The second lot came out for Simeon, even for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families. Their inheritance was in the middle of the inheritance of the children of Judah. They had for their inheritance Beersheba (or Sheba), Moladah, Hazar Shual, Balah, Ezem, Eltolad, Bethul, Hormah, Ziklag, Beth Marcaboth, Hazar Susah, Beth Lebaoth, and Sharuhen; thirteen cities with their villages; Ain, Rimmon, Ether, and Ashan; four cities with their villages; and all the villages that were around 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 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 middle of their inheritance.
Parallel Translations
-
The second lot came out for Simeon, even for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families. Their inheritance was in the middle of the inheritance of the children of Judah.
They had for their inheritance Beersheba (or Sheba), Moladah,
Hazar Shual, Balah, Ezem,
Eltolad, Bethul, Hormah,
Ziklag, Beth Marcaboth, Hazar Susah,
Beth Lebaoth, and Sharuhen; thirteen cities with their villages;
Ain, Rimmon, Ether, and Ashan; four cities with their villages;
and all the villages that were around 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 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 middle of their inheritance.
-
And the second lot came forth to Simeon, even for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah.
And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, or Sheba, and Moladah,
And Hazar-shual, and Balah, and Azem,
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, Remmon, and Ether, and Ashan; four cities and their villages:
And all the villages that were round about these cities to Baalath-beer, Ramath of the south. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families.
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.
Show all 3 translations
-
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 with Sheba, and Moladah;
and Hazarshual, 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:
Ain, Rimmon, and Ether, and Ashan; four cities with their villages;
and all the villages that were round about these cities to Baalath-beer, as far as Ramah of the South. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families.
Out of the allotment 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.
Cross-references (23)
- Joshua 15:42 (v7) Libnah, Ether, Ashan,
- Joshua 19:9 (v1) 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…
- 1 Chronicles 4:28-30 (v2) They lived at Beersheba, Moladah, Hazarshual, at Bilhah, at Ezem, at Tolad, at Bethuel, at Hormah, at Ziklag,
- 1 Chronicles 4:33 (v8) and all their villages that were around the same cities, to Baal. These were their settlements, and they have their genealogy.
- 2 Corinthians 8:14-15 (v9) but for equality. Your abundance at this present time supplies their lack, that their abundance also may become a supply for your lack;…
Show all 22 cross-references
- Joshua 15:32 (vv6–7) Lebaoth, Shilhim, Ain, and Rimmon. All the cities are twenty-nine, with their villages.
- Genesis 21:31 (v2) Therefore he called that place Beersheba, because they both swore an oath there.
- Genesis 49:5-7 (v1) “Simeon and Levi are brothers. Their swords are weapons of violence. My soul, don’t come into their council. My glory, don’t be united to…
- Exodus 16:18 (v9) When they measured it with an omer, he who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack. They each gathered…
- Numbers 33:19-20 (v7) They traveled from Rithmah, and encamped in Rimmon Perez. They traveled from Rimmon Perez, and encamped in Libnah.
- Joshua 15:28 (v2) Hazar Shual, Beersheba, Biziothiah,
- Joshua 15:28-29 (v3) Hazar Shual, Beersheba, Biziothiah, Baalah, Iim, Ezem,
- Joshua 15:30 (v4) Eltolad, Chesil, Hormah,
- Joshua 15:31 (v5) Ziklag, Madmannah, Sansannah,
- Judges 1:17 (v4) Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they struck the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. The name of the city…
- 1 Samuel 27:6 (v5) Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day: therefore Ziklag belongs to the kings of Judah to this day.
- 1 Samuel 30:1 (v5) When David and his men had come to Ziklag on the third day, the Amalekites had made a raid on the South, and on Ziklag, and had struck…
- 1 Samuel 30:27 (v8) He sent it to those who were in Bethel, to those who were in Ramoth of the South, to those who were in Jattir,
- 1 Chronicles 4:31 (v5) at Beth Marcaboth, Hazar Susim, at Beth Biri, and at Shaaraim. These were their cities until David’s reign.
- 1 Chronicles 4:32 (v7) Their villages were Etam, Ain, Rimmon, Tochen, and Ashan, five cities;
- Nehemiah 11:26-30 (v2) in Jeshua, in Moladah, Beth Pelet, in Hazar Shual, in Beersheba and its towns, in Ziklag, in Meconah and in its towns, in En Rimmon, in…
- Joshua 18:6-11 (v1) You shall survey the land into seven parts, and bring the description here to me; and I will cast lots for you here before Yahweh our God.…
22 distinct cross-references across this passage (23 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (22 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1, 9 Next followed the lot of the tribe of Simeon,…
Next 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.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 8, 9 According to Jacob’s prophecy, that he should be scattered…
According to Jacob’s prophecy, that he should be scattered among the other tribes, Gen. 49:7.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 9 Jos 19:1 And the second lot came forth to…
Jos 19:1 And the second lot came forth to Simeon, [even] for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah.
Ver. 1. Within the inheritance of the children of Judah.] The reason whereof, see Jos 19:9. And Judah yielded, as being rationis mancipium; - the wisdom from above is peaceable, gentle, and easy to be persuaded; - yea, {Jas 3:17} Judah parted afterwards with another fleece also. {Jos 19:40-41} Concedamus de nostro iure, ut careamus lite. {a}
Read full note →
{a} Augustine.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6 This was so ordered by God’s providence, partly, to…
This was so ordered by God’s providence, partly, to fulfil that threatening that he would
divide and scatter this tribe
Read full note →
in Israel, Gen 49:7, which was hereby done in part, because they had no distinct part of their own, but were as inmates to Judah; partly, because now upon the more exact survey of the land it appeared to Joshua and Eleazar and all the princes and people, even to the tribe of Judah themselves, that the part given to Judah did far exceed the proportion which either they needed and could occupy, or which the other tribes could expect; and partly, because this was the least of the tribes, as is evident from Num 26:11, and therefore fittest to be put within another tribe.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v1 Simeon's lot was drawn after Judah's, Joseph's, and Benjamin's,…
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. Ch2 15:9, out of Simeon they fell to Asa in abundance. It is good being in a good neighbourhood.
Read full note →
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 Ch1 4:39, etc.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–9 And the second lot came forth to Simeon,.... That…
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:
Read full note →
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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On v1 The lot of Simeon, ver. 1-9. Of Zebulon, ver.…
The lot of Simeon, ver. 1-9. Of Zebulon, ver. 10-16. Of Issachar, ver. 17-23. Of Asher, ver. 24-31. Of Naphtali, ver. 32- 39. Of Daniel, ver. 40-48. The inheritance assigned to Joshua and his family, ver. 49-51.
