hushai (2Sa_15:32; 2Sa_16:16, etc.). The word is derived from Erech Gen_10:10. But whether there was in the neighborhood of Bethel a place bearing this Babylonian name, or whether a colony from the East had settled in this spot and brought the name with them, is unknown.

Ataroth - Called Jos_16:5; Jos_18:13 Ataroth-adar (= “crowns of fame or greatness”) perhaps to distinguish it from two other places bearing the same name but, situated on the other side of Jordan, in the territory of Gad Num_32:34. It is identified with Atara, near the road from Jerusalem to Nablous.

CLARKE,"From Bethel to Luz - From Gen_28:19 (note) it appears that the place which Jacob called Beth-el was formerly called Luz; see the note there: but here they seem to be two distinct places. It is very likely that the place where Jacob had the vision was not in Luz, but in some place within a small distance of that city or village, (see the note on Gen_28:12), and that sometimes the whole place was called Beth-el, at other times Luz, and sometimes, as in the case above, the two places were distinguished. As we find the term London comprises, not only London, but also the city of Westminster and the borough of Southwark; though at other times all three are distinctly mentioned.

Archi to Ataroth - Archi was the country of Hushai, the friend of David, 2Sa_15:32, who is called Hushai the Archite. Ataroth, called Ataroth-addar, Ataroth the illustrious, Jos_16:5, and simply Ataroth, Jos_16:7, is supposed to have been about fifteen miles from Jerusalem.

GILL, "And goeth out from Bethel to Luz,.... For though these two places in time became one, yet they were originally distinct. Bethel, at which Jacob stopped, and who gave it its name, was a field adjacent to the city of Luz, Gen_38:11; and therefore with propriety may be, as they here are, distinguished:

and passeth along unto the borders Archi to Ataroth; or to Archiataroth; these two words being the name of one and the same place, and to be joined as they are, in the Greek version, and others; and is the same with Atarothaddar, Jos_16:5. Ataroth was its proper name, but it had these additional epithets to distinguish it from another Ataroth; see Jos_16:7; Jerom (b) makes mention of Atharoth by Ramma, in the tribe of Joseph, and of another in the tribe of Ephraim, now a village at the north of Sebaste, or Samaria, four miles from it, called Atharus; the former is here meant.

K&D, "Jos_16:2

“And it went out from Bethel to Luz.” Bethel is distinguished from Luz in this passage, because the reference is not to the town of Bethel, which was called Luz by the Canaanites (vid., Gen_28:19), but to the southern range of mountains belonging to Bethel, from which the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which stood upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos_18:22). From this point the boundary went over “to the territory of the Arkite to Ataroth,” We know nothing further about the Arkite than that David's friend Hushai belonged to that family (2Sa_15:32; 2Sa_16:16; 1Ch_27:33). Ataroth, called Ataroth-Adar in Jos_18:13, was not the present village of Atâra, an hour and a half to the south of Jiljilia (Rob. iii. p. 80), as I once supposed, but the ruins of Atâra, three-quarters of an hour to the south of Bireh (Beeroth, Rob. ii. p. 314), with which the expression “descended” in Jos_18:13 perfectly harmonizes. Consequently the boundary was first of all drawn in a south-westerly direction from Beitin to Bireh (Jos_18:25), and then southwards to Atârah.

BE SO , "Joshua 16:2. From Bethel to Luz — Dupin translates this Bethel-Luz,

and Dr. Waterland, Bethel, which is Luz; for we sometimes find them mentioned as

one and the same place, as Joshua 18:13; 1:23; and it is probable that in a length of

time they were united, and the inhabitants of the former went to the latter. The

borders of Archi to Ataroth — Or rather, the borders of Archi-Ataroth, as both the

Seventy and the Vulgate render it, and as the words are in the Hebrew, this being

the same city which is afterward called Ataroth, Joshua 16:7.

TRAPP, "Joshua 16:2 And goeth out from Bethel to Luz, and passeth along unto the

borders of Archi to Ataroth,

Ver. 2. Unto the borders of Archi.] Hushai’s country, [2 Samuel 16:16] ennobled by

his name, as Co was to Hippocrates, and little Hippo by great Augustine.

PETT, "Verse 2

‘And it went out from Bethel to Luz, and passed along to the border of the Archites

to Ataroth.’

Here Bethel, the sacred place, is distinguished from the city Luz as in Genesis 28:19.

Elsewhere the two are identified (Joshua 8:13; Genesis 35:6; Judges 1:23). At this

point Luz is not yet named Bethel, a further indication of the age of the sources, and

the sacred place is identified separately by the name Bethel. As in Joshua 13:11 the

borders of a people are called into play to define the boundary, ‘the border of the

Archites’. The Archites were presumably a Canaanite ‘family group’, mentioned

again in connection with Hushai the Archite, David’s friend (2 Samuel 15:32-37).

‘To Ataroth.’ There is no preposition in the Hebrew but it must be assumed. It is

possibly the same as Ataroth-addar (Joshua 16:5, see also Joshua 18:13).

COKE,"Ver. 2. And goeth out from Beth-el to Luz— If now and then Luz and Beth-

el are mentioned as one and the same place, as ch. Joshua 18:13. Judges 1:23 it is,

perhaps, because in a length of time they were united, and the inhabitants of the

former went to the latter. There are numerous examples in history of these unions of

two cities into one. See Huet. Demonst. Evang. Prop. 4. We should apprehend,

therefore, with Dupin, that the whole verse might be rendered thus: And goeth out

from Beth-el Luzah, to Archi-ataroth. See his Prolegomena, l. i. c. iii. sect. 2.

WHEDO , "2. From Beth-el to Luz — Beth-el and Luz were the same city. See note

on Joshua 7:2. The Beth-el of the text is to be understood of the Mount Bethel

named in the preceding verse.

Borders of Archi — Or, of the Archite. o trace of this name is found in the vicinity

of Beth-el. Perhaps in this name we have the last faint trace of one of the original

Canaanitish tribes. Ataroth is supposed by Dr. Robinson to be identical with a large

village called Atara, on the summit of a hill about six miles northwest of Beth-el;

[but this verse and Joshua 18:13 seem rather to place it between Beth-el and Beth-

horon, so that we may rather identify it with the Atara which lies some three miles

south of Beth-el. Here Robinson noticed considerable ruins of an ancient town. At

Ataroth the border turned westward toward Beth-horon.]

PULPIT, "Joshua 16:2

From Bethel to Luz. Like Jerusalem and AElia Capitolina, or old and new

Carthage, the new city did not coincide precisely in its site with the old one (see

Joshua 18:13; also Genesis 28:19; Genesis 35:6; 1:23). Bethel was probably built, as

far as could be ascertained, on the spot near the Canaanitish city where the

wanderer Jacob spent the night in which the famous vision appeared to him (see

Genesis 28:11). Knobel, however, renders literally, Bethel-Luzah, as though the

older and later names had been here conjoined. The borders of Archi. Rather, the

borders of the Archite (cf. 2 Samuel 15:32; 2 Samuel 16:16; 1 Chronicles 27:33).

This is the only clue we have to the residence or tribe of Hushai.

3 descended westward to the territory of the Japhletites as far as the region of Lower Beth Horon and on to Gezer, ending at the Mediterranean Sea.

BAR ES, "Of Japhleti - Rather “of the Japhletite.” All history of the name is lost.

CLARKE,"Beth-horon the nether - This city was about twelve miles from Jerusalem, on the side of Nicopolis, formerly Emmaus. - Calmet. See the note on Jos_10:10.

