JOSHUA 19 COMME TARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE

Allotment for Simeon

1 The second lot came out for the tribe of Simeon according to its clans. Their inheritance lay within the territory of Judah.

BAR ES 1-9, "The inheritance of Simeon was taken out of the portion of Judah, which proved on experience to be larger than the numbers of that tribe required. The Simeonite territory is described by its towns, of which fourteen were in the Negeb, and four others Jos_19:7 partly in the Negeb and partly in “the valley.” On the narrow confines here assigned to Simeon, and its insignificant position altogether among the Twelve tribes, see Deu_33:6 note.

CLARKE, "The second lot came forth to Simeon - In this appointment the providence of God may be especially remarked. For the iniquitous conduct of Simeon and Levi, in the massacre of the innocent Shechemites, Gen_34:25-31, Jacob, in the spirit of prophecy, foretold that they should be divided in Jacob, and scattered in Israel, Gen_49:7. And this was most literally fulfilled in the manner in which God disposed of both these tribes afterwards. Levi was scattered through all Palestine, not having received any inheritance, only cities to dwell in, in different parts of the land; and Simeon was dispersed in Judah, with what could scarcely be said to be their own, or a peculiar lot. See the note on Gen_49:7.

GILL, "And the second lot came forth to Simeon,.... That is, the second of the seven lots, of which Benjamin's was the first; otherwise there were the two lots of Judah and Joseph, which preceded both these:

even for the tribe of the children of Simeon, according to their families; for though many of their cities had been given by lot to the tribe of Judah, yet it seems as if there were others they had by a special lot cast for them, as many as were sufficient for their families:

and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah; which was done partly because this was but a small tribe, and particularly because the lot put up, which fell to the tribe of Judah, was too large for it, more than they could occupy, too much being put to this lot by the first measurers of the land; and partly to fulfil the prophecy of Jacob, that the Simeonites should be scattered in Jacob, and divided in Israel, Gen_49:7; and hence it is that the lots of these two tribes lying together, and being so intermixed, that the tribe of Judah called upon that of Simeon to join them in fighting against the Canaanites, and taking out of their hands the cities that belonged to them, Jdg_1:3.

HE RY 1-9, "Simeon's lot was drawn after Judah's, Joseph's, and Benjamin's, because Jacob had put that tribe under disgrace; yet it is put before the two younger sons of Leah and the three sons of the handmaids. Not one person of note, neither judge nor prophet, was of this tribe, that we know of.

I. The situation of their lot was within that of Judah (Jos_19:1) and was taken from it, Jos_19:9. It seems, those that first surveyed the land thought it larger than it was, and that it would have held out to give every tribe in proportion as large a share as they had carved out for Judah; but, upon a more strict enquiry, it was found that it would not reach (Jos_19:9): The part of the children of Judah was too much for them, more than they needed, and more, as it proved, than fell to their share. Yet God did not by the lot lessen it, but left it to their prudence and care afterwards to discover and rectify the mistake, which when they did, 1. The men of Judah did not oppose the taking away of the cities again, which by the first distribution fell within their border, when they were convinced that they had more than their proportion. In all such cases errors must be excepted and a review admitted if there be occasion. Though, in strictness, what fell to their lot was their right against all the world, yet they would not insist upon it when it appeared that another tribe would want what they had to spare. Note, We must look on the things of others, and not on our own only. The abundance of some must supply the wants of others, that there may be somewhat of an equality, for which there may be equity where there is not law. 2. That which was thus taken off from Judah to be put into a new lot Providence directed to the tribe of Simeon, that Jacob's prophecy concerning this tribe might be fulfilled, I will divide them in Jacob. The cities of Simeon were scattered in Judah, with which tribe they were surrounded, except on that side towards the sea. This brought them into a confederacy with the tribe of Judah (Jdg_1:3), and afterwards was a happy occasion of the adherence of many of this tribe to the house of David, at the time of the revolt of the ten tribes to Jeroboam. 2Ch_15:9, out of Simeon they fell to Asa in abundance. It is good being in a good neighbourhood.

II. The cities within their lot are here named. Beersheba, or Sheba, for these names seem to refer to the same place, is put first. Ziklag, which we read of in David's story, is one of them. What course they took to enlarge their borders and make room for themselves we find 1Ch_4:39, etc.

JAMISO , "Jos_19:1-9. The lot of Simeon.

the second lot came forth to Simeon— The next lot that was drawn at Shiloh, gave the tribe of Simeon his inheritance within the territory, which had been assigned to that of Judah. The knowledge of Canaan possessed by the Israelites, when the division of the land commenced, was but very general, being derived from the rapid sweep they had made over it during the course of conquest; and it was on the ground of that rough

survey alone that the distribution proceeded, by which Judah received an inheritance. Time showed that this territory was too large (Jos_19:9), either for their numbers, however great, to occupy and their arms to defend, or too large in proportion to the allotments of the other tribes. Justice therefore required (what kind and brotherly feeling readily dictated) a modification of their possession; and a part of it was appropriated to Simeon. By thus establishing it within the original domain of another tribe, the prophecy of Jacob in regard to Simeon was fulfilled (Gen_49:7); for from its boundaries being not traced, there is reason to conclude that its people were divided and dispersed among those of Judah; and though one group of its cities named (Jos_19:2-6), gives the idea of a compact district, as it is usually represented by map makers, the other group (Jos_19:7, Jos_19:8) were situated, two in the south, and two elsewhere, with tracts of the country around them.

K&D, "The Inheritance of Simeon fell within the inheritance of the children of Judah, because the land allotted to them at Gilgal was larger than they required (Jos_19:9). Thus the curse pronounced upon Simeon by Jacob of dispersion in Israel (Gen_49:7) was fulfilled upon this tribe in a very peculiar manner, and in a different manner from that pronounced upon Levi. The towns allotted to the tribe of Simeon are divided into two groups, the first (Jos_19:2-6) consisting of thirteen or fourteen towns, all situated in the Negeb (or south country); the second (Jos_19:7) of four towns, two of which were in the Negeb and two in the shephelah. All these eighteen towns have already been enumerated among the towns of Judah (Jos_15:26-32, Jos_15:42), and are mentioned again in 1Ch_4:28-32, in just the same order, and with only slight differences in the spelling of some of the names. If the classification of the names in two groups might seem to indicate that Simeon received a connected portion of land in Judah, this idea is overthrown at once by the circumstance that two of the four towns in the second group were in the south land and two in the lowland, and, judging from Jos_15:32, Jos_15:42, at a great distance from one another. At the same time, we cannot decide this point with any certainty, as the situation of several of the towns is still unknown.

CALVI , "Verse 1 ext followed the lot of the tribe of Simeon, not as a mark of honor, but rather as a mark of disgrace. Jacob had declared with regard to Simeon and Levi, “I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.” (Genesis 49:7) The punishment of Levi, indeed, was not only mitigated, but converted into an excellent dignity, inasmuch as his posterity were placed on a kind of watch-towers to keep the people in the paths of piety. In regard to Simeon, the dispersion of which Jacob prophesied, manifestly took place when certain cities within the territory of Judah were assigned to his posterity for their inheritance. For although they were not sent off to great distances, yet they dwelt dispersed, and as strangers in a land properly belonging to another. Therefore, on account of the slaughter which they had perpetrated with no less perfidy than cruelty, they were placed separately in different abodes. In this way the guilt of the father was visited upon his children, and the Lord ratified in fact that sentence which he had dictated to his servant. The truth of the lot also was clearly proven.

In the circumstance of a certain portion being withdrawn from the family of Judah, we again perceive that though the dividers had carefully endeavored to observe equity, they had fallen into error, which they were not ashamed to correct as soon as

it was discovered. And though they were guided by the Spirit, there is nothing strange in their having been partially mistaken, because God sometimes leaves his servants destitute of the spirit of judgment, and suffers them to act like men on different occasions, that they may not plume themselves too much on their clear-sightedness. We may add that the people were punished for their carelessness and confident haste, because they ought at the outset to have ascertained more accurately how much land could be properly assigned to each. This they neglected to do. Through their unskillful procedure, the children of Judah had received a disproportion accumulation of territory, and equity required that they should relinquish a part. It would also have been better for themselves to have their limits fixed with certainty at once than to be subjected to a galling spoliation afterwards. Add that each tribe had indulged the vain hope that its members would dwell far and wide, as if the land had been of unlimited extent.

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

COFFMA , "Verse 1This chapter details the territories assigned to the remaining six tribes. The first of these remaining six was Simeon.

SIMEO , "And the second lot came out for Simeon, even for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Judah. And they had for their inheritance Beer-sheba, or Sheba, and Moladah, and Hazar-shual, and Balah, and Ezem, and Eltolad, and Bethul, and Hormah, and Ziklag, and Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susah, and Beth-lebaoth, and Sharuhen; thirteen cities and their villages: Ain, Rimmon, and Ether, and Ashan: and all the villages that were round about these cities to Baalath-beer, Ramah of the South. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families. Out of the part of the inheritance of the children of Judah was this inheritance of Simeon; for the portion of the children of Judah was too much for them: therefore the children of Simeon had inheritance in the midst of their inheritance."

"And the second lot came out for Simeon ..." This was the second lot of this group of the final seven. "Most of these towns are in the egeb; however, two of them, Ether and Ashan, are in the Shephelah."[1] This was according to the prophecy in Deuteronomy 33:6. otice that no boundaries at all are listed here, just these seventeen cities. The general area in which this inheritance lay was described by

Dummelow: "It was in the egeb, or south country, that slopes away from the Hebron range toward the desert, bounded on the west by the Mediterranean, and on the east by the Dead Sea and the Valley of Edom.[2] The tribe of Simeon was a diminishing factor in Israel, the same being, of course, a fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Simeon.

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

ELLICOTT, "I HERITA CE OF SIMEO (Joshua 19:1-9).

(1) Their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah.—The southern part of the inheritance of Judah was given up to Simeon. (See Judges 1:3; Judges 1:17.) In this fact a prophecy was fulfilled; for the effect of the allotment was to separate Simeon from the tribes with whom he had been united in the journey through the wilderness (viz., Reuben and Gad), who had cast off Simeon, and united themselves with the half tribe of Manasseh instead. Being also separated from Levi, Simeon was still further isolated: with the result that in the final separation of Israel and Judah, after Solomon’s death, the tribe of Simeon, though adhering to the kingdom of the ten tribes (for the children of Simeon were counted strangers in Judah—2 Chronicles 15:9), was separated from the territory of that kingdom by the whole breadth of the kingdom of Judah. Thus were Jacob’s words brought to pass, which he spoke on his death-bed regarding Simeon and Levi: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.

(2) Beer-sheba.—Bir-es-seba. Sheba (Shema).

(7) Ain, Remmon.—Timm er-Rumâmîn.

The rest of the cities of Simeon are not identified in Conder’s Biblical Gazetteer, with the exception of Sharuhen (Tell esh-Sherî’ah, north-west of Beer-sheba).

(9) The part of the children of Judah was too much for them.—In Judges 1 we read that Judah invoked the assistance of Simeon to complete the conquest of his inheritance, and also assisted Simeon to conquer his. This fact illustrates the character of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, and shows that when his work was done, something was still left for the individual tribes to do.

PETT, "Chapter 19 The Portions of the Remaining Six Tribes.

In this chapter an account is given of the lots of the six remaining tribes, and the

cities in them, of Simeon, whose cities were chiefly within the tribe of Judah (Joshua 19:1); of Zebulun, its border and cities (Joshua 19:10); of Issachar, its border and cities (Joshua 19:17); of Asher, its border and cities (Joshua 19:24); of aphtali, its border and cities (Joshua 19:32); of Dan, its border and cities (Joshua 19:40); and lastly of a gift of inheritance to Joshua (Joshua 19:49).

Verse 1Chapter 19 The Portions of the Remaining Six Tribes.

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

Joshua 19:1

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

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

After Judah had received their portion, with its cities, further consideration made Joshua recognise that Judah had been allocated too much. This is an indication of the genuineness of the narrative. He had to revise his allocations. Thus Simeon was

chosen by lot to receive cities in the midst of Judah. This would later bring about a special relationship between the two tribes (Judges 1:3). But they remained separate tribes although working in close unison and Simeon is regularly mentioned as such in later history (1 Chronicles 4:42-43; 1 Chronicles 12:25; 2 Chronicles 15:9; 2 Chronicles 34:6).

PULPIT, "THE LOT OF THE REMAI I G TRIBES.

Joshua 19:1

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

PI K, ""And the second lot came forth to Simeon, for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah" (Josh. 19:1). The portion which had been given to Judah was more extensive than was required by that tribe. "It seems that, without murmuring, Judah renounced his claim, at the instance of Joshua and those who had been nominated to the work of dividing the land" (Scott). This is borne out by what is stated in verse 9, "Out of the portion of the children of Judah was the inheritance of the children of Simeon: for the part of the children of Judah was too much for them: therefore the children of Simeon had their inheritance within the inheritance of them"—there were more cities than they could fill, more land than they could cultivate. It is worthy of note that this is the only recorded instance of their portion being too large for any of them, and it is surely significant that it was Judah’s which proved to be the exception, for it was the tribe from which according to the flesh our Lord sprang. Thus we have here adumbrated that grand truth of the fullness of Christ, that in Him there is an abundance of grace, inexhaustible riches available for the saints to draw upon!

It is striking to note that this second lot fulfilled the prophecy of Jacob. He had linked together Simeon and Levi in judgment, who earlier had been united in wickedness (Gen. 34:25), saying, as God’s mouthpiece, "I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel" (Gen. 49:5-7). Because of his noble conduct subsequently, the curse upon Levi was revoked and displaced by the blessing of the Lord, and he who was originally joined to his brother in sin and cruelty was eventually joined to the Lord in grace and honor, so that there was made with his seed "the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God,

and made an atonement for the children of Israel" ( um. 25:6-13). evertheless, the terms of the patriarch’s prediction were accomplished, for the Levites had as their portion in Canaan forty-eight cities, which were scattered throughout the inheritance of the other tribes ( um. 35:8; Joshua 14:4; 21:3). So too in the case of Simeon: his descendants received not a separate territory in the promised land, but had their portion within the allotment of Judah, and, as Joshua 19:2-8, shows, the tribe of Simeon was widely "scattered," being dispersed among many different cities.

CO STABLE, "The inheritance of Simeon19:1-9

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

The Simeonites received two groups of towns ( Joshua 19:2-8). The first group consisted of13towns in the egev ( Joshua 19:2-6). The second included four towns, two in the egev and two in the Shephelah ( Joshua 19:7). The names of all these towns also occur in Judah"s list ( Joshua 15:26-32; Joshua 15:42).

BI 1-51, "The part of the children of Judah was too much for them: therefore the children of Simeon had their inheritance within the inheritance of them.

A too extensive earthly portion

A fine lesson for such who, in the amplitude of their earthly portion, have more than themselves or their families in conscience require, when numbers of their brethren, high-born as themselves and heirs to the noblest hopes, have many of them not only a scanty lot, but scarcely the common necessaries of life. If the one has too little, surely it may be said, though few are likely to allow it, the other has too much. And why this disparity in the condition of the brethren but for the trial of faith in the one and the display of charity in the other? What an admonition in so impoverished a world as this, where so many, comparatively speaking, yea, and in cases not a few, literally are houseless and helpless, without means of daily sustenance, to contract their own borders that room may be given to these destitute Simeonites. The first Christians did this to an extent not now required: so powerfully did the love of Christ operate in their hearts, and so little hold had earthly things of their affections when placed in competition with spiritual and heavenly interests, that the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul—and in this too, in practice as well as in sentiment (Act_4:34-35). Without reducing to one common stock, that distribution which should be alike to all, a state of things evidently adapted only to times of persecution, and that under no other circumstances could answer the designs of Providence in a condition of trial common to this life, who is there that thinks he has too much, and is so affected with the little which others have of the same household of faith, that he is cheerfully ready to allow a part in his portion? therein discovering that amiable feature of the Christian character which the apostle has marked as strikingly beautiful, “willing to distribute.” (W. Seaton.)

An inheritance to Joshua,—

The leader disinterested

As in a shipwreck the captain is the last to leave the doomed vessel, so here the leader of the nation was the last to receive a portion. With rare self-denial he waited till every one else was provided for. Here we have a glimpse of his noble spirit. That there would be much grumbling over the division of the country he no doubt counted inevitable, and that the people would be disposed to come with their complaints to him followed as a matter of course. See how he circumvents them! Whoever might be disposed to go to him complaining of his lot knew the ready answer he would get—“You are not worse off than I am, for as yet I have got none!” Joshua was content to see the fairest inheritance disposed of to others, while as yet none had been allotted to him. He might have asked for an inheritance in the fertile and beautiful vale of Shechem, consecrated by one of the earliest promises to Abraham, near to Jacob’s well and his ancestor Joseph’s Comb, or under shadow of the two mountains, Ebal and Gerizim, where so solemn a transaction had taken place after his people entered the land. He asks for nothing of the kind, but for a spot on one of the highland hills of Ephraim, a place so obscure that no trace of it remains. It is described in Jdg_2:9 as “Timnath-heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Gaash.” The north side of the mountain does not indicate a spot remarkable either for amenity or fertility. In the days of Jerome his friend Paula is said to have expressed surprise that the distributer of the whole country reserved so wild and mountainous a district for himself. His choice of it was a splendid rebuke to the grumbling of his tribe, to the pride and selfishness of the “great people” who would not be content with a single lot, and wished an additional one to be assigned to them. “Up with you to the mountain,” was Joshua’s spirited reply; “cut down the wood, and drive out the Canaanites!” In any case, he set a splendid example of disinterested humility. How nobly contrasted with men like Napoleon, who used his influence so greedily for the enrichment and aggrandisement of every member of his family! Joshua came very near to the spirit of our blessed Lord. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)

Self the last to be considered

The servant, though honourable above all, and worthy a double portion, was as the last and least among them, and gave rest to others before he took rest himself. In this he was a striking type of that adorable Redeemer, the captain of the host of the Lord, who, till He had obtained full conquest and possession for His people, sat not down at the right hand of God, in the presence of His triumphant Church. Though Lord of all, yet He became the servant of all, and as an example ever to be studied and copied by His followers, said in expressive condescension and abasement, “Am not I among you as one that serveth?” Oh! that this mind were more evidently in us which was in Christ Jesus, who, in all He sacrificed, suffered, and forewent, ever looked on the things of others, and in His self emptyings placed His own felicity and glory in the salvation of His people. The lot assigned Joshua was his choice, and within the portion of his own tribe. There was nothing of pre-eminence to distinguish it from the possession of others, except as himself gave note to it, and being the residence of one so exalted in character, so great in achievements. It does not appear the best of the land, yet it possessed one advantage, beyond what it could have had in fertility and extent, being near to Shiloh, the habitation of holiness and seat of mercy. Lot chose Sodom for the pleasantness and fertility of its plain, but Joshua chose Timnath-serah for the holiness of its vicinity. How few in the settlements of life, whose means afford the advantage of choice, are determined by

considerations of piety and the hope of rendering service to God and His people! Generally a residence is sought which promises gratifications most congenial with their earthly wishes, or where they may receive the greatest good to themselves, and not where they may do the greatest good to others. (W. Seaton, M. A.).

2 It included:

Beersheba (or Sheba),[a] Moladah,

CLARKE, "Beer-sheba - The well of the oath. See the note on Gen_21:31.

GILL, "And they had in their inheritance Beersheba and Sheba,.... Or, Beersheba, that is, Sheba; for so the particle "vau" is sometimes used (z), and must be so used here; or otherwise, instead of thirteen, it will appear that there are fourteen cities, contrary to the account of them, Jos_19:6; so Kimchi and Ben Melech make them one city. And it may be observed, that in the enumeration of the cities of Simeon, 1Ch_4:28; Sheba is left out, and only Beersheba is mentioned; which, was a well known place in, the farthest border of the land of Israel southward, and the reason of its name is manifest, Gen_21:31; See Gill on Jos_15:28,

and Moladah; another of the cities of Judah, Jos_15:26.

K&D, "Jos_19:2-6Beersheba: see at Jos_15:28. Sheba is wanting in the Chronicles, but has no doubt

been omitted through a copyist's error, as Shema answers to it in Jos_15:26, where it stands before Moladah just as Sheba does here. - On the names in Jos_19:3-6, see the exposition of Jos_15:28-32. - The sum total given in Jos_19:6, viz., thirteen towns, does not tally, as there are fourteen names. On these differences, see the remarks on Jos_15:32.

PETT, "Verses 2-6‘And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, that is Sheba, and Moladah, and Hazar-shual, and Balah, and Ezem, and Eltolad, and Bethul, and Hormah, and Ziklag, and Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susah, and Beth-lebaoth, and Sharuhen. Thirteen cities with their villages.’

The cities in which Simeon would have a part are now listed. It would seem that Beersheba, or a part of it, was regularly called Sheba (Genesis 26:33) and therefore both names were given. Possibly one name was used by Judah and the other by Simeon (in virtually the same listing in 1 Chronicles 4:28 Sheba is omitted, presumably for this reason). Beersheba was the place where Abraham made a covenant with the Philistine trading settlement and which he established as a sacred place. It means ‘well of the seven’ referring to the seven ewes which sealed the covenant (Genesis 21:32-33). It was later a favourite place of pilgrimage and thus continued in Israelite eyes as a sacred place (Amos 5:5; Amos 8:14), and Sheba (see Genesis 26:33) may have been a section of it populated by Simeon so that ‘Beersheba and Sheba’ are one ‘city’.

ote in respect of these cities named here the similar list in Joshua 15:26-32 in the portion of Judah, where most are duplicated. They had been allocated to Judah but were now reallocated to Simeon. There was possibly joint oversight. Judah and Simeon were both sons of Leah, (as indeed were Issachar and Zebulun who also developed closely together). City names not similar are Bethul (although possibly the same as Chesil), Beth-marcaboth, Hazar-susah and Sharuhen (compare 1 Chronicles 4:30-31).

Beth-marcaboth (‘house of chariots’) is uncertain but its connection with Hormah and Ziklag suggests it was probably a strong-point on the Judaean-Philistine border. The name suggests that it might have been a Canaanite arsenal at this time. Hazar-susah (‘horse encampment’) was probably nearby. Sharuhen is possibly Tell el-Far‘a, twenty four kilometres (fifteen miles) south of Gaza or Tell el-Huweilfeh, half a kilometre (less than half a mile) north of Khirbet Rammamein. A ‘Srhn’ is referred to in Egyptian sources as a Hyksos fortress which resisted Ahmose for three years around 1550 BC. Some of these may be alternative names to those mentioned in Joshua 15:31-32.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:2

Beersheba. A locality well known in Scripture, from Genesis 21:31 onwards. And Sheba. Some would translate here, or Sheba (see below). o doubt the city, of which nothing further is known, derived its name from Beer-sheba, "the well of the oath," close by. It is true that some little difficulty is caused by the omission of this city in Chronicles 4:28, by the identification of Shehah with Beer-sheba in Genesis 26:33, and by the fact that in Genesis 26:6 we are told that there were thirteen cities in this catalogue, whereas there are fourteen. On the other hand, Keil has remarked that in Joshua 15:32 the number of names does not correspond to the whole number of cities given; and we have a Shema, probably a mistake for Sheba, in Joshua 15:26, mentioned before Moladah among the cities of Judah. And, lastly, we have very few instances in Scripture of the disjunctive use of , ו though it seems impossible to deny that it is used in this sense in 1 Kings 18:27

3 Hazar Shual, Balah, Ezem,

CLARKE, "Hazar-shual - For this and several of the following places, see the notes on Jos_15:32.

GILL, "And Hazarshual,.... See Gill on Jos_15:28,

and Balah, and Azem; of these places see Gill on Jos_15:29; for Balah is the same with Baalah there, and with Bilhah 1Ch_4:29; and Azem with Ezem there.

4 Eltolad, Bethul, Hormah,

GILL, "And Eltolad, and Bethul, and Hormah. These were all cities of Judah, Jos_15:30; Eltolad is the same with Tolad, and Bethul with Bethuel, 1Ch_4:29, and with Chesil, Jos_15:30, mentioned there along with Hormah; See Gill on Jos_15:30.

5 Ziklag, Beth Markaboth, Hazar Susah,

CLARKE, "Beth-marcaboth - The house or city of chariots. Probably a place where their war-chariots and cavalry were laid up.

GILL, "And Ziklag,.... Another of the cities of Judah; see Gill on Jos_15:31,

and Bethmarcaboth, and Hazarsusah; or Hazarsusim, as in 1Ch_4:31; the one signifies a chariot house, and the other a court or stable for horses, which made Bochart conjecture (a), that they were places where Solomon kept his chariots and horses; but it should be observed that these were the names by which these places went in the times of the old Canaanites; and seem to me rather where some of their kings had their horses and chariots; or rather where there were temples dedicated to the horses and chariots of

the sun; see 2Ki_23:11.

6 Beth Lebaoth and Sharuhen—thirteen towns and their villages;

BAR ES, "Jos_19:6Thirteen - Fourteen names have been given. The error is probably due to the use of

letters for numbers, which has led to many similar mistakes in other places (see Jos_15:32).

CLARKE, "Beth-lebaoth - The house or city of lionesses. Probably so called from the numbers of those animals which bred there.

GILL, "And Bethlebaoth, and Sharuhen,.... Whether the first is the same with Lebaoth, a city of Judah, Jos_15:32; and with the Bethleptepha of Josephus (b), and the Betholene of Pliny (c), is not certain: in this place secret to have been an idol temple of the Canaanites, dedicated to lions, as in Egypt there was a city called Leontopolis, from whence was the Leontopolitan nome, the inhabitants of which worshipped lions (d); and the Egyptians had temples dedicated to them, as Aelianus (e) relates. Both these places are thought to be the same with Bethbirei and Shaaraim in 1Ch_4:31; of the latter of which see Jos_15:36. Those who take Sheba, Jos_19:2, to be the same with Shema, Jos_15:26, make but one city here, and take away the last, as the Greek version does, and render the word "and their fields", and so the number still is as follows:

thirteen cities and their villages; the sum total of those enumerated above.

7 Ain, Rimmon, Ether and Ashan—four towns and their villages—

GILL, "Ain, Remmon,.... Of the two first, which were cities of Judah; see Gill on Jos_15:32,

and Ether, and Ashan; of the two last; see Gill on Jos_19:42,

four cities and their villages; Ain, Remmon, therefore, could not be one city, at this

time, as it seems to have been in the times of Nehemiah, Neh_11:29; or otherwise there would have been but three cities.

K&D, "Jos_19:7Ain and Rimmon were in the south land (Jos_15:32), Ether and Ashan in the lowlands

(Jos_15:42).

PETT, "Verse 7‘Ain, Rimmon and Ether and Ashan. Four cities with their villages.’For the first two see Joshua 15:32 and 1 Chronicles 4:32. Ether and Ashan were in the Shephelah (Joshua 15:42).

LXX here combines Ain and Rimmon as one city and includes a further city Tochen (1 Chronicles 4:32), but in 1 Chronicles 4:32 LXX keeps Ain and Rimmon as separate ‘cities’. This suggests that the Hebrew text is correct.

8 and all the villages around these towns as far as Baalath Beer (Ramah in the egev).

This was the inheritance of the tribe of the Simeonites, according to its clans.

CLARKE, "Baalath-beer - The well of the mistresses. Probably so called from some superstitious or impure worship set up there.

GILL, "And all the villages that were round about these cities,.... Not only the suburbs adjoining to those cities which are mentioned before, but the several small distinct towns and villages, scattered up and down in the country:

to Baalathbeer, Ramath of the south: this is the same with Baal in 1Ch_4:33; and with Ramath of the south, or south Ramoth, as it is called 1Sa_30:27; all these are the names of one and the same city:

this is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon,

according to their families; that is, the above named cities fell to the lot of the inheritance of the Simeonites, and were divided among them according to the number of

their respective families; at least, these were the chief and principal of them; for all that they possessed are not mentioned, particularly one called Tochen, 1Ch_4:32; and another, the name of which is Etam there, unless that is thought to be the same with Ether here in Jos_19:7. Josephus says (f), this tribe took by lot that part of Idumea which lay near to Egypt and Arabia.

K&D, "Jos_19:8-9In addition to the towns mentioned, the Simeonites received all the villages round

about the towns to Baalath-beer, the Ramah of the south. This place, up to which the territory of the Simeonites extended, though without its being actually assigned to the Simeonites, is simply called Baal in 1Ch_4:33, and is probably the same as Bealoth in Jos_15:24, though its situation has not yet been determined (see at Jos_15:24). It cannot be identified, however, with Ramet el Khulil, an hour to the north of Hebron, which Roediger supposes to be the Ramah of the south, since the territory of Simeon, which was situated in the Negeb, and had only two towns in the shephelah, cannot possibly have extended into the mountains to a point on the north of Hebron. So far as the situation is concerned, V. de Velde would be more likely to be correct, when he identifies Rama of the south with Tell Lekiyeh on the north of Beersheba, if this conjecture only rested upon a better foundation than the untenable assumption, that Baalath-beer is the same as the Baalath of Dan in Jos_19:44.

PETT, "Verse 8‘And all the villages which were round about these cities to Baalath-beer, Ramah of the egeb. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families.’An all inclusive statement taking in any villages not seen as already included as far as Baalath-Beer, Ramah of the egeb. For the latter see 1 Samuel 30:27. The sites have not been identified to date.

“This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families.” This is the official statement that followed each allocation. The fact that it is not applied to Manasseh demonstrates that it was applied at that time. Later writers would also have applied it to Manasseh.

9 The inheritance of the Simeonites was taken from the share of Judah, because Judah’s portion was more than they needed. So the Simeonites received their inheritance within the territory of Judah.

Allotment for Zebulun

GILL, "Out of the portion of the children of Judah was the inheritance of the children of Simeon,.... Which is the reason why no description is given of the border of their inheritance, because that is before given in the account of the lot of Judah:

for the part of the children of Judah was too much for them: they had more cities than they could fill with people, and more land than they could cultivate; they had an hundred fourteen cities with their villages:

therefore the children of Simeon had their inheritance within the inheritance of them; the one being a small tribe, and the other large, and for the reasons given; See Gill on Jos_19:1.