Within the inheritance of Judah - This was so ordered by God's providence, partly to fulfil that threatning that he would divide and scatter this tribe in Israel, Gen. xlix, 7, which was hereby done in part, because they had no distinct lot, but were as inmates to Judah; partly, because now upon the more exact survey of the land, it appeared, that the part given to Judah did far exceed the proportion which they needed, or which the other tribes could expect. And this was the least of the tribes, Num. xxvi, 14, and therefore fittest to be put within another tribe.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 The lot of Simeon, 1-9.
CHAPTER XIX
The lot of Simeon, 1-9.
Read full note →
Of Zebulun, 10-16.
Of Issachar, 17-23.
Of Asher, 24-31.
Of Naphtali, 32-39.
Of Dan, 40-48.
Joshua's portion, 49, 50.
The conclusion of the division of the land, 51.
NOTES ON CHAP. XIX
Verse 1. 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, Ge 34:25-31, Jacob, in the spirit of prophecy, foretold that they should be divided in Jacob, and scattered in Israel, Ge 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 Clarke on Ge 49:7.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On v1 Jos 19:1. The second lot came forth to Simeon…
Jos 19:1. The second lot came forth to Simeon — God disposed it so by an especial providence, Simeon being the eldest son of Jacob that was unprovided for. Their inheritance was within the inheritance of Judah — This also was ordered by God’s providence, partly to fulfil that threatening that he would divide and scatter this tribe in Israel, (Gen 49:7,) which was hereby done in part, because they had no distinct lot, but were as inmates to Judah; partly because now, upon the more exact survey of the land, it appeared that the part given to Judah did far exceed the proportion which they needed, or which the other tribes could expect. And this was the least of the tribes, (Num 26:14,) and therefore fittest to be put within another tribe.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On v1 The inheritance of Simeon was taken out of the…
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.
Jos 19:6
Read full note →
Thirteen - 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).
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv2, 4, 9 Juda. Thus was verified the prediction of Jacob, that…
Juda. Thus was verified the prediction of Jacob, that Simeon and Levi, who had been too much united for the destruction of Sichem, should be scattered among their brethren, Genesis xxxiv., and xlix. 6. The tribe of Simeon was not very numerous, Numbers xxvi. 14. Yet all his cities are not here enumerated, but only such as served to point out the limits. The Jews suppose that this tribe occupied the cities of Juda only as long as the latter pleased, and that it was driven out of them in the days of David, (1 Paralipomenon iv. 31.; Rabbins ap. Mas.) or at least under the reign of Ezechias, when it was forced to seek fresh settlements in Gador and Seir, 1 Paralipomenon v. 39. It was, however, led into captivity by Salmanasar along with the other nine tribes, in the sixth year of Ezechias, 4 Kings xvii. 6. The lot of Simeon was not in the centre of Juda, but only within his limits, (Calmet) either on the south, (Cellarius) or on the west side, (Calmet) or on both. (Haydock) --- And Sabee. This is the same town with the preceding, otherwise there would be 14 instead of 13, ver. 6. (Menochius) -- If this be not the case, we may give the same solution as chap. xv. 62.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 8, 9 SIMEON’S LOT, Jos_19:1-9.
SIMEON’S LOT, Jos_19:1-9.
1. Simeon… within the inheritance of Judah — As Judah’s lot was assigned first, when the Hebrews had larger expectations than they ever realized, it was very natural that they should assign too large a portion to Judah. This error is now discovered and rectified by carving Simeon’s lot out of Judah’s. Simeon’s inheritance, except the first thirteen cities, was not a compact territory, but it consisted chiefly of cities scattered about in Judah. Thus was fulfilled the prophetic declaration of Jacob respecting Simeon and Levi, that they should be “divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel.” Gen_49:5-7. “Simeon is the exact counterpart of Reuben. With Reuben he marched through the desert. As Reuben in the east, so Simeon in the west, blends his fortunes with those of the Arab hordes on the frontier, and dwindles away accordingly, and only reappears in the dubious but characteristic exploits of his descendant Judith.” — Stanley.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–9 Ch. Jos_19:1-9. The Territory of the Tribe of Simeon
Ch. Jos_19:1-9. The Territory of the Tribe of Simeon
1. And the second lot] drawn at Shiloh, fell to the tribe of Simeon, which, during the journey through the wilderness, marched on the south side of the Sacred Tent, with Reuben and Gad for its associates.
Read full note →
for the tribe of the children of Simeon] Two groups of cities are here enumerated, (a) First a group of thirteen or fourteen cities in the south, (b) a second group of four cities, of which two were situated in the south, two in the Shephêlah or “Lowlands” of Judah on the west.
within the inheritance of the children of Judah] Judah discovered that the tract allotted to him was too large (see Jos_19:9), and too much exposed to marauders on the west and south even for his great powers. To Simeon accordingly was allotted a district out of the territory of his kinsman, whose ancestor like his had been the child of Leah (Gen_35:23).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On v1 INHERITANCE OF SIMEON (Jos_19:1-9).
XIX.
INHERITANCE OF SIMEON (Jos_19:1-9).
Read full note →
(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 Jdg_1:3; Jdg_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—2Ch_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.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 9 Vers. 1-51. The completion of the work.
Vers. 1-51. The completion of the work.
The reflections suggested by this chapter are identical with those which have already occurred to us. They are, perhaps, emphasised by ver. 51, in which the solemn public division of the land is once more, and yet more plainly, declared to have taken place with the assent of the heads of Church and State, and to have been attended with a religious ceremony. Without pretending to say whose fault it is, or how such a desirable state of things may be once more attained, we may be allowed to lament that what was the rule with our forefathers before the Norman conquest is impossible now. No doubt the separation of ecclesiastical from civil jurisdiction which the Conqueror effected has been to a great extent the cause of this, as that measure was also the cause of an assumption of authority by ecclesiastics which was afterwards found to be intolerable. There should be no separation between the religious and civil interests of the community. Every man in the kingdom is, or ought to be, interested in its ecclesiastical arrangements. No single act of the State ought to be considered as outside the sphere of religious influence. At the same time we must remember that the present state of things is the natural result of religious freedom, a freedom which Christ Himself proclaimed, (Joh_18:36) but which was unknown to His Church for many centuries, as also to the Jews before He came. (Gen_17:14 Exo_12:15 Exo_30:33, 38 31:14 Lev_7:20, Lev_7:27, etc.) As has been already intimated, an example which cannot be fulfilled in the letter may be fulfilled in the spirit. We may strive to hallow great national events with one heart and soul, though with different forms, waiting for the day when "our unhappy divisions" have ceased. We may, however, add one consideration derived from this chapter alone.