GILL, "And goeth down westward to the coast of Japhleti,.... This place is now unknown, though no doubt well known to the sons of Joseph, when this lot fell to them, and its border was described:

unto the coast of Bethhoron the nether: so called to distinguish it from Bethhoron the upper, Jos_16:5; this was about twelve miles from Jerusalem; See Gill on Jos_10:10; and to Gezer: which was about a day's journey from Bethhoron, as appears from the passages in the Apocrypha:"39 So Nicanor went out of Jerusalem, and pitched his tents in Bethhoron, where an host out of Syria met him. 40 But Judas pitched in Adasa with three thousand men, and there he prayed, saying, ... 45 Then they pursued after them a day's journey, from Adasa unto Gazera, sounding an alarm after them with their trumpets.'' (1 Maccabees 7)Jerom (c) says in his time it was a village called Gazara, four miles from Nicopolis, or Emmaus. It is the same with Gadara, as it is sometimes called

by Josephus, who says (d), the tribe of Ephraim took in the land from the river Jordan to Gadara; this was a royal city; see Jos_10:33,

and the outgoings thereof are at the sea: the Mediterranean sea.

K&D, "Jos_16:3

From this point “it went down westward to the territory of the Japhletites to the territory of lower Beth-horon,” or, according to Jos_18:13, “to the mountain (or range) which is on the south by lower Beth-horon.” The Japhletite is altogether unknown as the Asherite of this name cannot possibly be thought of (1Ch_7:32-33). Lower Beth-horon is the present Beit-Ur Tachta, a village upon a low ridge. It is separated from Upper Beth-horon, which lies farther east, by a deep wady (see at Jos_10:10, and Rob. iii. p. 59). “And to Gezer,” which was probably situated near the village of el Kubab (see at Jos_10:33). “And the goings out thereof are at the sea” (the Mediterranean), probably running towards the north-west, and following the Wady Muzeireh to the north of Japho, which was assigned to the Danites, according to Jos_19:46.

TRAPP, "Joshua 16:3 And goeth down westward to the coast of Japhleti, unto the

coast of Bethhoron the nether, and to Gezer: and the goings out thereof are at the

sea.

Ver. 3. And to Gezer.] Where the Canaanites held them till Solomon’s days; but

were then slain by Pharaoh, king of Egypt, in favour of his daughter, Solomon’s

wife. [1 Kings 9:16]

PETT, "Verse 3

‘And it went down westward to the border of the Japhletites, to the border of Beth-

horon the Lower, even to Gezer. And its goings out were at the sea.’

The Japhletites were another Canaanite family group prominent enough for their

border to act as a border marker. The border then went on to lower Beth-horon (see

Joshua 10:10-11), and then to Gezer, which is fifteen kilometres (nine miles) further

west, and on to the Great Sea where the border inevitably changed course (‘its

goings out’ - see on Joshua 15:7).

4 So Manasseh and Ephraim, the descendants of Joseph, received their inheritance.

GILL, "So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance. As it fell to them by the lot; by Manasseh is meant the half tribe of Manasseh, one half of that tribe having been settled by Moses on the other side Jordan; and next follows an account of the borders of the inheritance of Ephraim in particular, as that of the half tribe of Manasseh is given in Jos_17:1.

HE RY, "

JAMISO ,"

BE SO , "Joshua 16:4. Manasseh — That is, half Manasseh. Their inheritance —

Their several portions, which here follow. It is said, they took their inheritance,

which also Judah had done before them, because the tribes of Judah and Joseph

took possession of their inheritances before the rest; and it was fit they should do so,

for the security of the main camp, and the body of the people, which were at Gilgal,

Joshua 18:5.

TRAPP, "Joshua 16:4 So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their

inheritance.

Ver. 4. Manasseh and Ephraim took their inheritance.] And it was a happiness to

both that they lay together: but a shameful thing that afterwards it should be said,

"Manasseh against Ephraim, and Ephraim against Manasseh; and they together

against Judah." [Isaiah 9:21]

PETT, "Verse 4

‘And the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance.’

Having outlined the southern border of their inheritance we are told that the

combined tribe ‘took their inheritance’. We are probably to understand by this

their acceptance of their lot. First Judah received their lot, and now Joseph.

Progress in dividing the land is now being made. ote that it is a joint inheritance

which will now be expanded in detail. Manasseh is unusually named first, here

specifically as the firstborn (Joshua 17:1; Genesis 48:1; Genesis 48:13-14), stressing

the inheritance aspect. But the thought may include that they began to take

possession of what they could.

K&D, "Jos_16:4

The territory commencing at the boundary lines mentioned was allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh as their inheritance.

5 This was the territory of Ephraim, according to

its clans:

The boundary of their inheritance went from Ataroth Addar in the east to Upper Beth Horon

BAR ES 5-8, "From the abrupt manner in which the statements are introduced, as well as from their imperfect character, there is probability in the conjecture that some words have, in these verses, fallen out of the text. Few of the places are known for certain.

CLARKE,"Ataroth-addar - See the note on Jos_16:2.

Beth-horon the upper - The situation of this town is little known. It was eastward of Beth-horon the nether, and consequently not far from it.

GILL, "And the border of the children of Ephraim, according to their families, was thus,.... Or what follows is the description of it:

even the border of their inheritance on the east side was Atarothaddar, unto Bethhoron the upper; the first was on the south of the inheritance, and the latter on the north, as Masius has placed them: who has given us a type of this description, by which it appears that this lot is here described in its breadth from south to north.

HE RY 5-10, "Here, 1. The border of the lot of Ephraim is set down, by which it was divided on the south from Benjamin and Dan, who lay between it and Judah, and on the north from Manasseh; for east and west it reached from Jordan to the great sea. The learned, who aim to be exact in drawing the line according to the directions here, find themselves very much at a loss, the description being short and intricate. The report of those who in these latter ages have travelled those countries will not serve to clear the difficulties, so vastly unlike is it now to what it was then; not only cities have been so destroyed as that no mark nor footstep of them remains, but brooks are dried up, rivers alter their courses, and even the mountain falling cometh to nought, and the rock is removed out of his place, Job_14:18. Unless I could hope to solve the doubts that arise upon this draught of the border of Ephraim, it is to no purpose to mention them: no doubt it was then perfectly understood, so as that the first intention of recording it was effectually answered, which was to notify the ancient landmarks, which posterity must by no means remove. 2. Some separate cities are spoken of, that lay not within these borders, at least not if the line was drawn direct, but lay within the lot of Manasseh (Jos_16:9), which might better be read, and there were separate cities for the children of Ephraim among the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, because it proved that Manasseh could spare them, and Ephraim had need of them, and it might be hoped that no inconvenience would arise from this mixture of these two tribes together, who were