CALVI , "9.Out of the portion of the children of Judah, etc The praise of moderation is due to the tribe of Judah for not contending that the abstraction of any part of the inheritance already assigned to them was unjust. They might easily have obtruded the name of God, and asserted that it was only by his authority they had obtained that settlement. But as it is decided by the common consent of all the tribes that more has been given to them than they can possess without loss and injury to the others, they immediately desist from all pretext for disputing the matter. And it is certain that if they had alleged the authority of God, it would have been falsely and wickedly, inasmuch as though their lot had been determined by him in regard to its situation, an error had taken place with regard to its extent, their limits having been fixed by human judgment wider than they ought. Therefore, acknowledging that it would have been wrong to give them what would occasion loss to others, they willingly resign it, and give a welcome reception to their brethren, who must otherwise have remained without inheritance, nay, submit to go shares with them in that which they supposed they had acquired beyond controversy.

PETT, "Verse 9‘Out of the part of the children of Judah was the inheritance of the children of Simeon, for the portion of the children of Judah was too much for them. Therefore the children of Simeon had inheritance in the midst of their inheritance.’Coming after verse 8 this is probably the writer’s explanation added to the official record. It confirms that because too much had been allocated to Judah, Simeon were allotted part of their portion. In view of the fact that all was given by lot under YHWH’s direction no one would later have dared suggest such an idea unless it had been so.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:9

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

10 The third lot came up for Zebulun according to its clans:

The boundary of their inheritance went as far as Sarid.

BAR ES, "Sarid, not yet identified, was evidently a leading topographical point on the south frontier of Zebulun. The boundary passed westward until it touched the Kishon, near “Tell Kaimon” (Jos_12:22 note), and thence, turned northward, leaving Carmel, which belonged to Asher, on its west. The territory of Zebulun accordingly would not anywhere reach to the Mediterranean, though its eastern side abutted on the sea of Galilee, and gave the tribe those “outgoings” attributed to it in the Blessing of Moses (Deu_33:18). Daberath (Jos_19:12) is probably “Deburieh.”

GILL, "And the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun,

according to their families,.... Who, though younger than Issachar, has his lot before him, agreeably to the order in which his blessing is predicted, both by Jacob and Moses, Gen_49:13;

and the border of their inheritance was unto Sarid; or "by Sarid", as Masius, who takes this to be the southwest border of Zebulun, being near Carmel; in which he seems to be right.

HE RY 10-16, "This is the lot of Zebulun, who, though born of Leah after Issachar, yet was blessed by Jacob and Moses before him; and therefore it was so ordered that his lot was drawn before that of Issachar, north of which it lay and south of Asher. 1. The lot of this tribe was washed by the great sea on the west, and by the sea of Tiberias on the

east, answering Jacob's prophecy (Gen_49:13), Zebulun shall be a haven of ships,trading ships on the great sea and fishing ships on the sea of Galilee. 2. Though there were some places in this tribe which were made famous in the Old Testament, especially Mount Carmel, on which the famous trial was between God and Baal in Elijah's time, yet it was made much more illustrious in the New Testament; for within the lot of this tribe was Nazareth, where our blessed Saviour spent so much of his time on earth, and from which he was called Jesus of Nazareth, and Mount Tabor on which he was transfigured, and that coast of the sea of Galilee on which Christ preached so many sermons and wrought so many miracles.

JAMISO , "Jos_19:10-16. Of Zebulun.

the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun— The boundaries of the possession assigned to them extended from the Lake of Chinnereth (Sea of Galilee) on the east, to the Mediterranean on the west. Although they do not seem at first to have touched on the western shore - a part of Manasseh running north into Asher (Jos_17:10) - they afterwards did, according to the prediction of Moses (Deu_33:19). The extent from north to south cannot be very exactly traced; the sites of many of the places through which the boundary line is drawn being unknown. Some of the cities were of note.

CALVI , "10.And the third lot came up, etc In the lot of Zebulun there is a clear fulfillment of the prophecy of Jacob, which had foretold that they would dwell on the sea-coast. An old man, an exile who could not set a foot on his own land, (168) assigned a maritime district to the posterity of his son Zebulun. What could be more extravagant? But now, when the lot assigns them a maritime region, no clearer confirmation of his decision could be desired. It was just as if God were twice thundering from heaven. The tribe of Zebulun, therefore, do not occupy the shore of their own accord or by human suffrage, but a divine arrangement fixes their habitation contiguous to the sea. Thus, although men erred, still the light was always seen shining brightly in the darkness. Jacob goes farther, and makes a clear distinction between Zebulun and Issachar. The former tribe will travel far and wide, carrying on trade and commerce; the latter remaining in his tents, will cultivate ease and a sedentary life. (Genesis 49:13) Hence it is probable that the sea-coast where Zebulun settled, was provided with harbors and well adapted for the various forms of commercial intercourse, (169) whereas the children of Issachar were contented with their own produce, and consumed the fruits which they had raised by their own labor and culture at home.

Those who are thought to be well acquainted with these countries, affirm that the land of the tribe of Asher was fertile in corn. (170) This is in complete accordance both with the letter and the spirit of Jacob’s prophecy. (Genesis 49:20) From the fact that only a small number of cities are designated by name, we may infer that there were then many ruined cities which were not taken into account, and from the other fact that the people dwelt commodiously, we may also infer that they built many cities, with which it is plain from other passages that the land was adorned. And it is certainly apparent that only a summary of the division is briefly glanced at, and that thus many things were omitted which no religious feeling forbids us to investigate, provided we do not indulge in an excessive curiosity leading to no

beneficial result. There cannot be a doubt that those to whom twenty or even only seventeen cities are attributed, had more extensive territories. Therefore, all we have here is a compendious description of the division as it was taken from the general and confused notes of the surveyors.

K&D, "The Inheritance of Zebulun fell above the plain of Jezreel, between this plain and the mountains of Naphtali, so that it was bounded by Asher on the west and north-west (Jos_19:27), by Naphtali on the north and north-east (Jos_19:34), and by Issachar on the south-east and south, and touched neither the Mediterranean Sea nor the Jordan. It embraced a very fertile country, however, with the fine broad plain of el Buttauf, the

µέγα�πεδίον above Nazareth called Asochis in Joseph. vita, §41, 45 (see Rob. iii. p. 189, Bibl. Res. pp. 105ff.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 742, 758-9).

Jos_19:10

“And the boundary (the territory) of their inheritance was (went) to Sarid.” This is no doubt the centre of the southern boundary, from which it is traced in a westerly direction in Jos_19:11, and in an easterly direction in Jos_19:12, in the same manner as in Jos_16:6. Unfortunately, Sarid cannot be determined with certainty. Knobel's

opinion, is, that the name, which signifies “hole” or “incision,” after the analogy of ָׂשַרד,

perforavit, and ָׂשַרט, incidit, does not refer to a town, but to some other locality, probably the southern opening of the deep and narrow wady which comes down from the basin of Nazareth, and is about an hour to the south-east of Nazareth, between two steep mountains (Seetzen, ii. pp. 151-2; Rob. iii. p. 183). This locality appears suitable enough. But it is also possible that Sarid may be found in one of the two heaps of ruins on the south side of the Mons praecipitii upon V. de Velde's map (so called from Luk_4:29).

COFFMA , "Verse 10ZEBULU

"And the third lot came out for the children of Zebulun according to their families. And the border of their inheritance was unto Sarid; and their border went up westward, even to Maralah, and reached to Dabbesheth; and it reached to the brook that is before Jokneam; and it turned from Sarid eastward toward the sunrising unto the border of Chisloth-tabor; and it went out to Daberath, and went up to Japhia; and from thence it passed along eastward to Gath-hepher, to Eth-kazin; and it went out at Rimmon which stretcheth unto eah; and the border turned about it on the north to Hanna-thon; and the goings out thereof were at the valley of Iphtahel; and Kattah, and ahalal, and Shimron, and Idalah, and Bethlehem: twelve cities with their villages. This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun according to their families, these cities with their villages."

"This inheritance lay west of azareth and east of Accho."[3] Unger's more complete description is:

"This was the landlocked district in lower Galilee bordered by Asher on the west, Manasseh on the south, Issachar on the southeast, and aphtali on the north and

northeast. Zebulun was traversed by "the way of the sea" (Isaiah 9:1), a widely traveled road to the Mediterranean Sea."[4]It is of interest that the birthplace of Jonah, Gath-hepher, lay within this territory. The Bethlehem mentioned here, however, was named by the Zebulunites after the one where Jesus was born.[5] The wisdom of the Lord has been pointed out in this placement of the children of Leah to the north of the Rachel tribes in order to procure a greater unity of the children of Israel. This objective "was accomplished for centuries."[6]

PI K, ""And the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun according to their families" (Josh. 19:10). The part played by Zebulun in the history of the nation was not a prominent one, but though referred to rarely as a tribe, each time that mention is made of them it is of a highly creditable nature. First, we read of them in Judges 5 where Deborah celebrates in song the notable victory over Jabin and Sisera, and recounts the parts played therein by the different tribes. In verse 18 we read, "Zebulun and aphtali were a people that jeoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the field." In I Chronicles 12 where we have enumerated those who "came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him," we are told, "Of Zebulun, such as went forth to battle, expert in war, with all instruments of war, fifty thousand, which could keep rank: they were not of double heart" (vv. 23, 33). So too they were among those who brought a rich supply of provisions for the feast on that occasion. But that which mainly characterized it was the maritime nature of this tribe.

Jacob foretold, "Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea; and he shall be for a haven of ships; and his border shall be unto Zidon" (Gen. 49:13). Moses also, "And of Zebulun he said, Rejoice, Zebulun, in thy going out; and Issachar, in thy tents. They shall call the people unto the mountain; there they shall offer sacrifices of righteousness: for they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of treasures hid in the sand" (Deut. 33:18, 19). And so it came to pass, for Joshua 19 goes on to say of the lot of Zebulun "and their border went up toward the sea"—a statement of seemingly little importance and easily overlooked by the casual reader; yet one which announced the literal fulfillment of prophecies made centuries before. The expressions "thy going out" and "they shall suck of the abundance of the seas" received their accomplishment in their ocean life and trading in foreign parts.

But that which is of interest to the Christian in connection with Zebulun’s portion is the honorable place which it receives in the ew Testament, for if the character of the people was praiseworthy, even more notable was the position they occupied in Palestine. Matthew 4:15, 16, informs us that "the land of Zebulun and the land of aphtali" (which adjoined it) was none other than "Galilee of the Gentiles," concerning which it is said, "The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up." azareth, where the Savior spent so much of His time when He tabernacled here among men, was in its borders, and it was also on the shores of its sea that He did so much of His preaching and wrought so many miracles. Well might the voice of prophecy bid Zebulun "rejoice" (Deut. 33:18). Therein also we may perceive the deeper and

spiritual allusion in the words "Rejoice in thy going out. . . . They shall call the people unto the mountain," i.e. the kingdom of the Messiah (Isa. 2:2), which was done by the preaching of Christ and His apostles—which means those who go out It is remarkable that, with the lone exception of Judas, all of the twelve apostles were men of Galilee! Zebulun was also "for a haven," and it was in its borders that Joseph and Mary, with the Christ child, found a haven after their return from Egypt, and it afforded Him shelter when the Jews sought to kill Him in Judea (John 7:1).

CO STABLE, "Verses 10-16The inheritance of Zebulun19:10-16

Zebulun"s territory lay north of the plain of Jezreel that marked Manasseh"s northern border and southwest of the hills of aphtali. On the northwest its neighbor was Asher and on the southeast Issachar. Zebulun"s land was very fertile. Zebulun received12towns, though the writer identified only five here ( Joshua 19:15).

ELLICOTT, "Verse 10THE BORDER OF ZEBULU .

(10) The third lot . . . for the children of Zebulun . . . Sarid (Syriac, Asdod; LXX., Seddouk) should be apparently spelt with consonants s, D, D. It is identified as Tell Shadûd (sheet 8). From this point a line is drawn westward (past M’alûl, sheet 5) to Jokneam (Tell Keimûn, same sheet), a place at the south-east end of the Carmel ridge. This is the south boundary. We may note that it does not touch the sea, but leaves room for the territory of Asher to interpose (comp. Joshua 17:10-11). Returning to Sarid, the boundary is next (Joshua 19:12) drawn eastward to Chisloth-tabor (Iksâl, sheet 6), Daberath(Dabûrieh, sheet 6), Japhia (Yâfa, sheet 5), Gittah-hepher (El-Mesh-hed, sheet 6).

PETT, "Verse 10-11‘And the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun according to their families, and the border of their inheritance was to Sarid. And their border went up westward, even to Maralah, and reached to Dabbasheth, and it reached to the river that is before Jokneam.’The third lot fell for Zebulun. Their territory lay north of the Great Plain (Esdraelon). It included the hills around azareth and the fertile, marshy plain further north. The site of Sarid is unknown, although it has been postulated that it is Sadud and thus Tell Shadud. but the southern border went from there east and west. Westward it went to Maralah, Dabbasheth and the torrent-wadi ‘before (east of?) Jokneam’. For Maralah and Dabbesheth Tell Thorah and Tell esh-Shammam have been suggested. As Jokneam was in Zebulun (Joshua 21:34) this may have been a wadi east of Jokneam which then ran round Jokneam. Jokneam was a Canaanite city mentioned in the list of Tuthmosis III of Egypt, and is possibly Tel Yoqneam, and the wadi possibly a tributary of the Kishon.

11 Going west it ran to Maralah, touched Dabbesheth, and extended to the ravine near Jokneam.

GILL, "And their border went up toward the sea,.... Westward towards the Mediterranean sea, which fulfilled the prophecies of Jacob and Moses, that Zebulun should dwell by the sea, be an haven of ships, and take of the abundance of the seas, as in the places before referred to; and so Josephus says, the Zebulunites took the land unto the lake of Gennesaret, by or about Carmel and the sea:

and Maralah; which Jerom calls (g) the ascent of Zebulun; for from hence it went up from the sea, and reached to Dabbasheth; which Jerom calls Dasbath; the word signifies a hump that is on a camel's back, Isa_30:6; so called because when that is hurt by burdens it is cured with honey (h); it seems to denote some place or city at a point of land or promontory, that stood out towards the sea, as that of Carmel; or some city on the back of Carmel, resembling a camel's hump:

and reached to the river that is before Jokneam; of Jokneam; see Gill on Jos_12:22; and this river was either the river Kishon, or Belus, sometimes called Pagida; from whence sand was taken to make glass of (k), and was near Carmel, as Jokneam was.

K&D, "Jos_19:11From this point “the border went up westwards, namely to Mar'ala, and touched

Dabbasheth, and still farther to the brook of Jokneam.” If Jokneam of Carmel has been preserved in the Tell Kaimûn (see at Jos_12:22), the brook before Jokneam is probably the Wady el Milh, on the eastern side of which, near the point where it opens into the plain, stands Kaimûn, and through which the road runs from Acca to Ramleh, as this wady separates Carmel from the small round hills which run to the south-east (see Rob.Bibl. Res. p. 114, and V. de Velde, i. p. 249). Here the boundaries of Zebulun and Asher met (Jos_19:27). Mar'ala and Dabbasheth are to be sought for between Kaimûn and

Sarid. The Cod. Vat. has Μαγελδά instead of Μαριλά. Now, however, little importance we can attach to the readings of the lxx on account of the senseless way in which its

renderings are made-as, for example, in this very passage, where ְוָעָלה is rendered ַעד־ָׂשִריד׃

σεδεκγώλα, - the name Magelda might suggest a Hebrew reading Magedlah or Mageldah, and thus lead one to connect the place with the village of Mejeidil (Rob. Bibl.

Res. p. 114), or Mshedil (Seetzen, ii. p. 143), on the west of Mons praecipitii, though neither of these travellers visited the place, or has given us any minute description of it. Its situation upon a mountain would suit Mar'ala, to which the boundary went up from Sarid. In the case of Dabbasheth, the name, which signifies “lump” (see Isa_30:6), points to a mountain. Upon this Knobel has founded the conjecture that Gibeah or Gibeath took the place of this uncommon word, and that this is connected with the Gabathon of the Onom. (juxta campum Legionis), the present Jebâta between Mejeidil and Kaimûn, upon an isolated height on the edge of the mountains which skirt the plain of Jezreel, where there are signs of a remote antiquity (Rob. iii. p. 201, and Bibl. Res. p. 113; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. p. 700); although Tell Thureh (i.e., mountain) might be intended, a village upon a low and isolated hill a little farther south (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 116, and Ritter, ut sup.).

BE SO ,"Joshua 19:11. Toward the sea — The lot of this tribe was washed by the midland sea on the west, and by the sea of Tiberias on the east, answering Jacob’s prophecy, Zebulun shall be a haven of ships; trading ships on the great sea, and fishing ships on the sea of Galilee. Before Jokneam — Supposed to be Kishon.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:11

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

12 It turned east from Sarid toward the sunrise to the territory of Kisloth Tabor and went on to Daberath and up to Japhia.

GILL, "And turned from Sarid eastward,.... This describes the southern border, going on from west to east:

towards the sunrising, unto the border of Chislothtabor; this Jerom places in the tribe of Issachar, it bordered on both tribes; and he says (l), that in his time there was a little village called Chaselus, eight miles from Diocaesarea, at the foot of Mount Tabor in the plains:

and then goeth out to Daberath; which also was a city in the tribe of Issachar, given to the Levites, Jos_21:28. Jerom (m) speaks of a little village of the Jews by Mount Tabor, of the country belonging to Diocaesarea, called Dabira; this place is still in being. Mr. Maundrell says (n), at the bottom of Tabor westward stands Debarah, supposed by some to take its name from Deborah, the famous judge and deliverer of Israel:

and goeth up to Japhia; this Jerom (o) says is the town called Sycamine, as you go from Caesarea to Ptolemais, above the sea, because of Mount Carmel, called Epha, thought by some to be the Jebba of Pliny (p). It seems, however, to be the Japha of Josephus (q), which he speaks of as being a strong fortified place both by nature and art.

K&D, "Jos_19:12“And from Sarid the boundary turned eastwards toward the sun-rising to the

territory of Chisloth-tabor, and went out to Dabrath, and went up to Japhia.” Chisloth-tabor, i.e., according to Kimchi's explanation lumbi Taboris (French, les flancs), was at any rate a place on the side of Tabor, possibly the same as Kesulloth in Jos_19:18, as Masius and others suppose, and probably the same place as the Xaloth of Josephus(Bell. Jud. iii. 3, 1), which was situated in the “great plain,” and the vicus Chasalus of the Onom. (juxta montem Thabor in campestribus), i.e., the present village of Iksâl or Ksâl, upon a rocky height on the west of Thabor, with many tombs in the rocks (Rob. iii. p. 182). Dabrath, a place in the tribe of Issachar that was given up to the Levites (Jos_21:28; 1Ch_6:57), called Dabaritta in Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 21, 3) and Dabira in the Onom. (villula in monte Thabor), the present Deburieh, an insignificant village which stands in a very picturesque manner upon a stratum of rock at the western foot of Tabor (Rob. iii. p. 210; V. de Velde, R. ii. p. 324). Japhia certainly cannot be the present Hephaor Haifa (Khaifa) on the Mediterranean, and near to Carmel (Rel. Pal. p. 826, and Ges.Thes. s. v.); but it is just as certain that it cannot be the present Jafa, a place half an hour to the south-west of Nazareth, as Robinson (Pal. iii. p. 200) and Knobel suppose, since the boundary was running eastwards, and cannot possibly have turned back again towards the west, and run from Deburieh beyond Sarid. If the positions assigned to Chisloth-tabor and Dabrath are correct, Japhia must be sought for on the east of Deburieh.

Jos_19:13

PETT, "Verses 12-14‘And turned from Sarid eastward, toward the east to the border of Chisloth-tabor, and it went out to Daberath, and went up to Japhia. And from there it passed along eastward to Gath-hepher, to Eth-kazin, and it went out at Rimmon which stretches to (or ‘as it bends towards’) eah. And the border turned about it on the north to Hannathon, and its goings out were at the valley of Iphtah-el.’Chisloth-tabor (‘the flanks of Tabor’) is probably related to Chesulloth, an Issachar border town in the plain west of Tabor (Joshua 19:18) and to modern Iksal. Daberath, another Issachar border town (Joshua 21:8; 1 Chronicles 6:72), is usually identified with the ruins near the modern village of Deburiyeh at the foot of Mount Tabor. Japhia must lie in a northerly direction from Daberath and cannot therefore be Yafa as suggested by some.

From Japhia the border went eastward to Gath-hepher (‘winepress of digging’) on

the border of aphtali, the birthplace of the prophet Jonah (2 Kings 14:25). It can be identified with Khirbet ez-Zurra‘ and nearby el-Meshhed, five kilometres (three miles) north east of azareth. Then it went on to Eth-kazin which is unknown. Rimmon is possibly modern Rummaneh, ten kilometres (six miles) north north east of azareth. eah is unknown.

The border now turned westward to Hannathon, which is possibly to be identified with ‘Hinaton in the land of Canaan’ in the Amarna letters. Some identify it with Tell el-Bedeiwiyeh. It finishes at the valley of Iphtah-el, possibly the Wadi el-Malik. The westward border is not given although Zebulun was bordered by Asher. We do not know whether it had access to the sea.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:12

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

13 Then it continued eastward to Gath Hepher and Eth Kazin; it came out at Rimmon and turned toward eah.

BAR ES, "Gittah (or Gath)- hepher, the birthplace of the prophet Jonah 2Ki_14:25, is probably the modern village of El-Meshhad, where the tomb of the prophet is still shown, a short way from Nazareth, on the road to Tiberias.

Remmon-methoar to Neah - Read “and goeth out to Remmon, which reacheth to Neah.” (See the margin.) Rimmon, a Levitical city Jos_21:35; 1Ch_6:77 is probably the

modern “Rummaneh,” in the plain of “El Buttauf,” about six miles north of Nazareth.

CLARKE, "Gittah-hepher - The same as Gath-hepher, the birth-place of the prophet Jonah.

GILL, "And from thence passeth on along on the east to Gittahhepher,.... Which was the native place of Jonah the prophet, 2Ki_14:25; and where Jerom says (r)his grave was shown, and was a small village in his time two miles from Sippore, then called Diocaesarea:

to Ittahkazin; of this place we have no account elsewhere, but it was not far from the former:

and goeth out to Remmonmethoar to Neah; where the eastern border ended. Some versions make Remmonmethoar distinct places; but where either of them were exactly is not known: some, as the Targum, Jarchi, and Kimchi, render the word "Methoar which goes about"; that is, the border went about from Remmon to Neah, which by Jerom is called Anna, and who observes (s), that there is another village called Anna, ten miles from Neapolis, as you go to Aelia; and by whom also Methoar is reckoned a distinct place, and called Amathar.

K&D, "Jos_19:13“From thence it went over towards the east to the sun-rising to Gath-hepher, to Eth-

kazin, and went out to Rimmon, which is marked off to Neah.” Gath-hepher, the home of the prophet Jonah (2Ki_14:25), was “haud grandis viculus Geth” in the time of Jerome (see prol. ad Jon.). It was about two miles from Sephoris on the road to Tiberias, and the tomb of the prophet was shown there. It is the present village of Meshed, a place about an hour and a quarter to the north of Nazareth (Rob. iii. p. 209; V. de Velde, Mem. p. 312). Eth-kazin is unknown. Rimmon, a Levitical town (Jos_21:35; 1Ch_6:62), has probably been preserved in the village of Rummaneh, about two hours and a half to the north of Nazareth (Rob. iii. p. 195). Ham-methoar is not a proper name, but the

participle of ר$%ָ, with the article in the place of the relative pronoun, “bounded off,” or pricked off. Neah is unknown; it is possibly the same place as Neiel in the tribe of Asher (Jos_19:27), as Knobel supposes.

14 There the boundary went around on the north to Hannathon and ended at the Valley of Iphtah El.

BAR ES, "Hannathon, more properly Channathon, has been supposed by some to be the Cana of Galilee of the New Testament, and Jiphthah-el is probably the present “Jefat”; the “Jotapata” of Roman times, which was so long and valiantly defended by Josephus against the legions of Vespasian. The “Valley” is the “Wady Abilin”; and Bethlehem Jos_19:15 is the present miserable village of “Beit-Lahin.”

GILL, "And the border compasseth it from the north side to Hannathon,.... This is the northern border of the tribe, which took a circuit from the last place to this; of which and the following place we have no account; Jerom only makes mention of them as in the tribe of Zebulun:

and the outgoings thereof are in the valley of Jiphthahel; here the northern border ended, which, Masius conjectures, was part of the valley of Carmel.

K&D, "Jos_19:14“And the boundary turned round it (round Rimmon), on the north to Channathon,

and the outgoings thereof were the valley of Jiphtah-el.” Judging from the words ָנַסב

and ִמָ,פּון, this verse apparently gives the north-west boundary, since the last definition in Jos_19:13, “to Gath-hepher,” etc., points to the eastern boundary. Jiphtah-el answers no doubt to the present Jefât, two hours and a half to the north of Sefurieh, and is the Jotapata which was obstinately defended by Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 7, 9: see Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 104ff.). Consequently the valley of Jiphtah-el, at which Zebulun touched Asher (Jos_19:27), is probably “no other than the large Wady Abilîn, which takes its rise in the hills in the neighbourhood of Jefât” (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 107). And if this be correct,

Channathon (lxx νναθώθ) is probably Cana of Galilee, the home of Nathanael (Joh_2:1, Joh_2:11; Joh_4:46; Joh_21:2), the present Kana el Jelil, between Rummaneh and Yefât, on the northern edge of the plain of Buttauf, upon a Tell, from which you overlook the plain, fully two hours and a half in a straight line from Nazareth, and directly north of that place, where there are many ruins found (see Rob. iii. p. 204; Bibl. Res. p. 108).

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:14

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

15 Included were Kattath, ahalal, Shimron, Idalah and Bethlehem. There were twelve towns and their villages.

BAR ES, "Twelve cities - Only five have been mentioned, and the names in the verses preceding are apparently not names of Zebulonite cities, but merely of points in or near the boundary line. It would therefore appear that seven names have disappeared from the text, and perhaps also the definition of the western frontier.

CLARKE, "Shimron - See on Jos_12:20 (note).

Beth-lehem - The house of bread; a different place from that in which our Lord was born.

GILL, "And Kattath, and Nahallal,.... Of the two first of these we read nowhere else, but in Jos_21:34,

and Shimron was a royal city, the king of which Joshua took and hanged, Jos_11:1,

and Idalah is a place Bochart conjectures (t) where the goddess Venus was worshipped, Idalia being one of her names:

and Bethlehem is a different place from that which was the birthplace of our Lord, called Bethlehem of Judah, to distinguish it from this:

twelve cities with their villages; more are named, but some of them belonged to other tribes, and only lay on the borders of this; and others might not be properly cities, but small towns.

K&D, "Jos_19:15-16The towns of Zebulun were the following. Kattath, probably the same as Kitron, which

is mentioned in Jdg_1:30 in connection with Nahalol, but which is still unknown. Nehalal, or Nahalol (Jdg_1:30), is supposed by V. de Velde (Mem. p. 335), who follows Rabbi Schwartz, to be the present village of Maalul, a place with ruins on the south-west of Nazareth (see Seetzen, ii. p. 143; Rob. iii. App.; and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. p. 700). Simronis supposed by Knobel to be the village of Semunieh (see at Jos_11:1). But neither of these is very probable. Idalah is supposed by V. de Velde to be the village of Jeda or Jeida, on the west of Semunieh, where are a few relics of antiquity, though Robinson(Bibl. Res. p. 113) states the very opposite. Bethlehem (of Zebulun), which many regard as the home of the judge Ibzan (Jdg_12:8), has been preserved under the old name in a

miserable village on the north of Jeida and Semunieh (see Seetzen, ii. p. 139; Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 113). The number of the towns is given as twelve, though only five are mentioned by name. It is true that some commentators have found the missing names in the border places mentioned in Jos_19:11-14, as, after deducting Chisloth-tabor and Dabrath, which belonged to Issachar, the names Sarid, Maralah, Dabbasheth, Japhia, Gittah-hepher, Eth-kazin, and Channathon give just seven towns. Nevertheless there is very little probability in this conjecture. For, in the first place, not only would it be a surprising thing to find the places mentioned as boundaries included among the towns of the territory belonging to the tribe, especially as some of the places so mentioned did not belong to Zebulun at all; but the copula vav, with which the enumeration of the towns

commences, is equally surprising, since this is introduced in other cases with ֶה0ִרים ְוָהיּו

e.g., Jos_18:21; Jos_15:21. And, in the second place, it is not a probable thing in ,(ַו3ְהיּו)itself, that, with the exception of the five towns mentioned in Jos_19:15, the other towns of Zebulun should all be situated upon the border. And lastly, the towns of Kartah and Dimnah, which Zebulun gave up to the Levites (Jos_21:34), are actually wanting. Under these circumstances, it is a natural conclusion that there is a gap in the text here, just as in Jos_15:59 and Jos_21:36.

BE SO ,"Joshua 19:15. Beth-lehem — ot that where Christ was born, which was in Judah, but another. Twelve cities — They are more numerous here, but the rest either were not cities, properly so called, or were not within this tribe, but only bordering upon it, and belonging to other tribes.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 15(15) ahallal.—(‘Ain Mahil, sheet 6).

Shimron.—(Simûmieh, west of azareth, sheet 5).

Idalah.—(El Huwârah, a ruin just south of Bethlehem, sheet 5).

Beth-lehem.—(Beit-Lahm, sheet v.). It seems right to refer Ibzan of Bethlehem (Judges 12:8; Judges 12:10) to this town. The other Bethlehem is called in Judges and Ruth, Bethlehem-Judah; and in Micah, Bethlehem-Ephratah (Judges 17:7; Judges 19:1; Ruth 1:1; Micah 5:2). Bethlehem-Judah is designated Bethlehem only when it is impossible to mistake it for Bethlehem of Zebulun (e.g., Ruth 1:19, and 1 Samuel 16:4).

Twelve cities.—Ittah-kazin, eah, Dabbasheth, and Kattath have not been identified, and they may not all be names of towns.