Read full note →
SELFISH AIMS OUGHT NOT TO INTRUDE INTO A GREAT CAUSE. This principle is illustrated
(1) by the conduct of Judah,
(2) by the conduct of Joshua.
The rule of the world is
(1) to covet power and possessions, and
(2) that the successful conqueror has a right to be first considered in the division of the spoil.
Observe how completely the narrative of this chapter implicitly rebukes a view of things which is assumed as a matter of course in the ordinary concerns of the world. In past history we read of the greed of individuals and nations for the annexation of territory, and of the wars and bloodshed thus caused. It has been a maxim that any ruler or any nation may, and ought to, add to its territories if it can, without much regard to the principles of justice or the general good. A man, it is still believed, may heap to himself possessions in land or money as much as he chooses, and would be a fool if he did not. The first of these doctrines has only lately begun to be questioned among us. The second is still an established principle of action. Yet Judah voluntarily surrendered its territory to Simeon for the national welfare. And Joshua takes care that every one is served before himself. It is this marvellous self abnegation on the part of the leader of a military expedition, unparalleled until Christianity came into the world, that is the best proof of the claim of the Mosaic dispensation to have been Divine. Cases like those of Cincinnatus cannot be adduced in refutation of this argument. His position is in no way parallel to that of the leader of an expedition like Joshua"s. Such utter self abandonment as was displayed by Moses and Joshua marks them out as men fifteen or twenty we might perhaps say thirty centuries before their age. The invasion of Canaan has been declaimed against as cruel; but its cruelty was at least the fruit of a moral idea, a righteous indignation against an obscene and ferocious religion, which was itself the cause of infinite misery to mankind; while Joshua"s cruelty was kindness itself compared to the revolting atrocities recorded at their own instance by the Eastern conquerors of old, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Moabite. We hear ad nauseam of the impossibility of God"s ordering the slaughter of the unoffending Canaanites (see this subject further discussed in the Introduction). We hear nothing of the high morality, the sublime disinterestedness, the devotion to a grand and sublime ideal which characterised the giver of the Law and the conqueror of Canaan. Such characters have been rare since Christ came into the world. Save the two great men whom we have just known, they were unknown before it.
THE LOT OF THE REMAINING TRIBES.
And their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah. Literally, in the midst of ana meson , LXX; in medio, Vulgate (cf. ver. 9). Simeon, at the last census, (Num_26:14) was the smallest of the tribes of Israel, a fulfilment of the prophecy of Jacob, and possibly the result of the command given in Num_25:5, since the Simeonites were the chief offenders on that occasion. (Num_25:14; see also 1Ch_4:27) The distribution of territory was in accordance with this, and it is possible that the lot only determined the priority of choice among the tribes. The territory of Judah seems to have been recognised as too large, in spite of the importance of the tribe. They therefore willingly gave up a portion of their territory to the Simeonites.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v1 The part of the children of Judah was too…
Jos_19:1-51
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.
Read full note →
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 Jacobs well and his ancestor Josephs 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 Joshuas 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.)
.
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 Jos_19:1-9. THE INHERITANCE OF SIMEON.—The cities of this tribe…
THE INHERITANCE OF THE REMAINING TRIBES
CRITICAL NOTES
Read full note →
Jos_19:1-9. THE INHERITANCE OF SIMEON.—The cities of this tribe have already been noticed under chap. Jos_15:26-32; Jos_15:42. With the exception of Ether and Ashan, which were in the Shephelah, they were all situated in the south land of Judah, though it is not certain that even the larger group formed a continuous district. This accords with the prophecy of Jacob (Gen_49:7). Another list of the cities of Simeon is given in 1Ch_4:28-32. There Sheba seems merged in Beer-sheba, making the number of cities thirteen, as stated in Jos_19:6. In the days of Hezekiah, Simeon annexed more territory to the south (1Ch_4:39-43).
Jos_19:1. The second lot] i.e., the second lot taken after the removal to Shiloh.
Jos_19:4. Bethul] Called “Bethuel” in the list in Chronicles, and probably the same as “Chesil,” in chap. Jos_15:30.
Jos_19:5. Bethmarcaboth and Hazar-susah] These are thought to be the same as “Madmannah and Sausannah,” in chap. Jos_15:31.
Jos_19:6. Thirteen cities] Fourteen are named here, but only thirteen in the verses in Chronicles. See the remark above.
Jos_19:8. Ramath of the south] Called “Ramoth” in 1Sa_30:27. The pl. form employed in the latter passage seems to indicate at least two or three of these lofty places, thus called “heights of the Negeb,” or “heights of the south,” of which Baalath-beer ( = “having a well”) may have been one. In 1Ch_4:33, Ramath is not named, and from the way in which it is mentioned here, without the conjunction, both names may have belonged to the same place, which was possibly the principal of these Ramoth, or heights, of the Negeb. The “Bealoth,” in chap. Jos_15:24, suggests that the name Baal was also used sometimes for this small group of two or three cities or villages on these hills of the south land.
Jos_19:10-16. THE INHERITANCE OF ZEBULUN.—Jacob and Moses had spoken of Zebulun as dwelling “at the haven of the sea,” and as being enriched by “the abundance of the seas, and of treasures hid in the sand.” Josephus (Ant. v. 1-22) says that “Zebulun’s lot included the land which lay as far as the Lake of Genesareth, and that which belonged to Carmel and the sea.” If the territory of the Manassites touched upon that of the tribe of Asher (cf. on chap. Jos_17:10), unless in some detached way, the land of Zebulun could not have extended continuously to the Mediterranean. It is possible that there may have been a portion of the sea-coast south of Cape Carmel possessed by Zebulun, although slightly disconnected from the main territory of the tribe by some narrow tongue of land near to Jokneam, where the inheritance of Manasseh “met together in Asher on the north.” The prophecies of Jacob and Moses, however, may not have been fulfilled till some later period.
Jos_19:10. Sarid] “All that can be gathered of its position is that it lay to the west of Chisloth-Tabor (Jos_19:12).” [Smith’s Bib. Diet.]
Jos_19:11. Maralah, etc.] “Maralah and Dabhesheth must both have been upon the east or south-east of Jokneam. Dabbesheth signifies a camel’s hump (Isa_30:6), and Masius conjectures, with great probability, that the city received its name ipso Carmeli gibbo, like the town of Gamala, which, according to Josephus, was so called from the resemblance borne by the hill, upon which it stood, to a camel.” [Keil.]