both the sons of Joseph, and should love as brethren. And by this it appears that though, when the tribes were numbered in the plains of Moab, Manasseh had got the start of Ephraim in number, for Manasseh was then 52,000, and Ephraim but 32,000 (Num_26:34, Num_26:37), yet by the time they were well settled in Canaan the hands were crossed again, and the blessing of Moses was verified, Deu_33:17, They are the ten thousands of Ephraim and they are the thousands of Manasseh. Families and kingdoms are diminished and increased, increased and diminished again, as God pleases. 3. A brand is put upon the Ephraimites, that they did not drive out the Canaanites from Gezer (Jos_16:10), either through carelessness or cowardice, either for want of faith in the promise of God, that he would give them success if they would make a vigorous effort, or for want of zeal for the command of God, which obliged them utterly to drive out the Canaanites, and to make no peace with them. And, though they hoped to satisfy the law by putting them under tribute, yet (as Calvin thinks) this made the matter worse, for it shows that they spared them out of covetousness, that they might be profited by their labours, and by dealing with them for their tribute they were in danger of being infected with their idolatry; yet some think that, when they brought them under tribute, they obliged them to renounce their idols, and to observe the seven precepts of the sons of Noah; and I should think so, but that we find in the sequel of the story that the Israelites were so far from restraining idolatry in others that they soon fell into it themselves. Many famous places were within this lot of the tribe of Ephraim, though not mentioned here. In it were Ramah, Samuel's city (called in the New Testament Arimathea, of which Joseph was, that took care of our Saviour's burial), and Shiloh, where the tabernacle was first set up. Tirzah also, the royal city of Jeroboam and his successors, and Deborah's palm-tree, under which she judged Israel, were in this tribe. Samaria, built by Omri after the burning of the royal palace of Tirzah, was in this tribe, and was long the royal city of the kingdom of the ten tribes; not far from it were Shechem, and the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, and Sychar, near which was Jacob's well, where Christ talked with the woman of Samaria. We read much of Mount Ephraim in the story of the Judges, and of a city called Ephraim, it is probable in this tribe, to which Christ retired, Joh_11:54. The whole kingdom of the ten tribes is often, in the prophets, especially in Hosea, called Ephraim.

JAMISO 5-9, "Jos_16:5-9. The borders of the inheritance of Ephraim.

the border of their inheritance ... was Ataroth-addar— Ataroth-addar (now Atara), four miles south of Jetta [Robinson], is fixed on as a center, through which a line is drawn from Upper Beth-horon to Michmethah, showing the western limit of their actual possessions. The tract beyond that to the sea was still unconquered.

K&D 5-6, "Territory of the tribe of Ephraim, according to its families. - Jos_16:5. “The border of their inheritance was from the east Atroth-addar and (along the line) to Upper Beth-horon,” - a brief description of the southern boundary, which is more minutely described in Jos_16:1-3. Upper Beth-horon is mentioned here instead of Lower Beth-horon (Jos_16:3). This makes no difference, however, as the two places stood quite close to one another (see at Jos_10:10). In Jos_16:6-8 the northern boundary of Ephraim is given, namely, from the middle, or from “a central point near the watershed” (Knobel), first towards the east (Jos_16:6 and Jos_16:7), and then towards the west

(Jos_16:8). The eastern half of the northern boundary went ָיָ�ה, i.e., when regarded

from the west, or looked at towards the west, to the north side of Michmethah.

According to Jos_17:7, this place was before Shechem, and therefore in any case it was not far from it, though it has not been discovered yet. Knobel supposes it to have been on the site of the present Kabate (Seetzen, ii. p. 166), Kubatiyeh, an hour and a half to the south of Jenin (Rob. iii. 154), assuming that Michmethah might also have been

pronounced Chemathah, and that ב may have been substituted for מ. But Kabate is six

hours to the north of Shechem, and therefore was certainly not “before Shechem” (Jos_

17:7). It then turned “eastward to Taanath-shiloh” (Τηαν̀θ Σηλώ, lxx), according to the

Onom. (s. v. Thenath) ten Roman miles from Neapolis (Sichem), on the way to the Jordan, most probably the Thena of Ptol. (v. 16, 5), the present Tana, Ain Tana, a heap of ruins on the south-east of Nabulus, where there are large cisterns to be found (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 295; Ritter, Erdk. xv. p. 471). And “then went by on the east to Janoah” (i.e., Jano in Acrabittena regione, twelve Roman miles from Neapolis: Onom.), the present ruins of Janûn, a miserable village, with extensive ruins of great antiquity, about three hours to the south-east of Nabulus, three-quarters of an hour to the north-east of Akrabeh (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 297; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 268).

BE SO ,"Joshua 16:5. East side — That is, the north-east side. It is no wonder if some

of these descriptions are dark to us at this distance of time; there having been so many

alterations made in places, and so many circumstances being now altogether

undiscoverable. But this is certain, that all the descriptions here mentioned were then

evident to the Israelites, because these were the foundation of all the possessions which

then they took, and peaceably possessed in succeeding ages.

TRAPP, "Joshua 16:5 And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their

families was [thus]: even the border of their inheritance on the east side was

Atarothaddar, unto Bethhoron the upper;

Ver. 5. Was Atarothaddar unto Bethhoron the upper.] As there were two Bethhorons, so

Eusebius telleth us that there were two Ataroths: one near Rama; the other, four miles

distant from Samaria.

PETT, "Verses 5-7

‘And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus; even the

border of their inheritance, eastward was Attaroth-addar to Upper Beth-horon, and the

border went out to the sea. Michmethath on the north, and the border turned about

eastward to Taanath-shiloh, and passed along it on the east of Janoah. And it went down

from Janoah to Ataroth, and to Naarah, and reached to Jericho, and went out at Jordan.’

This first summarises briefly the southern border as previously depicted, Ataroth to Beth-

horon (this time Upper Beth-horon) to the sea. The slight change may indicate a different

surveyor. Then the northern border is given. Michmethath indicates the northern border.

Michmethath is ‘before Shechem’ (Joshua 17:7) and therefore east of Shechem. Khirbet

Makhneh el-Foqa has been tentatively suggested as the site. Then eastward and

southward to Taanath-shiloh (Khirbet Ta‘na el-Foqa), Janoa (Khirbet el-Yanum),

Ataroth, Naarah (Tell el-Jisr beside ‘Ain Duq), Jericho and Jordan. ‘Went down -- to

Ataroth’ suggests a town near or in the Jordan valley and therefore a different one from

that in Joshua 16:2; Joshua 16:5. ‘Went out at Jordan.’ Once Jordan was reached it was

the eastern border.

COFFMAN, "Verse 5

"And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus: the

border of their inheritance eastward was Ataroth-addar, unto Beth-horon the upper; and

the border went out westward at Michmethath on the north; and the border turned about

eastward unto Taanath-shiloh, and passed along it on the east of Janoah; and it went down

from Janoah to Ataroth, and to Naarah, and reached unto Jericho, and went out at the

Jordan. From Tappuah the border went along westward to the brook of Kanah; and the

goings out thereof were at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of

Ephraim according to their families; together with the cities which were set apart for the

children of Ephraim in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the

cities with their villages. And they drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but

the Canaanites dwelt in the midst of Ephraim unto this day, and are become servants to

do taskwork."

Some have expressed wonder at the short treatment of these directions for the inheritance

of the children of Joseph in central Palestine. Henry thought that, "As Joshua himself was

of the tribe of Joseph,"[12] perhaps he intended to parcel out all the cities later. However,

we cannot resist the conclusion that the burden of Joshua is principally concerned with

that tribe, Judah, through whom Christ would be born. We saw something of this same

phenomenon in Numbers where the whole history of that condemned generation of Israel

occupies only a handful of pages covering a period of almost forty years! Why? Having

already rebelled against God, anything they might have done, or not done lost all eternal

significance. Here, in this very chapter we see the rebellion of Ephraim, his arrogance,

and his leadership of the ten tribes, already being suggested by events unfolded here. It

was through Ephraim that the defection of Northern Israel from the Lord occurred, and

through Ephraim the southern kingdom itself was also finally corrupted. In these facts one

must read the reason for the slight treatment of their inheritance.