PETT, "Verse 15‘And Kattath, and ahalal, and Shimron, and Idalah, and Bethlehem. Twelve cities with their villages.’These five cities are in addition to those previously mentioned. The twelve presumably included those of the latter which were seen as in Zebulun’s borders. Kattath is unidentified. ahalal (Joshua 21:35; Judges 1:30) was probably not far

from modern ahalal, nine kilometres (six miles) west of azareth. Some identify it with Tell el-Beida. Shimron was allied with Hazor (see Joshua 11:1) and defeated by Joshua. Some have suggested Tell es-Semuniyeh about five kilometres south south east of the Bethlehem mentioned here. Idalah has been connected with Tell Hawwareth through its being identified in the Talmud as Hiriyeh, two kilometres (one mile) south of Bethlehem. Bethlehem ( a different one from Bethlehem-judah) is now Bet-lahm, eleven kilometres (seven miles) north west of azareth.

16 These towns and their villages were the inheritance of Zebulun, according to its clans.

GILL, "This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun, according to their families,.... Which was allotted to it and divided, according to the number of its families:

these cities with their villages; before enumerated, excepting such as only bordered on them; though indeed there were other cities which belonged to them, or might be after given them, not here mentioned, as Kartah and Dimnah, Jos_21:34.

COKE, "Ver. 16. This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun— It is easy to conceive, that twelve cities would not have been sufficient to lodge and support the inhabitants of a tribe which exceeded sixty thousand; umbers 26:27. The historian then has named here only the chief cities, those which were upon the borders of the other tribes; or perhaps those which the commissioners, on surveying the country, had set down in the maps and minutes which they presented to Joshua. Two other cities of Zebulun, viz. Kartah and Dimnah, are afterwards spoken of; ch. Joshua 21:34-35. According to Jacob's prophesy, Genesis 49:13, the coasts of Zebulun were havens for ships, lying on the Mediterranean sea west, and the sea of Tiberias east. In this tribe lay azareth, where Jesus dwelt; Tabor, where he was transfigured; and the coasts of the sea of Galilee, the chief scene of his ministry and miracles, were all in this tribe: it produced also one judge, Tola, and one king of Israel, Baasha.

PETT, "Verse 16‘This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun, according to their families, these cities with their villages.’Again we have the final seal on the allotment to a tribe in due form. Each received according to their size, ‘according to their families’. o mention has been made of Kartah and Dimnah (Joshua 21:34). Thus there may have been a special reason in

the minds of the particular surveyors for numbering up to twelve.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:16

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

Allotment for Issachar

17 The fourth lot came out for Issachar according to its clans.

CLARKE, "The fourth lot came out to Issachar - It is remarkable, that though Issachar was the eldest brother, yet the lot of Zebulun was drawn before his lot; and this is the order in which Jacob himself mentions them, Gen_49:13, Gen_49:14, though no reason appears, either here or in the place above, why this preference should be given to the younger; but that the apparently fortuitous lot should have distinguished them just as the prophetic Jacob did, is peculiarly remarkable. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning: he has reasons for his conduct, which in many cases are too great for any of his creatures to comprehend, but he works all things after the counsel of his own will, which is ever right and good; and in this case his influence may be as easily seen in the decision by the lot, as on the mind of the patriarch Jacob, when he predicted what should befall his children in the latter days, and his providence continued to ripen, and bring forward what his judgment had deemed right to be done.

GILL, "And the fourth lot came out to Issachar,.... The fourth of the seven drawn at Shiloh:

for the children of Issachar, according to their families: among whom the inheritance that came to them by the lot was divided, according to the number of them.

HE RY 17-23, "The lot of Issachar ran from Jordan in the east to the great sea in the west, Manasseh on the south, and Zebulun on the north. A numerous tribe, Num_26:25. Tola, one of the judges, was of this tribe, Jdg_10:1. So was Baasha, one of the kings of Israel, 1Ki_15:27. The most considerable places in this tribe were, 1. Jezreel, in which was Ahab's palace, and near it Naboth's vineyard. 2. Shunem, where lived that good Shunamite that entertained Elisha. 3. The river Kishon, on the banks of which, in this tribe, Sisera was beaten by Deborah and Barak. 4. The mountains of Gilboa, on which Saul and Jonathan were slain, which were not far from Endor, where Saul consulted the witch. 5. The valley of Megiddo, where Josiah was slain near Hadad-rimmon, 2Ki_23:29; Zec_12:11.

JAMISO , "Jos_19:17-23. Of Issachar.

the fourth lot came out to Issachar— Instead of describing the boundaries of this tribe, the inspired historian gives a list of its principal cities. These cities are all in the eastern part of the plain of Esdraelon.

K&D, The Inheritance of Issachar. - In this instance only towns are given, and the boundaries are not delineated, with the exception of the eastern portion of the northern boundary and the boundary line; at the same time, they may easily be traced from the boundaries of the surrounding tribes. Issachar received for the most part the large and very fertile plain of Jezreel (see at Jos_17:16, and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 689ff.), and was bounded on the south by Manasseh, on the west by Manasseh and Asher, on the north by Zebulun, and farther east by Naphtali also, and on the east by the Jordan.

COFFMA , "Verse 17ISSACHAR

"The fourth lot came out for Issachar, even for the children of Issachar according to their families. And their border was unto Jezreel, and Chesulloth, and Shunem, and Hapharaim, and Shion, and Anaharath, and Rabbith, and Kishion, and Ebez, and Remeth, and En-gannim, and En-haddah, and Beth-pazzez, and the border reached to Tabor, and Shahazumah, and Beth-shemesh; and the goings out of their border were at the Jordan: sixteen cities and their villages. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Issachar according to their families, the cities and their villages."

"The lot of Isaachar comprised the plain of Esdraelon",[7] which was part of the richest land in Palestine, and, as Plummer noted, it is surprising that nothing very outstanding is afterward attributed to this tribe, with the one exception of the battle of Tabor. "Possibly the fact that the `lines of this tribe' had fallen in `pleasant places' tended to induce sloth."[8] Plummer also believed that the property of Issachar extended to a portion of the coast of the Sea of Galilee, basing his view upon Isaiah 9:1.

CO STABLE, "Verses 17-23The inheritance of Issachar19:17-23

The writer did not give the boundaries of Issachar in as much detail as the preceding tribes. The Jordan River on the east, the borders of Manasseh on its south and southwest, Zebulun on its northwest, and aphtali on its north prescribed its territory. Issachar received16 towns ( Joshua 19:18-22).

ELLICOTT, "(17) The fourth lot . . . to Issachar.—These two tribes were located next to the house of Joseph on the north. It should be remembered that Issachar and Zebulun had been associated with Judah to form the same camp and division of the army in the wilderness. This association, lasting forty years, must have created many ties between these two tribes and their leader Judah. It was no ordinary wisdom that placed the descendants of Rachel (Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh) between Judah on the south and Judah’s two associates on the north—to cement the union of all Israel, and as far as possible to prevent discord.

With regard to Judah and Zebulun, it is noticeable that we find their union reproduced in the earthly history of our Lord. Mary, who was of the house of David, and Joseph of the same lineage, are found dwelling in azareth, in the tribe of Zebulun. Thus the north and the south alike had “part in David,” and inheritance in David’s Son. There is a Bethlehem (Joshua 19:15) in Zebulun as well as in Judah. The name is not found in any other tribe.

PETT, "Verse 17‘For Issachar came out the fourth lot, for the children of Issachar according to their families.’See note on Simeon (Joshua 19:1) with respect to the direct mention of the patriarchal name. Issachar is regularly tied in with Zebulun, and in the Blessing of Moses is mentioned co-jointly with them as a junior partner (Deuteronomy 33:18). This co-unity no doubt increased with having their inheritances next to each other and as a result of the circumstances in which they found themselves, surviving in the countryside and forests among strong Canaanite cities. They are probably to be seen as included in Zebulun in Judges 1:30; Judges 4:6; Judges 5:18, although mentioned separately in Judges 5:15 as performing valiantly, which demonstrates that they played a full part in the battle. Like their patriarchal ancestor they probably enjoyed their pleasures and lacked initiative (Genesis 49:14-15). But there is no evidence that suggests that they ever became a slave nation, although no doubt harassed by the Canaanites in their area until they became strong enough with others to drive them out.

PI K, ""And the fourth lot came out to Issachar" (Josh. 19:17). Since this tribe was united with Zebulun in blessing (Deut. 33:18, 19), there is the less need for us to offer separate remarks thereon. The "in their tents" was in apposition to the "ships": they would be a pastoral people rather than a sea-going one cultivating the land. Their inheritance was the fertile plain of Jezreel, with its surrounding hills and valleys, afterwards known as lower Galilee—it extended from Carmel to the Jordan, and in breadth to mount Tabor. Shunem (1 Kings 4:8, etc.) was one of its

cities, and aboth’s vineyard was within its lot. Matthew Henry pointed out how that we may see both the sovereignty and the wisdom of Divine providence in appointing not only the bounds of men’s habitations, "but their several employments for the good of the public · as each member of the body is situated and qualified for the service of the whole. Some are disposed to live in cities, some in the countryside, others in sea-ports. The genius of some leads them to the pen, some to trading, others to mechanics. ‘If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing?’" (1 Cor. 12:17).

18 Their territory included:

Jezreel, Kesulloth, Shunem,

BAR ES, "Jezreel and its famous and fertile plain are the choicest part of the inheritance of Issachar Jos_17:16.

Shunem - Here the Philistines pitched before the battle of Gilboa 1Sa_28:4. The place is also known as the home of Abishag 1Ki_1:3, and in connection with Elisha 2Ki_4:8; 2Ki_8:1. It is identified with “Solam” (or, Sulem), a small and poor village on the slope of Little Hermon.

CLARKE, "Jezreel - This city, according to Calmet, was situated in an open country, having the town of Legion on the west, Bethshan on the east, on the south the mountains of Gilboa, and on the north those of Hermon.

Shunem - This city was rendered famous by being the occasional abode of the prophet Elisha, and the place where he restored the son of a pious woman to life. 2Ki_4:8. It was the place where the Philistines were encamped on that ruinous day in which the Israelites were totally routed at Gilboa, and Saul and his sons Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchi-shua, killed. 1Sa_28:4; 1Sa_31:1, etc.

GILL, "And their border was towards Jezreel,.... Which was a royal seat in the time of Ahab, 1Ki_21:1; and according to Jerom was near to Maximianopolis; See Gill on Hos_1:5; and the same writer (u) says in his day a large village of this name was shown in the great plain between Scythopolis and Legion (he means the plain of Jezreel), and it was the border of Issachar:

and Chesulloth was different from the Chislothtabor, Jos_19:12; that, as Masius observes, was to the north, this to the south of Mount Tabor:

and Shunem is a place well known for being the dwelling place of a certain woman in the times of Elisha, whose son the prophet raised from the dead, 2Ki_4:8; Jerom calls it Sonam, where was the Shunammite woman; but this city here seems to be what he calls Salem, in the tribe of Issachar; and he adds, that there was shown in his day a village by this name, five miles from Mount Tabor to the south (w): according to Bunting (x), it was forty eight miles from Jerusalem to the north, not far from Nain.

K&D, "Jos_19:18“And their boundary was towards Jezreel,” i.e., their territory extended beyond

Jezreel. Jezreel, the summer residence of Ahab and his house (1Ki_18:45-46, etc.), was situated upon a mountain, with an extensive and splendid prospect over the large plain that was called by its name. It was afterwards called Esdraela, a place described in the Onom. (s. v. Jezreel) as standing between Scythopolis and Legio; it is the present Zerîn, on the north-west of the mountains of Gilboa (see Seetzen, ii. pp. 155-6; Rob. iii. pp. 161ff.; Van de Velde, R. ii. pp. 320ff.). Chesulloth, possibly the same as Chisloth-tabor(see at Jos_19:12). Sunem, the home of Abishag (1Ki_1:3-15, etc.), also mentioned in 1Sa_28:4 and 2Ki_4:8, was situated, according to the Onom., five Roman miles (two hours) to the south of Tabor; it is the present Solam or Sulem, at the south-western foot of the Duhy or Little Hermon, an hour and a half to the north of Jezreel (see Rob. iii. pp. 170ff.; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 323).

BE SO , "Joshua 19:18. Jezreel — The royal city, 1 Kings 21:1. This tribe, because it lay between Benjamin on the south and Zebulun on the north, is not here described by its borders, which were the same with theirs, but by some of its cities.

PETT, "Verses 18-21‘And their border was to Jezreel, and Chesulloth, and Shunem, and Hapharaim, and Shion, and Anaharath, and Rabbith, and Kishion, and Ebez, and Remeth, and En-gannim, and En-haddah and Beth-pazzez.’Issachar’s borders appear to have been fluid and its area mainly delineated by cities. This ties in with their close relationship with Zebulun and the fact that some of their area was allocated to Manasseh (Joshua 17:11). Their area was to the south east of Zebulun and the south of aphtali, in the south east of the Great Plain of Jezreel/Esdraelon. Esdraelon is the Greek for Jezreel and the latter name is often applied to the whole of the Great Plain, but they are also often seen as two sections of the Plain. Manasseh were to the south. Possibly the writer saw Issachar’s borders as sufficiently delineated elsewhere. Settling in the plains was made difficult by the prevalence of Canaanite cities and Issachar would therefore first settle in cleared forest land and the mountains. Whether some gave themselves up to forced labour in return for the comforts of Canaanite civilisation, like their ancestor (see Genesis 49:14-15), we do not know.

Jezreel (Hebrew Yizra’el - ‘God sows’) was at the east end of the Jezreel Plain ninety kilometres north of Jerusalem, and is identified with Zer’in. It was not a fortified site until the time of Ahab, when it was his chariot centre. Parts of Israelite buildings have been found. It was by its spring that Israel gathered before engaging the Philistines at Gilboa where Saul and Jonathan died (1 Samuel 29:1; 1 Samuel 31:1). Chesulloth was in the Plain, west of Tabor. Whether it was different from

Chisloth-tabor (Joshua 19:12) is open to question. If the same it was clearly a joint city on the border. Shunem is possibly modern Solem, five to six kilometres (three and a half miles) north of Jezreel. It was where the Philistines camped before they moved on to Aphek prior to the battle of Gilboa (1 Samuel 28:4), and where Elisha often found shelter (2 Kings 4:8) and raised a dead child (2 Kings 4:34-35). It was possibly the place named in the Egyptian lists of Thothmes III (about 1550 BC) and of Shishak (about 950 BC) as Shanema.

“And Hapharaim, and Shion, and Anaharath, and Rabbith, and Kishion, and Ebez.” Hapharaim is also found in Shishak’s list as Hapurama. Khirbet Farriyeh, nine kilometres (five to six miles) north west of el-Lejjun has been suggested. Shion is perhaps ‘Ayun esh-Sha‘in, five kilometres (three miles) north west of Tabor. Anaharith is possibly the ’Anuhertu of Thothmes list. ‘Arraneh, four kilometres (two and a half miles) north east of modern Jenin has been suggested as a possible site. Rabbith could be Raba, eleven kilometres (seven miles) south east of Janin (En-gannim? - Joshua 19:21). Kishion (see Joshua 21:28) and Ebez are unknown.

“And Remeth, and En-gannim, and En-haddah and Beth-pazzez.” Remeth (rmth) is possibly the Jarmuth (yrmth) of Joshua 21:29 and the Ramoth (rmth) of 1 Chronicles 6:73. The Egyptians called the area ‘the hills of Yarmuta’, the elevated region north west of Beth-shean. A stele of Seti I (about 1300 BC) stated that various ‘Apiru tribes were settled there and had been subjected to Egypt. But these were not necessarily Israel (compare the ‘Apiru at Shechem - Joshua 8:30). En-gannim (‘spring of gardens’) is possibly modern Jenin where there is still a plentiful spring. See for it Joshua 21:29 and 1 Chronicles 6:73 where it is abbreviated as Anem. (Other possible identifications are Olam or Khirbet Beit Jann). En-haddah and Beth-pazzez are unidentified but probably close by. The whole area was very fruitful.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:18

Jezreel. The valley ( ֵעֶמק ) of Jezreel, known in later Greek as the plain of Esdrsela or Esdraclon (Judith 1:8; 7:2; 2Mal 12:49) was "the perennial battlefield of Palestine from that time to the present". Lieut. Conder, however, takes exception to this statement. "The great battles of Joshua," he says, "were fought far to the south." We presume he would make an exception on behalf of the action by the waters of Merom, and that he does not wish us to forget that the majority of Joshua's other "battles" were sieges. "David's wars were fought with the Philistines,'' he continues, "while the invasions of the Syrians were directed to the neighbourhood of Samaria." But here, again, he would seem to have forgotten 1 Samuel 29:1, 1 Kings 20:26, 2 Kings 13:17, 2 Kings 13:25, while he expressly admits that the great battles of Gilboa and Megiddo, in which Saul and Josiah were defeated and met their deaths, were fought here. And we have already seen that twice did the Egyptians invade Syria by this plain. One of these invasions took place while Moses was in Egypt, under Thothmes III. The other was the famous expedition of Rameses II. against Syria, about the time of Deborah and Barak. If we add to these the victory of Gideon over the Midianites and the overthrow of Sisera,

we shall have reason to think that the epithet "the battlefield of Palestine" applied to this plain is not altogether misplaced, especially if, with a large number of critics, we regard the Book of Judith as founded on fact, but relating to events of some other time than that of ebuchadnezzar. "Well may it be fertile," exclaims Mr. Bartlett, "for it has drunk the blood of the Midianite, the Philistine, the Jew, the Roman, the Babylonian, the Egyptian, the Frenchman, the Englishman, the Saracen, and the Turk. It is a singular group to summon up to the imagination, Gideon, Saul, and Jonathan, Deborah, Barak, and Sisera, Ahab, Jezebel, Jehu, Josiah, Omri, and Azariah, Holofernes and Judith, Vespasian and Josephus, Saladin and the Knights Templar, Bonaparte and Kleber." The list is a striking one. But certain it is that the plains of Jezreel have been noted as the highway of every conqueror who wished to make the fertile fields of Palestine his own. The Israelitish invasion alone seems to have been decided elsewhere than on that plain, stretching as it does from the foot of Carmel in a southeasterly direction, and divided in the direction of Jordan by Mount Gilboa and Little Hermon into three distinct branches, in the midst of the southernmost and most extensive of which stands the famous city of Jezreel—God's acre, or sowing ground, as the name indicates. Here Barak and Deborah fell upon the hosts of Jabin ( 4:14), descending suddenly from the heights of Tabor with 10,000 men upon the vast and evidently undisciplined host that lay in the plain. Here Gideon encountered the vast host of the Midianites ( 7:12), who, after laying waste the south country, finally encamped in this fertile plain (accurately called ֵעֶמק in 6:38), and with their leaders Oreb and Zeeb, and their princes Zebah and Zalmunna, were swept away in one of those sudden and irrational panics so often fatal to Eastern armies. Here Saul, hard by Jezreel, dispirited by his visit to the witch of Endor, on the north of Gilboa, gathered his men together as a forlorn hope, to await the attack of the Philistines, their numbers at first swelled by a number of Israelites whom Saul's tyranny and oppression had driven into exile (1 Samuel 29:1-11). Advancing to Jezreel, the Philistine host carried all before them, and drove the Israelites in headlong flight up the steeps of Gilboa, where Saul and his sons fell fighting bravely to the last (1 Samuel 30:1-31). In the later and sadder days of the Israelitish monarchy, when the ten tribes had been carried into captivity by the Assyrian conqueror, Josiah courted disaster by a rash onslaught upon the Egyptian troops as they marched against Assyria. o details of this fight at Megiddo are preserved, save the fatal fire of the Egyptian archers, who marked Josiah as their victim, and drove, no doubt, his leaderless troops from the field (2 Kings 23:29; 2 Kings 2:1-25. Chronicles 35:22). At Jezreel, too, Ahab made his capital. Hither Elijah, when "the hand of the Lord was upon him" (1 Kings 18:46), ran after the wondrous scene on Mount Carmel, when he alone, in a strength not his own, withstood the "prophets of Baal, even four hundred and fifty men." Here Jehoram stood on the hill, with its commanding view, watching with an uneasy distrust the furious rush of Jehu with his troop from the other side Jordan, and here, in the plat of aboth the Jezreelite, so fatal to Ahab and his house, did the vengeance decreed overtake the unhappy monarch (2 Kings 9:25), The spot may be still identified. It is the modern Zerin. Ritter describes it (and so does Robinson) as standing on the edge of a precipice 100 feet high, and commanding a fine view of the plain of Beth-shean on the east, and of Esdraelon on the west. There is a tower here which commands the same view as the watchmen of

Jehoram commanded, bearing witness to the accuracy of the historian. So in 1 Kings 4:12, the mention of Taanach, Megiddo, and the region of Beth-shean, as beneath ַחתלְ ) Jezreel is another instance of topographical detail which marks the .( ִמּחַcorrectness of the record. Another point is that we read in the narrative above mentioned of "chariots." Wilson ('Lands of the Bible,' 2:303) was surprised, on leaving the rugged heights of the hill country, to find how easily, if the civilisation of Palestine permitted, excellent roads might be made throughout this region; and Canon Tristram has remarked on the desolate appearance now presented by that fertile region, the result of the insecurity for life and property which is so commonly remarked by all who have travelled in the East. Here, where under a better rule would be the abode of peace and plenty, no cultivator of the land dare venture to pass the night, exposed to the depredations of the wild tribes that infest the country. Only a mountain fastness, hard to climb and comparatively easy to defend, affords a secure retreat for those who would live peaceably in that once favoured land. Shunem. ow Sulem: the place of the encampment of the Philistines before they "pitched in Aphek" (1 Samuel 28:4; 1 Samuel 29:1). It was "five Roman miles south of Mount Tabor" (Vandevelde) and an hour and a half (i.e. about six miles) north of Jezreel (Keil and Delitzsch). Here Abishag the Shunammite lived (1 Kings 1:3; 1 Kings 2:17, 1 Kings 2:21), and here Elisha lodged, and afterwards restored the son of his entertainers to life (2 Kings 4:1-44; 2 Kings 8:1-29).

19 Hapharaim, Shion, Anaharath,

GILL, "And Hapharaim,.... The first of these is by Jerom (y) called Aphraim, a city of the tribe of Issachar; and adds, there is at this day a village called Affarea, six miles from Legion to the north:

and Shion; of Seon or Soen, the same with Shion here, he says (z), there was a village of this name shown in his time near Mount Tabor:

and Anaharath, of which we have no account elsewhere.

K&D, "Jos_19:19Haphraim, according to the Onom. (s. v. Aphraim) villa Affaraea, six Roman miles to

the north of Legio, is identified by Knobel with the village of Afuleh, on the west of Sulem, and more than two hours to the north-east of Legun (Rob. iii. pp. 163, 181). Sion, according to the Onom. villa juxta montem Thabor, has not yet been discovered. Anaharath is supposed by Knobel to be Na'urah, on the eastern side of the Little Hermon (Bibl. Res. p. 337); but he regards the text as corrupt, and following the Cod. Al.

of the lxx, which has 4ενάθ and 567ανέθ, maintains that the reading should be

Archanath, to which Arâneh on the north of Jenin in the plain corresponds (Seetzen, ii. p. 156; Rob. iii. p. 157). But the circumstance that the Cod. Al. has two names instead of one makes its reading very suspicious.

20 Rabbith, Kishion, Ebez,

GILL, "And Rabbith,.... The first of these Jerom calls (a) Rabboth in the tribe of Issachar:

and Kishion, as Masius notes, seems to given name to the river Kishon near it; some take it to be the same with Kedesh, 1Ch_6:72,

and Abez, of which no mention is made elsewhere.

K&D, "Jos_19:20Harabbit is supposed by Knobel to be Araboneh, on the north-east of Arâneh, at the

southern foot of Gilboa (Rob. iii. p. 157). Kishion, which was given up to the Levites (Jos_21:28) and is erroneously written Kedesh in 1Ch_6:57, is unknown. This also applies to Abez or Ebez, which is never mentioned again.

21 Remeth, En Gannim, En Haddah and Beth Pazzez.

BAR ES, "En-gannim - i. e. “fountain of gardens;” also a Levitical city Jos_21:29, and called Ahem 1Ch_6:73, the modern “Jenin,” a place on the main road from Jerusalem to Nazareth, just where it enters the plain of Jezreel. Many of the places enumerated in these verses are not known. Tabor Jos_19:22 is perhaps not the famous mountain, but the town on it of the same name 1Ch_6:77, given up to the Levites. Beth-shemesh (perhaps “Bessum”) is not the same as Beth-shemesh of Judah Jos_15:10, nor of Naphtali Jos_19:38.

GILL, "And Remeth,.... Remeth seems to be the same with Jarmuth, Jos_21:29; and

with Ramoth, 1Ch_6:73,

and Engannim seems to be the same with Anem in 1Ch_6:73, there were several of this name, which seem to have been places full of gardens, and well watered; for the word signifies a fountain of gardens. Engannim is now called Jenine, distant from Tabor twenty two miles, a place of gardens, of water, and of pleasure, as a traveller (b) of ours tells us; who also declares (c), that, in his whole journey from Damascus to Jerusalem, he saw not more fruitful ground, and so much together, than he did in twenty two miles of riding between Mount Tabor and Engannim. This seems to be the same place Mr. Maundrell (d) calls Jeneen, a large old town on the outskirts of Esdraelon. Dr. Lightfoot (e) is inclined to believe, that Nain, where the widow's son was raised to life, Luk_7:11, is the same with Engannim, for which he gives various reasons:

and Enhaddah; Jerom says, in his time (f) there was a village called Enadda, ten miles from Eleutheropolis, as you go from thence to Aelia; but seems not to be the same with Enhaddah here:

and Bethpazzez; of Bethpazzez no mention is made elsewhere. "Beth" signifies a "house", and "Pazzez" in the Arabic tongue signifies "silver"; so this with the old Canaanites might be a treasure city, like those in Egypt, Exo_1:11. But where a word begins with "Beth", as the name of a place, I always suspect there was an idol temple there; now as the word in Hebrew signifies the same as "Peor", opening, here might be a temple to that deity, or to one that was similar to the god of the Moabites, and design a Priapus, among the Canaanites like that; or as the word in the Syriac and Chaldee languages signifies to redeem, deliver, and save, this temple might be dedicated to some idol as their deliverer and saviour.

K&D, "Jos_19:21Remeth, for which Jarmuth stands in the list of Levitical towns in Jos_21:29, and

Ramoth in 1Ch_6:58, is also unknown.

(Note: Knobel imagines Remeth, whose name signifies height, to be the village of Wezar, on one of the western peaks of Gilboa (Seetzen, ii. p. 156; Rob. iii. p. 166, and Bibl. Res. p. 339), as the name also signifies “a lofty, inaccessible mountain, or a castle situated upon a mountain.” This is certainly not impossible, but it is improbable. For this Mahometan village evidently derived its name from the fact that it has the appearance of a fortification when seen from a distance (see Ritter, Erdk. xv. p. 422). The name has nothing in common therefore with the Hebrew Remeth, and the travellers quoted by him say nothing at all about the ruins which he mentions in connection with Wezar (Wusar).)

En-gannim, which was also allotted to the Levites (Jos_21:29; also 1Ch_6:73, where it is

called Anem), has been associated by Robinson (iii. p. 155) with the Γιναία of Josephus, the present Jenin. The name En-gannim signifies fountain of gardens, and Jenin stands at the southern side of the plain of Jezreel in the midst of gardens and orchards, which are watered by a copious spring (see Seetzen, ii. pp. 156ff.); “unless perhaps the place referred to is the heap of ruins called Um el Ghanim, on the south-east of Tabor, mentioned by Berggren, ii. p. 240, and Van de Velde, Mem. p. 142” (Knobel). En-chaddaand Beth-pazzez are only mentioned here, and have not yet been discovered. According to Knobel, the former of the two may possibly be either the place by Gilboa called Judeideh, with a fountain named Ain Judeideh (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 337), or else Beit-kad

or Kadd near Gilboa, mentioned by Seetzen (ii. p. 159) and Robinson (iii. p. 157).

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:21

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

22 The boundary touched Tabor, Shahazumah and Beth Shemesh, and ended at the Jordan. There were sixteen towns and their villages.

CLARKE, "Beth-shemesh - The house or temple of the sun; there were several cities or towns of this name in Palestine; an ample proof that the worship of this celestial luminary had generally prevailed in that idolatrous country.

GILL, "And the coast reacheth to Tabor,.... Tabor was the name of a mountain in those parts; it is generally supposed to be the mountain on which our Lord was transfigured, though it is not sufficiently evident; See Gill on Jer_46:18. There was a city of this name near it, 1Ch_6:77, and which is meant here, and which either gave unto or received name from the mount. The Greeks call it Itabyrium, and it is described by Polybius (g) as situated on a hill rising in the form of a pap or breast, and has an ascent of more than fifteen furlongs, and he calls it a city:

and Shahazimah is not mentioned any where else:

and Bethshemesh; there seem to have been several cities, at least more than one, of the name of Bethshemesh; one in the tribe of Judah, Jos_21:16; and another in the tribe of Naphtali, Jos_19:38; which perhaps may be the same with this, it lying on the borders of both tribes. In this, and so in others of the same name, was a temple dedicated to the sun by the Heathens, as there was one of the same name in Egypt for the same reason, Jer_43:13,

and the outgoings of their border were at Jordan; here it ended: so Josephus says, that the border of this tribe in the length of it were Mount Carmel (at one end), and

the river (i.e. Jordan, at the other); and at the breadth of it the mountain Itabyrium, or Mount Tabor: it had Jordan on the east, the sea on the west, Zebulun on the north, and Manasseh on the south:

sixteen cities with their villages; which was the sum total of them.