Jos_19:12. Chisloth-tabor] = “The flanks of Tabor.” It is supposed to be now identified in Iksâl, about two and a half miles to the west of Mount Tabor. Daberath] Called Dabareh in chap. Jos_21:28, and belonging to Issachar, the frontier line leaving it just within the territory of that tribe. It is now Deburich. Japhia] Thought to be the modern Jâfa, about two miles to the south of Nazareth.
Jos_19:13. Gittah-hepher] Otherwise written Gath-hepher. This was the birthplace of Jonah (2Ki_14:25), and is supposed to be the present el-Meshad, five miles N.E. of Nazareth. Goeth out to Remmon-methoar to Neah] Heb. = “goeth out to Rimmon which it assigned (lit., marked off) to Neah.” Robinson finds Rimmon in Rummanneh, about seven miles north of Nazareth. Neah has not been identified.
Jos_19:14. Compassed it on the north side to Hannathon] Meaning that the border thus turned round Neah on the north side, and went thence to Hannathon, now Kana el-Jelil, about nine miles north of Nazareth, and, according to Dr. Robinson, probably the Cana of our Lord’s first miracle. Jiphthah-el]—=“God opens.” Dr. Robinson suggested that Jiphthah-el is identical with Jotapata, now Jefat, a village in the mountains of Galilee, the valley being the Wady Abilîn.
Jos_19:15. And Kattath, etc.] This verse is evidently incomplete. The fourteenth verse closes the definition of the boundaries; the next proceeds with the names of the cities, and irrelevantly begins with the copulative. The cities are said to be twelve in number, whereas only five are mentioned. Keil’s argument for the omission of seven names of cities between Jos_19:14-15, seems conclusive. Kattath is not known. Nahallal is differently spelt in chap. Jos_21:35, and again in Jdg_1:30. For Shimron, cf. on chap. Jos_11:1. Idalah is unknown. Bethlehem has been identified in Beit-lahm, about six miles to the west of Nazareth. Some think that Ibzan was a native of this place, rather than of Bethlehem of Judah (cf. Jdg_12:8, marg.).
Jos_19:17-23. THE INHERITANCE OF ISSACHAR.—“The borders of the tribe of Issachar are not particularly noted by the author, having been given by him in connection with the other tribes, except the eastern part of the north border and the east border (Jos_19:22).” [Fay.] Several of the cities within the territory of Issachar were given to the half-tribe of Manasseh.
Jos_19:18. Jezreel] Famous in connection with Ahab and Naboth. Now Zerin. Chesulloth]—“The flanks,” or “loins.” Though this name is almost identical with the “Chisloth” of Jos_19:12, it seems hasty to conclude with Gesensius and others that they were the same place. The very character of the name suggests the probability of its reduplication, as even the same mountain might have “flanks” on either side, and more than one place on the same side which might appropriately bear the appellation. As Chesulloth is wanted to complete these sixteen cities of Issachar, it must be held, though unknown, to have been distinct from Chisloth-tabor, which was on the border of Zebulun, and probably belonged to that tribe. Chesulloth, on the other hand, is mentioned between Jezreel and Shunem, and should probably be sought six or seven miles south of Mount Tabor. Shunem] Mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome as Sulem, five miles south of Tabor; now Solam, “a village on the S.W. flank of Jebel Duhy, three miles north of Jezreel” [cf. Smith’s Bib. Dict.]
Jos_19:19. Haphraim] Possibly el-’Afûleh, about two miles west of Solam. Little or nothing is known of the remaining places in this and the two following verses, excepting En-gannim, which is probably the modern Jenîn, and which was given to the Gershonite Levites (chap. Jos_21:29).
Jos_19:22. The coast reacheth to Tabor] “The border struck Tabor,” etc. “In this the eastern part of the north border is given. The western point of beginning was Tabor, here probably not the mountain of this name, but a city lying on this mountain (Knobel and Keil), which was given to the Levites (1Ch_6:62).” [Fay.] Of the remaining two of these sixteen cities little is known, but Beth-shemesh is thought to be Bessum.
Jos_19:24-31. THE INHERITANCE OF ASHER.—It was said of Asher, “His bread shall be fat, and he shall yield royal dainties” (Gen_49:20); and again, “Let him dip his foot in oil” (Deu_33:24). In fulfilment of these predictions the tribe received its portion in the rich territory bordering on the Mediterranean, in the N.W. of Palestine. Furrer, as quoted by Fay, says, “Even yet there are in that region ancient olive trees, large gardens with all kinds of southern fruit trees, and green corn fields. From the Franciscan cloister at Accho, the eye sweeps eastward over the wide, fertile, grassy plains up to the mountains of Galilee.”
Jos_19:25. Helkath, etc.] Of the two cities first named nothing is known. Beten is said by Eusebius to have been eight miles east of Ptolemais, and to have been called, in his time, Bebeten.
Jos_19:26. Alammelech, etc.] “The name is preserved in the Wady el-Malek, which empties itself into the Kishon from the north-east.” [Fay.] Shihor-libnath] “According to the opinion of J. D. Michaelis, ‘the river of glass.’ i.e., Belus, from the sand of which glass was first made by the Phoenicians.” [Gcsenius.]
Jos_19:27. Beth-dagon, etc.] Little or nothing is known of the places named in this verse, excepting Cabul, which is still called Kabûl, and, according to Robinson, lies eight or nine miles east of Akka. If the twenty cities which Solomon gave to Hiram (1Ki_9:11-13) lay in this neighbourhood, and included this city, Hiram would have found his contemptuous name ready-made, and likewise an apparent reason for applying it to the district, other than one of manifest and direct offence. The contempt would be half-concealed and half-exposed, as he probably wished it to be. This seems borne out by 1Ki_9:14, and by Hiram’s continued transactions with Solomon.
Jos_19:28. Hebron, etc.] Hebron is otherwise spelt than the Hebron given to Caleb, and is thought to be the same as “Abdon” in chap. Jos_21:30 and 1Ch_6:74. Its site has not been found. Another Rehob is named in Jos_19:30, but both are unknown, though they must be distinguished from the Rehob to which the spies came, which was “as men come to Hamath” (Num_13:21), near Laish, and “far from Zidon” (Jdg_18:27-28). Kanah] This seems by the text to have been next to Zidon, and, if so, must be Ain Kana, about eight miles to the S.E. of Zidon, rather than the modern Kâna, about the same distance S.E. of Tyre. Unto great Zidon] This, though allotted to Asher, was not taken (Jdg_1:31).