Notice that Ephraim's territory was expanded by the assignment of some of the cities that

belonged to Manasseh. Cook stated that, "The reason for this can only be

conjectured."[13] With all that we learn of Ephraim from the prophecy of Hosea, we do

not hesitate to assign as the reason for this enlargement the arrogance and ambition of

Ephraim and that domination which he finally exercised over the whole ten northern

tribes. Ephraim, even before that enlargement, "had the rich district north and south of

Shechem ... and the whole fertile plain of the Esdraelon."[14] Also, we learn from Joshua

17:14 that their unwillingness to clear out the Canaanites caused their complaint. "Joshua,

in effect, told them that if they were the great people they claimed to be, they could

extend their territory by clearance and conquest."[15]

Before concluding this study of Joshua 16, we wish to take a close look at the final verse,

which states that, "The Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim unto this day, and are

become servants to do taskwork." The critics maintain that "this has a bearing on the date

when Joshua was written."[16] This is a popular assertion and is echoed by a number of

scholars. Morton enhanced this declaration by adding that: "Here it says they have

become slaves to do taskwork, a situation that arrived under Solomon in the tenth century

B.C. (1 Kings 9:15-22)."[17] Are these allegations true? Let's take a look at the passage

Morton cited as proof:

"Pharaoh the king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain

the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for portion unto his daughter, Solomon's

wife. And Solomon built Gezer, etc. (1 Kings 9:15-16)."

When Solomon came to power, there were no longer any Canaanites in Gezer; they had

already been killed by the king of Egypt (Joshua 16:15). It is true that Solomon, after this

transfer of Gezer to his domain by Pharaoh rounded up the remnant of all the Canaanites

in Israel and made forced-laborers, or servants out of them but nowhere do we find that

any inhabitants of Gezer were included in that Solomonic levy. Thus, it is clear that once

again, the overwilling critics to find evidence of a LATE DATE of Joshua are totally in

error. The Ephraimites, not Solomon, are here said to have reduced the Gezerites to

slavery, and, on that grounds, we must reject the assumption of Woudstra that Gezer

maintained its independence. How could that be true with its citizens serving as slaves of

Israel? We have already determined that the expression, "unto this day," has no bearing

whatever on dates but is merely an idiom affirming the truth of the narrative.

An appropriate conclusion for this sixteenth chapter:

"Many famous places were within this lot of the tribe of Ephraim, although not

mentioned here: (1) Samuel's city Ramah (Arimathea in the N.T.), from whom another

Joseph requested of Pilate the body of Jesus; (2) Shiloh where the tabernacle was first set

up; (3) Tizrah, the capital of Jeroboam and his successors; (4) Samaria, built by Omri,

and the capital of the Northern Kingdom in its final years; (5) Shechem, the city where

Jacob lived; (6) Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where the children of Israel pledged

themselves to observe the whole Law of Moses; (7) Sychar, where, "Jesus sat thus by the

well!" and (8) Ephraim, the city to which Jesus retired during his last week on earth were

all a part of the territory of Ephraim."[18]

When this ambitious and arrogant tribe rebelled against the house of David and took

away the northern ten tribes, they usurped the name "Israel" as pertaining to themselves,

but the prophets consistently referred to the Northen "Israel" as Ephraim, that name being

applied no less than 37 times in the prophecy of Hosea alone!

COKE, "Ver. 5. And the border of the children of Ephraim, &c.— After marking out the

south, east, and west boundaries of the tribe of Ephraim, and the half-tribe of Manasseh,

referring to ch. Joshua 17:7 the description of its northern limits, the author proceeds to a

more exact designation of the extent of the territories of Ephraim; and first he sets out at

large the breadth from south to north, or the north-east borders at the broadest part: All

we can say respecting which is, that Ataroth-addar was on the south, and Upper Beth-

horon on the north-east of that tribe. We are not to expect any satisfactory account

respecting this article: the Sacred History is too concise to be extended now, when every

thing in the Holy Land is transposed. We can scarcely meet with the ruins of any of some

cities which formerly figured there, nor discover the least traces of others. The floods

which watered some places are now exhausted and dry; its rivers have taken another

course: in a word, it is no longer the same country; and where the descriptions of Sacred

Writ are not circumstantiated in the clearest manner, we can only supply them by

conjectures more or less probable. Here, for instance, commentators rather guess than

conjecture; and therefore we prefer being silent, to following so vague a method.

CONSTABLE, "Verses 5-10

He traced the borders of Ephraim"s allotment next. Ephraim lay north of the area later

given to Dan and Benjamin, and south of western Manasseh. The Ephraimites failed to

drive out the inhabitants of Gezer ( Joshua 16:10).

ELLICOTT, "Verses 5-8

(5-8) The border (of Ephraim’s inheritance) on the east side.—The words “on the east

side” are not easy to understand. If Ataroth-addar is rightly identified as Ed-Dârieh, and

Mickmethah as the plain of Mukhnah, then the line from Ataroth-addar and Beth-horon to

Michmethah is a line running due north, and separating the territory of Ephraim on the

east from that of Dan on the west. The line from Michmethah to Taanath-shiloh (Tana,

sheet 12) and Janohah (Yânûn, south of T’ana, sheet 15), and so to Jordan, is a line

running from north-west to south-east. The brook Kanah is (roughly) continuous with this

line, but in a westerly direction, and leads us towards the sea. We thus obtain for the

territory of Ephraim four boundary-lines—viz.: (a) the plain of Jordan on the east; (b) the

line of hills bordering the Shephelah on the west; (c) the brook Kanah, and the line

passing through Taanath-shiloh and Janohah to Jordan on the north; and (d) the north

border of Benjamin (Joshua 16:1-3, and Joshua 18:12-14) on the south.

WHEDON, "EPHRAIM’S BORDERS, Joshua 16:5-10.

[This outline of Ephraim’s borders has evidences of being merely a fragment, and much

corrupted at that. All scholars have acknowledged the difficulty of reconciling its

different statements, and all attempts at emendation are at best conjectural.

5. The border… on the east side was Ataroth-addar — We understand Ataroth-addar to be

identical with the Ataroth of Joshua 16:2; Joshua 16:7. At this point the border between

Ephraim and Benjamin went northward towards Bethel, and westward towards Beth-

horon, so that it was regarded as a prominent point in Ephraim’s eastern border, where it

joined the western border of Benjamin.

Unto Beth-horon the upper — Before these words something seems to have fallen out of

the text. The words themselves evidently belong to the southern border, for the upper

Beth-horon was about five miles directly west of Ataroth.

PULPIT, "Joshua 16:5

The border of the children of Ephraim. The Hebrew word is translated indifferently by

coast and border in our translation. The border of Joseph is very slightly traced out by the

historian. It is difficult to give a reason for this fact, when we remember that Joseph,

consisting as it did of the preponderating tribe of Ephraim, together with half the tribe of

Manasseh, constituted by far the most important portion of Jewish territory. See,

however, Introduction for the bearing of this fact on the authorship of the book. It is by no

means easy to define the boundaries of the tribes; but, with the utmost deference to the

authority of one so long engaged in the actual survey of the Holy Land as Mr. Conder, I

feel unable to accept the maps he has given us in his 'Handbook' as an accurate account of

them. Sometimes, perhaps, an eager attempt at the identification of certain places may

lead astray those who are most familiar with their subject. But there are certain plain

statements of the Book of Joshua which cannot be lightly set aside. Thus the extremity

of the border of Ephraim is distinctly stated in verse 8 to be the sea. To translate ( תְֹצאֹת )

"westward" would rob the expression תֹצאֹת of all meaning, even if ימה had not the article.