K&D 22-23, "Jos_19:22-23“And the boundary touched Tabor, Sahazim, and Beth-shemesh.” Tabor is not the

mountain of that name, but a town upon the mountain, which was given to the Levites, though not by Issachar but by Zebulun (1Ch_6:62), and was fortified afresh in the Jewish wars (Josephus, Bell. Jud. iv. 1, 8). In this passage, however, it appears to be reckoned as belonging to Issachar, since otherwise there are not sixteen cities named. At the same time, as there are several discrepancies between the numbers given and the names actually mentioned, it is quite possible that in this instance also the number sixteen is incorrect. In any case, Tabor was upon the border of Zebulun (Jos_19:12), so that it might have been allotted to this tribe. There are still the remains of old walls and ruins or arches, houses, and other buildings to be seen upon Mount Tabor; and round the summit there are the foundations of a thick wall built of large and to a great extent fluted stones (see Rob. iii. pp. 453ff.; Seetzen, ii. p. 148; Buckingham, Syr. i. pp. 83ff.). The places which follow are to be sought for on the east of Tabor towards the Jordan, as the boundary terminated at the Jordan. Sachazim (Shahazimah) Knobel connects with el Hazetheh, as the name, which signifies heights, points to a town situated upon hills; and el Hezetheh stands upon the range of hills, bounding the low-lying land of Ard el Hamma, which belonged to Naphtali. The reason is a weak one, though the situation would suit. There is more probability in the conjecture that Beth-shemesh, which remained in the hands of the Canaanites (Jdg_1:33), has been preserved in the ruined village of Bessum (Rob. iii. p. 237), and that this new name is only a corruption of the old one, like Beth-shean and Beisan. It is probable that the eastern portion of the northern boundary of Issachar, towards Naphtali, ran in a north-easterly direction from Tabor through the plain to Kefr Sabt, and thence to the Jordan along the Wady Bessum. It is not stated how far the territory of Issachar ran down the valley of the Jordan (see the remarks on Jos_17:11).

PETT, "Verse 22‘And the border reached to Tabor, and Shahazumah, and Bethshemesh, and the goings out of their border were at Jordan. Sixteen cities with their villages.’Tabor is clearly a town connected with Mount Tabor on the Zebulun border and shared with Zebulun (see Judges 4:6; Judges 4:14; Judges 8:18; 1 Chronicles 6:77). Shahazumah is unknown. Beth-shemesh (‘house of the sun (or of Shemesh)’) was a popular name for towns related to sun worship. This one may have been shared with aphtali being on the Issachar- aphtali border (Joshua 19:38). These sixteen cities with their villages delineate the inheritance of Issachar.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:22

The coast reacheth. Literally, the border skirteth, as in Joshua 19:11. Tabor. Perhaps the same as Chisloth-Tabor in Joshua 19:12 (cf. 1 Chronicles 6:77). It

would therefore be, as Mount Tabor certainly was, on the boundary between the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun. Beth-shemesh. ot the well known town in the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:10). The repetition of this name is a proof of the extent to which sun worship prevailed in Palestine before the Israelite invasion.

23 These towns and their villages were the inheritance of the tribe of Issachar, according to its clans.

GILL, "This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Issachar,.... Which fell to them by lot, as before described:

according to their families; was divided among them, according to the number of them:

the cities and their villages; the cities before enumerated, and the villages adjacent to them.

COKE, "Ver. 23. This is the inheritance, &c.— Issachar's lot consisted of sixteen cities with their villages. It was a numerous tribe, bordering on the sea westward, having Jordan on the east, Manasseh on the south, and Zebulun on the north. Jezreel, Ahab's royal city of Shunem, wherein dwelt the kind hostess of Elijah, Kishon famed for Deborah's victory, Gilboa where Saul fell, and the valley of Megiddo where Josiah was slain, lay in this tribe.

PETT, "Verse 23‘This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Issachar, according to their families the cities with their villages.’This is the usual formula for sealing the inheritance of a tribe, a sign that this is included in an official record.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:23

This is the inheritance of the tribe of Issachar. Jacob, whose dying eye pierced far into the future, discerned beforehand the situation of the tribe of Issachar, and its results upon its conduct. Situated in the midst of this fertile plain, accessible alike to Egypt by the way of the Shephelah, and to the east by way of the fords of the Jordan, the tribe of Issachar became in the end the prey of the various nationalities, who made the plain of Esdraelon their battlefield, and it was the first to "bow his

shoulder to bear" and to "become a servant unto tribute" (Genesis 49:15). It seems to have been to the east of Manasseh (see Joshua 17:10), and may have extended much further south than is usually supposed. Since but small mention of the Jordan is made in the boundary of Joseph, it may have extended as far or farther south than the Jabbok (see also note, Joshua 17:10). The general belief of explorers at present is that the inheritance of Issachar extended from Jezreel to the Jordan, and from the Sea of Tiberias southward as far as the border of Manasseh, above mentioned.

Allotment for Asher

24 The fifth lot came out for the tribe of Asher according to its clans.

GILL, "And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher,.... Which entitled them to an inheritance next described:

according to their families; which was sufficient for them, and divided to them according to their num

HE RY 24-31, "The lot of Asher lay upon the coast of the great sea. We read not of any famous person of this tribe but Anna the prophetess, who was a constant resident in the temple at the time of our Saviour's birth, Luk_2:36. Nor were there many famous places in this tribe. Aphek (mentioned Jos_19:30) was the place near which Benhadad was beaten by Ahad, 1Ki_20:30. But close adjoining to this tribe were the celebrated sea-port towns of Tyre and Sidon, which we read so much of. Tyre is called here that strong city (Jos_19:29), but Bishop Patrick thinks it was not the same Tyre that we read of afterwards, for that was built on an island; this old strong city was on the continent. And it is conjectured by some that into these two strong-holds, Sidon and Tzor, or Tyre, many of the people of Canaan fled and took shelter when Joshua invaded them.

JAMISO , "Jos_19:24-31. Of Asher.

the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher— The western boundary is traced from north to south through the cities mentioned; the site of them, however, is unknown.

K&D, "The Inheritance of Asher. - Asher received its territory along the Mediterranean Sea from Carmel to the northern boundary of Canaan itself. The description commences with the central portion, viz., the neighbourhood of Acco (Jos_19:25), going first of all towards the south (Jos_19:26, Jos_19:27), and then to the north (Jos_19:28, Jos_19:30).

COFFMA , "Verse 24ASHER

"And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher according to their families. And their border was Helkath, and Hali, and Beten, and Achshaph, and Allammelech, and Amad, and Mishal; and it reached to Carmel westward, and to Shihor-libnah; and it turned toward the sunrising to Beth-dagon, and reached to Zebulun, and to the valley of Iphtahel northward to Beth-emek and eiel; and it went out to Cabul on the left hand, and Ebron, and Rehob, and Hammon, and Kanah, even unto great Sidon; and the border turned to Ramah, and to the fortified city of Tyre; and the border turned to Hosah; and the goings out thereof were at the sea by the region of Achzib; Ummah also, and Aphek, and Rehob: twenty and two cities with their villages. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Asher according to their families, these cities with their villages."

As noted repeatedly in Judah's inheritance, we have two cities with the same name, Rehob (Joshua 19:28,30). As Philbeck said, "The tribes of Asher, Zebulun, and Issachar all joined Manasseh on the south. Asher was the westernmost of these and claimed the seacoast from Mount Carmel to Tyre; but the tribe's control of all that area was always tenuous at best."[9] Woudstra pointed out that the summary here mentions 22 cities, but that if Tyre and Sidon are counted, there are actually 24.[10]

CO STABLE, "Verses 24-31The inheritance of Asher19:24-31

Asher"s territory stretched along the Mediterranean coastline from where the Carmel range of mountains meets the Plain of Sharon northward to the northern border of Canaan. The Phoenicians lived north of Asher on this coast. Asher"s neighbor on the southeast was Zebulun, and on the east it was aphtali. The writer mentioned22towns but recorded the names of only a few ( Joshua 19:30).

ELLICOTT, "(24) The fifth lot . . . for . . . Asher . . . (and Joshua 19:32) the sixth . . . for . . . aphtali.—Asher and aphtali had been associated with Dan in the exodus, and with him had encamped on the north side of the tabernacle, and had brought up the rear. These two, each dissociated from his own brother (viz., Asher from Gad and aphtali from Dan), are paired together in their inheritance in Palestine (comp. aphtali and Manasseh in Revelation 7, and see ames on the Gates of Pearl, pp. 199, 200). The tribe of Asher was more akin to the house of Judah, for Zilpah, the mother of Asher, was Leah’s handmaid; and the tribe of to the house of Joseph, for Bilhah, aphtali’s mother, was Rachel’s handmaid. But in all cases the lot of the inheritance of the tribe seems to have fallen in such a way as to favour the

construction of a united Israel—a Dodecaphulon, to use St. Paul’s word—an organised body of twelve tribes.

PETT, "Verse 24‘And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher, according to their families.’Once again we are reminded that the portions were given by lot in the presence of YHWH. This was not just a method of selection, it was a solemn seeking of God for His will at the Tabernacle by The Priest using God provided methods.

Egyptian inscriptions of 14th and 13th century BC mention a state called isr occupying Western Galilee but not too much must be made of this for it is philologically difficult to relate it to Asher and Asher is itself attested under another form as the name of a female servant in an Egyptian papyrus list. Thus the two are distinct.

PI K, ""And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher" (Josh. 19:24). It was pointed out in the opening paragraph that the order in which the tribes are here mentioned is not that of seniority: rather is it a spiritual one, according to the meaning of their names as given in Genesis. Benjamin signifies "the son of the right hand" (Gen. 35:18), Simeon "hearing" (Gen. 29:33), Zebulun "dwelling" (Gen. 30:20), Issachar "hire" or "reward" (Gen. 30:18), Asher "happy" (Gen. 30:23), aphtali "wrestling" (Gen. 30:8), Dan "judging" (Gen. 30:16). Combined we get: The son of the right hand (the place of honor and power) is the hearing one (the new birth precedes believing!), dwelling (no longer tossed about like the restless sea) in Christ; great is his reward, for he is happy or blessed. Such a one is marked by wrestling against (instead of submitting to) the powers of evil, and by unsparingly judging himself. And of what does the happiness of the spiritual Asher consist? The meanings (taken from Young’s concordance) of the towns mentioned in Joshua 19:25, 26 (omitting the second, "Hall," which is unknown), are: portion, height, dedicated, the king’s oak (strength and durability), a station, depression (mourning for sin), fruitful place, glass river (Rev. 22:1).

25 Their territory included:

Helkath, Hali, Beten, Akshaph,

BAR ES, "Helkath, a Levitical town Jos_21:31, is probably Yerka, a village about

seven or eight miles north-west of Acre, in a Wady of the same name. Alammelech was in the “Wady Melik,” which joins the Kishon from the northeast, not far from the sea.

Shihor-libnath - i. e. “black-white.” The two words are now generally admitted to be the name of a river, probably the modern “Nahr Zerka,” or Blue River, which reaches the sea about 8 miles south of Dor, and whose name has a correspondence both to black and white. Possibly we have in the occurrence of the term Shihor here a trace of the contact, which was close and continuous in ancient times, between Phoenicia and Egypt Jos_13:3. Cabul Jos_19:27 still retains its ancient name; it lies between four and five miles west of Jotapata and about ten miles southeast of Acre.

GILL, "And their border was Helkath,.... Helkath seems to be the same with Hukok, 1Ch_6:75; and according to Masius it lay ten or twelve miles above Ptolemais:

and Hali, of which we read nowhere else.

and Beten is by Jerom (h) called Bathne, and was in his time a village by the name of Bethebem, eight miles from Ptolemais to the east. Reland (i) seems to think it might be the Ecbatana of Pliny (k), which he speaks of as near Mount Carmel, and not far from Ptolemais:

and Achshaph was a royal city, whose king was taken by Joshua; see Gill on Jos_11:1.

K&D, "Jos_19:25The territory of the Asherites was as follows. Helkath, which was given up to the

Levites (Jos_21:31, and 1Ch_6:75, where Hukok is an old copyist's error), is the present Jelka, three hours to the east of Acco (Akka: Scholz, Reise, p. 257), or Jerka, a Druse village situated upon an eminence, and judging from the remains, an ancient place (Van de Velde, R. i. p. 214; Rob. iii. App.). Hali, according to Knobel possibly Julis, between Jerka and Akka, in which case the present name arose from the form Halit, and t was

changed into s. Beten, according to the Onom. (s. v. Βατναι%: Bathne) as vicus Bethbeten, eight Roman miles to the east of Ptolemais, has not yet been found. Achshaph is also unknown (see at Jos_11:1). The Onom. (s. v. Achsaph) says nothing more about its situation than that it was in tribu Aser, whilst the statement made s. v.

Acsaph (5κσάφ), that it was villula Chasalus (κώµη� ξάδους), eight Roman miles from Diocaesarea ad radicem montis Thabor, leads into the territory of Zebulun.

ELLICOTT, "Verses 25-29(25) Their border.—The border of Asher on the west is the Mediterranean. On the east of Asher lies the tribe of aphtali, but most of the towns named in these verses lie well within the territory of Asher. The northern end of the territory of this tribe lies beyond the limits of the Ordnance Survey, for it reaches “unto great Zidon” (Joshua 19:28). The southern boundary is said to be Carmel (Joshua 19:26), but no town is identified south of Cabul (Kabûl, south-east of Akkah, sheet 5).

The towns identified are as follows:—

(25) El B’aneh, EL-Yasif or Kefr Yasif (sheet 3).

(26) Khurbet-el-Amûd, and M’aîsleh (? Kh.-Muslih) (sheet 3).

Shihor-libnath (river of glass), the river Belus (sheet 5).

(27) Beth-dagon (Tell-’ Daûk), near the mouth of the Belus.

eiel.—(Y’Arûn, sheet 5).

Cabul.—(Kabûl, south-east of Akkah, sheet 5).

(28) Hebron.—(Abdon, Kh.-Abdeh, sheet 3). Hammon (El Hama, sheet 3).

Kanah (south-east of Tyre, sheet 1).

(29) Tyre.—(es-Sûr, sheet 1). Hosah (‘Ozziyeh, sheet 1). Achzib (es-Zib, sheet 3, on the coast). (See Joshua 15:44 for another place of same name.) Ummah (Kh.-Almah, north of Achzib).

PETT, "Verse 25-26‘And their border was Helkath, and Hali, and Beten, and Achshaph, and Allammelech, and Amad, and Mishal, and it reached to Carmel westward, and to Shihor-libnath.’These surveyors mainly depicted the border in terms of cities contained within the border. It is interesting to note the different approaches taken by the different surveyors. But all used the same technical terms.

Helkath (see also Joshua 21:31) was probably located in the Kishon valley. It was also known as Hukok (1 Chronicles 6:75). One possibility is Tell el-Harbaj ten kilometres (six miles) south east of Haifa, another is Tell el-Qasis, eight kilometres (five miles) south south east of Tell el-Harbaj. It is probably the hrkt in the lists of Tuthmosis III. Hali is unknown. Beten may be modern Abtun, east of Mount Carmel.

Achshaph was an important Canaanite city near Acco (Joshua 11:1; Joshua 12:20) mentioned in Egyptian lists and in Papyrus Anastasi I. Possibly Tell Keisan or Tell Regev (Khirbet Harbaj). Allamelech may be the rtmrk of the Tuthmosis list. It may connect with the Wadi el-Melek, a tributary of the Kishon, which it joins six kilometres (four miles) from the coast. Amad is unknown. Mishal is possibly the msir of the Tuthmosis list and Tell Kisan has been suggested as a possible site. It is also mentioned in the execration texts (inscriptions on small figurines in the form of prisoners - 19th century BC) and an Egyptian grain and beer ration list (along with Achshaph).

“And it reached to (or touched) Carmel westward, and to Shihor-libnath.” Carmel was clearly the border at this point. Shihor-libnath may be at the mouth of the

Kishon and the harbour town Tell Abu Huwam has been suggested as the site. This was also the northern border of Manasseh (Joshua 17:11).

26 Allammelek, Amad and Mishal. On the west the boundary touched Carmel and Shihor Libnath.

CLARKE, "Carmel - The vineyard of God; a place greatly celebrated in Scripture, and especially for the miracles of Elijah; see 1 Kings 18:19-40. The mountain of Carmel was so very fruitful as to pass into a proverb. There was another Carmel in the tribe of Judah, (see Jos_15:55), but this, in the tribe of Asher, was situated about one hundred and twenty furlongs south from Ptolemais, on the edge of the Mediterranean Sea. Calmet observes that there was, in the time of Vespasian, a temple on this mountain, dedicated to a god of the same name. There was a convent, and a religious order known by the name of Carmelites, established on this mountain in honor of Elijah: the time of the foundation of this order is greatly disputed. Some pretend that it was established by Elijah himself; while others, with more probability, fix it in a.d. 1180 or 1181, under the pontificate of Pope Alexander III.

GILL, "And Alammelech, and Amad,.... Of the two first of these there is no mention elsewhere:

and Misheal is the same with Mashal, 1Ch_6:74; and is by Jerom (l) called Masan, and said to be near Carmel to the sea:

and reacheth to Carmel westward; or, "to the sea", as Carmel is called "Carmel by the sea"; see Gill on Jer_46:18, it is hereby distinguished from Carmel in the tribe of Judah, Jos_15:55; (Pliny (m) calls it a promontory):

and to Shihorlibnath; the Vulgate Latin and Septuagint versions make two places of it: but the sum of the cities after given will not admit of it: more rightly Junius renders it Sihor by Libhath, and takes Sihor to be the river Belus, or Pagidus; so called either because of its likeness to the Nile, one of whose names is Sihor, Jer_2:18; or because its waters might be black and muddy; it was the river out of which sand was fetched to make glass of: and Libnath, which has its name from whiteness, the same writer thinks may be the Album Promontorium, or white promontory of Pliny (n), which he places near Ptolemais, between Ecdippa and Tyre, and is very probable.

JAMISO , "to Carmel ... and to Shihor-libnath— that is, the “black” or

“muddy river”; probably the Nahr Belka, below Dor (Tantoura); for that town belonged to Asher (Jos_17:10). Thence the boundary line turned eastward to Beth-dagon, a town at the junction of Zebulun and Naphtali, and ran northwards as far as Cabul, with other towns, among which is mentioned (Jos_19:28) “great Zidon,” so called on account of its being even then the flourishing metropolis of the Phoenicians. Though included in the inheritance of Asher, this town was never possessed by them (Jdg_1:31).

K&D, "Jos_19:26Alammalech has been preserved, so far as the name is concerned, in the Wady Malek

or Malik (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 110), which runs into the Kishon, since in all probability the wady was named after a place either near it or within it. Amad is supposed by Knobel to be the present Haifa, about three hours to the south of Acre, on the sea, and this he identifies with the sycamore city mentioned by Strabo (xvi. 758), Ptolemy (v. 15, 5), and Pliny (h. n. v. 17), which was called Epha in the time of the Fathers (see Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 722ff.). In support of this he adduces the fact that the Hebrew name resembles the Arabic noun for sycamore-an argument the weakness of which does not need to be pointed out. Misheal was assigned to the Levites (Jos_21:30, and 1Ch_6:74, where it is called Mashal). According to the Onom. (s. v. Masan) it was on the sea-coast near to Carmel, which is in harmony with the next clause, “and reacheth to Carmel westwards, and to Shihor-libnath.” Carmel (i.e., fruit-field), which has acquired celebrity from the history of Elijah (1Ki_18:17.), is a wooded mountain ridge which stretches in a north-westerly direction on the southern side of the Kishon, and projects as a promontory into the sea. Its name, “fruit-field,” is well chosen; for whilst the lower part is covered with laurels and olive trees, the upper abounds in figs and oaks, and the whole mountain is full of the most beautiful flowers. There are also many caves about it (vid., v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 43ff.; and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 705-6). The Shihor-libnath is not the Belus, or glass-river, in the neighbourhood of Acre, but is to be sought for on the south of Carmel, where Asher was bounded by Manasseh (Jos_17:10), i.e., to the south of Dor, which the Manassites received in the territory of Asher (Jos_17:11); it is therefore in all probability the Nahr Zerka, possibly the crocodile river of Pliny (Reland, Pal. p. 730), which is three

hours to the south of Dor, and whose name (blue) might answer both to shihor (black)

and libnath (white).

BE SO ,"Joshua 19:26. Carmel westward — Or, Carmel by the sea, to distinguish it from Carmel in the tribe of Judah. This was a place of eminent fruitfulness, agreeably to the prophecy concerning Asher, Genesis 49:20.

COKE, "Ver. 26. Alammelech,—Amad,—Misheal, &c.— These are cities unknown, but situate near mount Carmel, famous for the miracles of Elijah, and very different from that which went by the same name in the tribe of Judah, 2 Kings 18; Joshua 15:55. The Carmel of Asher was near the sea; and, according to Josephus, at one hundred and twenty furlongs from Ptolemais on the south. Hist. Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 9. The ancients boasted of it on account of its height, and called it the holy mountain of Jupiter. There was said to be a temple and a god of the same name with the mountain; and Jamblichus mentions, that Pythagoras often went thither to study. Several ages since, Carmel was variously honoured by the Christians, on account of the cave, where, as it is thought, Elijah remained some time before he was carried

up to heaven. Hence sprung the order of the Carmelites, founded in the wilderness of Syria, in 1180, by Almerick, Bishop of Antioch. Their old convent is destroyed; that which they now inhabit is lower down, and can scarcely maintain three monks. Efforts have been made to re-establish it on the top of the mountain, but in vain, an Emir of the Arabs having made it his residence.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:26

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

27 It then turned east toward Beth Dagon,

touched Zebulun and the Valley of Iphtah El, and went north to Beth Emek and eiel, passing Kabul on the left.

CLARKE, "Cabul on the left hand - That is, to the north of Cabul, for so the left hand, when referring to place, is understood among the Hebrews. We must not confound this town or Cabul with the twenty cities given by Solomon to Hiram, with which he was displeased, and which in contempt he called the land of Cabul, the dirty or paltry land, 1Ki_9:11-13 : there was evidently a town of this name, widely different from the land so called, long before the time of Solomon, and therefore this cannot be adduced as an argument that the book of Joshua was written after the days of David. The

town in question is supposed to be the same which Josephus in his Life calls Χωβουλω

Choboulo, and which he says was situated by the sea-side, and nigh to Ptolemais. De Bell. Jud., lib. iii., c. 4.

GILL, "And turneth towards the sunrising,.... Or eastward:

to Bethdagon; there was a city of this name in the tribe of Judah; see Gill on Jos_15:41. Dagon, being a god of the Phoenicians, had temples built for him in various places in Canaan:

and reacheth to Zebulun; not the tribe of Zebulun, but a city so called, the same Josephus (o) calls a strong city of Galilee, which had the name of Men, perhaps from the populousness of it, and separated Ptolemais from Judea:

and to the valley of Jiphthahel; see Jos_19:14,

toward the north side of Bethemek; of Bethemek no mention is made elsewhere: perhaps here was an idol temple before dedicated to the god of the valleys; see 1Ki_20:28,

and Neiel; which the Greek version calls Inael, of which Jerom says (p), it is a certain village called Betoaenea, fifteen miles from Caesarea, situated on a mountain to the east, on which are said to be wholesome baths:

and goeth out to Cabul on the left hand; not the land of Cabul, 1Ki_9:13; but a city, which Josephus (q) calls a village on the borders of Ptolemais. The Jews (r) speak of a city of this name, destroyed because of contentions in it.

K&D, "Jos_19:27

From this point the boundary “turned towards the east,” probably following the river Libnath for a short distance upwards, “to Beth-dagon,” which has not yet been discovered, and must not be identified with Beit Dejan between Yafa and Ludd (Diospolis), “and touched Zebulun and the valley of Jiphtah-el on the north of Beth-emek, and Nehiël, and went out on the left of Cabul,” i.e., on the northern side of it. The north-west boundary went from Zebulun into the valley of Jiphtah-el, i.e., the upper part of the Wady Abilîn (Jos_19:14). Here therefore the eastern boundary of Asher, which ran northwards from Wady Zerka past the western side of Issachar and Zebulun, touched the north-west corner of Zebulun. The two places, Beth-emek and Nehiël (the latter possibly the same as Neah in Jos_19:13), which were situated at the south of the valley of Jiphtah-el, have not been discovered; they may, however, have been upon the

border of Zebulun and yet have belonged to Ashwer. Cabul, the κώµη�Χαβωλώ of Josephus (Vit. §43), in the district of Ptolemais, has been preserved in the village of Kabul, four hours to the south-east of Acre (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 88, and Van de Velde, R. i. p. 218).

BE SO , "Joshua 19:27. Cabul — A city so called. Left hand — That is, on the north, which, when men look toward the east, as is usual, is on their left hand.

COKE,"Ver. 27. And goeth out to Cabul on the left hand— That is, to the north of this city, according to the custom of the Hebrews in the designation of the four cardinal points. Some learned men have concluded from this passage, that the Book of Joshua could not have been written before Solomon's time, because, say they, the land of Cabul received its name from Hiram, king of Tyre, who called it so in contempt, 1 Kings 9:11-13.; but this is a manifest mistake: the question here is not about the land of Cabul and its twenty cities, but about the town of Cabul, near Ptolemais. Josephus plainly makes a distinction between them, who, in his life, and Hist. Jud. Bell. lib. 3: cap. 4 speaks of the city of Chabul or Chabolo. See Huet. Demonst. Evang. prop. 4:

PETT, "Verse 27-28‘And it turned towards the sunrising (the east) to Beth-dagon, and reached to Zebulun and to the valley of Iphtah-el northward, to Bethemek and eiel, and it went out to Cabul on the left hand, and Ebron and Rehob, and Hammon, and Kanah, even to Great Zidon.’The eastern boundary is now given. Beth-dagon was a name given to a number of cities, signifying ‘house of Dagon’. They were probably sanctuaries of the god Dagon. ‘Reached to Zebulun’ suggests that the boundary was not clearly identified in view of the relationship between the two tribes (although Zebulun may have been the name of a city, but see Joshua 19:34). Then follows the northern boundary. The valley of Iphtah-el is possibly the Wadi el-Malik (see Joshua 19:14). Bethemek and eiel would be near or in the valley.

“It went out to Cabul on the left hand.” The left hand may signify north (compare its use in Genesis 14:15, and Joshua 17:7 where ‘the right hand’ probably means south). Cabul is probably Horvat Rosh Zayit, one to two kilometres (one mile) from modern Kabul which is today the name of a village north west of the Sahl el-Battof,

and thirteen kilometres (eight miles) south east of Acco. Excavations have discovered Iron Age II buildings and a later fortress marking the border between Phoenicia and Israel. It was a frontier village between the two exchanged by Solomon’s treaty with Hiram of Tyre (1 Kings 9:13) to rectify the border.

Ebron (Abdon in some Hebrew MSS) is probably Abdon (Joshua 21:30), probably Khirbet ‘Abdeh six kilometres (nearly four miles) in from Achzib (Joshua 19:29), ten miles north north east of Acco, and commanding a way into the hills (In Hebrew writing d and r are almost indistinguishable except in the most careful writing). Rehob - ‘broad place’ - (Joshua 21:31; 1 Chronicles 6:75) is possibly Tell Bir el-Gharbi, south east of Acco. It was one of the cities from which the Canaanites were not driven out (Judges 1:31), although there may have been two Rehob’s (Joshua 19:30). A Rehob (rhb) is mentioned in the Thutmose III lists. Hammon (‘glowing’) has been suggested as Umm el-‘Awamid where ruins still exist. A Phoenician inscription from nearby Ma‘sub refers to ‘the citizens of Hammon’ and ‘the deity of Hammon’. Kanah is probably Qana in the Lebanon foothills, ten kilometres (six miles) south east of Tyre.

“Even to Great Zidon.” That is, to the borders of the territory belonging to Zidon. The use of Great Zidon rather than Tyre indicates the age of the narrative. Later Tyre became more prominent.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:27

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

28 It went to Abdon,[b] Rehob, Hammon and Kanah, as far as Greater Sidon.

BAR ES 28-30, "These verses refer to the northern portion of the territory of Asher, on the Phoenician frontier. Some names may have dropped out of the text, the number

Jos_19:30 not tallying with the catalogue. Ramah still retains its ancient name, and lies about twelve miles southeast of Tyre. Achzib is the modern “Zib,” on the coast, eight or nine miles north of Acre.

CLARKE, "Unto great Zidon - The city of Sidon and the Sidonians are celebrated from the remotest antiquity. They are frequently mentioned by Homer. See the note on Jos_11:8.

GILL, "And Hebron,.... Hebron seems to be the same with Abdon, Jos_21:30; ר and דbeing changed, of which there are other instances; and hereby this is distinguished from another Hebron in the tribe of Judah, more commonly known, Jos_15:54,

and Rehob; in the time of Jerom (s), there was a village called Rooba, four miles from Scythopolis, and which he says was a city separated to the Levites, as this was, or one of the same name in this tribe; for there was another, Jos_19:30; see Jos_21:31; but whether either of them is the same with this is not certain:

and Hammon; of this city we read nowhere else:

and Kanah; this Kanah is generally thought to be the same where Christ wrought his first miracle, Joh_2:1. Jerom expressly says (u), there was a Cana in the tribe of Asher, where our Lord and Saviour turned water into wine, Joh_2:1, and from whence was Nathanael, Joh_21:2; and it is at this day, adds he, a town in Galilee of the Gentiles. Phocas (w) places Cana between Sippori and Nazareth, which is now shown six Roman miles from Sippori to the west, a little inclining to the north; and there is also in the same tract Cephar Cana, four miles from Nazareth to the north, inclining to the east; and it is disputed which of these two is Cana of Galilee the New Testament: with this account agrees pretty much what our countryman Mr. Maundrell (x) gives of his travels in those parts:"taking leave of Nazareth, (he says,) and going at first northward, we crossed the hills that encompassed the vale of Nazareth at that side; after which we turned to the westward, and passed in view of Cana of Galilee, the place signalized with the beginning of Christ's miracles, Joh_2:11; in an hour and a half more we came to Sepharia;''

or Sippori:

even unto great Zidon; of great Zidon, and why so called; see Gill on Jos_11:8.