Jos_19:29. Ramah] “Two places of this name have been discovered in the district allotted to Asher; the one about three miles to the east, and the other about ten miles south-east of Tyre.” [Smith’s Bib. Dict.] Tyre has been briefly noticed under chap. Jos_11:8. Hosah and Ummah, in the next verse, are not known. Achzib] This is now es-Zib; it is about nine miles to the north of Ptolemais. Aphek] Formerly supposed to be Afka, but since disputed by Reland, Keil, and others, as too far to the north.
Jos_19:32-39. THE INHERITANCE OF NAPHTALI.—This tribe had its portion almost side by side with Asher in the northern part of the land. The river Jordan formed its boundary on the west.
Jos_19:33. Heleph, etc.] All the places in this verse are unknown, saving that Zaanannim was near to Kedesh (cf. Jdg_4:11). Allon to Zaanannim] Heb. = “the oak by Zaanannim.” Adami, Nekeb] This should be read, Adami-nekeb = “Adami of the hollow,” or “of the pass.”
Jos_19:34. Aznoth-tabor] This city and Hukkok are also unknown. Judah upon Jordan] As there was a town of Asher in Manasseh (cf. on chap. Jos_17:7), and possibly, some have thought, (?) a town of Zebulon in the tribe of Asher (Jos_19:27), so there seems to have been a town of Judah in the territory of Naphtali. It is possible that this name may have originated from Jair’s connection with the tribe of Judah (cf. 1Ch_2:5; 1Ch_2:21-23), as supposed by von Raumer and others; but this can be regarded as little more than a guess. The name may have equally well arisen from any other similar or different association.
Jos_19:35. Ziddim, Zer] Neither place is known. Hammath] = “Warm baths.” The Talmud places it one mile from Tiberias. Josephus (Wars of the Jews, Jos_4:1-3) calls it Emmaus, which he interprets as meaning “a warm bath.” Probably Hammoth-dor (chap. Jos_21:32), and Hammon (1Ch_6:76), are the same place; but Hammath mnst not be confounded with Hamath in the Orontes valley. Rakkath] = “A shore.” According to the Rabbins, the site on which Herod built Tiberias, on the coast of the sea of that name. Chinnereth] This place, also, gave its name, in earlier times, to the Lake of Gennesareth (cf. on chap. Jos_11:2), but the site of it is not known. It was doubtless situated on the shore of the inland sea named after it. Adamah, etc.] Adamah is not known. Ramah was thought by Dr. Robinson to be Rameh, between Akka and the northern extremity of the lake. Hazor has been noticed under chap. Jos_11:1. It was, most likely, situated on “the high rocky slopes” near Lake Merom. “Hard by this height of Hazar, but commanding a nearer view of the plain, is the castle of Shubeibeh, the largest of its kind in the East, and equal in extent even to the pride of European castles at Heidelberg; built, as it would appear, in part by the Herodian princes, in part by Saracenic chiefs.” [Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine.]
Jos_19:37. Kedesh, etc.] Kedesh has been identified by Dr. Robinson with Kades, ten miles north of safed. Barak’s residence was in this place (Jdg_4:6). Little or nothing is known of the remaining places in this verse, or of those in the verse following.
Jos_19:40-48. THE INHERITANCE OF DAN.—The boundaries of this tribe, having already been defined in those of the neighbouring tribes of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Judah, are not again particularly stated.
Jos_19:41. Zorah, Eshtaol, and Ir-shemesh] The first two of these cities are named in chap. Jos_15:33, as having been originally allotted to Judah, as was also the case with Ir-shemesh, otherwise called Beth-shemesh (cf. chap. Jos_15:10, Jos_21:16), according to Keil.
Jos_19:42. Shaalabbin] Called Shaalbim in Jdg_1:35. It is now Selbit. Ajalon] Spelt sometimes, in A.V., Aijalon (chap. Jos_21:24), and sometimes as here, but without any corresponding variation in the Heb. text. Now Yâlo. Jethlah] “According to Knobel, contained in the Wady Atallah west of Yâlo.” [Fay.] It is not mentioned elsewhere.
Jos_19:43. Elon] Unknown. Thimnathah] = Timnah, for which, with Ekron, see on chap. Jos_15:10.
Jos_19:44. Eltekeh and Gibbe-thon] These cities were subsequently given to the Levites (chap. Jos_21:23). The sites have not been identified. Baalath] This “is to be distinguished from Baala or Kirjath-jearim (chap. Jos_15:9). It was built by Solomon (1Ki_9:18), and, according to Josephus (Ant. viii. 6. 1), who writes it Βαλέθ, stood near to Gezer.” [Keil.]
Jos_19:45. Jehud, etc.] Jehud is thought to be the present el-Yehudiyeh, seven miles east of Jaffa; while Bene-berak is said to be lbn Abrak, about half-way between Jaffa and the village first named. The site of Gathrimmon is unknown, as is also the case with Me-jarkon and Rakkon, in the verse following.
Jos_19:46. The border before Japho] Meaning the sea coast over against Japho, or Joppa, the modern name of which is still Yâfa. The name is conspicuous in the books of Maccabees and in the Acts.
Jos_19:47. And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them] “And the border of the children of Dan ment out from them, i.e., beyond them, or beyond the inheritance allotted to them. Masius has correctly explained this somewhat unusual expression as follows: ‘The Danites emigrated beyond themselves, i.e., beyond the inheritance in which they were first placed by the Divine lot, and set out in search of other possessions.’ ” [Keil.] Leshem] Otherwise Laish, and subsequently the Dan forming the proverbial northern extremity of the kingdom. It is named again as Laish in Isa_10:30. This verse gives another indication that the book of Joshua was not written till some years after Joshua’s death.
Jos_19:50. Timnath-serah in Mount Ephraim] Called in Jdg_2:9, “Timnath-heres,” and said to be “on the north side of Mount Gaash.” Dr. Eli Smith has proposed to identify Timnath with Tibneh, the ruins, of which he has placed about six miles from Jifna on the way to Mejdel-Yaba. Joshua’s inheritance must of coarse be distinguished from the Timnath (of Thimnatha, Jos_19:43) of Samson.
Jos_19:51. These are the inheritances, etc.] This concludes the account of the division of the land. As in chap. Jos_14:1, at the beginning, so here, at the close of this work, the name of Eleazar takes precedence of that of Joshua.
OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE PARAGRAPHS
Verge 49,
50.—THE PERSONAL INHERITANCE OF JOSHUA.
The inheritance of Joshua may be regarded as—
I. The reward of the leader of the people, and yet the reward which was last given. Not till the inheritance of each tribe was apportioned, did Joshua receive his. It should be ever thus. The tribe must take precedence of the man. The nation is to be considered before its rulers. The family is of more consequence than any one of its members. A man who is really a leader does not need to be told this. He who is foremost, indeed, knows how to be last of all. Ahab, who brings his people to ruin, turns his face to the wall, like a sulky child, and will eat no bread, because he cannot get Naboth’s vineyard; Joshua, who brings the whole nation to rich possessions, waits, in the spirit of a true man, till others are satisfied, ere he thinks to ask even a home for himself.
II. The reward of the greatest of the Israelites, and yet a small reward. Timnath seems to have been an obscure place. It was not a famous city like Hebron, which fell to Caleb. When Joshua took it, Timnath even needed building; and, after Joshua’s death, the city was famous only in its connection with him. He had founded it, and in its outskirts was his grave (chap. Jos_24:30): this alone gave the city its prominence in the history of the nation. The principal reward of true greatness is within, not without. Bricks and acres and wealth would be poor pay to a noble nature. Joshua’s great reward was in the consciousness that he had spent his life in helping his fellow-men, that he had striven to glorify God, and that God had graciously accepted his work. Timnath was a necessity, and Joshua asked for it; his brethren gave it, and he gladly took it as an expression of their gratitude; but his real reward lay in the smile of God, in the approval of his own conscience, and in the visible joy which his labours had brought to others. Surely it will be thus even in heaven. The highest angel is not some winged creature with a taller crown, a bigger harp, and a few more outward decorations than his fellows; he is highest, who has best learned to serve others in self-denying lowliness. The LORD of heaven is He who is still like unto “a lamb as it had been slain.” The acreage of Joshua’s estate was far from being contained in Timnath. Much of his inheritance was in the approval of his own heart; still more in the approval of God. It is the man who thus lays up treasure in his heart towards God, who has learned to hide his riches “where thieves break not through nor steal.” If heaven’s wealth were like earth’s, peradventure there would be thieves there also. Where the spoil is only a carcase, there will always be eagles.
III. The reward asked by a good man, and thus a reward according to the word of the Lord. “According to the word of the Lord, they gave him the city which he asked.” Keil says: “We do not find any Divine injunction in the Pentateuch, to the effect that Joshua was to receive a particular share in the land of Canaan, as his own inheritance. Therefore many expositors suppose that the words, ‘at the command of the Lord,’ refer to an oracle of God, delivered through the high priest. But as Caleb had received a definite promise of this kind, which is not to be met with in a literal form in the Pentateuch (cf. chap. Jos_14:9), we may properly assume that Joshua received a similar promise.” Whether Joshua asked for Timnath, knowing God’s mind before he asked, or whether God approved of Joshua’s request after it was made, Joshua’s heart was well in accord with the Divine will. He had not served for himself, but because he loved to serve. Such a spirit ever makes beautiful the life which it animates. Thus when Bossuet quarrelled with Fenelon because the latter had advocated in his writings the doctrine of disinterested love to God; and when, through his great influence at the court of France and at Rome, Bossuet succeeded in getting his opponent’s book condemned by the pope, the beautiful spirit shewn by Fenelon made it clear, to friends and foes alike, that he was a servant of God for something higher than the rewards of men. Declaring his submission to the papal decree, he at once wrote: “We shall find consolation, my dearest brethren, in what humbles us, provided that the ministry of the word, which we have received for your sanctification, be not enfeebled, and that, notwithstanding the humiliation of the pastor, the flock shall increase in grace before God.” Perhaps it is hardly to be wondered at, that, impressed by the loftiness of the man whom influential persons induced him to condemn, the pope should have remarked to some immediately about him: “Fenelon is in fault for too great love of God; and his enemies are in fault for too little love of their neighbour.” He who serves for the love of God, and in the joy of holy labour for men, has still a large estate left, even when his fellows are ungrateful.
IV. The reward given to an aged and failing man, and yet a reward provoking new industry. “And he built the city, and dwelt therein.” Joshua was “old and stricken in years” (chap. Jos_13:1) before the work of distribution began, yet this gift of his brethren did but serve to stimulate him to fresh zeal in this new direction. The man who had spent his life in building a nation, appropriately sets himself to terminate it in the work of building a city. The real worker must work till the end. The body may decay, but the spirit seems to tell of its own immortal youth to the very last. The great German dramatist said:
“The world’s unwithered countenance
Is bright as on creation’s day.”
So the soul of a true man proclaims, as audibly as possible, its own immortal energy. He to whom a life of work has been a joy, has joy in work down to life’s very close. The sight of the aged gets feeble, but not his faith; the hands and feet fail, but not the will; the power to help others decays, but love has no grey hairs, and knows no infirmity.
Jos_19:51, last clause.—THE INHERITANCE OF GOD’S PEOPLE SURE, THOUGH DELAYED.
Very much later, doubtless, than some of the people had expected, but at last, nevertheless, it could be written: “So they made an end of dividing the country.” These words form an appropriate standpoint for wise and thoughtful retrospect. An immense interval of time, and a long succession of exciting and apparently conflicting events, lie stretched out between the time of God’s covenant to give this land to the seed of Abraham (Genesis 15), and its actual inheritance, the accomplishment of which is here for the first time proclaimed. This period of human sin and Divine mercy and patience is made the theme of song in Psalms 105-107. Through what process, between the time of promise and the time of possession, was the inheritance brought about? The history shews us the following leading features:—
I. Inheritance is not through human merit, but through God’s grace and covenant.
1. The covenant did not originate in Abraham’s personal worthiness. God called him out of Haran (Gen_12:1-4), where he was probably an idolater (Jos_24:14). After Abraham had obeyed God’s call, he was guilty of distrust of God, and of untruthfulness to men (Gen_12:10-20). It was “after these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram” (Gen_15:1). Moreover, we are distinctly told, even at this early stage, that God had respect, not to Abraham’s personal holiness, but to his faith: “He believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness.” Our worthiness is not the ground on which God’s promises originate. It is only through our faith in Christ that we are qualified to receive either the new covenant or the possessions which it guarantees.
2. God’s reason for making His covenant of inheritance is in no way founded on any appearances which might seem to indicate its fulfilment. God said to the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: “Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance, when they were but a few men in number, yea, very few, and strangers in it; when they went from one nation to another, and from one kingdom to another people” (Psa_105:8-13).