Thus Dan can only have approached towards Joppa, but cannot have reached it. And it

will be observed in Joshua 19:46, in accordance with this view, that the outgoings of the

Danite border are not said to have been the sea. Next, it would seem that the Ataroth of

Joshua 19:2 (not of Joshua 19:7) and Ataroth-addar are either the same place or close

together, and that the present verse gives a small portion of the southeastern boundary as

far as Beth-horon. Why the boundary is not traced out further ("the author only gives the

western part of the southern border, and leaves out the eastern," Knobel) we cannot tell,

but the natural translation of Joshua 19:6 is, "and the western border ran to Michmethah

on the north" (so Knobel). There was so small a portion of Ephraim on the sea that the

line of the Wady Kanah in a northeasterly direction to Michmethah, near Shechem, might

be called a western, as it certainly was a northwestern, border. Then the border deflected

and ran in a southwesterly direction to Jericho. Manasseh seems to have been ( נַָסב )

bounded by Asher on the north and Issachar on the east, from the borders of Asher to

Michmethah, and its western boundary the sea from the Wady Kanah to the

neighbourhood of Dor. It seems impossible, with the distinct statement that Dor was in

Asher (Joshua 17:11)—it could hardly have been in Issachar—and that Carmel was part

of its western border (Joshua 19:26), to thrust a wedge of Zehulun between Manasseh and

Asher, as Mr. Conder has done. The invention of an Asherham-Michmethah must not be

allowed to set aside the plain statement (Joshua 17:10) that Manasseh impinged ( פגע )

upon Asher in a northerly direction—that is, was bounded on the north by that tribe.

Then, as Asher was the northern, so it would seem from the passage just cited that

Issachar was, as has been suggested, the eastern boundary, and that Issachar was bounded

by the Jordan eastward, Manasseh westward, and by Ephraim to the southwest, and some

distance further south than is usually supposed. Yet Joshua 17:11 must not he forgotten in

fixing the boundary of Issachar (see note on Joshua 19:17-23). Its northern border,

comprehending Jezreel, and bounded by Tabor, was thrust in between Zebulun and

Naphtali. Tabor was evidently the border of these three tribes. It is with much diffidence

that I venture to offer these suggestions, hut they appear to have the sanction of the plain

statements of the sacred writer. It would seem as though the comparative smallness of the

territory assigned to Joseph led to the cession of some of the towns northward of the

Wady Kanah by Manasseh to Ephraim, Manasseh receiving compensation by receiving

Beth-shean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo from Issachar and Asher. The

possession of Beth-shean by Manasseh may be due to the fact that the boundary of

Manasseh ran along the chain of mountains bordering the great plain of Esdraelon, until it

almost reached the Jordan. Additional reasons for entertaining these opinions will be

given in the following notes. On the east side was Ataroth-addar. It is hardly possible to

avoid the conclusion that a passage has been omitted here by the transcriber. If so, it must

have been at a very early period, since the LXX. shows no sign of it, save that some

copies add "and Gezer." But this is probably added from verse 3, and is in no sense an

eastern border.

6 and continued to the Mediterranean Sea. From Mikmethath on the north it curved eastward to Taanath Shiloh, passing by it to Janoah on the east.

GILL, "And the border went out towards the sea,.... The Mediterranean sea:

to Michmethah on the north side; of the border, the same on which Bethhoron was, from whence the border proceeded on to this place, of which we have no other account but in Jos_17:7; by which it appears to have been near Shechem, and in sight of it:

and the border went about eastward unto Taanathshiloh; this seems to be the same Jerom (e) calls Thenath in the tribe of Joseph; and who observes there was in his day a village of this name ten miles from Neapolis (or Shechem) to the east, as you go down to Jordan:

and passed by it on the east to Janohah: which the above writer (f) wrongly calls Janon, and says, that in his time a village of this name was shown in the country of Acrabatena, twelve miles to the east from Neapolis or Shechem; the border passed by Taanath on the east of it, and went on this place.

JAMISO 6-7,"Michmethah on the north side— The northern boundary is traced from this point eastward to the Jordan.

BE SO , "Verse 6-7

Joshua 16:6-7. Toward the sea — The midland sea, toward the west. To Jericho —

ot to the city of Jericho, which belonged to Benjamin’s lot, (Joshua 18:21,) but to

its territory.

TRAPP, "Joshua 16:6 And the border went out toward the sea to Michmethah on

the north side; and the border went about eastward unto Taanathshiloh, and passed

by it on the east to Janohah;

Ver. 6. Toward the sea.] Or, Westward by Michmethah, and then eastward by

several towns here mentioned. These are ancient things, and to us hard to be

understood.

COKE,"Verse 6

Ver. 6. And the border went out toward the sea, &c.— The whole verse is very

obscure: all that we can observe upon it is, that the portion of Ephraim was inclosed

on the north by a line, which went from Upper Beth-horon, among others, to

Michmethah, in the way to the Mediterranean, but on the north of that city drew

near a little on the east towards Taanah-shiloh, and went on to Janohah. From ch.

Joshua 17:7 it appears, that Michmethah was opposite Sichem. Taanah-shiloh is

probably the same as Taanach, ch. Joshua 17:11 which Eusebius places ten miles

from Sichem, in the way to the Jordan. As to Janohah, Eusebius sets down a place of

that name at ten miles from Sichem, and also in the way to the Jordan.

WHEDO , "6. And the border went out toward the sea — The Mediterranean.

Here the sentence should end, for to Michmethah evidently belongs to the northern

boundary, and to another sentence. Toward the sea, then, completes the account of

the boundary in the southwest. We would commence a new sentence with the word

Michmethah, and render, Michmethah was on the north side. Or perhaps it would

be better to emend the reading by means of the parallel in Joshua 17:7, and read,

The border was from Asher to Michmethah on the north. Michmethah is there said

to lie before Shechem, but that is indefinite. It is generally supposed to have been

northeast of Shechem, but the exact site is unknown.

Went about — That is, fetched a circuit, or slightly turned its course, eastward unto

Taanath-shiloh. This is not improbably identical with Ain Tana, about eight miles

southeast of Shechem. Janohah is still preserved in the village of Yanun, about two

miles south of Ain Tana. Van de Velde says that “entire houses and walls of the

ancient city are still existing, but covered with immense heaps of earth and

rubbish.”

PULPIT, "And the border went out towards the sea. Or, "and the western border."

On the north side. Or, "northward." Apparently a line is drawn from the sea, which

(Joshua 16:3) is given as the termination of the southern boundary to Michmethah,

near Shechem (Joshua 17:7). Knobel thinks that Michmethah (the signification of

which is perhaps hiding place) was upon the watershed, and thus served as a

dividing point. Went about. Rather, deflected. The border ran m a northeasterly

direction to Michmethah. It then bent back and ran in a southeasterly direction to

Jericho.

7 Then it went down from Janoah to Ataroth and aarah, touched Jericho and came out at the Jordan.

GILL, "And it went down from Johanan to Ataroth,.... This is different from Ataroth before mentioned, Jos_16:2; there were several places of this name, as before observed; this seems to be that which Jerom places four miles from Sebaste or Samaria; see Gill on Jos_16:2,

and to Naarath; Jerom (g) says, that Naarath was in his time called Naorath, a village of the Jews, five miles from Jericho; and is the village Josephus (h) calls Neara, where was a water, half of which Archelaus turned, and led to the field planted with palm trees, near Jericho; and, according to the Jewish writers (i): there was a place called Noaran near to Jericho, which seems to be this:

and came to Jericho, and went out at Jordan; where it ended this way, which was eastward.