K&D, "Jos_19:28-30In Jos_19:28-30 the towns and boundaries in the northern part of the territory of

Asher, on the Phoenician frontier, are given, and the Phoenician cities Sidon, Tyre, and Achzib are mentioned as marking the boundary. First of all we have four towns in Jos_19:28, reaching as far as Sidon, no doubt in the northern district of Asher. Ebron has not yet been traced. As Abdon occurs among the towns which Asher gave up to the Levites (Jos_21:30; 1Ch_6:59), and in this verse also twenty MSS have the reading Abdon, many writers, like Reland (Pal. p. 514), regard Ebron as a copyist's error for Abdon. This is possible enough, but it is by no means certain. As the towns of Asher are not all given in this list, since Acco, Achlab, and Helba (Jdg_1:31) are wanting, Abdon may also have

been omitted. But we cannot attach any importance to the reading of the twenty MSS, as it may easily have arisen from Jos_21:30; and in addition to the Masoretic text, it has against it the authority of all the ancient versions, in which the reading Ebron is adopted. But even Abdon cannot be traced with certainty. On the supposition that Abdon is to be read for Ebron, Knobel connects it with the present Abbadiyeh, on the east of Beirut (Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, Erdk. xvii. pp. 477 and 710), or with Abidat, on the east (not the north) of Jobail (Byblus), mentioned by Burckhardt (Syr. p. 296) and Robinson (iii. App.); though he cannot adduce any other argument in support of the identity of Abdon with these two places, which are only known by name at present, except the resemblance in their names. On the supposition, however, that Abdon is not the same as Ebron, Van de Velde's conjecture is a much more natural one; namely, that it is to be found in the ruins of Abdeh, on the Wady Kurn, to the north of Acca. Rehobcannot be traced. The name occurs again in Jos_19:30, from which it is evident that there were two towns of this name in the territory of Asher (see at Jos_19:30). Schultzand Van de Velde connect it with the village of Hamûl by the wady of that name, between Ras el Abyad and Ras en Nakura; but this is too far south to be included in the district which reached to great Sidon. Knobel's suggestion would be a more probable one, namely, that it is connected with the village of Hammana, on the east of Beirut, in the district of el Metn, on the heights of Lebanon, where there is now a Maronite monastery (vid., Seetzen, i. p. 260; Rob. iii. App.; and Ritter, xvii. pp. 676 and 710), if it could only be shown that the territory of Asher reached as far to the east as this. Kanahcannot be the village of Kâna, not far from Tyre (Rob. iii. p. 384), but must have been farther north, and near to Sidon, though it has not yet been discovered. For the supposition that it is connected with the existing place called Ain Kanieh (Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, xvii. pp. 94 and 703), on the north of Jezzin, is overthrown by the fact that that place is too far to the east to be thought of in this connection; and neither Robinson nor Ritter makes any allusion to “Ain Kana, in the neighbourhood of Jurjera, six hours to the south-east of Sidon,” which Knobel mentions without quoting his authority, so that the existence of such a place is very questionable. On Sidon, now Saida, see at Jos_11:8.

BE SO ,"Joshua 19:28. Kanah — amely, Kanah the greater, in the Upper Galilee; not Kanah the less, which was in the Lower Galilee. Zidon — Called great for its antiquity, and riches, and glory. The city either was not given to the Israelites, or at least was never possessed by them; not without a singular providence of God, that they might not by the opportunity of so good a port be engaged in much commerce with other nations; from which, together with wealth, that great corrupter of mankind, they might contract their errors and vices.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:28

Hebron. Rather, Ebron. It is not the same word as the Hebron in Judah, but is spelt with Ain instead of Hheth. In Joshua 21:30, 1 Chronicles 6:59, Abdon is the name of the city assigned to the Levites in Asher. Twenty MSS; says Keil, have the same reading here. But the LXX. has ἐβρων here and αβδων in Joshua 21:30. The Hebrew ד and רare so much alike that there is no doubt that the mistake has arisen earlier than the time when that translation was made. It is true that the lists of Levitical cities in Joshua 21:1-45. and 1 Chronicles 6:1-81. do not entirely correspond. But the resemblance here between the names is too striking to allow of the supposition that two different cities are meant. Great Zidon. This city, as well as

Tyre, remained unsubdued, although assigned by Joshua to Asher. The boundary of Asher appears to have been traced first towards the west, then eastward, from a middle point on the southern border (see note on verse 11), then to have been carried northward from the same point (the left hand usually means the north; see note on Teman, Joshua 15:1), on the east side till it reached Cabul. Then the northern border is traced westward to Sidon. Then the border turned southward along the sea, which is not mentioned, because it would seem to be sufficiently defined by the mention of Ramah and Tyre. Between Hosah and Achzib there would seem to have been a greater paucity of cities, and therefore the sea is mentioned.

29 The boundary then turned back toward Ramah and went to the fortified city of Tyre, turned toward Hosah and came out at the Mediterranean Sea in the region of Akzib,

CLARKE, "The strong city Tyre - I suspect this to be an improper translation. Perhaps the words of the original should be retained: And the coast turneth to Ramah

and to the city, מבצר�צר mibtsar�tsor. Our translators have here left the Hebrew, and followed the Septuagint and Vulgate, a fault of which they are sometimes guilty. The

former render the place Rως�πολεως�οχυρωµατος�των�Τυριων, unto the fortified city of the Tyrians. The Vulgate is nearly the same: ad civitatem munitissimam Tyrum, to the well-fortified city Tyre; but this must be incorrect for the famous city of Tyre was not known till about A.M. 2760, about two hundred years after the days of Joshua. Homer, who frequently mentions Sidon and the Sidonians, never mentions Tyre; a proof that this afterwards very eminent city was not then known. Homer is allowed by some to have flourished in the time of Joshua, though others make him contemporary with the

Israelitish judges. The word צר Tsor or Tsar, which we translate or change into Tyre, signifies a rock or strong place; and as there were many rocks in the land of Judea, that with a little art were formed into strong places of defense, hence several places might have the name of Tsar or Tyre. The ancient and celebrated Tyre, so much spoken of both in sacred and profane history, was a rock or small island in the sea, about six or seven hundred paces from the main land. In order to reduce this city, Alexander the Great was obliged to fill up the channel between it and the main land, and after all took it with much difficulty. It is generally supposed that a town on the main land, opposite to this fortified rock, went by the same name; one being called old Tyre, the other, new Tyre: it was out of the ruins of the old Tyre, or that which was situated on the main land, that

Alexander is said to have filled up the channel between it and the new city. Of this city Isaiah, Isaiah 23:1-18, and Ezekiel, Ezekiel 27:1-28:26, have given a very grand description, and also predicted its irreparable ruin which prophecies have been most literally fulfilled. See more on the above places.

Achzib - Called afterwards Ecdippe, and now called Zib; it is about nine miles’ distance from Ptolemais, towards Tyre.

GILL, "And then the coast turneth to Ramah,.... Which was a city in the tribe of Naphtali, Jos_19:36; and on the borders of Asher; though Jerom (y) distinguishes them, and speaks of a Ramah in Asher, and another in Naphtali, as different cities of the same name; as there were several of this name, so called from their being built on an eminence. Masius conjectures it is the same with Sarepta, Luk_4:26; famous for its wine; and Bacchus, as the poet says, loves the hills:

and to the strong city Tyre; it is thought this is not to be understood of the famous city, so much spoken of in other parts of Scripture, and in profane history; since, as it is observed, that is not mentioned in Scripture until the times of David; and though Homer makes frequent mention of Sidon, yet never of Tyre. The words signify the strong fortress of a rock, or a fortress on a high rock; so Kimchi and Ben Melech; and it might be a fortified city, which being built on a rock, might have the name of Zor or Tyre, and not be the famous city of that name. Jerom (z) renders it the fortified city of the Assyrians:

and the coast turneth to Hosah; of which we nowhere else read:

and the outgoings thereof are at the sea; the Mediterranean sea; where the coast ended this way:

from the coast to Achzib; this Jerom (a) says is Ecdippa, nine miles from Ptolemais, as you go to Tyre; and this is confirmed by a learned traveller of our own nation (b); it is now called Zib; See Gill on Mic_1:14.

JAMISO , "and then the coast turneth to Ramah— now El-Hamra, which stood where the Leontes (Litany) ends its southern course and flows westward.

and to the strong city Tyre— The original city appears to have stood on the mainland, and was well-fortified. From Tyre the boundary ran to Hosah, an inland town; and then, passing the unconquered district of Achzib (Jdg_1:31), terminated at the seacoast.

K&D, "Jos_19:29-31“And the boundary turned (probably from the territory of Sidon) to Ramah, to the

fortified town of Zor.” Robinson supposes that Rama is to be found in the village of Rameh, on the south-east of Tyre, where several ancient sarcophagi are to be seen (Bibl. Res. p. 63). “The fortified town of Zor,” i.e., Tyre, is not the insular Tyre, but the town of Tyre, which was on the mainland, the present Sur, which is situated by the sea-coast, in a beautiful and fertile plain (see Ritter, Erdk. xvii. p. 320, and Movers, Phönizier, ii. 1,

pp. 118ff.). “And the boundary turned to Hosah, and the outgoings thereof were at the sea, by the side of the district of Achzib.” Hosah is unknown, as the situation of Kausah, near to the Rameh already mentioned (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 61), does not suit in this

connection. ֵמֶחֶבל, lit. from the district, i.e., by the side of it. Achzib, where the Asherites dwelt with the Canaanites (Jdg_1:31-32), is the Ekdippa of the Greeks and Romans, according to the Onom. (s. v. Achziph) nine Roman miles, or according to the Itiner. Hieros. p. 584, twelve miles to the north of Acco by the sea, the present Zib, a very large village, three good hours to the north of Acre, - a place on the sea-coast, with considerable ruins of antiquity (see Ges. Thes. p. 674; Seetzen, ii. p. 109; Ritter, xvi. pp. 811-12). - In Jos_19:30 three separate towns are mentioned, which were probably situated in the eastern part of the northern district of Asher, whereas the border towns mentioned in Jos_19:28 and Jos_19:29 describe this district in its western half. Ummah

(lxx 5µµά) may perhaps have been preserved in Kefr Ammeih, upon the Lebanon, to the south of Hammana, in the district of Jurd (Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, xvii. p. 710). Aphek is the present Afka (see at Jos_13:4). Rehob cannot be traced with certainty. If it is Hub, as Knobel supposes, and the name Hub, which is borne by a Maronite monastery upon Lebanon, in the diocese of el-Jebail (to the north-east of Jebail), is a corruption of Rehob, this would be the northernmost town of Asher (see Seetzen, i. pp. 187ff., and Ritter, xvii. p. 791). The number “twenty-two towns and their villages” does not tally, as there are twenty-three towns mentioned in Jos_19:26-30, if we include Sidon, Tyre, and Achzib, according to Jdg_1:31-32. The only way in which the numbers can be made to agree is to reckon Nehiel (Jos_19:27) as identical with Neah (Jos_19:13). But this point cannot be determined with certainty, as the Asherites received other towns, such as Acco and Aclaph, which are wanting in this list, and may possibly have simply fallen out.

BE SO , "Verse 29-30Joshua 19:29-30. To Ramah — From the north southward. To the strong city of Tyre — This translation is questionable; for we never read one word of the city of Tyre (unless it be here) until the days of David; though we often read of Sidon in the books of Moses; even in the prophecy of Jacob. It is highly probable some other place is meant by Tzor, as the word is in the Hebrew. And the out-goings thereof, &c. — That is, it ended at the country which belonged to Achzib; for so hebel, which we here translate coast, signifies. Twenty-two cities — Here are more named, but some of them were not within this tribe, but only bordering places.

COKE, "Ver. 29. Then the coast turneth to Ramah, &c.— There were several cities of this name in Palestine. Masius supposes the present to be the same as was afterwards called Zarepta. Ramah signifies high, elevated; and such, it seems, was the situation of Zarepta, celebrated for its vineyards, which evidently suppose an elevated situation.

And to the strong city Tyre— So the LXX and Vulgate, followed by a variety of interpreters, translate the clause. Sidon is much spoken of in the Books of Moses, and even in Jacob's prophesies: the famous city of Tyre was not in being till the time of David. Homer, who makes frequent mention of Sidon, and the Sidonians, nowhere takes notice of the Tyrians. The sacred writer in this place, therefore, must have intended to point out some other city of the same name; there were four different places in Phoenicia called Tyre. Perhaps the historian here had in view

Palaetyrus or Ancient Tyre, which was built on the main land, whereas the other Tyre was erected over against it, in an island. This is the opinion of Perizonius, Grotius, Calmet, Le Clerc, &c. For an ingenious account of the origin of Tyre, &c. we refer the reader to the learned chronology of M. Vignoles, lib. 4: cap. 1, &c.

And the coast turneth to Hosah—and—to Achzib— From the neighbourhood of Tyre, the western border of Asher came round towards Hosah, (a place now unknown,) and abutted on the territory or neighbouring quarter of the sea, in the next adjacent district of Achzib, which, according to St. Jerome, is the same city as Pliny calls Ecdippa. Maundrell, in his voyage to Aleppo, p. 53 gives the following account of it; "Having travelled about an hour in the plain of Acra, we passed by an old town called Zib, situate on an ascent, close by the sea side. This may probably be the old Achzib, mentioned, Joshua 19:29 and Judges 1:31 called afterwards Ecdippa; for St. Jerome places Achzib nine miles distant from Ptolemais, towards Tyre, to which account we found the situation of Zib exactly agreeing."

PETT, "Verse 29‘And the border turned to Ramah, and to the city of Mibzar Zor (or ‘the fortress of Tyre’), and the border turned to Hosah, and its goings out were at the sea by the region of Achzib.’Ramah is unidentified, although Ramiyeh, twenty one kilometres (thirteen miles) south east of Tyre, has been suggested. (But the name is too common for certainty). For Mibzar Zor see 2 Samuel 24:7. This may be Tyre itself (Zor) or a strong fortress connected with Tyre, possibly the island city. Tyre consisted of an island and a mainland port, the latter probably called Ussu in Assyrian inscriptions and Usu in Egyptian. Hosah may be a reflex of this. Tyre would later supersede Zidon. The site is Tell Rashidiyeh. These cities were boundary indicators only and would include their surrounding territory. The description could be seen as excluding them from the territory of Asher for the boundary reached the sea at Achzib.

“Its goings out were at the sea by the region of Achzib.” Achzib was a Canaanite harbour town, probably to be identified with modern ez-Zib fourteen kilometres north of Acco (Acre) The Canaanites were never driven out from it (Judges 1:31). An alternative translation is ‘from Hebel to Achzib’.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:29

The strong city Tyre. Rather, the fortified city. The general impression among commentators appears to be that the island city of Tyre, afterwards so famous, had not as yet come into existence. And the word here used, ִמְבַצר seems to be more in accordance with the idea of a land fortress than of one so exceptionally protected.as an island fortress would be. This expression, like "great Zidon" above, implies the comparative antiquity of the Book of Joshua. The island city of Tyre, so famous in later history, was not yet founded. The city on the mainland (called Ancient Tyre by the historians) was "the chief seat of the population till the wars of the Assyrian monarchs against Phoenicia". He adds, "The situation of Palae-Tyrus was one of

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

30 Ummah, Aphek and Rehob. There were twenty-two towns and their villages.

CLARKE, "Twenty and two cities - There are nearly thirty cities in the above enumeration instead of twenty-two, but probably several are mentioned that were but frontier towns, and that did not belong to this tribe, their border only passing by such cities; and on this account, though they are named, yet they do not enter into the enumeration in this place. Perhaps some of the villages are named as well as the cities.

GILL, "Ummah also,.... Ummah is not mentioned any where else:

and Aphek; of which; see Gill on Jos_12:18,

and Rehob; of which; see Gill on Jos_19:28,

twenty and two cities with their villages: there are more set down in the account, but some of them did not belong to the tribe, only were on the border of it.

PETT, "Verse 30-31‘Ummah also, and Aphek, and Rehob. Twenty two cities with their villages. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Asher according to their families, these cities with their villages.’Having completed the border description the writer now included these three cities, making twenty two in all. The count does not include those which were only border indicators. Ummah is unknown. Aphek (‘fortress’) is a common name but here may be modern Tell Kurdaneh at the source of the River a’amein which flows into the Bay of Haifa. For Rehob see on Joshua 19:28.

Again the allotment is concluded with the familiar formula, ‘this is the inheritance of --’.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:30

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

31 These towns and their villages were the inheritance of the tribe of Asher, according to its clans.

GILL, "This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Asher,.... As before described, a goodly heritage; it was, according to the prediction of Jacob and Moses, Gen_49:20; a very fruitful country. Josephus (c) says, the country from Carmel called the valley, because it was such, even all over against Sidon, fell to the Asherites, Asher had Mount Libanus on the north, Naphtali on the east, Zebulun on the south and southeast, the sea on the west:

according to their families; the number of them, so their lot was divided to them:

these cities with their villages; before named.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:31

This is the inheritance of the tribe of Asher. Asher appears to have been allotted a long but narrow strip of territory between aphtali and the sea. The natural advantages of the territory must have been great. ot only was it described prophetically by Jacob (Genesis 49:20) and by Moses (Deuteronomy 33:24, Deuteronomy 33:25), but the prosperity of the two great maritime cities of Tyro and Sidon was due to the immense commercial advantages the neighbourhood afforded. St. Jean d'Acre, within the territory once assigned to Asher, has inherited the prosperity, so far as anything under the Turkish rule can be prosperous, once enjoyed by her two predecessors. Maundrell, the acute English chaplain at Aleppo, who visited Palestine in 1696, describes the plain of Acre in his day as about six hours' journey from north to south, and two from west to east; as being well watered, and possessing "everything else that might render it both pleasant and fruitful. But," he adds, "this delicious plain is now almost desolate, being suffered, for want of culture, to run up to rank weeds, as high as our horses' backs." Asher, however, never employed the advantages its situation offered. They never subdued the Canaanites around them, but, unquestionably at a very early date (see 5:17) preferred a life of compromise and ignoble ease to the national welfare. But it would

be incorrect to suppose that because the tribe is omitted in the list of rulers given in 1 Chronicles 27:1-34; it had ceased to be a power in Israel. For Gad is also omitted in that list, while among the warriors who came to greet David when he became undisputed king of Israel, Asher sent 40,000 trained warriors, a number exceeding the men of Ephraim, and those of Simeon, of Dan, and of the half tribe of Manasseh (see 1 Chronicles 12:1-40), and far exceeding the numbers of Benjamin, which had never recovered the war of almost extermination waged against it, in consequence of the atrocity at Gibeah ( 20:1-48). Possibly the reason why so few are mentioned of the tribe of Judah on that occasion is because so many were already with David. There seems no ground for the idea of Dean Stanley, that the allusion to Asher in 5:17 is any more contemptuous than the allusion to any other tribe.

Allotment for aphtali

32 The sixth lot came out for aphtali according to its clans:

GILL, "The sixth lot came out to the children of Naphtali,.... The tribe of Naphtali, and directed what should be the inheritance of this tribe:

even for the children of Naphtali, according to their families; which was to be divided among them, according to the number of their, families.

HE RY 32-39, "Naphtali lay furthest north of all the tribes, bordering on Mount Libanus. The city of Leshem, or Liash, lay on the utmost edge of it to the north, and therefore when the Danites had made themselves masters of it, and called it Dan, the length of Canaan from north to south was reckoned from Dan to Beersheba. It had Zebulun on the south, Asher on the west, and Judah upon Jordan, probably a city of that name, and so distinguished from the tribe of Judah on the east. It was in the lot of this tribe, near the waters of Merom, that Joshua fought and routed Jabin, Jos_11:1. etc. In this tribe stood Capernaum and Bethsaida, on the north end of the sea of Tiberias, in which Christ did so many mighty works; and the mountain (as is supposed) on which Christ preached, Mat_5:1.

JAMISO , "Jos_19:32-39. Of Naphtali.

the sixth lot came out to the children of Naphtali— Although the cities mentioned have not been discovered, it is evident, from Zaanannim, which is by Kedesh, that is, on the northwest of Lake Merom (Jdg_4:11), that the boundary described (Jos_

19:34) ran from the southwest towards the northeast, up to the sources of the Jordan.

K&D,"The Inheritance of Naphtali. - This fell between Asher and the upper Jordan. It reached northwards to the northern boundary of Canaan, and touched Zebulun and Issachar on the south. In Jos_19:33 and Jos_19:34 the boundary lines are given: viz., in Jos_19:33 the western boundary towards Asher, with the northern and eastern boundaries: in Jos_19:34 the southern boundary; but with the uncertainty which exists as to several of the places named, it cannot be traced with certainty.

CALVI , "Verse 32The next lot mentioned is that of aphtali, and it seems to correspond with the disposition and manners of that tribe. For Jacob had testified, aphtali is a hind let loose; he gave goodly words. For this reason they seem to have been contiguous on one side to the children of Judah, and to have been surrounded on other sides by the enclosures of their brethren. (171) Indeed, in its being said that the tribe of Dan took Lesen, there seems to be a tacit comparison, because the children of aphtali did not employ arms to force their way into their inheritance, but kept themselves quietly in a subdued territory, and thus enjoyed safety and tranquillity under the faith, and, as it were, protection of Judah and the other tribes. The capture of Lesen by the children of Dan, in accordance with the divine grant which they had received of it, did not take place till after the death of Joshua. But the fact which is more fully detailed in the book of Judges is here mentioned in passing, because praise was due to them for their boldness and activity in thus embracing the right which God had bestowed upon them, and so trusting in him as to go down bravely and defeat the enemy.

BE SO , "Verse 32-33Joshua 19:32-33. The sixth lot came out, &c. — Here the younger son of Bilhah, the hand-maid of Rachel, is preferred before the elder, who was Dan, (Genesis 30:6; Genesis 30:8,) as Zebulun was before Issachar. Such was the method of Divine Providence in that nation, to convince them that they ought not to value themselves too highly, as they were apt to do, upon their external privileges. Their coast —Their northern border, drawn from west to east, as appears; because, when the coast is described and brought to its end, it is said to turn from the east westward, Joshua 19:34. The out- goings — The end of that coast.

COFFMA , "Verse 32 APHTALI

"The sixth lot came out for the children of aphtali according to their families. And their border was from Heleph, from the oak in Zaannim, and Adami-nekeb, and Jabneel, unto Lakkum; and the goings out thereof were at the Jordan; and the border thereof turned westward to Aznoth-tabor, and went out from thence to Hukkok; and it reached to Zebulun on the south, and reached to Asher on the west, and to Judah at the Jordan toward the sunrising. And the fortified cities were Ziddim, Zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth, and Adamah, and Ramah,

and Hazor, and Kedesh, and Edrei, and En-hazor, and Iron, and Migdael, Horem, and Beth-anath, and Beth-shemesh; nineteen cities with their villages. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of aphtali according to their families, the cities with their villages."

" aphtali's border joined that of of Isaachar from Mount Tabor to the Jordan. The eastern border ran along the shore of the Sea of Galilee and north again with the eastern border of Asher, aphtali held most of the northern and eastern half of the southern Galilean highlands."[11] Rea described this same area as "Eastern Upper and Lower Galilee."[12]

CO STABLE, "Verses 32-39The inheritance of aphtali19:32-39

The Sea of Chinnereth (Galilee) and the Jordan River north of that sea formed aphtali"s eastern border. It extended north to Phoenician territory. aphtali shared borders on the west with Asher, on the southwest with Zebulun, and on the south with Issachar. ineteen fortified cities belonged to this tribe ( Joshua 19:35-38).

PETT, "Verse 32‘For the children of aphtali came out the sixth lot, for the children of aphtali, according to their families.’ ote the slight differences in the opening formulae - Joshua 18:11; Joshua 19:1; Joshua 19:10; Joshua 19:17; Joshua 19:24; Joshua 19:32; Joshua 19:40. These are clearly deliberate variations to prevent exact repetition and monotony. Benjamin, Simeon, Asher, and Dan (as was Judah (Joshua 15:1) and Reuben (Joshua 13:15)) are called ‘the tribe (matteh) of the children of --’. Zebulun, Issachar and aphtali only ‘the children of --’ (as was Joseph (Joshua 16:1) and Gad (Joshua 13:24), although the latter was first called in context ‘the tribe (matteh) of Gad’). Levi was called ‘the tribe (shebet) of Levi’ (Joshua 13:14; Joshua 13:33) and ‘the Levites’ (Joshua 14:3-4). But as Benjamin is also called ‘the children of --’ (Joshua 18:28) and Issachar and aphtali ‘the tribe of the children of --’ (Joshua 19:23; Joshua 19:39) and there are changes in the order of words it seems simply to be a matter of scribal variation.

Simeon and Issachar also have the patriarch’s name by itself. aphtali alone has ‘the children of --’ repeated, but there is no obvious reason for it. ote also that the lot ‘came up’ for Benjamin and Zebulun, and ‘came out’ for the remainder. This would suggest that they were drawn from a container.

PI K, ""And the sixth lot came out to the children of aphtali" (Josh. 19:32). This is also of most interest to us because of its ew Testament connections. Its territory adjoined that of Zebulun (Matthew 4:13), yet each had its own distinct interest. Jacob likened aphtali to "a hind let loose" and foretold, "he giveth goodly words" (Gen. 49:21): while Moses spoke of him as "full with the blessing of the Lord" (Deut. 33:23). In the title to Psalm 22 our Lord is likened to "the hind of the

morning," because of His swiftness to do His Father’s will and work. The cities of Capernaum and Bethsaida were in the borders of aphtali. which were indeed filled with the blessing of the Lord, for it was there that Christ and His apostles did most of their preaching and gave forth "goodly words."

33 Their boundary went from Heleph and the large tree in Zaanannim, passing Adami ekeb and Jabneel to Lakkum and ending at the Jordan.

BAR ES, "From Allon to Zaanannim - Render “from the oak forest at Zaanannim.” From Jdg_4:11 it appears that this oak or oak-forest was near Kedesh.

Adami, Nekeb - Render “Adami of the Pass.” Possibly the ancient “Deir el Ahmar” (“red cloister”), which derives its name from the color of the soil in the neighborhood, as perhaps Adami did. The spot lies about 8 miles northwest of Baalbek.

GILL, "And their coast was from Heleph,.... That is, their northern coast, reaching from west to east, as appears by the ending of it at Jordan; the Alexandrian copy of the Greek version calls it Mlepeh, the Targum, Meheleph, and Jerom, Mealeb, which he calls the border of Naphtali; which, though to the north, cannot be expressly said what and where it was:

from Allon to Zaanannim; or rather from the oak, or from the plain in Zaanannim (d); for it seems to be the same with the plain of Zanaaim, Jdg_4:11.

and Adami, Nekeb; some make these to be but one city, and the latter only an epithet of the former; but the Talmudists (e) make them two, as we do, and call the first Damin, and the latter Ziadetha; but what and where either of them were exactly is not known; for Adami cannot be the same with Adam, Jos_3:16; as some think; for that was in Peraea, on the other side Jordan; See Gill on Jos_3:16,

and Jabneel; Jabneel is different from that which was on the borders of Judah, Jos_15:11; and is called by the Jews (f) since Cepherjamah:

unto Lakum; of which we nowhere else read:

and the outgoings thereof were at Jordan; here the coast ended this way.

K&D, "Jos_19:33“Its boundary was (its territory reached) from Heleph, from the oak-forest at

Zaanannim, and Adami Nekeb and Jabneel to Lakkum; and its outgoings were the Jordan.” Heleph is unknown, though in all probability it was to the south of Zaanannim, and not very far distant. According to Jdg_4:11, the oak-forest (allon: see the remarks on Gen_12:6) at Zaanannim was near Kedesh, on the north-west of Lake Huleh. There are still many oaks in that neighbourhood (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 386); and on the south of Bint Jebail Robinson crossed a low mountain-range which was covered with small oak trees (Pal. iii. p. 372). Adami hannekeb, i.e., Adami of the pass (Nekeb, judging from the analogy of the Arabic, signifying foramen, via inter montes), is supposed by Knobel to be Deir-el-ahmar, i.e., red cloister, a place which is still inhabited, three hours to the north-west of Baalbek, on the pass from the cedars to Baalbek (Seetzen, i. pp. 181, 185; Burckhardt, Syr. p. 60; and Ritter, Erdk. xvii. p. 150), so called from the reddish colour of the soil in the neighbourhood, which would explain the name Adami. Knobel also connects Jabneel with the lake Jemun, Jemuni, or Jammune, some hours to the north-west of Baalbek, on the eastern side of the western Lebanon range (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 548; Ritter, xvii. pp. 304ff.), where there are still considerable ruins of a very early date to be found, especially the ruins of an ancient temple and a celebrated place of pilgrimage, with which the name “god's building” agrees. And lastly, he associates Lakkum with the mountains of Lokham, as the northern part of Lebanon on the Syrian mountains, from the latitude of Laodicea to that of Antioch on the western side of the Orontes, is called by the Arabian geographers Isztachri, Abulfeda, and others. So far as the names are concerned, these combinations seem appropriate enough, but they are hardly tenable. The resemblance between the names Lakkum and Lokham is only in

appearance, as the Hebrew name is written with ק and the Arabic with כ. Moreover, the mountains of Lokham are much too far north for the name to be adduced as an explanation of Lakkum. The interpretation of Adami Nekeb and Jabneel is also irreconcilable with the circumstance that the lake Jamun was two hours to the west of the red convent, so that the boundary, which starts from the west, and is drawn first of all towards the north, and then to the north-east and east, must have run last of all from the red convent, and not from the Jamun lake to the Jordan. As Jabneel is mentioned after Adami Nekeb, it must be sought for to the east of Adami Nekeb, whereas the Jamun lake lies in the very opposite direction, namely, directly to the west of the red convent. The three places mentioned, therefore, cannot be precisely determined at present. The Jordan, where the boundary of Asher terminated, was no doubt the upper Jordan, or rather the Nahr Hasbany, one of the sources of the Jordan, which formed, together with the Huleh lake and the Jordan itself, between Lake Huleh and the Sea of Tiberias, and down to the point where it issues from the latter, the eastern boundary of Asher.

ELLICOTT, "(33) And their coast was . . .—This verse is thus translated by Conder, “Their coast was from Heleph and the Plain of Bitzanannim and Adami, ekeb, and Jabneel,unto Lakum,and the outgoings were at Jordan.”

The east border of the tribe is Jordan, including the waters of Merom and the Sea of Galilee. The tribe of Issachar on the south, and the tribes of Zebulun and Asher on the west, are conterminous with aphtali.