3. God’s reason for causing His people to inherit can be discovered only in His own love and grace and truth. Throughout these intervening centuries the Israelites are continually seen sinning, and God forgiving. They forget the promise, He remembers it; they transgress, He pardons; they hanker after “the flesh-pots of Egypt,” He entices them with words about the land overflowing with milk and honey; they often murmur, He is ever patient. The whole of the way, from Abraham to the completed division of the land, is a way of great grace. Such are the reasons for the inheritance of all whom God causes to possess. The old covenant or the new covenant, Canaan or heaven, it matters not which; the reasons of possession are in Him, not in us.
II. The way to possession is through loss.
1. The Israelites came into their inheritance through losing it. After receiving the promise that his seed should inherit Canaan, Abraham was driven down into Egypt by famine. The necessity thus laid upon the father proved to be a foreshadowing of God’s way with the children, Joseph was sold into Egypt, and later on, compelled still by famine, Jacob and his remaining sons were driven thither also. The sojourn there presently became a bondage, lasting upwards of two hundred years. Thus, God’s way of leading His people to inherit the land was by leading them out of the land altogether. Possession was to be through utter loss. Nor is this seemingly strange method to be looked upon as an accident. God purposed it, from the first (Gen_15:18). This method is full of deep design. God’s way was a necessity. The only possible way for the Israelites to inherit the land was, apparently, by their being driven out of the land. Had they remained in Canaan, they would in all probability have intermarried with the Canaanites. It is no less likely that they would have been seduced to the then fast spreading idolatry, which ere they came back from Egypt, had so firmly established itself in the land. Had they remained in Palestine, and fallen into either of these snares, their subsequent inheritance of the territory, as a nation, would have been impossible. It may be said, There was idolatry in Egypt: would not that tempt them there as much as idolatry in Canaan? From this God graciously guarded them by their very condition in Egypt. They were made slaves. They were bitterly oppressed. The common affliction would bind them in a common sympathy. In their keen suffering, through hard service and the slaying of their male children, they would learn to hate the Egyptians and their gods together. Antipathies would be raised in them against idolatry generally. A common patriotism, in these children of the Promised Land, would be provoked by a common suffering. This, doubtless, was exactly what Divine wisdom intended. One of the strongest possible forces was at work, tending, in many ways, to bind them to each other and into the great clan of God, presently to be compassed on every hand by the surrounding nations of the heathen. The common deliverance at the Red Sea would only serve to deepen this carefully formed feeling, bursting out as it does in a common joy in the wonderful song of Moses. The mighty outpouring of passion there, with each other, for God, and against the heathen, is the vehement and first real expression of that Hebrew nationalism which God had been so carefully and surely creating, and which to this day still throbs so strongly in the Hebrew heart. The forty years’ discipline in the wilderness would serve to bind the Israelites still closer, uniting them in a common fear of God, and in a general assurance that He could be trusted in all kinds of want and extremity. Thus they crossed the Jordan, bound together in spirit as one man, and strong in that union both to conquer an idolatrous nation and abhor its idolatry. Humanly speaking no such feelings as these could have animated the young nation, had they remained in Canaan. God led them into their inheritance by causing them to for sake it utterly. The way into the promised possession was through the bitter bondage of Egypt and many years of sorrow in the wilderness.
2. God’s way to possession is still through loss. (a) The way to peace with God is through fleeing from the contentment of carelessness. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Men start for heaven by going into the sharp conviction that it may never be theirs. We journey towards the full assurance of God’s forgiveness by giving up, in alarm, those easy assumptions of it, in which we once found rest through general and vague thoughts of Divine mercy. (b) The way to righteousness is through a rejection of our righteousness. To be holy indeed, we must enter into the awful knowledge of our own sinfulness. He who thought that he was, “touching the law, blameless,” could hold the clothes of Stephen while others murdered him; the same man, counting all his good doings as dung, pressed indeed towards the mark of the heavenly calling. When Paul counted his gain loss, then, and not till then, he won the righteousness of his Saviour. (c) The way to life in Christ is by dying with Christ. It is he who cries, “I am crucified with Christ,” who immediately adds, “Nevertheless I live.” To be “born again” is to die. The way to our inheritance is by a cross, which seems to stand at the very beginning of our pilgrimage as the significant symbol of a journey of contradictions. The very Saviour of our life stands and cries to us, “He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”
III. The way from loss to secure inheritance is by the power and patience and love of God.
1. The way from the bondage of Egypt to this division of the land affords one long view of Jehovah’s mighty works. The miracles which made Pharaoh let the people go never ceased till the people were ready to enter into the rest of possession.
2. This way to inheritance was no less marked by Divine patience. While God wrought mightily, the people murmured continually. On their part, the one thing which rose prominent above every other was sin; on His part was mercy which ever covered their transgressions.
3. The wonders of Divine power, and the beauty of Divine patience, are alike seen as the outcome of Divine love. God’s love to the men—those men, and the men who should follow them, was the motive which underlay all. The miracles were not merely for a new nation to be called Israelites. The patience was not so much care over a pet scheme of Deity. God was loving men—loving all men, and seeking to save the world that was, and the world that would be, from the sin and ruin of idolatry.
IV. Alternations from seeming possession to loss, and from loss to permanent inheritance, are God’s way of leading men into habitual obedience and perpetual praise. It was out of the magnitude of the Israelites’ difficulties that they came to their wonderful deliverances, and it was in their great deliverances that they found the glowing fervour of those choice songs which they have left as such a noble legacy to the world. Their deferred hopes, their long-tried patience, their adverse journeyings, their mighty battles: all these led to ardent praise, and praise, in its turn, gave new strength. Battles are not pleasant, but we can have no victories without them. The smooth straight path may be trodden more easily and more quickly than the way which is rough, and steep, and winding; yet, after all, it is where the tourist is turned from a direct line of travel by high mountains, and wearied in his way by steep hills, that the landscape most delights him. The plain is easier for travelling, but it provokes little ardour. Otherwise than through the sense of their strength, “the mountains shall bring peace.” The Christian pilgrim who travels rough places and rugged steeps may have more weariness than he who walks in “plain paths;” generally he also knows more of joy, and feels more of thankfulness and praise.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Second Allotment (continued). The Territories of Simeon, Zebulun,…
The Second Allotment (continued). The Territories of Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan. The Inheritance of Joshua
1-9. The lot of Simeon. Observe that no borders are named, and the lot includes towns previously taken by Judah (Jos_15:31-32): see Jos_19:9. This tribe was settled in the Negeb, or 'south country,' that slopes away from the Hebron range towards the desert, bounded on the W. by the Mediterranean and on the E. by the Dead Sea and the Valley of Edom.