K&D, "From Janoah the boundary went down “to Ataroth and Naarath,” Ataroth, a different place from the Ataroth or Atroth-addar mentioned in Jos_16:3 and Jos_16:5, is apparently to be sought for on the eastern slope of the mountains by the side of the Ghor, judging from the expression “went down;” but it has not yet been discovered. Naarath, probably the same as Naaran, in eastern Ephraim (1Ch_7:28), is described in the Onom. (s. v. Naaratha) as viculus Judaeorum Naorath, five Roman miles (i.e., two hours) from Jericho, probably on the north-east. The boundary line then touched Jericho, i.e., the district of Jericho, namely on the north side of the district, as Jericho was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos_18:21). At this point it also coincided with the southern boundary of the tribe of Joseph (Jos_16:1) and the northern boundary of Benjamin (Jos_18:12).

TRAPP, "Joshua 16:7 And it went down from Janohah to Ataroth, and to aarath,

and came to Jericho, and went out at Jordan.

Ver. 7. And came to Jericho,] i.e., To the territories, but not to the town itself, for

that was part of Benjamin’s lot. [Joshua 18:21]

WHEDO ,"7. From Janohah to Ataroth — In this verse we have a confusion of the

northern and southern borders, resulting doubtless from some transposition in the

text. We propose to read, and it went down from Janohah, and went out at Jordan,

and regard the words to Ataroth and to aarath, and came to Jericho, as a

fragment transposed from its proper place in the text, and its immediate connexion

lost.

8 From Tappuah the border went west to the Kanah Ravine and ended at the Mediterranean Sea. This was the inheritance of the tribe of the Ephraimites, according to its clans.

CLARKE,"Tappuah - This was a city in the tribe of Manasseh, and gave name to a certain district called the land of Tappuah. See Jos_17:8.

The sea - The Mediterranean, as before.

GILL, "The border went out from Tappuah westward,.... Which was different from the Tappuah in the tribe of Judah, Jos_15:34; this was in the tribe of Ephraim on the border of Manasseh, Jos_17:8,

unto the river Kanah; supposed by some to be the brook Cherith, by which Elijah hid himself, 1Ki_17:3; though objected to by others; it seems to have had its name from the reeds which grew in it, or on the banks of it:

and the goings out thereof were at the sea; if the river Kanah was the brook Cherith, this must be the dead or salt sea: but that is never called "the sea", rather the Mediterranean sea is meant, and consequently Kanah could not be Cherith, which was at too great a distance from this sea:

this is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim by their families; that is, this is the description of the border of it; for the cities within are not mentioned, and the descriptions in general are very obscure.

JAMISO ,"from Tappuah westward unto the river Kanah— It is retraced from east to west, to describe the prospective and intended boundary, which was to reach to the sea. Kanah (“reedy”) flows into the Mediterranean.

K&D, "The western half of the northern boundary went from Tappuah westwards to the Cane-brook, and terminated at the sea. Tappuah, called En-tappuah in Jos_17:7, as the southern boundary of Manasseh, which is there described, and which ran from

Michmethah to En-tappuah, coincides with the northern boundary of Ephraim, must not be identified with the royal town of that name mentioned in Jos_12:17, and therefore was not Kefr Kud (Capercota), on the west of Jenin (Ginäa). This place was so far to the north, viz., seven hours to the north of Nabulus, that the boundary from Michmethah, in the neighbourhood of Shechem (Nabulus) onwards, would have run from south to north instead of in a westerly direction. Still less can En-tappuah be found, as Van de Veldesupposes, in the old well of the deserted village of Atüf, five hours to the east of Nabulus. It must have been to the west of Shechem; but it has not yet been discovered, as the country to the west of Nabulus and Sebastieh has “not been examined” (Van de Velde). The Cane-brook is no doubt the brook of that name mentioned by Bohad. (vita Salad. pp. 191, 193); only it is not quite clear “whether the Abu Zabura is intended, or a brook somewhat farther south, where there is still a Nahr el Kassab.”

TRAPP, "Joshua 16:8 The border went out from Tappuah westward unto the river

Kanah; and the goings out thereof were at the sea. This [is] the inheritance of the

tribe of the children of Ephraim by their families.

Ver. 8. The border went out from Tappuah.] So called from the plenty of apples that

grew there: as Perton in Worcestershire is from the plenty of pears.

PETT, "Verse 8-9

‘From Tappuah the border went along westward to the brook of Kanah, and its

goings out were at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of

Ephraim according to their families, together with the cities which were separated

for the children of Ephraim in the midst of the inheritance of the children of

Manasseh, all the cities with their villages.’

The line from Michmethath to Tappuah is not mentioned but assumed (compare

Joshua 17:7-9). The author had many surveyor’s records and reports to select from,

many probably made on Joshua’s campaigns, and he did so to present a certain

picture without too much repetition. Tappuah (meaning ‘quince’) is possibly

modern Sheikh Abu Zarad, about twelve kilometres (eight miles) south of Shechem.

Its Canaanite king was defeated by Joshua (Joshua 12:17) but nothing is said about

the actual town. The Wadi Qanah ran west from the watershed at the head of the

Michmethath valley, eight kilometres (five miles) south west of Shechem. This was

its lower course which ran on to the Great Sea.

“This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim according to their

families.” These are the technical descriptions that finish off the allotment to each of

the twelve tribes apart from Levi, whose inheritance was YHWH, and Manasseh

who were counted with Ephraim, indicating the early date of the descriptions (see

on Joshua 15:20). ote that Ephraim and Manasseh were conjoined in that

Ephraim had cities within Manasseh indicating joint rule.

“Together with the cities which were separated for the children of Ephraim in the

midst of the inheritance of the children of Manasseh.” We are not told why this was

so. Possibly it occurred through Ephraimite assistance to Manasseh at an early

point, but it confirms the oneness between them and suggests combined rule to some

extent.

WHEDO ,"8. From Tappuah westward unto the river Kanah — This is a

completion of the northern boundary westward from the central ridge of Palestine.

The site of Tappuah is unknown. The river Kanah is uncertain. Robinson identifies

it with a wady still bearing the name Kanah, which rises south of Shechem and runs

southwest, and empties into the Mediterranean four miles north of Joppa. But this is

too far south to be a boundary between Ephraim and Manasseh. Compare Joshua

17:8-9. It is more probably identical with the Wady Kassab, (stream of reeds,) which

falls into the sea nearly west of Shechem.

PULPIT, "The border went out from Tappuah westward. This would seem to be a

more minute description of the border line drawn from the sea to Michmethah

above. Tappuah seems to have been near Mich-methah, and on the border (Joshua

17:8) of Manasseh. According to Knobel, Tappuah signifies plain, which is a little

inconsistent with his idea that Michmethah, close by, was the watershed. Tappuah

elsewhere signifies apple. Unto the river Trench. The winter-bound torrent Kanah,

so named from its reeds and canes, formed the border between Ephraim and

Manasseh. And the goings out (literally, extremities) thereof were at the sea This is

the only possible interpretation of the passage, in spite of the obscurity caused by

the same word being used for "sea" and "west."

9 It also included all the towns and their villages that were set aside for the Ephraimites within the inheritance of the Manassites.

BAR ES, "The verb “were,” introduced by the King James Version in this verse should be omitted; and the full stop after Jos_16:8 replaced by a colon. The purport of Jos_16:9 is simply to add to the inheritance of Ephraim, defined by the preceding context, “the separate cities” or more properly “single cities” which were allotted to them in addition within the borders of Manasseh. The reasons for granting these additional cities to the Ephraimites can only be conjectured. Perhaps the territory assigned to this numerous tribe proved on experiment to be too small; and therefore some towns, which are named in 1Ch_7:29, were given to them from the kindred Manassites, the latter being recompensed (Jos_17:11 note) at the expense of Issachar and Asher.