The places mentioned are identified as follows:—

Heleph.—(Beit Lif, sheet 4). The plain of Bitzanannim (Kh.-Bessum, sheet 6). Adami (Kh.-Admah, sheet 9): this is the southernmost of all the towns named. ekeb (Kh.-Seiyâdeh, sheet 6). Jabneel (Yemma, sheet 5). All the above places, except Heleph, lie near the Sea of Galilee, on the south-west side.

PETT, "Verse 33‘And their border was from Heleph, from the oak in Zaanannim, and Adami-nekeb, and Jabneel to Lakkum, and its goings out were at Jordan.’In view of the fact that ‘the oak in Zaanannim (or ‘of Bezaanannim’)’ is in each case identified by a place name (Heleph here, compare Judges 4:11 where it is Kedesh(-naphtali?)), this may be a description of a certain type of sacred oak rather than the same tree. Thus the border begins from the sacred tree at Heleph (possibly Khirbet ‘Irbadeh at the foot of Mount Tabor). However some have placed Zaanannim at Khan et-Tuggar four kilometres north east of Tabor.

Adami-nekeb (‘the pass Adami’) has been identified with modern Khirbet ed-Damiyeh eight kilometres (five miles) south west of Hammath on the sea of Galilee (near the later Tiberias). For Jabneel modern Khirbet Yamma (or Tell en- a’am), eleven kilometres (seven miles) south west of Hammath has been suggested. For Lakkum Khirbet el-Mansurah has been posited. The border then finished at the Jordan. This seems to be describing the south east border of aphtali.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:33

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

34 The boundary ran west through Aznoth Tabor and came out at Hukkok. It touched Zebulun on the south, Asher on the west and the Jordan[c] on the east.

BAR ES, "Aznoth-tabor - This place (“ears of Tabor”) was no doubt in the neighborhood of Mount Tabor - probably on the eastern slope; and Hukkok on the western slope.To Judah upon Jordan - i. e. to the “Havoth-jair” Num_32:41, which were on the

opposite side of Jordan. Jair, from whom these towns or villages were named, traced his ancestry in the male line through Hezron to Judah Num_27:1; and it is likely that he was assisted by large numbers of his kinsmen of that tribe in his rapid conquest of Bashan. Hence, the Havoth-jair were, in all likelihood, largely colonised by Judahites, especially perhaps that portion of them nearest the Jordan. Thus, that part of the river and its valley adjacent to these settlements was spoken of as “Judah upon Jordan,” or more literally “Judah of the Jordan” (compare Num_22:1).

CLARKE, "And to Judah upon Jordan - It is certain that the tribe of Naphtali did not border on the east upon Judah, for there were several tribes betwixt them. Some think that as these two tribes were bounded by Jordan on the east, they might be considered as in some sort conjoined, because of the easy passage to each other by means of the river; but this might be said of several other tribes as well as of these. There is considerable difficulty in the text as it now stands; but if, with the Septuagint, we omit Judah, the difficulty vanishes, and the passage is plain: but this omission is supported by no MS. hitherto discovered. It is however very probable that some change has taken

place in the words of the text, וביהודה�הירדן ubihudah�haiyarden, “and by Judah upon Jordan.” Houbigant, who terms them verba sine re ac sententia, “words without sense

or meaning,” proposes, instead of them, to read ובגדות�הירדן ubigdoth�haiyarden, “and by the banks of Jordan;” a word which is used Jos_3:15, and which here makes a very good sense.

GILL, "And then the coast turneth westward to Aznothtabor,.... This was the southern border, reaching from east to west; it began at Aznothtabor, which Jerom (g)says was a village in his time belonging to the country of Diocaesarea, in the plains; there is another place called Chislothtabor, on the borders of Zebulun, Jos_19:12,

and goeth out from thence to Hukkok: there the southern border ended, which was in the border of Asher, and is the same with Helkath, Jos_19:25; with which compare 1Ch_6:75,

and reacheth to Zebulun on the south side, and reacheth to Asher on the west side and to Judah upon Jordan towards the sunrising; so that as it was bounded by Lebanon, on the north, near to which some of the cities were, mentioned in Jos_19:33, it had Zebulun on the south, Asher on the west, and Jordan to the east; for by Judah is not meant the tribe of Judah, from which Naphtali was at a great distance, but a city so called, as Fuller (h) seems rightly to conjecture.

JAMISO , "Aznoth-tabor— on the east of Tabor towards the Jordan, for the

border ran thence to Hukkok, touching upon that of Zebulun; and as the territory of Zebulun did not extend as far as the Jordan, Aznoth-tabor and Hukkok must have been border towns on the line which separated Naphtali from Issachar.

to Judah upon Jordan toward the sunrising— The sixty cities, Havoth-jair, which were on the eastern side of the Jordan, opposite Naphtali, were reckoned as belonging to Judah, because Jair, their possessor, was a descendant of Judah (1Ch_2:4-22) [Keil].

K&D, "Jos_19:34From the Jordan below the Lake of Tiberias, or speaking more exactly, from the point

at which the Wady Bessum enters the Jordan, “the boundary (of Asher) turned westwards to Asnoth-tabor, and went thence out to Hukkok.” This boundary, i.e., the southern boundary of Asher, probably followed the course of the Wady Bessum from the Jordan, which wady was the boundary of Issachar on the north-east, and then ran most likely from Kefr Sabt (see at Jos_19:22) to Asnoth-tabor, i.e., according to the Onom. (s. v. Azanoth), a vicus ad regionem Diocaesareae pertinens in campestribus, probably on the south-east of Diocaesarea, i.e., Sepphoris, not far from Tabor, to which the boundary of Issachar extended (Jos_19:22). Hukkok has not yet been traced. Robinson(Bibl. Res. p. 82) and Van de Velde (Mem. p. 322) are inclined to follow Rabbi Parchi of the fourteenth century, and identify this place with the village of Yakûk, on the north-west of the Lake of Gennesareth; but this village is too far to the north-east to have formed the terminal point of the southern boundary of Naphtali, as it ran westwards from the Jordan. After this Naphtali touched “Zebulun on the south, Asher on the west, and Judah by the Jordan toward the sun-rising or east.” “The Jordan” is in apposition to “Judah,” in the sense of “Judah of the Jordan,” like “Jordan of Jericho” in Num_22:1; Num_26:3, etc. The Masoretic pointing, which separates these two words, was founded upon some false notion respecting this definition of the boundary, and caused the commentators great perplexity, until C. v. Raumer succeeded in removing the difficulty, by showing that the district of the sixty towns of Jair, which was upon the eastern side of the Jordan, is called Judah here, or reckoned as belonging to Judah, because Jair, the possessor of these towns, was a descendant of Judah on the father's side through Hezron (1Ch_2:5, 1Ch_2:21-22); whereas in Jos_13:30, and Num_32:41, he is reckoned contra morem, i.e., against the rule laid down in Num_36:7, as a descendant of Manasseh, on account of his descent from Machir the Manassite, on his mother's side.

(Note: See C. v. Raumer's article on “Judaea on the east of Jordan,” in Tholuck's litt. Anz. 1834, Nos. 1 and 2, and his Palästina, pp. 233ff. ed. 4; and for the arbitrary attempts that had been made to explain the passage by alterations of the text and in other ways, see Rosenmüller's Bibl. Alterthk. ii. 1, pp. 301-2; and Keil's Comm. on Joshua, pp. 438-9.)

BE SO , "Verse 34-35Joshua 19:34-35. And to Judah upon Jordan — It was not near Judah, there being several tribes between them. Therefore the meaning is, this tribe had a communication with that of Judah, by means of the river Jordan. So the word upon, in our translation, ought to be interpreted. This river afforded them the convenience of carrying merchandises to Judah, or bringing them from thence. And thus, some think, the prophecy of Moses was accomplished, (Deuteronomy 33:23.) Possess thou the west and the south; which doth not signify that they had any land in the south;

but that they trafficked with that country by the means of Jordan. Chinnereth —Whence the lake of Cinnereth, or Genesareth, received its name. Geneser signifies the gardens of princes; and here were fine gardens, and a kind of paradise. The Jews say the name Cinnereth was taken from its fruits, which were as sweet to the taste as the cinnor, or harp, to the ear.

COKE, "Ver. 34. And—the coast—reacheth to Zebulun on the south side, and—to Asher on the west side, and to Judah upon Jordan toward the sun-rising— Here it may be asked, how could the tribe of aphtali border on that of Judah on the east, when there were several tribes between them? In answer, we may observe, that aphtali adjoined to Judah by the Jordan, which united the two tribes, by supplying each with a free passage to the other. And thus, as some interpreters think, the prophesy of Moses, Deuteronomy 33:23 possess thou the west and the south, was fulfilled; not that this tribe had any lands in the south of Canaan; but because, through its situation, it could easily carry on a trade thither by means of the Jordan. This reply, however, may not be thought sufficiently full; and it may possibly be urged, why should the tribe of aphtali meet the tribe of Judah at the Jordan, any more than the tribes of Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh, who could much more easily trade with Judah by means of that river? and besides, it is well known, that the eastern limits of the tribe of Judah began rather at the point of the Dead Sea, than at the Jordan. To this, some return for answer, that the sacred writer thus expresses himself, to signify that the tribe of aphtali, though the most northerly of all those which lay toward the river, yet communicated itself with the most southern tribes, even that of Judah. Others are of opinion, that at that time there was a city upon the Jordan, to the east of aphtali, which went by the name of Judah. For another solution see the Miscellan. Duisburg de M. Gerdes, tom. 1: p. 683.

PETT, "Verse 34‘And the border turned westward to Aznoth-tabor, and went out from there to Hukkok, and it reached to Zebulun on the south, and reached to Asher on the west, and to Judah at Jordan towards the sunrising (eastwards).’Aznoth-tabor is probably Khirbet el-Jabeil at the foot of Mount Tabor. Hukkok is generally identified with Yakuk, eight kilometres (five miles) west of where Capernaum is thought to have been. Another suggestion is Khirbet el-Jemeijmeh. Zebulun may here be a city (compare Joshua 19:27) or may refer to the Zebulun border. Similar applies to Asher. Yehutha-hayarden (Judah at Jordan) must refer to some recognised place on the Jordan, site unknown. Thus Asher were to the west, Zebulun (and Issachar) to the south, Jordan to the east and the northern border was indeterminate.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:34

And then the coast turneth westward. Here the words are literally translated without any confusion between the west and the sea, nor any misapprehension of the meaning of the word נסב . Reacheth. This is the same word translated skirteth above,

Joshua 19:11, note. We have it here clearly stated that aphtali was bordered on the south by Zebulun, on the west by Asher, and on the east by "Judah upon Jordan." To Judah. These words have caused great trouble to translators and expositors for 2,000 years. The LXX. omits them altogether, rendering, "and the Jordan to the eastward." The Masorites, by inserting a disjunctive accent between them and the words that follow, would have us render, "and to Judah: Jordan towards the sun rising," or, "is towards the sunrising," a rendering which gives no reasonable sense. They unquestionably form part of the text, since no version but the LXX. omits them. A suggestion of Von Raumer's has found favour that the cities called Havoth Jair, which were on the eastern side of Jordan, opposite the inheritance of aphtali, are meant. Jair was a descendant of Judah by the father's side, through Hezron. So Ritter, 4:338 (see 1 Chronicles 2:21-23). It would seem that the principle of female inheritance, having once been admitted in the tribe of Manasseh, was found capable of further extension. But to the majority of the Israelites this settlement would no doubt be regarded as an offshoot of the tribe of Judah.

35 The fortified towns were Ziddim, Zer, Hammath, Rakkath, Kinnereth,

BAR ES 35-38, "The number of the fortified cities of Naphtali is remarkable, though it does not tally with the catalogue. It was no doubt good policy to protect the northern frontier by a belt of fortresses, as the south was protected by the fenced cities of Judah. Hammath, a Levitical city (compare Jos_21:32; 1Ch_6:76), is not to be confounded with the Hamath on the northeastern frontier of the land Num_13:21. The name (from a root signifying “to be warm”) probably indicates that hot springs existed here; and is perhaps rightly traced in Ammaus, near Tiberias. Rakkath was, according to the rabbis, rebuilt by Herod and called Tiberias. The name (“bank, shore”) suits the site of Tiberias very well. Migdal-el, perhaps the Magdala of Mat_15:39, is now the miserable village of “El Mejdel.”

GILL, "And the fenced cities are Ziddim,.... The later name of Ziddim, according to the Talmud (i), was Cepharchitiya, or the village of wheat, perhaps from the large quantity or goodness of wheat there:

Zer is called by Jerom (k) Sor, and interpreted Tyre, the metropolis of Phoenicia, very wrongly, and, in the tribe of Naphtali:

and Hammath probably was built by the youngest son of Canaan, Gen_10:18; or had its name in memory of him; it lay to the north of the land of Israel; see Num_34:8,

Rakkath, and Chinnereth; Rakkath according to the Jewish writers (l) is the same with Tiberias, as Chinnereth with Gennesaret, from whence the lake or sea of Tiberias, and the country and lake of Gennesaret, had their names, often mentioned in the New Testament. Gennesaret was a most delicious and fruitful spot, and fulfilled the prophecy of Moses, Deu_33:23; concerning Naphtali.

K&D, "Jos_19:35The fortified towns of Naphtali were the following. Ziddim: unknown, though Knobel

suggests that “it may possibly be preserved in Chirbet es Saudeh, to the west of the southern extremity of the Lake of Tiberias (Rob. iii. App.);” but this place is to the west of the Wady Bessum, i.e., in the territory of Issachar. Zer is also unknown. As the lxx and Syriac give the name as Zor, Knobel connects it with Kerak, which signifies fortress as

well as Zor (= ָמצּור), a heap of ruins at the southern end of the lake (Rob. iii. p. 263), the place which Josephus calls Taricheae (see Reland, p. 1026), - a very doubtful combination! Hammath (i.e., thermae), a Levitical town called Hammaoth-dor in Jos_21:32, and Hammon in 1Ch_6:61, was situated, according to statements in the Talmud, somewhere near the later city of Tiberias, on the western shore of the Lake of

Gennesareth, and was no doubt identical with the κώµεε�Αµµαούς in the neighbourhood of Tiberias, a place with warm baths (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2, 3; Bell. Judg. iv. 1, 3). There are warm springs still to be found half an hour to the south of Tabaria, which are used as baths (Burckhardt, Syr. pp. 573-4; Rob. iii. pp. 258ff.). Rakkath (according to the Talm. and Rabb. ripa littus) was situated, according to rabbinical accounts, in the immediate neighbourhood of Hammath, and was the same place as Tiberias; but the account given by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 2, 3; cf. Bell. Judg. ii. 9, 1) respecting the founding of Tiberias by Herod the tetrarch is at variance with this; so that the rabbinical statements appear to have no other foundation than the etymology of the name Rakkath. Chinnereth is given

in the Targums as ּוַסר ,ִגינּוַסר ,ְגֵניַסרbcִ, i.e., Γεννησάρ. According to Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 10, 8), this name was given to a strip of land on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, which was distinguished for its natural beauty, its climate, and its fertility, namely the long plain, about twenty minutes broad and an hour long, which stretches along the western shore of this lake, from el-Mejdel on the south to Khan Minyeh on the north (Burckhardt, Syr. pp. 558-9; Rob. iii. pp. 279, 290). It must have been in this plain that the town of Chinnereth stood, from which the plain and lake together derived the name of Chinnereth (Deu_3:17) or Chinneroth (Jos_11:2), and the lake alone the name of “Sea of Chinnereth,” or “Sea of Chinneroth” (Jos_12:3; Jos_13:27; Num_34:11).

COKE, "Ver. 35. And the fenced cities are Ziddim, &c.— The two first of these cities are unknown. Respecting Hammath, see on umbers 13:21; umbers 34:8. It was the most northern of all the cities assigned to the Israelites. Probably, it was built by the youngest son of Canaan, as the eldest had built Sidon; Genesis 10:18. It continued famous till the time of David, when its king made peace with that monarch. Rakkath, by some rabbis, is thought to be the same as Tiberias; and they say, that it was at first named Zipporia; afterwards Rakkath, from its situation on the bank of the river; next Moesia, and lastly Tiberias. Cinnereth was on the lake of Tiberias; in which there were fine gardens, and a kind of paradise or park: hence its name Geneser, signifying the gardens of princes. Its name Cinnereth, say the Jews,

was taken from its fruits, which are as sweet to the taste, as the sound of the cinnor, or harp, to the ear. See Hottingeri ot. Cip. Judai. p. 36.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 35(35) The fenced cities.—Observe the protection of the northern border by fortresses. Ziddim (Hattin), Hammath (Hammâm Tabarîya), Rakkath (Tiberias), and Chinnereth (not identified, but giving a name to the Sea of Galilee, and therefore evidently close by), are all in sheet 6, near the lake.

(36,37) Adamah (Ed-Dâmeh,?Daimah, sheet 6), Ramah (Râmeh), Hazor (Hadîreh), Kedesh (Kades), Edrei (Y’ater), En-hazor (Hazireh), and Iron (Y’arum), are all in sheet 4, north of the above. The town of Hazor has been variously identified by previous writers, but Conder expresses no doubt as to its being Hadîreh, which certainly occupies a commanding position above a stream that flows into Lake Merom.

PETT, "Verses 35-38‘And the fenced cities were Ziddim, Zer and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth, and Adamah, and Ramah, and Hazor, and Kedesh, and Edrei, and En-hazor, and Iron, and Migdal-el, Horem and Ben-anath, and Beth-shemesh. ineteen cities with their villages.’These cities number sixteen, thus we must also probably include Aznoth-tabor, Hukkok and Yehutha-hayarden which would leave Zebulun and Asher as tribal borders. (Alternately they could be cities not counted to aphtali).

Ziddim is unknown. A Zer in Bashan is mentioned in the Egyptian execration texts which was a town of a similar name. Hammath (‘hot springs’) was just on the lower part of the western shore of the Sea of Galilee (Chinnereth) as it begins to narrow, possibly the Hammoth-dor of Joshua 21:32. They were probably the hot springs to the south of the later city of Tiberias.

The western shore of the Sea was pitted with small fertile valleys. Rakkath was nearby to the north leading up to the town of Chinnereth, the latter probably being Khirbet el-Oreimah, which was in the plain on the north west side of the lake.

Adamah has been posited as Qarn Hattin, possibly the smsitm (shemesh-adam) of the Thutmose III list, built on top of the extinct volcano ‘the horns of Hattin’ at the eastern end of the valley of Tur’an, apart from Mount Tabor the most distinct landmark in Lower Galilee. Ramah was in the valley of es-Shaghur, the northernmost of the four major valleys that cross Lower Galilee from east to west.

“Hazor, and Kedesh, and Edrei.” Hazor was one of the most important cities in Canaan. See Joshua 11:1-13. Sacked by Joshua it was slowly re-established and was head of a confederacy of cities, later extending its control more heavily over the area (Judges 5:6-7) until again defeated by Barak and Deborah (Judges 4-5). Kedesh is the modern Tell Kudeish, north west of Lake Huleh, which was occupied during the early and late bronze ages. It was on the route south from Hamath and the north

and thus a target for any invaders from the north. Edrei is probably the itr in the list of Thutmose III, near the town of Abel-beth-Maacah (2 Kings 15:29; 2 Samuel 20:14-15 - modern Abil el-Qamh), even further north than Kedesh and almost directly east of Tyre.

“And En-hazor, and Iron, and Migdal-el, Horem and Ben-anath, and Beth-shemesh.” En-hazor, ‘the spring of Hazor’, was not directly connected with Hazor above. The name Hazor was common in Galilee. It was possibly the ‘ny of Thutmose III’s list. Its identification is uncertain. It has been linked with Khirbet Hasireh, ten miles west of Kedesh, or with ‘Ain-itha nine kilometres (five to six miles) west north west of Kedesh. Iron is probably Yarun, eleven kilometres (seven miles) south west of Kedesh, mentioned in the inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser III as Irruna(?). Migdal-el means ‘the tower of El’ and is possibly Mejdel Islim, thirteen kilometres (eight miles) north west of Kedesh. Horem is unknown. Beth-anath means ‘the house of Anath’, possibly a sanctuary for the goddess Anath. It is perhaps Safed el-Battikh and probably the bt‘nt listed by Seti I and Raamses II. Beth-shemesh, another ‘house of the sun’ (compare Joshua 19:22 and Joshua 15:10 (in Judah) of which there were a number. Its site is unknown.

“ ineteen cities with their villages.” See above.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:35

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

36 Adamah, Ramah, Hazor,

GILL, "And Adamah,.... Adamah is different from Adami, Jos_19:33; and may seem to confirm the notion of some, that Nekeb there is an epithet of it, and so distinguishes it from Adamah here:

and Ramah; of Ramah, as there were several places of this name; see Gill on Jos_19:29,

and Hazor was a royal city, of which; see Gill on Jos_11:1.

K&D, "Jos_19:36Adamah is unknown. Knobel is of opinion, that as Adamah signifies red, the place

referred to may possibly be Ras el Ahmar, i.e., red-head, on the north of Safed (Rob. iii. p. 370; Bibl. Res. p. 69). Ramah is the present Rameh (Ramea), a large well-built village, inhabited by Christians and Druses, surrounded by extensive olive plantations, and provided with an excellent well. It stands upon the slope of a mountain, in a beautiful plain on the south-west of Safed, but without any relics of antiquity (see Seetzen, ii. p. 129; Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 78-9). Hazor has not yet been traced with certainty (see at Jos_11:1).

37 Kedesh, Edrei, En Hazor,

GILL, "And Kedesh,.... This is Kedesh in Galilee, in Mount Naphtali, to distinguish it from others of the same name; it was one of the cities of refuge, Jos_20:7. Jerom says (m) in his day it was called Cidissus, and was twenty miles from Tyre by Paneas; See Gill on Jos_12:22.

and Edrei is a different place from one of that name in the kingdom of Og, Num_21:33,

and Enhazor, of which we read nowhere else.

K&D, "Jos_19:37Kedesh (see at Jos_12:2). Edrei, a different place from the town of the same name in

Bashan (Jos_1:2, Jos_1:4), is still unknown. En-hazor is probably to be sought for in Bell Hazur and Ain Hazur, which is not very far distant, on the south-west of Rameh, though the ruins upon Tell Hazur are merely the ruins of an ordinary village, with one single cistern that has fallen to pieces (Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 80, 81).

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:37

Kedesh (see Joshua 12:22). It was the residence of Barak ( 4:6). Known to Josephus (Bell. Jud; 4. 2 3) as Cydoessa, to Eusebius and Jerome as Cydissus; it is now Kedes (see Robinson, 'Later Biblical Researches'). Edrei. ot the Edrei of Og, which was beyond Jordan.

38 Iron, Migdal El, Horem, Beth Anath and Beth

Shemesh. There were nineteen towns and their villages.

CLARKE, "Nineteen cities - But if these cities be separately enumerated they amount to twenty-three; this is probably occasioned by reckoning frontier cities belonging to other tribes, which are only mentioned here as the boundaries of the tribe. See on Jos_19:30 (note).

GILL, "And Iron,.... Of Iron no mention is made elsewhere:

and Migdalel, which Jerom calls Magdiel, he says (m) was shown a small village, five miles from Dara, as you go to Ptolemais:

and Horem is not mentioned anywhere elsewhere;

and Bethanath; Jerom also relates (n), that Bathana, in the tribe of Naphtali, was a village that went by the name of Betbanes, fifteen miles from Caesarea:

and Bethshemesh was another city, in which was a temple dedicated to the sun, when inhabited by the Canaanites; see Jos_19:22; and so in Bethanath there might be a temple dedicated to some deity, though now uncertain what:

nineteen cities with their villages; there are more mentioned, but some of them might be only boundaries, and so belonged to another tribe.

K&D 38-39, "Jos_19:38-39Jireon (Iron) is probably the present village of Jarûn, an hour to the south-east of

Bint-Jebeil, with the ruins of an ancient Christian church (Seetzen, ii. pp. 123-4; Van de Velde, R. i. p. 133). Migdal-el, so far as the name is concerned, might be Magdala (Mat_15:39), on the western shore of the Lake of Gennesareth, between Capernaum and Tiberias (Rob. iii. pp. 279ff.); the only difficulty is, that the towns upon this lake have already been mentioned in Jos_19:35. Knobel connects Migdal-el with Chorem, so as to form one name, and finds Migdal el Chorem in the present Mejdel Kerum, on the west of Rameh (Seetzen, ii. p. 130; Van de Velde, i. p. 215), a common Mahometan village. But there is nothing to favour this combination, except the similarity in sound between the two names; whereas it has against it not only the situation of the village, which was so far to the west, being not more than three hours from Acca, that the territory of Naphtali can hardly have reached so far, but also the very small resemblance between Choremand Kerum, not to mention the fact that the accents separate Chorem from Migdal-el, whilst the omission of the copula (vav) before Chorem cannot have any weight, as the copula is also wanting before Zer and Rakkath. Chorem and Beth-anath have not yet

been discovered. From the latter place Naphtali was unable to expel the Canaanites (Jdg_1:33). Beth-shemesh, a different place from the town of the same name in Issachar (Jos_19:22), is also still unknown. The total number of towns is given as nineteen, whereas only sixteen are mentioned by name. It is hardly correct to seek for the missing places among the border towns mentioned in Jos_19:33 and Jos_19:34, as the

enumeration of the towns themselves is introduced by ִמְבָצר in Jos_19:35, and in this ְוָעֵריway the list of towns is separated from the description of the boundaries. To this we may add, that the town of Karthan or Kirjathaim, which Naphtali gave up to the Levites (Jos_21:32; 1Ch_6:61), does not occur either among the border towns or in the list of towns, from which we may see that the list of towns is an imperfect one.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:38

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

39 These towns and their villages were the inheritance of the tribe of aphtali, according to its clans.

GILL, "This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Naphtali,.... Which Josephus (o) thus describes;"the country to the east, as far as Damascus the city, and upper Galilee, the Naphtalites took, unto Mount Lebanon, and the fountains of Jordan, which flow out of the mount, reaching the northern border of the city Arce:"

according to their families; which was divided among them, according to the number of their families:

the cities and their villages; before enumerated.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:39

The inheritance of the tribe of the children of aphtali. Of aphtali, Beyond the not too heroic leader Barak, we hear nothing in the after history of Israel, until the fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah 9:1, Isaiah 9:2. Galilee, the scene of the greater part of our Lord's teaching and miracles, was divided between Issachar, Asher, Zebulon, and aphtali. The majority of the places mentioned in the Gospels were Within the borders of Zebulon. But as we learn that our Lord penetrated as far as

"the coasts of Caesarea Philippi," in the extreme north of Palestine, He must have preached also in the cities of aphtali. aphtali sent a goodly number of warriors to welcome David as "king over all Israel" (1 Chronicles 12:34). The inheritance of aphtali was in the main fertile, but there was a large mountain district, known as the mountain region of aphtali (Joshua 20:7). Some of the mountains rose to the height of more than 3,000 feet.

Allotment for Dan

40 The seventh lot came out for the tribe of Dan according to its clans.

GILL, "And the seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan,.... Which was the last lot drawn, and which appointed an inheritance to this tribe:

according to their families; the number of them.

HE RY 40-48, "Dan, though commander of one of the four squadrons of the camp of Israel, in the wilderness, that which brought up the rear, yet was last provided for in Canaan, and his lot fell in the southern part of Canaan, between Judah on the east and the land of the Philistines on the west, Ephraim on the north and Simeon on the south. Providence ordered this numerous and powerful tribe into a post of danger, as best able to deal with those vexatious neighbours the Philistines, and so it was found in Samson. Here is an account, 1. Of what fell to this tribe by lot, Zorah, and Eshtaol, and the camp of Dan thereabouts, of which we read in the story of Samson. And near there was the valley of Eshcol, whence the spies brought the famous bunch of grapes. Japho, or Joppa was in this lot. 2. Of what they got by their own industry and valour, which is mentioned here (Jos_19:47), but related at large, Jdg_18:7, etc.

JAMISO , "Jos_19:40-48. Of Dan.

the seventh lot came out for the tribe ... Dan— It lay on the west of Benjamin and consisted of portions surrendered by Judah and Ephraim. Its boundaries are not stated, as they were easily distinguishable from the relative position of Dan to the three adjoining tribes.

K&D, "The Inheritance of the Tribe of Dan. - This fell to the west of Benjamin,

between Judah and Ephraim, and was formed by Judah giving up some of its northern towns, and Ephraim some of its southern towns, to the Danites, so as to furnish them with a territory proportionate to their number. It was situated for the most part in the lowland (shephelah), including, however, the hill country between the Mediterranean and the mountains, and extended over a portion of the plain of Sharon, so that it belonged to one of the most fruitful portions of Palestine. The boundaries are not given, because they could be traced from those of the adjoining territories.

ELLICOTT, "(40) The seventh lot . . . of the children of Dan.—Dan was the most numerous tribe, next to Judah, in each census taken during the exodus. (See umbers 1, 26) This tribe had also had a post of honour in being commander of the rear-guard during the march. A similar post is here assigned to Dan in Palestine, viz., next to Judah, on the side of the Philistine territory. The Philistines were the most powerful and warlike of the unconquered nations of Palestine. The wisdom of guarding Israel on their frontier by the two strongest of the tribes is manifest. It was Samson, a Danite, who began to deliver Israel from them, and David completed the work. Though there were Philistine wars in the time of the later kings, they never had dominion over Israel after David’s time.

PETT, "Verse 40‘The seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan, according to their families.’The other six lots having been taken, the seventh remained. This was the allotment to the children of Dan. o strict borders are given but a list of towns. This may be because Dan’s borders were not closely defined, or simply because of the surveyor’s methods. Or the writer may have been satisfied that the borders were made clear by the borders of Benjamin on the east, Ephraim on the north and Judah on the south. They were the only ones whose towns were not numbered, possibly because of disapproval over the removal of a large part of the tribe to Laish.

The land allotted to them was good and fertile land, but it was hotly contested. Thus the Danites found the opposition of the Amorites severe and were driven back into the hills (Judges 1:34). We must not therefore think of all these places as having been actually occupied by Dan. They revealed the area in which Dan was to operate. Some they took. Others they infiltrated. Even others they could do nothing about. Once the Philistines arrived their position became even more precarious, as is depicted in the days of Samson. Thus a large part of the tribe decided to leave the place allotted to them by God and find the cosier and easier spot at Laish. But it led to gross sin and the setting up of a rival sanctuary (Judges 17-18).

PI K, ""And the seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan" (Josh. 19:40). Genesis 30:1-6, records his lowly origin. As this tribe brought up the rear of the congregation when they were on the march, so they were the last to receive their inheritance. Jacob likened Dan to a serpent, Moses to a "lion’s whelp." Samson was of this tribe, and in him both characters were combined. Dan was the first tribe to fall into idolatry (Judg. 18:30), and apparently remained in that awful condition for centuries, for we find the apostate king Jeroboam setting up his golden calves in

Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12:28, 29, and cf. 2 Kings 10:29).

"When they had made an end of dividing the land for inheritance by their coasts, the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of un among them: according to the word of the Lord they gave him the city which he asked, Timnath-serah in mount Ephraim; and he built the city, and dwelt therein" (Josh. 19:49, 50). Blessed is it to see that, though the greatest and boldest among them, the one who had led Israel to the conquest of Canaan, instead of seeking first his own portion, he waited till all had received theirs. Thus did he put the public good before his private interests, seeking theirs and not his own. "Our Lord Jesus thus came and dwelt among us, not in pomp, but in poverty, providing rest for us, yet Himself not having where to lay His head" (Matthew Henry). or did Joshua seize his portion as a right, but, like his grand Antitype, "asked" for it (Ps. 2:8). And as Christ built the Church and indwells it, so Joshua built his city.

COFFMA , "Verse 40DA

"The seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families. And the border of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Irshemesh, and Shaalabbin, and Aijalon, and Ithlah, and Elon, and Timneh, and Ekron, and Eltekeh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath, and Jehud, and Bene-berak, and Gath-rimmon, and Mejarkon, and Rakkon, with the border over against Joppa. And the border of the children of Dan went out beyond them; for the children of Dan went up and fought against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after their name of Dan their father. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families, these cities and their villages."

The mention here of Dan's fighting against Leshem is a reference to a later apostasy of that tribe (Judges 17-18). Dan proved to be unable to wrest the coastal cities away from the Philistines. "This inheritance assigned to Dan was extremely small, but it was also extremely fertile."[13] This area was described as "too small for Dan," but, in reality, Dan simply preferred to live somewhere else. A full description of Dan's northward migration is found in Judges 18. This tribe did not figure significantly in the subsequent history of Israel. They had only one hero, Samson; and his exploits seem to have been limited to a small area and to his own tribe alone.

CO STABLE, "Verses 40-48The inheritance of Daniel 19:40-48

Dan received territory primarily in the Shephelah and Coastal Plain west of Benjamin, between Judah and Ephraim. Its land was extremely fruitful.

"The Amorites, who settled portions of the Philistine plain ( Judges 1:34), drove the Danites out of the plains and into the hills. This led to a migration of part of the tribe of Dan northward to Leshem near the northern part of aphtali (cf. Judges

17-18)." [ ote: Davis and Whitcomb, p83.]

Dan possessed19 towns ( Joshua 19:41-47). The record of the conquest of Leshem ( Joshua 19:47, also called Laish and later Dan) is in Judges 18. [ ote: See John C. H. Laughlin, " Daniel ," Biblical Illustrator9:4 (Summer1983):40-46.]

41 The territory of their inheritance included:

Zorah, Eshtaol, Ir Shemesh,

CLARKE, "Zorah, and Eshtaol - See the note on Jos_15:33.

Ir-shemesh - The city of sun; another proof of the idolatry of the Canaanites. Some think this was the same as Beth-shemesh.

GILL, "And the coast of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol,.... The tribe of Dan is not described by places the boundaries of it, as other tribes, but by its cities, which were chiefly, at least several of them, taken out of the tribe of Judah, as the two first of these most manifestly were; See Gill on Jos_15:33,

and Irshemesh signifies the city of the sun, as the Targum interprets it, and was so called very probably from a temple in it, dedicated to the idolatrous worship of the sun, but a different place from Bethshemesh in other tribes; though those of that name, as this, had it for the like reason; and so Heliopolis, in Egypt, which signifies the same, where was a temple of the same kind; as there was another city of this name, between the mountains of Libanus and Antilibanus, now called Balbec (p), where the ruins of the temple are yet to be seen: but this was a different place, the Septuagint version calls it Sammaus, and it was, according to Jerom (q), the same with Emmaus, afterwards called Nicopolis; which, if the same Emmaus with that in Luk_24:13; though some doubt it, was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, or seven miles and a half.

K&D, "Jos_19:41-42From Judah the families of Dan received Zorea and Eshtaol (see at Jos_15:33), and

Ir-shemesh, also called Beth-shemesh (1Ki_4:9), on the border of Judah (see Jos_15:10); but of these the Danites did not take possession, as they were given up by Judah to the Levites (Jos_21:16 : see at Jos_15:10). Saalabbin, or Saalbim, which remained in the hands of the Canaanites (Jdg_1:35), is frequently mentioned in the history of David and Solomon (2Sa_23:32; 1Ch_11:33; 1Ki_4:9). It may possibly be the present Selbît (Rob.

iii. App.; Bibl. Res. p. 144), some distance to the north of the three places mentioned (Knobel). Ajalon, which was also not taken from the Canaanites (Jdg_1:35), was assigned to the Levites (Jos_21:24; 1Ch_6:54). It is mentioned in the wars with the Philistines (1Sa_14:31; 1Ch_8:13), was fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch_11:10), and was taken by the Philistines from King Ahaz (2Ch_28:18). It has been preserved in the village of Yalo (see at Jos_10:12). Jethlah is only mentioned here, and has not yet been discovered. So far as the name is concerned, it may possibly be preserved in the Wady Atallah, on the west of Yalo (Bibl. Res. pp. 143-4).

ELLICOTT, "(41) And the coast . . .—Zorah and Eshtaol, in the tribe of Dan, had been originally assigned to Judah (Joshua 15:33); so also Ekron. But it is not clear whether they are mentioned here as marking the border of Dan and Judah, or actually in the territory of the former. However, Dan is wedged in, as it were, between the powerful tribes of Judah and Ephraim, the unconquered Philistines, and the sea. It is not surprising that their coast “went out from them” (Joshua 19:47) when it was partly unconquered, partly taken from other tribes in the first instance. Conder says it was carved out of the country of Ephraim.

Verses 41-46(41-46) All the towns mentioned here are identified by Conder.

Zorah—Sur’ah

Eshtaol—Eshû’a

Ir-shemesh—Ain Sheme Shaalabbin—Selbît

Ajalon—Yâlo

Jethlah—(Ruin) Beit Tul

}

Are all in sheet 17

Elon—Beit Ello

Thimnathah—(Ruin) Tibneh

}

Sheet 14

Ekron-(akir, sheet 16)

{

Gibbethon-(Kibbiah, sheet 14)

Baalath—(Belaîn, sheet 14)

Jehud—El-Yehudîyeh

Bene-berak—Ibn Ibrak

}

Sheet 13

For Gath-rimmon, Conder suggests Gath; but this he identifies with Tell-es-Safi, which is well within the territory of Judah (to the south of sheet 16).

Me-jarkon, “the yellow water,” is thought to be the river ’Aujeh (sheet 13), and Rakkon, Tell-er-Rakkeit, to the north of the mouth of it. Japho is Jaffa, on the same sheet.

PETT, "Verses 41-46‘And the border of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Ir-shemesh, and Shaalabbin, and Aijalon, and Ithlah, and Elon, and Thimnathah, and Ekron, and Eltekeh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath, and Jehud, and Bene-berak, and Gath-rimmon, and Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, with the border over against Japho.’Zorah and Eshtaol were on the Danite border (compare Joshua 15:33; see also Judges 13:25; Judges 18:2; Judges 18:8; Judges 18:11). Judah and Dan shared them and their related lands, Dan the land to the north, Judah the land to the south, or it may be that after receiving their lot Judah passed the cities on to Dan as having too much. But the probability is that they were settled by both, some looking to Dan and some to Judah. Zorah was mentioned in the Amarna letters as Zarkha and is probably Sar‘a, a Canaanite city twenty five kilometres (fifteen miles) west of Jerusalem, on the north side of the Wadi al-Sarar (the valley of Sorek), with Eshtaol close by. Both places overlook the broad basin of the Wadi, near its entrance into the Judaean highlands.

“Ir-shemesh, and Shaalabbin, and Aijalon.” Ir-shemesh means ‘city of Shemesh (of the sun)’. Some Hebrew MSS have En-shemesh (‘spring of Shemesh’). ames compounded with the god Shemesh were common so its direct connection with Beth-shemesh (on the Danite/Judah border, see Joshua 15:10) is uncertain, but they were certainly near neighbours. Shaalabbin, a non-Semitic name, probably the Shaalbim (which may mean ‘haunt of foxes’) in Judges 1:35; 1 Kings 4:9 compare 2 Samuel 23:32 near Mount Heres, (an ancient word for sun). It has been connected with Salbit, five kilometres (three miles) north west of Yalo, although the names do not agree phonetically. Inhabited by the Amorites in the valley of Aijalon it withstood Danite pressure but eventually became tributary to Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh). The same was true of Aijalon. Aijalon (modern Yalo) was on a hill and commanded from the south the entrance to the valley of Aijalon about eleven

kilometres (six or seven miles) from Gezer. It later guarded the north west approach to Jerusalem.

“And Ithlah, and Elon, and Thimnathah, and Ekron.” Ithlah is unknown.Elon is possibly Khirbet Wadi ‘Alin, two kilometres east of Bethshemesh. Compare 1 Kings 4:9. The name means ‘terebinth’ or ‘oak’. Thimnathah is probably Timnah (Timnath, Thimnathah) which was where Samson sought a Philistine wife. This may be the Tamna later mentioned in the annals of Sennacherib (c. 701 BC). It is probably Tell Batashi, nine kilometres (six miles) south of Gezer, although its name is preserved by Khirbet Tibneh. It was a border town of Judah (Joshua 15:10). Whether shared or merely a border marker we do not know. Ekron (see on Joshua 15:45) was one of the five major Philistine cities on the border of both Judah and Dan. It may have been occupied by Judah as a small village on a mound before the Philistines arrived, but from then on it was built up by the Philistines as a Philistine enclave.

“And Eltekeh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath, and Jehud, and Bene-berak.” Eltekeh (see Joshua 21:23) is named by Sennacherib (Altaku) together with Timna among his conquests in his annals for 701/700BC. It may be Tell-esh-Shalaf, sixteen kilometres (ten miles) north east of Ashdod (Khirbet el-Muqanna‘ is now thought to be Ekron). Gibbethon (see Joshua 21:23) is probably Tell el-Mellat, west of Gezer. It was in Philistine hands for some time and was the scene of battles between them and Israel (1 Kings 15:27). Baalath is possibly el-Mughar. It was fortified by Solomon (1 Kings 9:18). Jehud has been thought to be el-Yehudiyeh on the plain between Joppa and the hills. Bene-berak is identified with modern el-Kheiriyeh (Ibn Ibraq), six kilometres (four miles) east of Joppa. According to Sennacherib it was one of the cities belonging to Ashkelon besieged and taken by him (Benebarka). Thus it was then in Philistine hands.

“And Gath-rimmon, and Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, with the border over against Japho (Joppa).” Gath-rimmon (‘winepress of Rimmon’) is possibly Tell Jarisheh on the River Yarkon. Me-yarkon and Rakkon are unknown, but the former also connected with the Yarkon. The final city on the border is Joppa. Joppa was the only major harbour between Acco and the Egyptian border, and controlled by the Philistines. Excavation shows occupation from 17th century BC, and a pre-Philistine temple of the 13th Century BC witnesses to the existence of a lion cult. The temple has wooden columns on stone bases to support the ceiling (compare Judges 16:25-27). ‘Over against’ may indicate that Joppa was a border marker and not actually part of their territory.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:41

Zorah and Eshtaol. On the border between Judah and Dan, but abandoned by the tribe of Judah to the Danites (see 13:2, 13:25). "The wild and impassable wadies, the steep, hard, rocky hills, their wildernesses of mastic, clear springs, and frequent caves and precipices, are the fastnesses in which Samson was born, and from which he descended into the plain to harry the Philistines. Robinson identifies Zorah with

Surat. Ir-shemesh. Another sign of sun-worship. Ir-shemaesh is "the city of the sun."

42 Shaalabbin, Aijalon, Ithlah,

CLARKE, "Shaalabbin - The foxes. Of this city the Amorites kept constant possession. See Jdg_1:35.

Ajalon - There was a place of this name about two miles from Nicopolis or Emmaus, on the road to Jerusalem. - Calmet.

GILL, "And Shaalabbin,.... The first of these is the same with Shaalbim, Jdg_1:35; and which Jerom (r) calls Selab, in the tribe of Dan; and which he says was in his day shown a large village on the borders of Sebaste, by the name of Selaba.

and Ajalon is famous for the standing still of the moon in its valley while Joshua pursued his enemies; see Gill on Jos_10:12,

and Jethlah, of which we read nowhere else.

43 Elon, Timnah, Ekron,

CLARKE, "Thimnathah - Probably the same as Timnah. See on Jos_15:57 (note).

Ekron - A well-known city of the Philistines and the metropolis of one of their five dynasties.

GILL, "And Elon,.... Of Elon no mention is made elsewhere:

and Thimnathah is a different place from Timnah in the tribe of Judah, Jos_15:10. Jerom (s) speaks of the Thamnitic country, so called from the village Thamna, which

seems to be this:

and Ekron was one of the five principalities of the Philistines, and never possessed by the Israelites; it first fell by lot to the tribe of Judah, and afterwards given to the tribe of Dan, Jos_15:45.

K&D,"Jos_19:43Elon, which is mentioned again in 1Ki_4:9, with the addition of Beth-hanan, has not

yet been traced; according to Knobel, it “may possibly be Ellin, near Timnath and Beth-shemesh, mentioned by Robinson in his Pal. vol. iii. App.” Thimna (Thimnathah) and Ekron, on the boundary of Judah (see at Jos_15:10-11).

COKE, "Ver. 43. Elon,—Thimnathah,—Ekron— Elon is thought to be the same with Holon, mentioned ch. Joshua 15:51. Thimnathah, seems to be a different place from Timnath, spoken of in the same chap. ver. 10 and 57. For, as we read in Judges 14:5 that Samson went down to this city, which shews it to have been in a valley; so in Genesis 11:13 we read that Judah went up to Timnath to shear his sheep, which shews that city to have been upon a hill. Ekron, the capital of the Philistines, was at first given to the tribe of Judah. See ch. Joshua 15:45.

44 Eltekeh, Gibbethon, Baalath,

GILL, "And Eltekeh,.... Eltekeh was a city given to the Levites, Jos_21:23; and supposed by some to be the same with Eltekon in the tribe of Judah given to the Danites, Jos_15:59,

and Gibbethon was in the hands of the Philistines in the reign of Asa, 1Ki_15:21; and in the same place Jerom (t) calls Gabatha a city of the strangers, or Philistines; and which lie places near Bethlehem in the tribe of Judah:

and Baalath is not the same with Baalah, Jos_15:29; but the Baalath rebuilt by Solomon, 1Ki_9:18; called by Josephus (u) Baleth, and spoken of by him as near to Gazara in the land of the Philistines; of these two last cities, the Talmudists (w) say that their houses belonged to Judah, and their fields to Dan.

K&D, "Jos_19:44Eltekeh and Gibbethon, which were allotted to the Levites (Jos_21:23), have not yet

been discovered. Under the earliest kings of Israel, Gibbethon was in the hands of the Philistines (1Ki_15:27; 1Ki_16:15, 1Ki_16:17). Baalath was fortified by Solomon (1Ki_

9:18). According to Josephus (Ant. 8:6, 1), it was “Baleth in the neighbourhood of Geser;” probably the same place as Baalah, on the border of Judah (Jos_15:11).

45 Jehud, Bene Berak, Gath Rimmon,

CLARKE, "Jehud, and Bene-berak - Or Jehud of the children of Berak.

GILL, "And Jehud,.... Of Jehud no mention is made elsewhere:

and Beneberak signifies sons of lightning; see Mar_3:17. Jerom (x) speaks of tills as the name of two places, Bane in the tribe of Dan, and Barach in the same tribe, and which was in his day near Azotus. This place was famous in later times among the Jews for being a place where one of their noted Rabbins, R. Akiba, abode and taught for some time (y):

and Gathrimmon was in Jerom's (z) time a very large village, twelve miles from Diospolis, or Lydda, as you go from Eleutheropolis to it; it was a city given to the Levites, Jos_21:24.

K&D, "Jos_19:45Jehud has probably been preserved in the village of Jehudieh (Hudieh), two hours to

the north of Ludd (Diospolis), in a splendidly cultivated plain (Berggren, R. iii. p. 162; Rob. iii. p. 45, and App.). Bene-berak, the present Ibn Abrak, an hour from Jehud (Scholz, R. p. 256). Gath-rimmon, which was given to the Levites (Jos_21:24; 1Ch_6:54), is described in the Onom. (s. v.) as villa praegrandis in duodecimo milliario Diospoleos pergentibus Eleutheropolin, - a statement which points to the neighbourhood of Thimnah, though it has not yet been discovered.

46 Me Jarkon and Rakkon, with the area facing Joppa.

BAR ES, "Japho (the modern Jaffa, or Yafa), elsewhere (see the margin) called Joppa, is often mentioned in the history of the Maccabees and was, as it still is, the leading port of access to Jerusalem both for pilgrims and for merchandise. It is a very ancient town.

CLARKE, "Japho - The place since called Joppa, lying on the Mediterranean, and the chief sea-port, in the possession of the twelve tribes.

GILL, "And Mejarkon, and Rakkon,.... Of the two first of these we read no where else.

with the border before Japho; Japho is the same with Joppa, now called at this day Jaffa, a port in the Mediterranean sea, famous for being the place where Jonah took shipping; see Gill on Jon_1:3; and where the Apostle Peter resided some time; see Gill on Act_9:36; and See Gill on Act_9:38. It is not certain whether Joppa itself was in the tribe of Dan, or only on the borders of it; the coast of Dan reached "over against" it, as it may be rendered, and included the villages and little cities that were near it; for such there were, as Josephus (b) testifies.

K&D,"Jos_19:46Me-jarkon, i.e., aquae flavedinis, and Rakkon, are unknown; but from the clause

which follows, “with the territory before Japho,” it must have been in the neighbourhood of Joppa (Jaffa). “The territory before Japho” includes the places in the environs of Joppa. Consequently Joppa itself does not appear to have belonged to the territory of Dan, although, according to Jdg_5:17, the Danites must have had possession of this town. Japho, the well-known port of Palestine (2Ch_2:15; Ezr_3:7; Jon_1:3),

which the Greeks called dόππη (Joppa), the present Jaffa (see v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 204-5, and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 574ff.).

COKE, "Ver. 46. Me-jarkon,—Rakkon,—Japho— Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, that is Jarkon-Japho. Hiller. Onomast. 915. The two first are unknown; but were probably situated near Japho. This city, known afterwards by the name of Joppa, was the principal sea-port town in all Judeaea, and mentioned as such by Pomponius Mela, Strabo, and Pliny; indeed, it continues to be so to this day, being now called Jaffa, a name which in the Hebrew signifies fair or beautiful. The author does not (as Eusebius seems to have understood him) say positively, that Japho was given to the Danites; he only says, that their portion extended to the lands which lay opposite those which belonged to this city.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:46

Before. Or opposite. Japho. The Joppa of the ew Testament, and the modern Jaffa. It is called Joppa in 2 Chronicles 2:16, in Ezra 3:7, and in the book of Jonah (Jonah 1:3), in an which places it is mentioned as a famous seaport, a position it still maintains, being still, as it was of old, the port of Jerusalem. The LXX. and Vulgate have Joppa here, and it is unfortunate that our translators, in this instance only,

should have adhered to the Hebrew form. Joppa appears to have been an important city in the time of the Maccabees (see 1 Macc 10:75, 76; and 2 Macc 4:21). Its mention in the ew Testament as the place where St. Peter's vision occurred will be known to all. The name signifies "beauty," though Joppa does not seem to be distinguished above all other places in Palestine by the beauty of its situation. But according to Hovers, Japho signifies in Phoenician, "high place." It is certainly built on a range of terraces above the sea, but the term "high place" would seem unsuitable. The soil is very productive, and it is "the only harbour in Central Palestine" (Ritter).

47 (When the territory of the Danites was lost to them, they went up and attacked Leshem, took it, put it to the sword and occupied it. They settled in Leshem and named it Dan after their ancestor.)

BAR ES, "The words “too little” are an insertion of the King James Version Render rather, “the border of the children of Dan was extended.” The Hebrew appears to mean “the children of Dan enlarged their border because they had not room enough.”

The reason of this was that the Danites, a numerous tribe (Num_26:5 note), found themselves Jdg_1:34-35 cooped up among the hills by the powerful and warlike Amorites. Hence, the Danite expedition (see the marginal reference), which surprised the Sidonion inhabitants of Leshem, an unwarlike and peaceable race, exterminated them, and annexed their city and territory to the portion of Dan.

CLARKE, "Went out too little for them - This is certainly the meaning of the passage; but our translators have been obliged to add the words too little to make this sense apparent. Houbigant contends that an ancient copyist, meeting frequently with the

words ויצאהגבול vaiyetse�haggebul, in the preceding history, became so familiarized to

them that he wrote them here instead of ויאץ�הגבול vaiyaats�haggebul, and the border of the children of Dan was Strait for them. It was on this account that they were obliged to go and fight against Leshem, and take and possess it, their former inheritance being too strait for their increasing population.

And called Leshem, Dan - This city was situated near the origin of Jordan, at the utmost northern extremity of the promised land, as Beer-sheba was at that of the south; and as after its capture by the Danites it was called Dan, hence arose the expression from Dan even to Beer-sheba, which always signified the whole extent of the promised land.

Some suppose that Leshem was the same with Caesarea Philippi, but others with reason reject this opinion. It must be granted that the whole account given in this verse refers indisputably to a fact which did not take place till after the death of Joshua. It is another of the marginal or explicative notes which were added by some later hand. The whole account of this expedition of the Danites against Leshem is circumstantially given in the book of Judges, chapter 18, and to that chapter the reader is referred.

GILL, "And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them,.... Being a very numerous tribe, the cities allotted them were not sufficient for them; or rather, leaving out the supplement "too little", the words will run, it "went out from them"; they lost part of it, being driven out of the valley into the mountain by the Amorites, Jdg_1:34; which obliged them to seek out elsewhere for habitations:

therefore the children of Dan went out to fight against Leshem; called Laish, Jdg_18:1, where the whole story is related of their lighting against this place and taking it; which, though some time after the death of Joshua, is here recorded to give at once an account of the inheritance of Dan; and which is no argument against Joshua's being the writer of this book, as is urged; since it might be inserted by another hand, Ezra, or some other inspired man, for the reason before given:

and took and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it,

and dwelt therein; being a Canaanitish city, they put all in it to the sword, as the Lord had commanded, and took possession of it for an habitation:

and called Leshem Dan, after the name of Dan their father; this is the place which is always meant, where the phrase is used "from Dan to Beersheba", Jdg_20:1, this being at the utmost northern border of the land of Canaan, as Beersheba was at the further part of the southern coast of it. It was, according to Jerom (c), situated near Paneas, out of which the river Jordan flowed; and Kimchi on the text observes, their Rabbins (d) say, that Leshem is Pamias (i.e. Paneas), and that Jordan flows from the

cave of Pamias, and had its name שיודד�מדן because it descended from Dan; and so Josephus (e) says, that Panium is a cave under a mountain, from whence rise the springs of Jordan, and is the fountain of it; and Pliny also says (f), the river Jordan rises out of the fountain Paneas. This city was enlarged and beautified by Philip Herod, and he called it by the name of Caesarea Philippi, both in honour of Tiberius Caesar (g) and after his own name, by which name it goes in Mat_16:13; and is called in the Jerusalem Targum on Gen_14:14, Dan of Caesarea.

JAMISO , "the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem— The Danites, finding their inheritance too small, decided to enlarge its boundaries by the sword; and, having conquered Leshem (Laish), they planted a colony there, calling the new settlement by the name of Dan (see on Jdg_18:7).

K&D, "Jos_19:47-48

Besides this inheritance, the Danites of Zorea and Eshtaol went, after Joshua's death, and conquered the town of Leshem or Laish, on the northern boundary of Canaan, and

gave it the name of Dan, as the territory which was allotted to them under Joshua was too small for them, on account of their inability to drive out the Amorites from several of their towns (Jdg_1:34-35; Jdg_18:2). For further particulars concerning this conquest, see Judg 18. Leshem or Laish (Jdg_18:7, Jdg_18:27), i.e., Dan, which the Onom.describes as viculus quarto a Paneade milliario euntibus Tyrum, was the present Tell el Kadi, or el Leddan, the central source of the Jordan, to the west of Banjas, a place with ancient ruins (see Rob. iii. p. 351; Bibl. Res. pp. 390, 393). It was there that Jeroboam set up the golden calves (1Ki_12:29-30, etc.); and it is frequently mentioned as the northernmost city of the Israelites, in contrast with Beersheba, which was in the extreme south of the land (Jdg_20:1; 1Sa_3:20; 2Sa_3:10 : see also Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 207ff.).

BE SO , "Verse 47Joshua 19:47. The coast of Dan went out too little — The words too little are not in the Hebrew, where there is nothing that corresponds with them. The passage runs thus: The coast of the children of Dan went out from them; that is, they were dispossessed of it in some parts, or kept out of them by the former inhabitants; and we find, by 1:34, that the Amorites forced them into the mountains, and would not suffer them to dwell in the valley. This reduced them to such straits, that they were constrained to enlarge their border some other way; which they did as follows. They went up to fight against Leshem — A city not far from Jordan, called Laish in the book of Judges, before it was taken by the Danites. And called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father — It was customary for conquerors to change the names of those places they subdued. This was done with respect to Leshem, after the death of Joshua; and is related more largely in the book of Judges, chap. 18., where the whole expedition is recorded. From whence some have argued that this book was not written by Joshua; whereas no more can fairly be inferred, than that, in after times, Ezra, or some other, thought good to insert this verse here, in order to complete the account of the Danites’ possessions.

COKE, "Ver. 47. And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them: therefore, &c.— The words too little, are neither in the Hebrew, the LXX, nor the Vulgate. The text literally is, And the country of the children of Dan went cut from them. ow the phrase, went out from them, is naturally explained here by the manner in which it is used, Leviticus 25:28-33.; where, speaking of the year of jubilee, Moses says, that the estates went out from those who had acquired them, because they then passed into other hands; namely, of the proprietors who had alienated them to that period. In this place, therefore, in like manner, to say that the coast of the Danites went out from them, is saying that it passed partly into other hands than their own, or, in a word, was taken from them. In fact, their formidable neighbours, the Amorites, forced the Danites into the mountains, and would not suffer them to come down to the valley. See Judges 1:34. The city of Leshem (called in Judges 18:29. Laish,) was not far from Jordan. The Danites gave it their name after they had conquered it. In after-times, when it fell into the hands of the Romans, they called it Paneas, and made it the metropolis of Iturea and Trachonitis. Philip, the son of Herod the Great, afterwards repaired it, and, in compliment to Tiberius Caesar, gave it the name of Cesarea Philippi. This expedition against

Leshem was made after the death of Joshua. For more respecting it, see on Judeges 18.; where there is an account of the whole expedition. From this, as some insist, it appears, that this book was not written by Joshua; whereas no more can be inferred from it, than that in after-times this passage might be here inserted by Samuel or Ezra, or some other inspired writer, in order to complete the account of the Danites' possessions. It is very evident, that the present verse is not by the same pen with the rest of the book. But as the learned Bishop Huet observes, were the whole verse taken away, all that is said of this tribe would be perfectly coherent, and leave no breach at all in the context.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 47(47) And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them.—The words “too

little” are not in the original; and it seems better to translate literally: And the coast of the children of Dan went out from them—i.e., their territory was partly re-conquered by the Philistines. Something similar seems to have occurred in several districts of the country. The Israelites not taking advantage of the impression produced by Joshua’s great victories to occupy the territory assigned to them, the nations of Canaan re-possessed themselves of their former abodes. and held them against Israel. The Philistines are expressly said to have been left to prove Israel. Joshua was not permitted to exterminate them. And although Dan and Judah, numerically the two strongest of all the tribes (both in the census in the plains of Moab and at Sinai), were placed next to the Philistines, and had the task of conquering that nation assigned to them, still it was not effected. We read in Judges 1, “The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountains, for they would not suffer them to come down into the valley.”

Hence the Danites, instead of attacking the Philistines and Amorites in their inheritance, preferred to form a new settlement in the north, and put to the sword “a people quiet and secure,” who “had no deliverer,” rather than “run with patience the race set before them.” They were not minded to resist unto blood, striving against their foes. (See the narrative in Judges 18, especially Joshua 19:27-28.)

PETT, "Verse 47‘And the border of the children of Dan went out from them. And the children of Dan went up and fought against Leshem, and took it and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt in it. And they called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father.’This note was not a part of the original surveyor’s report, being added as a comment by the writer. ‘Went out from them’ may signify that they were unable to expand to their borders, and were prevented from doing so. That is how LXX sees it (see below). The great constraint they were under comes out in their subsequent action. Many of them forsook the land God had given them and sought a better land, although some remained. This invasion of Laish (Leshem) is described more fully in Judges 17-18, and resulted in the setting up of the sanctuary of Dan. The whole disreputable story is recounted with obvious disapproval by the writer of

Judges.

Laish was at the foot of Mount Hermon by the source of the Jordan to the north of the promised land, probably modern Tell el-Qadi (‘the judges’ mound’). It had been settled since about 5000 BC and had been a wealthy city covering thirty acres, named in the Egyptian execration texts as rws, and in the Mari texts as Lasi. It was captured by Thutmose III. But it had allowed itself to become isolated and although it was reasonably strongly fortified with an earthen rampart, Dan ‘took it and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt in it’, renaming it Dan.