CLARKE,"And the separate cities - That is, the cities that were separated from

the tribe of Manasseh to be given to Ephraim; see Jos_17:9.

GILL, "And the separate cities for the children of Ephraim,.... The tribe of Ephraim, being much larger than the half tribe of Manasseh, besides the lot that fell to it, described before by its boundaries, had several particular and distinct cities given to it: which

were among the inheritance of the children of Manasseh; some that were upon the borders of Ephraim, and within the territory of Manasseh, and it may be where it jetted out in a nook or corner, see Jos_17:8,

all the cities with their villages; not the separate cities only, but the little towns adjacent to them.

JAMISO ,"separate cities for the children of Ephraim were among the inheritance of Manasseh— (Jos_17:9), because it was found that the tract allotted to Ephraim was too small in proportion to its population and power.

K&D, "The tribe of Ephraim also received some scattered towns in the territory of the tribe of Manasseh, in fact all those towns to which Tappuah belonged, according to Jos_17:8, with the dependent villaGes.

(Note: The reason why the Ephraimites received scattered towns and villages in the tribe-territory of Manasseh, is supposed by Calvin, Masius, and others, to have been, that after the boundaries had been arranged, on comparing the territory allotted to each with the relative numbers of the two tribes, it was found that Ephraim had received too small a possession. This is quite possible; at the same time there may have been other reasons which we cannot discover now, as precisely the same thing occurs in the case of Manasseh (Jos_17:11).)

BE SO , "Joshua 16:9. The separate cities — That is, besides those cities which

were within Ephraim’s bounds, he had some other cities out of Manasseh’s portion,

because his tribe was all here, and was larger than Manasseh’s.

TRAPP, "Joshua 16:9 And the separate cities for the children of Ephraim [were]

among the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages.

Ver. 9. And the separate cities, &c.] Allotted to Ephraim, a numerous tribe, within

the portion of Manasseh.

COKE, "Ver. 9. And the separate cities for the children of Ephraim were, &c.—

The natural sense of these words is, that besides the above-mentioned cities, through

which the line of separation of the tribe of Ephraim, from that of Manasseh,

crossed, the Ephraimites had some other cities beyond the boundaries of their

country, in the land of the half-tribe of Manasseh, see ch. Joshua 17:7-9. Or else the

words may be paraphrased thus: These are the cities which were separated for the

children of Ephraim, in the country of Manasseh, with the villages which sprung

from them. According to this interpretation, the historian speaks not of cities

different from those just mentioned, but of those very cities; and he calls them

separate cities, inasmuch as, the lot of the tribe of Manasseh proving too large in

proportion to the number of its families, some cities were set apart from them, to be

given to the children of Ephraim, who, on the contrary, were too much confined. See

Wells. But here we should observe, 1. That, in the numbering of the tribes, the

Ephraimites were less numerous than the Manassites by about twenty thousand

men. umbers 28:31. But afterwards Moses foretold to the Ephraimites, that there

should be ten of them for one Manassite, Deuteronomy 33:17.; and the event

justified the prediction. 2. That several celebrated cities, not mentioned here, fell to

the lot of Ephraim. Such, among others, are Ramah, the country of Samuel, known

in the ew Testament under the name of Arimathea; Shiloh, where the tabernacle

resided; Tirzah, the royal city of Jeroboam, and some of his successors; Samaria,

the capital of the kingdom of Israel, after the destruction of Tirzah; and Sichem,

with the mountains of Ebal, Gerizzim, Sichar, &c.

ELLICOTT, "(9) The separate cities for the children of Ephraim were among the

inheritance of the children of Manasseh; and Joshua 17:10-11 : “Manasseh had in

Issachar and in Asher, Beth-shean,” &c. This fact would manifestly tend to produce

a solidarity among the several tribes, and to prevent disunion by creating common

interests. The interest of the stronger tribes would be served by completing the

conquest of the territory assigned to the weaker. And the general formation thus

produced would resemble that which was known by the name of the testudo, or

tortoise, in Roman warfare. When a body of soldiers approached the wall of a town

which it was intended to assault, they sometimes held their shields over them,

overlapping like scales, each man’s shield partly sheltering his own, and partly his

neighbour’s body, so that no missile could penetrate. Thus it may be said not only of

Jerusalem, but of all the tribes in the land of their possession, that they were built as

a city that is compact together, and at unity in itself: united by joints and bands, so

that if one member of the body politic should suffer, all the members must suffer

with it. For a further illustration of the same topic, see on the inheritance of

Benjamin (Joshua 18:11) and of Simeon (Joshua 19:1).

WHEDO ,"9. Separate cities — That is, cities separated or selected out of

Manasseh for the use of Ephraim. Of these only Tappuah is named in Joshua 17:8-

9. Compare also 1 Chronicles 7:28-29. It is generally supposed, that when the

boundary lines had been drawn, the territory of Ephraim was found not as large

proportionally as his numbers and importance demanded. But the relation of

Ephraim and Manasseh was such that they might be regarded as having one lot.

Compare Joshua 17:14. Hence they held many cities in common, and hence too,

perhaps, the reason why no complete enumeration of the cities of these two brother

tribes is anywhere given.] 10. The Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer — These held

their ancient seat until the days of Solomon. 1 Kings 9:16. Compare Judges 1:29.

Under tribute — This implies the power to extirpate, but instead of this a fatal

compromise was made. Josephus explains the reason: “After this the Israelites grew

effeminate as to fighting any more against their enemies, but applied themselves to

agriculture, which producing abundance and riches, they indulged in luxury and

pleasure, and, contenting themselves with the tributes that were paid them,

permitted the Canaanites to live in peace.”

PULPIT, "And the separate cities. Literally, and the cities divided off. The word

"were," in our version, is misplaced. It should be read thus: "And there were cities

divided off and assigned to the tribe of Ephraim in the midst of the inheritance of

the sons of Manasseh" (see note on verse 5). This fact, together with the

compensation given to Manasseh, may serve to explain the cohesion of the ten tribes

in opposition to Judah. The boundaries of the latter tribe were more strictly defined,

her attitude more exclusive. We may almost discern this in the prominence given to

Judah in the present book. Ephraim, already enraged at the passing away of the

pre-eminence from itself, which had not merely been predicted, but, as 8:1-3 and

12:1 show, had been actually enjoyed, was closely allied to Manasseh, and Manasseh

to Issachar and Zebulun, by the arrangement we are considering. It would naturally

be able, by its position and these circumstances, to combine together the rest of the

tribe against the somewhat overbearing attitude of the tribe of Judah (see 2 Samuel

19:43).

10 They did not dislodge the Canaanites living in Gezer; to this day the Canaanites live among the people of Ephraim but are required to do forced labor.

CLARKE,"The Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer - It appears that the Canaanites were not expelled from this city till the days of Solomon, when it was taken by the king of Egypt his father-in-law, who made it a present to his daughter, Solomon’s queen. See 1Ki_9:16. And see the note on Jos_10:33. The Ephraimites, however, had so far succeeded in subjecting these people as to oblige them to pay tribute, though they could not, or at least did not, totally expel them.