LXX places Joshua 19:48 immediately after verse 46 and then incorporates here material from Judges 1:34-35. It says ‘and the children of Dan did not drive out the Amorite who afflicted them in the mountain, and the Amorite would not allow them to come down into the valley, but they forcibly took from them the border of their portion. And the sons of Dan went and fought against Lachis, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and they dwelt in it, and called the name of it Lasendan. and the Amorite continued to dwell in Edom and in Salamin: and the hand of Ephraim prevailed against them, and they became tributaries to them.’

This whole incident brings home how difficult the Israelites were finding it when they sought to settle the valleys and plains where the Canaanites dwelt in comparatively large numbers. Joshua’s victories had weakened Canaanite resistance but it had not destroyed it, and the delay in taking advantage of them had enabled Canaanite resistance to harden.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:47

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

48 These towns and their villages were the inheritance of the tribe of Dan, according to its clans.

GILL, "This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Dan,.... Before described by its cities, which were in it. This tribe was bounded by Ephraim on the north, by Judah on the east, by Simeon on the south, and by the Mediterranean sea on the west. Josephus (h) says, the Danites enjoyed the vale which lies to the setting sun, bounded by Azotus and Doris, and all Jamnia and Getta, from Accaron (or Ekron) to the mountain from whence the tribe of Judah begins:

according to their families; which inheritance was distributed according to the number of their families:

their cities with their villages; before named.

COKE, "Ver. 48. This is the inheritance of—Dan, &c.— The Danites mustered 64,400 men of war in the numbering which was made of the tribes in the plains of Moab; umbers 26:43. The tribe of Judah only exceeded them. They found themselves, however, placed in a country which seemed very narrow, in comparison of that which was occupied by less numerous tribes; but, not to mention that the Danites could not take the whole territory which had been given them, Judges 18:1 and that the Philistines on the one hand, and the Amorites on the other, stood their ground, we are to consider that their country was very fruitful, and so conveniently situated within reach of the sea, as to afford them the advantages of commerce; of which we learn from Judges 5:7 they failed not to make a proper use. Samson, the scourge of the Philistines, was of this tribe.

PETT, "Verse 48‘This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Dan, according to their families, these cities with their villages.’Here we have the official seal on the allotment to Dan, as found after the inheritance of each tribe has been delineated. This was their inheritance, and it was a prosperous one, but they failed through weakness and lack of faith to take possession of it.

Allotment for Joshua

49 When they had finished dividing the land into its allotted portions, the Israelites gave Joshua son of un an inheritance among them,

GILL, "And when they made an end of dividing the land for inheritance by their coasts,.... That is, Eleazar, Joshua, and the ten men appointed for this, purpose; when all the lots were drawn, and the several inheritances which came up to them were divided among the families of the respective tribes, this work being finished:

the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of Nun among them; most interpreters observe the modesty of Joshua, that though the oldest and the greatest man in the nation, the chief governor, yet had his inheritance last of all; nor did he take any part to himself, it was given to him by the people, who had the whole land divided among them; in which he was a type of Christ; see 2Co_8:9 Phi_2:6.

HE RY 49-51, "Before this account of the dividing of the land is solemnly closed up, in the last verse, which intimates that the thing was done to the satisfaction of all, here is an account of the particular inheritance assigned to Joshua. 1. He was last served, though the eldest and greatest man of all Israel, and who, having commanded in the conquest of Canaan, might have demanded the first settlement in it for himself and his family. But he would make it to appear that in all he did he sought the good of his country, and not any private interest of his own. He was content to be unfixed till he saw them all settled; and herein is a great example to all in public places to prefer the common welfare before their particular satisfaction. Let the public be first served. 2. He had his lot according to the word of the Lord. It is probable that, when God by Moses told Caleb what inheritance he should have (Jos_14:9), he gave the like promise to Joshua, which he had an eye to in making his election: this made his portion doubly pleasant, that he had it, not as the rest by common providence, but by special promise. 3. He chose it in Mount Ephraim, which belonged to his own tribe, with which he thereby put himself in common, when he might by prerogative have chosen his inheritance in some other tribe, as suppose that of Judah, and thereby have distinguished himself from them. Let no man's preferment or honour make him ashamed of his family or country, or estrange him from it. The tabernacle was set up in the lot of Ephraim, and Joshua would forecast not to be far from that. 4. The children of Israel are said to give it to him(Jos_19:49), which bespeaks his humility, that he would not take it to himself without the people's consent and approbation, as if he would thereby own himself, though major singulis - greater than any one, yet minor universis - less than the whole assemblage,and would hold even the estate of his family, under God, by the grant of the people. 5. It was a city that must be built before it was fit to be dwelt in. While others dwelt in houses which they built not, Joshua must erect for himself (that he might be a pattern of industry and contentment with mean things) such buildings as he could hastily run up, without curiosity or magnificence. Our Lord Jesus thus came and dwelt among us, not in pomp but poverty, providing rest for us, yet himself not having where to lay his head. Even Christ pleased not himself.

JAMISO , "Jos_19:49-51. The children of Israel give an inheritance to Joshua.

K&D, "Conclusion of the Distribution of the Land. - Jos_19:49, Jos_19:50. When the land was distributed among the tribes according to its territories, the Israelites gave

Joshua an inheritance in the midst of them, according to the command of Jehovah, namely the town of Timnath-serah, upon the mountains of Ephraim, for which he asked, and which he finished building; and there he dwelt until the time of his death (Jos_24:30; Jdg_2:9). “According to the word of the Lord” (lit. “at the mouth of Jehovah”) does not refer to a divine oracle communicated through the high priest, but to a promise which Joshua had probably received from God at the same time as Caleb, viz., in Kadesh, but which, like the promise given to Caleb, is not mentioned in the Pentateuch (see at Jos_15:13; Jos_14:9). Timnath-serah, called Timnath-heres in Jdg_2:9, must not be confounded with Timnah in the tribe of Dan (Jos_19:43; Jos_15:10), as is the case in the Onom. It has been preserved in the present ruins and foundation walls of a place called Tibneh, which was once a large town, about seven hours to the north of Jerusalem, and two hours to the west of Jiljilia, standing upon two mountains, with many caverns that have been used as graves (see Eli Smith in Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 562ff., and Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 141).

CALVI , "49.When they had made an end of dividing, etc We have here, at length, an account of the gratitude of the people towards Joshua. For although the partition of the land of Canaan, among the posterity of Abraham, behooved to be equitable, yet Joshua, by his excellent virtues, deserved some honorary reward. or could any complain that a single individual was enriched at their expense. For, first, in the delay there was a striking proof of the moderation of this holy servant of God. He does not give any heed to his own interest till the commonweal has been secured. How seldom do we find any who, after they have given one or two specimens of valor, do not forthwith make haste to the prey? ot so Joshua, who thinks not of himself till the land has been divided. In the reward itself also the same temperance and frugality are conspicuous. The city he asks to be given to himself and his family was a mere heap of stones, either because it had been demolished and converted into a heap of ruins, or because no city had yet been built upon it.

It is conjectured with probability, that with the view of making the grant as little invidious as possible, the city he requested was of no great value. If any one thinks it strange that he did not give his labor gratuitously, let him reflect that Joshua liberally obeyed the divine call, and had no mercenary feelings in undergoing so many labors, dangers, and troubles; but having spontaneously performed his duty, he behooved not to repudiate a memorial of the favor of God, unless he wished by perverse contempt to suppress his glory. For the grant voted to him was nothing else than a simple testimonial of the divine power, which had been manifested through his hand. Truly no ambition can be detected here, inasmuch as he desires nothing for himself, and does not rashly act from a feeling of covetousness, but seeks in the popular consent a confirmation of the honor which God had already bestowed upon him. To have been silent in such a case, would have been more indicative of heartlessness than of modesty. The statement in the concluding verse of the chapter, that Joshua and Eleazar made an end of dividing the land, points to the perpetuity of the boundaries, which had been fixed, and warns the children of Israel against moving in any way to unsettle an inviolable decree.

BE SO , "Verse 49

Joshua 19:49. When they had made an end of dividing the land — That is, after every tribe had had their respective portion assigned to them. The children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua — We cannot but admire the wonderful modesty of this great man, who received his portion last of all, and then, not by lot, but by their gift, who were already possessed of the whole land.

COFFMA , "Verse 49JOSHUA

"So they made an end for inheritance by the borders thereof, and the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of un in the midst of them according to the commandment of Jehovah they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnath-serah in the hill-country of Ephraim; and he built the city, and dwelt therein."

How noble it was on Joshua's part to wait until all the tribes had received their inheritances before he came forward to ask for his own. The exact location of this estate of Joshua is not known.

COKE, "Ver. 49. The children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua— How admirable is Joshua's moderation! every tribe had shared in the division; each had, as it were, its reward; and he alone seemed to be overlooked in the distribution of the conquered country: last of all, he receives a private settlement; not by lot, but from the tribes, as the gift of the people. Many things might be said upon this head, and many lessons of disinterestedness given to persons, who, elevated to the highest offices, are thereby become depositaries of the public good.

CO STABLE, "Verse 49-50The inheritance of Joshua 19:49-50

Like Caleb, Joshua received a city, Timnath-serah (called Timnath-heres in Judges 2:9), within his tribal allotment of Ephraim, for being faithful to God.

"Caleb and Joshua were the two faithful spies who believed God was able to give Israel the land ( umbers 14:6-9; umbers 14:30). The receiving of their inheritances frames the story of the dividing of the land among the nine and a half tribes, with Caleb"s at the beginning [ Joshua 14:6-15] and Joshua"s at the end. Caleb and Joshua are living examples of God"s faithfulness in fulfilling his promises made more than forty years earlier." [ ote: Madvig, p324.]

ELLICOTT, "(49, 50) When they had made an end . . . gave an inheritance to Joshua . . . according to the word of the Lord they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnath-serah in mount Ephraim (Kefr Hâris, sheet 14).—Historically and typically the fact is noticeable. (a) Historically. Joshua waited for his own inheritance until the last. He sought not his own interest, but that of the people. He asked no kingdom for himself or his family, only a city, which he built, and dwelt therein. (6) Typically. “They gave him the city which he asked, according to the

word of the Lord.” What does this mean in the case of the true Joshua? “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.” He must reign till God hath put all enemies under His feet. Then, and not till then, will He take His own personal inheritance, and be subject to Him that put all things under Him. Timnath-serah means an abundant portion, a portion of abundance. Though small, it was enough for Joshua. It will be enough for his Antitype, when “He shall see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied.” It is afterwards called Timnath-heres, the portion of the Sun. “His going forth is from the end of heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it, and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.”

PARKER, ""Handfuls of Purpose"

For All Gleaners

"... the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of un among them."— Joshua 19:49

Joshua had rights of his own, and could have claimed such rights; but beyond rights which a man may claim are still more precious rights which are accorded to him by the conscience and generosity of the community.—This is the very law of divine providence.—The fact that we are born into the world is a fact which brings with it certain natural rights, in the absence of which we should hardly be men at all. But this is not the limit of the divine bounty. Beyond all that is merely legal and necessary there is a region of grace, of large and happy dowry, showing not only the bare justice, but the sweet mercy of the rule under which we live.—In a social sense it is true that we might get more if we claimed less.—Joshua lived a noble life amongst his people, and carried out his function of leadership with obvious justice and disinterestedness, and it is beautiful to observe how the people seem to have recognised this by their willing concession to him of an inheritance by their coasts.—This should be true in all family life. Obedience is due to parents by an unwritten law, as well as by formal decree; but beyond obedience there lies the whole region of voluntary testimony and service. Blessed is he who gives his parent an inheritance in that wide region!—The same thing should be true in commercial relations: there should be something more than a bond: where the bond is carried out loyally on both sides Duty will gracefully take upon itself any crown which Gratitude may be disposed to place upon its head.—This should be also true ecclesiastically: men who have laboured in season and out of season for the good of others ought not to be forgotten in the time of audit and general winding up of life and service, but should have accorded to them all possible honour in view of a life unstained by sin, and crowded with acts of beneficence and sacrifice.—The charm of some possessions lies in the spirit which dictated their ownership.—It is a poor thing to have only those possessions which are bought and sold, and on which merely commercial lines are inscribed; such things, of course, every man must have; but the things which are written all over with love and thankfulness are infinitely more precious, and in an obvious sense are even more enduring.— o man begrudged Joshua his city in mount Ephraim: every one felt that the city was due to

the brave captain and obedient saint.—It is well when our honours are doubled by the recognition of their desert by those who know us best.—The Well-done of the Master constitutes the best part of heaven.—To go into heaven even as a mere act of justice is to deprive the holy city of its most fascinating charm. It is because the city is given with the Well-done of its King that residence in it becomes the final and eternal joy of the soul.

PETT, "Verse 49-50‘So they made an end of distributing the land for inheritance by their borders, and the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of un among them. According to the commandment of YHWH they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnath-serah in the hill country of Ephraim, and he built the city and dwelt in it.’The land having been distributed by lot for the Israelite tribes to proceed with settling it, Joshua then received his own portion in Ephraim. ‘The commandment of YHWH’ may suggest that this too was by lot or by Urim and Thummim (but see Joshua 14:6; Joshua 14:9).

For Timnath-serah see also Joshua 24:30, but Judges 2:9 has Timnath-heres. It may be that the consonants were switched around in Joshua to avoid the reference to Heres (sun) because the writer did not want Joshua’s name connected with sun worship. It is possibly Khirbet Tibneh, twenty seven kilometres (seventeen miles) south west of Shechem, which lies on the south side of a deep ravine (see Joshua 24:30). ‘Built the city’ probably means that he fortified it. o one was more aware than he of the difficulties that lay ahead.

The painstaking work of dividing up the land had now been accomplished, with the different tribes each allotted the portion which it was their responsibility to conquer, and settle, and from which they were to drive out the inhabitants. It was not a task that would be accomplished easily. The hill country had been made safe but the valleys and plains would take longer. They were infested with Canaanite cities, and the arrival of the Philistines in force would make it even more difficult. It would slowly proceed by taking and settling in weaker cities, settling in cleared forest land, and gradually expanding and taking advantage of every opportunity as it arose. But they were intended to ever keep before their eyes their responsibility to drive out the Canaanites, although it would not be accomplished all at once (Exodus 23:28-30. See also Exodus 33:2; Exodus 33:5; Exodus 34:11-13; umbers 33:52-56). Joshua had done the work of ‘softening up’ but possession would take longer. They were no longer one great, victorious army, but a people seeking to permanently establish themselves in the land in smaller groups. Without that they could not possess the whole land. But what they had not to do was fraternise with the people of the land, for Canaanite society and religion was debased.

To begin with they went about the task faithfully (Judges 2:6-7), but it would not be long before they began to compromise, neglect their unity in the covenant with YHWH, settle among the Canaanites, fraternise with them, and forget their main responsibility, the clearing from the land of those very Canaanites.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:49

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

PULPIT, "HOMILIES BY R. GLOVERJoshua 19:49

Joshua's portion.

"When they had made an end of dividing the land," Joshua gets his share. ot first, as kings usually do, but last. When all are helped, then comes his turn. Though he waits longest, yet it does come to him. And when it does come it is all the more welcome from being well earned. Observe two or three things that are thus brought before us.

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

"Love thyself last: let all the ends thou aim'st at

Be thy country's, God's, and Truth's."

And the still small voice of sacred honour within him did not speak in vain. Like as in a sinking ship, a brave captain is the last to leave her and seek for safety, so Joshua elects to be the last served. All the best bits of the country others eagerly go in for. Joshua sees it disposed of by lot, but is not moved by the sight of its going to envy others, nor does he catch any greed from the contagion of their example. Quite calm, feeling rich in enriching others, at rest in giving others rest, he has rewards above any freehold, and joys above any wealth. There is here an example all ought to follow. The insistance on our rights is sometimes a duty. In the interest of others we may be obliged to resist and dispute injustice. But such insistance ought always

to be practised with regret, and avoided wherever possible. The precept requiring us to give the cloak to him who covets the coat certainly inculcates the surrender of rights wherever any moral advantage can accrue from it. For our own sake, to keep the soul in proper and worthy mood, we ought to cultivate this honourableness that thinks of something sublimer than its private rights. And for the sake of others also, for honour is one of the subtlest, but the strongest, forces of good anywhere existent. It allures men to a better way, charms them to integrity, is a root of brotherliness and peace. Especially should all leaders of their fellows cultivate this honour. It is not too common amongst either sovereigns or statesmen. Men are apt to forget that selfishness is vulgar, whether it seeks to get a throne, in ambition, or to keep its halfpence in sordid avarice. All selfishness is mean; and in the great it is greatly mischievous. It breeds civil wars; it corrupts the patriotism of a people; it prevents the rise of that confidence in the justice and the patriotism and the wisdom of the rulers which gives the nations rest. In leaders in smaller circles—boroughs, churches—there is the same scope for this high principle. Israel was blessed in this, that its most unselfish man was its leader. And he who was highest in place was highest in honour. Secondly observe—

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

III. THE I HERITA CE GOT BY DESERT, A D HELD WITHOUT BEI G E VIED, IS THE PERFECTIO OF A LOT. ot all riches comfort us. Ill-gotten riches curse us. Riches gotten by others and passed on to us are insipid. Wealth gathered by penury is a burden. But the lot that comes as the reward of diligence, consecration, honour, has a special sweetness, and the man who gets it has a special power of enjoying it. Especially when it is ungrudged; no neighbour coveting it; no

peasant thinking that by right it should be his; all men glad to see it in such worthy hands. We shall do well to resolve that we will have no fortune and no inheritance which ages not in its way resemble TIM ATH-SERAH.—G.

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADE EYJoshua 19:49, Joshua 19:50

Joshua's inheritance.

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

II. JOSHUA'S I HERITA CE WAS GIVE ACCORDI G TO A DIVI E PROMISE. True devotion is founded on unselfish motives. Yet the prospect of reward is added by God's grace as an encouragement. Christ looked forward to His reward (Hebrews 12:2). We are only guilty of acting from low motives when the idea of personal profit is allowed to conflict with duty, or when it is the chief motive leading us to perform any duty.

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

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

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

50 as the Lord had commanded. They gave him the town he asked for—Timnath Serah[d] in the hill country of Ephraim. And he built up the town and settled there.

BAR ES, "Nothing is said of any express command of God respecting the inheritance of Joshua. But as such special portion appears to have been promised to Caleb at the time when he and Joshua alone out of the twelve spies remained faithful Jos_14:6-9, it is probable that a like promise was made to Joshua. The name of the place is also written Timnath-heres Jdg_2:9, by a transposition of the letters. The rabbinical explanation that the name Timnath-heres (i. e. “portion of the sun”) was given because a representation of the sun was affixed to the tomb in memory of Joshua’s command to the sun to stand still, appears to be an afterthought. The name Timnath-serah (“portion that remains”) was perhaps conferred on the spot in consequence of its being allotted to Joshua, the last allotment made in the whole distribution of his conquests. The site has been conjectured to be “Tibneh,” a village about five miles north-west of Lydda (or, by Conder, Kerr Hares, nine miles south of Nablous).

CLARKE, "Timnath-serah - Called Timnath-heres in Jdg_2:9, where we find that the mountain on which it was built was called Gaash. It is generally allowed to have been a barren spot in a barren country.

GILL, "According to the word of the Lord,.... Or mouth of the Lord; either according to the oracle of Urim and Thummim, which Eleazar consulted on this occasion; or according to what the Lord had said to Moses, at the same time that Hebron was ordered to Caleb, Jos_14:6; and

they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnathserah in Mount Ephraim; he chose a place in his own tribe, for he was of the tribe of Ephraim; and it seems that what he chose was none of the best of places; for Paula, as Jerom (i) relates, when she travelled into those parts, wondered that the distributor of the possessions of the children of Israel should choose such a rough and mountainous place for himself; of its situation, see Jos_24:30,

and he built the city, and dwelt therein; he rebuilt it, and fitted it for his own

habitation, and for those that belonged to him. (Timnathserah means "an abundant portion" or "a place in the sun". Joshua great reward was in seeing the promises of God fulfilled before his very eyes Jos_21:45 and the children of Israel serving the Lord's during his lifetime Jos_24:31. Joshua may have received but a small inheritance in the promised land but this was just an earnest of his future glorious inheritance in eternity. The saints of God have the best portion saved for the last Joh_2:10 whereas the worldling has his best portion now; his worst is yet to come. Editor.)

JAMISO , "According to the word of the Lord they gave him the city which he asked— It was most proper that the great leader should receive an inheritance suited to his dignity, and as a reward for his public services. But the gift was not left to the spontaneous feelings of a grateful people. It was conferred “according to the word of the Lord” - probably an unrecorded promise, similar to what had been made to Caleb (Jos_14:9).

Timnath-serah— or Heres, on Mount Gaash (Jdg_2:9). Joshua founded it, and was afterwards buried there (Jos_24:30).

BE SO , "Verse 50Joshua 19:50. According to the word of the Lord, they gave him the city which he asked — God indeed had ordered that he should have a portion, and that he himself should choose it; but he was content to stay for it till every one else was amply provided for. We do not expressly read of this command; but many particulars were said and done which are not recorded. And Joshua being as faithful and upright as Caleb, and chosen besides to be the captain of God’s people, we cannot but think, that when God ordered what Caleb should have, he gave the same direction with respect to Joshua: see Joshua 16:6. Even Timnath-serah in mount Ephraim —Joshua did not choose the best place in all the country, but a convenient one in his own tribe; which was seated on the north side of a hill called Gaash, as we read in the latter end of this book. And he built the city and dwelt therein — Repaired it, we suppose, (for in all probability there was a city in that situation before,) and made a convenient habitation for his family and relations. But we read nothing of them afterward; for as he did not affect to make himself king of Canaan, so he contented himself with a moderate allotment, and made no large provision for his posterity.

COKE, "Ver. 50. According to the word of the Lord, they gave him the city which he asked— The commands of God, upon this occasion, which probably were signified by the mouth of Eleazar, the high-priest, or at the time when provision was made for Caleb, ch. Joshua 14:6 had authorised Joshua to choose whatever district should please him in the land of Canaan, to be possessed by him as his own property: this great general, however, postponed his claim till every one was settled; and then what is his choice? Timnath-serah in mount Ephraim: too modest to think of appropriating to himself the best part of the country, he not only shuts himself up in his own tribe, but chooses precisely the roughest, most uncultivated, and, at first, most difficult spot thereabout. See ch. Joshua 17:18. Timnath-serah seems to have been an old cattle or village, standing north of the mountain called Gaash, chap.

Joshua 24:30.

He built the city, and dwelt therein— He fitted up the ruins, built a new city, and, as we may suppose, by cutting down the forests which covered the mountain every where about, made the place both strong, and respectable for its height; and by that means, in other respects, a very agreeable station, according to the taste of the ancients, who were fond of building upon high places. See Dionys. Halicarn. lib. i. c. 12. Here it was that Joshua settled with his family, concerning which we have no further information from the history: so true it is, that this great man neither thought of taking upon him the dignity of a sovereign, nor of aggrandizing his own house! The Scripture, as Pelican observes, says nothing of Joshua's sons or daughters, because he considered all the Israelites as his children.

ote; Joshua's dwelling-place was near the tabernacle: and in the choice of our dwelling, to be near a gospel-ministry should be the first recommendation.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:50

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

51 These are the territories that Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of un and the heads of the tribal clans of Israel assigned by lot at Shiloh in

the presence of the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting. And so they finished dividing the land.

CLARKE, "At the door of the tabernacle - All the inheritances were determined by lot, and this was cast before the Lord - every thing was done in his immediate presence, as under his eye; hence there was no murmuring, each having received his inheritance as from the hand of God himself, though some of them thought they must have additional territory, because of the great increase of their families.

GILL, "These are the inheritances which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun,.... The one the high priest, and the other the chief governor of the nation:

and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel; the princes appointed for this service, whose names are given Num_34:18; the inheritances before described in the preceding chapters by their boundaries and cities, these the said persons

divided for an inheritance by lot in Shiloh; and so has particular reference to the seven lots drawn there for seven of the tribes, by which their inheritances were assigned to them: and this was done

before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation; see Jos_18:1,

so they made an end of dividing the country; though it was not as yet wholly subdued.

JAMISO , "These are the inheritances— This verse is the formal close of the section which narrates the history of the land distribution; and to stamp it with due importance, the names of the commissioners are repeated, as well as the spot where so memorable a transaction took place.

K&D, "Closing formula to the account of the distribution of the land, which refers primarily to Jos_18:1., as the expression “in Shiloh” shows, but which also includes Josh 14-17.

BE SO , "Verse 51Joshua 19:51. These are the inheritances, &c. — Upon the whole of this division of

the land, it deserves our remarking, that the lot fell to the several tribes just as Jacob and Moses had foretold. And this division served to keep up the distinction of tribes, which was to continue till the coming of the Messiah. And we may observe further, that God had expressly named, some years before, as we find by umbers 34:17-29, the very persons who should divide the land unto the children of Israel, and expressly described the bounds how far every way the land reached which was to be divided by them.

COFFMA , "Verse 51"These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of un, and the heads of the fathers houses of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance by lot in Shiloh before Jehovah, at the door of the tent of meeting. So they made an end of dividing the land."

The division of Canaan among the tribes was conducted in all fairness and in such a manner as absolutely to preclude any charges of partiality or deceit.

The High Priest who presided over the religion of Israel, the military leader of the nation, and the heads of the fathers' houses (the princes of Israel) were all present to oversee and conduct the casting of lots, which in all probability was done by Joshua. Many wonderful lessons should be drawn from this.

The very details and the perfect agreement of all these assignments with each other and with the larger record of the total boundaries assures the authenticity of the narrative. The forging of such a record as this would be an absolute impossibility. That the offices of holy religion were honored and respected in this important task is most evident in the presence of Eleazar. Today, it may be feared that our nation has forgotten God. His name is not even invoked in the public schools of the people, and even wars are declared and conducted apart from any consultation regarding "What is the will of God?" We wish to close this chapter by citing a quotation from Plummer:

"However much the Israelites may have quarreled among themselves, there is not a hint of dissatisfaction with the final distribution."[14]From this it is most evident that all Israel accepted the distribution as the gift of God and consented to receive their various portions as having been received from God Himself. This is the most powerful evidence of the truth and integrity of the entire Biblical narrative.

COKE, "Ver. 51. So they made an end of dividing the country— otwithstanding all the particulars of this division recorded in the present and foregoing chapters, it is impossible at this time to draw out a perfectly exact map of the land of Canaan, and the limits of each tribe. The country has undergone too many revolutions, and passed through too many hands, to allow us the gratification of describing the position of most of the places of which Joshua chiefly has preserved any account. The territories of the ten tribes, especially, cannot but be unknown in many respects; for, on the return of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin from Babylon,

they who came back found themselves hardly sufficient for re-peopling the single country of Judea; and it even required consideration how to afford Jerusalem a sufficient number of inhabitants: ehemiah 11. Thus it was the furthest from their thoughts to take any account of the provinces which the other ten tribes had been obliged to quit; and, the country being seized on by foreign nations, it became every day more difficult to mark out the precise limits of the land which had been possessed by each tribe. See Walton's Prolegom. and Shuckford's Connection, vol. 3: p. 417.

CO STABLE, "Verse 51The conclusion of the allotment19:51

Israel"s leaders completed this division of the land at Shiloh, the new location of the tabernacle.

"The gift of the land brought blessings not only to the nation as a whole and to the individual tribes. It also brought blessing to the faithful leader. God commanded Israel to reward the individual for his faithfulness. Thus the Deuteronomic understanding of blessing and curse is expressed not only on the corporate, but also on the individual level. This, too, stands as a source of encouragement to Israel through the years as many of her people become dispersed from the main body of the people of God." [ ote: Butler, p208.]

Readers of this section of the text (chs14-19) notice that the writer gave much more space to the first tribes he described and progressively less attention to the remaining tribes. There seem to be several reasons for this. First, he gave the tribes of Judah and Joseph special attention because Judah and Joseph received Jacob"s blessing and birthright respectively. This made them the preeminent tribes among the others. Second, Judah and Joseph therefore became more significant in the history of Israel as the nation matured, so the historical importance of their territories was greater than that of less influential tribes. Benjamin likewise became quite important, and this is probably a reason the writer gave this territory some attention. Third, the writer clearly did not intend that the listing of tribal boundaries and towns should be complete. His record of the allotment that each tribe received, considering all the tribes together, seems intended more to stress the faithfulness of God in giving Israel what He had promised. This purpose is especially clear in the listing of Simeon"s towns. Similarly, Moses chose only selected laws to record in Exodus through Deuteronomy to make certain impressions on the reader, not that these were the only laws that God gave His people.

PULPIT, "Joshua 19:51

At the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. The lots were drawn under Divine sanction. The ruler of the State and the ruler of the Church combined in this sacred act, hallowed by all the rites of religion, and confirmed by the presence and approbation of the heads or representatives of all the tribes. Accordingly, as has

been said above, we hear of no murmurings or disputings afterwards. However much the Israelites may have quarrelled among themselves, there is not a hint of dissatisfaction with the final distribution of territory. Three points may be noticed here—

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

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

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

PETT, "Verse 51‘These are the inheritances which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of un, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance by lot in Shiloh before YHWH, at the door of the Tent of Meeting. So they made an end of dividing the land.’This summarises Joshua 18:1 to Joshua 19:51 (see Joshua 14:1; Joshua 18:1). Eleazar was ‘the Priest’ at the central sanctuary, here called the Tent of Meeting, who was responsible for the use of Urim and Thummim and for casting lots before YHWH. Joshua was the Servant of Yahweh, successor to the great Moses. The heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel were princes from each tribe appointed for this service, whose names are given in umbers 34:18-29. It was their responsibility to arrange the distribution of the inheritances of the tribes.

This distribution took place before YHWH by lot at the door of the Tent of Meeting (the Tabernacle), beyond which the princes could not go, and which was now sited at Shiloh, see Joshua 18:1. Previously it had been at Gilgal (Joshua 14:2 with Joshua 14:6).