Of the names and places in this chapter, we may say the same as of others already mentioned. See the note on Jos_15:1. Many of those towns were small, and, we may rationally conclude, slightly built, and consequently have perished perhaps more than a thousand years ago. It would be therefore useless to look for such places now. Several of the towns in England, a land not exposed to such revolutions as that of Palestine has ever been, mentioned by Caesar and other ancient writers, are no longer discernible. Several have changed their names, and not a few their situation. Tradition states that the

city of Norwich anciently stood some miles from its present situation; and we have the fullest proof that this was the case with the city of Salisbury. Such changes do not affect the truth of the ancient geography of our own country; nor can they impeach that of the sacred historian before us.

GILL, "And they drove not out the Canaanites which dwelt in Gezer,.... Which was the border of their tribe length ways, and was near the sea, Jos_16:3; in this they did not obey the command of God, and either they did not drive them out, because they could not, God not delivering them up into their hands, because of their sins; or through their slothfulness, or it may be through covetousness, being willing to make some advantage to themselves by them, being a trading people, which seems to be intended in the next clause:

but the Canaanites dwelt among the Ephraimites unto this day; which Joshua, the writer of this book, might truly say, and be no objection to it, since the same is observed after his death, Jdg_1:29; and indeed they continued to dwell there until the times of Solomon, when it was taken by Pharaoh king of Egypt, and given as a present to his daughter, the wife of Solomon, 1Ki_9:15; and though this clause does not furnish out an argument against the writing of this book by Joshua, yet, from the instance given, it appears it must have been written before the times of Solomon, and so not by Ezra, as some:

and serve under tribute; so that they were under their power, and therefore could have driven them out, or slain them, as by the command of God they should; but they spared them for the sake of the tribute they received from them, which seems to agree with the character of the Ephraimites, Hos_12:8.

JAMISO ,"they drave not out the Canaanites ... but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute— This is the first mention of the fatal policy of the Israelites, in neglecting the divine command (Deu_20:16) to exterminate the idolaters.

K&D, "From Gezer, however (see Jos_16:3), they could not drive out the Canaanites, so that they still dwelt among the Ephraimites, but were reduced to a state of serfdom. This notice resembles the one in Jos_15:63, and is to be interpreted in the same way.

TRAPP, "Joshua 16:10 And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer:

but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under

tribute.

Ver. 10. And they drave not out.] Which is nothing for their commendation; but

discovereth either their cowardice or covetousness, or both.

But the Canaanites dwell, &c.] {See Trapp on "Joshua 16:3"} They would not yield:

so that Pharaoh was forced to fire their town. [1 Kings 9:16]

PETT, "Verse 10

‘And they did not drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer, but the Canaanites

dwelt in the midst of Ephraim to this day and became servants to do taskwork.’

Compare Joshua 13:13; Joshua 15:63, (although in the latter case Judah ‘could not’

drive them out). The suggestion here is that at some stage Gezer was subdued, but

that instead of driving them out they made them bondmen, and this was the

situation at the time that this was written. This was in direct disobedience to the

command of YHWH. This final phrase may, however, refer to a much later time,

but the roots of sin began very early. They allowed the Canaanites to dwell among

them. Thus the Israelites began to sample Canaanite life, and especially their

sexually depraved religion. The Book of Judges will outline what an effect this later

had on their faith and obedience.

Gezer was an important city on the road from Jerusalem to Joppa and on the most

northern ridge of the Shephelah, overlooking the Aijalon valley, twelve kilometres

from the main highway between Egypt and Mesopotamia. It was important for

trading purposes. In fact, although the king of Gezer, and its army, were defeated

by Joshua, Gezer was not taken. The ageing Pharaoh Merenptah claims to have

recaptured it in late 13th century BC, but if so it was only temporary. Archaeology

suggests that after 1200 BC the Philistines controlled the city, possibly with

Egyptian approval. It definitely became an Israelite possession when the Pharaoh,

having seized it, slew the Canaanites and gave it to his daughter on her marriage to

Solomon (1 Kings 9:15-17). All this agrees with the fact that Ephraim did not ‘drive

them out, allowing them to dwell in their midst’. Possibly like Jebusite Jerusalem for

Judah (Joshua 15:63) it was at most times too strong for them. But there would also

be other times when if they had exerted themselves they could have achieved it and

driven them out. But the impetus was gone and obedience was lacking. They

accepted the situation as it was. Once again Israel failed.

This is also a warning to us that we must not settle down in complacency but that by

studying the Law of God we should always keep on the alert to do God’s will and to

drive out all that offends Him.

PULPIT, "And they drave not out. The Ephraimites soon grew slack in the

fulfilment of the Divine command. There is a distinction, apparently, between this

passage and Joshua 15:63. There the tribe of Judah was unable to drive out the

Jebusites from their stronghold, and no mention is made of tribute. Here the

Ephraimites seem deliberately to have preferred the easier task of reducing the

Canaanites to tribute to the sterner and more difficult task of destroying them

utterly.

PULPIT, "HOMILIES BY W.F. ADE EY

Joshua 16:10

Canaanites still in the land.

I. CA AA ITES STILL I THE LA D WERE A WIT ESS TO THE FAILURE

OF THE JEWS TO ACCOMPLISH GOD'S WILL. They may have failed

But these Canaanites were a cause of future trouble and a constant temptation to

idolatry and immorality. We shall always suffer when we neglect God's will for

worldly convenience.

II. CA AA ITES REMAI I G I THE LA D WERE A I STA CE OF THE

MIXED CO DITIO OF HUMA SOCIETY. Wheat and tares grow together.

The Church and the world are in close contact. It is dangerous to associate with evil

company when we can avoid it (Psalms 1:1). But it is also wrong for Christians to

neglect their duty to the world in order to escape the contamination of the world's

wickedness.

III. CA AA ITES REMAI I G I THE LA D WERE A EXAMPLE OF A

COMMO CAUSE OF ATIO AL WEAK ESS. Much of the trouble of the dark

age of the Judges arose from this fact. A nation to be strong must be united as one

body, and it can only be so united when there are common sympathies binding the

people together. The government which is effected through the forcible subjugation

of unwilling peoples must always rest on an unstable basis, and can never

accomplish the highest good of the subject races. Therefore it should be the aim of a

government to avoid, if possible, the conquest of new, unwilling subjects, to cultivate

the affections of all classes beneath it, and to weld them together by just equality of

administration, and the development of common interests. Where national

assimilation is impossible it is better that a common government should not be

attempted.

IV. CA AA ITES REMAI I G I THE LA D WERE A TYPE OF SI S

REMAI I G I THE HEART OF THE CHRISTIA .

COKE, "Ver. 10. And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer, &c.—

Gezer was upon the sea-coast, in the district retained by the Philistines. Judges 1:29.

But the Canaanites—serve under tribute— Grotius, in his commentary upon these

words, thinks that the Gezerites, when become tributaries, were forced to receive

the positive laws which God had given to Abraham and oah, and which tended to

exclude all idolatry. But in another part of his works, that great critic observes, that

the Gezerites were spared, as, without doubt, they surrendered immediately on

being summoned. He observes the same of the Gergesenes, who remained even in

the time of Jesus Christ. Matthew 8:28. "This people," says he, "had surrendered

from the first; for which reason no mention is made of them in the numbering of the

enemy-nations. Deuteronomy 20:17 and ch. Joshua 11:1." See de B. & P. lib. 2: cap.

13 sect. 4 n. 2 and Barbeyrac's note on the place. For the rest, it is well known, that

the city of Gezer and its inhabitants were destroyed by Solomon, after the conquest

made of it by the king of Egypt, in order to give it as a portion to his daughter on

her marriage with that prince. 1 Kings 9:16.