Read full note →
10-16. The lot of Zebulun: in the low hills W. of Nazareth and E. of Accho.
17-23. The lot of Issachar: comprising the plain of Esdraelon.
22. Tabor] Here Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali had a common border.
24-31. The lot of Asher: the coast and low hills, from Carmel to Tyre.
32-39. The lot of Naphtali: the high mountains of upper Galilee, and plateau E. of Mt. Tabor to the W. shores of the Sea of Galilee, and the Jordan Valley N. of it.
40-48. The lot of Dan: (a) the original inheritance (Jos_19:40-46); (b) the later acquisition in the N. (Jos_19:47-48). The territory in the S. lies W. of Benjamin along the two parallel valleys that lead through the Shephelah to the sea, viz. Aijalon and Sorek. The song of Deborah. (Jdg_5:17) seems to imply that the Danites had then reached the coast, but the maritime plain was probably never fully occupied by them, and what they had held of it was soon abandoned in favour of a new colony(Jos_19:47-48).
In LXX our Jos_19:48 follows 46, where it is more naturally in place, and both it and Jos_19:47 (which follows it in LXX) contain additional matter about the Danites' struggle with the Amorites, which fits in well with Jdg_1:34, where we are told that 'the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the hill-country; for they would not suffer them to come down into the valley.' This obviously gives the reason for the expedition northward.
47. The taking of Leshem (called in Judges 'Laish') is related in Jdg_18:7, Jdg_18:27-29.
49-51. Concluding section: Joshua's own inheritance. Joshua and his comrade Caleb (Jos_15:13), the sole representatives of the generation of the exodus, receive each a special 'inheritance' of his own choice.
50. According to the word of the Lord] cp. Num_14:24, Num_14:30 with Jos_14:9, Jos_14:10. Timnath-serah] cp. Jos_24:30 called Timnath-heres in Jdg_2:9, probably Kefr-Hâris, 9 m. S. of Shechem.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 1. The inheritance of Simeon (Jos 19:1-9)
CHAPTER 19
1. The inheritance of Simeon (Jos 19:1-9)
Read full note →
2. The inheritance of Zebulun (Jos 19:10-16)
3. The inheritance of Issachar (Jos 19:17-23)
4. The inheritance of Asher (Jos 19:24-31)
5. The inheritance of Naphtali (Jos 19:32-39)
6. The inheritance of Dan (Jos 19:40-48)
7. The inheritance of Joshua (Jos 19:49-51)
The many names of cities and villages, the inheritance of the remaining six tribes, we must leave untouched. Blessed and deep spiritual lessons are written in all these names. Simeon’s inheritance is closely connected with that of Judah. “Their inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Judah.” Simeon means “hearing” and Judah means “praise.” Thus the two are linked together. If our hearts are open to hear and our faith appropriates we praise and worship and enjoy our God-given inheritance in the Lord Jesus Christ. And the different cities have a blessed meaning. Diligent and prayerful searching will discover the hidden treasures which faith prizes more than gold, and which are “sweeter than honey.” Let us glance briefly at Asher to give a little illustration of this. Asher means “happy,” commonly translated by “blessed” (Psa 1:1; Psa 32:1; Psa 119:1).
The Lord’s people must be a happy people. Moses had pronounced them so (Deu 33:29). A few of the cities and boundaries of Asher and their meaning will show in what the happiness of God’s people consists. Helkath means “portion”; the Lord Himself is the portion of His people. He is our joy and happiness. Hali means “an ornament worked out with pain.” We possess that which Christ has worked out for us in His death. Ahamelech means “God is King.” This is a sweet morsel to faith. Amad, “an eternal people,” speaks of our security, that we belong to God and nothing can separate us from Him. Misheal, “feeling after God,” tells of the longing of the new nature, which finds happiness in God. Hammon, “sunny”; Kanah, “He has purchased”; Zidon, “taking the prey”; Hosah, “trust”; Ummah, “union”; Aphek, “strength”-these and others are easily seen as giving spiritual lessons on the happiness of the people of God who enjoy in faith the inheritance.
After all had received their portions Joshua received his. It was Timnath-serah, which means “an abundant portion.” The portion of Joshua is the blessed type of the inheritance, which the Lord Jesus Christ has received. We must not overlook the fact that the children of Israel gave Joshua the inheritance. Christ is our inheritance and we are His inheritance. He has an inheritance in the saints (Eph 1:18). May we give Him that inheritance.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 The Possession of Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and…
The Possession of Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan
v. 1. And the second lot came forth to Simeon, was drawn forth from the urn, even for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families; and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah. Since the territory assigned to the latter tribe was too large for them, Simeon was given certain cities within their boundaries, the curse of Jacob concerning the distribution of Simeon in Jacob, Gen 49:7, thus being fulfilled. The tribe of Simeon afterwards practically lost its identity, although the genealogical records were carefully preserved.
Read full note →
v. 2. And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, a city known from the time of the patriarchs, in the center of the southern steppes, and Sheba, and Moladah,
v. 3. and Hazar-shual, and Balah, and Azem,
v. 4. and Eitolad, and Bethul, and Hormah, on the extreme southern boundary,
v. 5. and Zik-lag, in the Philistine country, and Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susah,
v. 6. and Beth-lebaoth, and Sharuhen: thirteen cities and their villages:
v. 7. Ain, Remmon, and Ether, and Ashan: four cities and their villages;
v. 8. and all the villages that were round about these cities to Baalath-beer, Ramath of the south. All these cities have already, Jos 15:26-32; Jos 15:42, been enumerated in the list of the cities of Judah, and are again listed 1Ch 4:28-32. That the prophecy of the scattering was literally fulfilled appears even at this point, for the cities inhabited by Simeon were not even grouped according to any definite plan. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families.
v. 9. Out of the portion of the children of Judah was the inheritance of the children of Simeon; for the part of the children of Judah was too much for them; therefore the children of Simeon had their inheritance within the inheritance of them, literally, "in the midst of their inheritance," and not in a specially defined part of Canaan.
v. 10. And the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun according to their families; and the border of their inheritance was unto Sarid, this city, from the whole description, being the center of the southern boundary;
v. 11. and their border went up, from Sarid, toward the sea, westward toward the Mediterranean, and Mara-lah, and reached to, or struck, Dabbasheth, and reached to, or struck, the river that is before Jokneam, this watercourse very probably being the Kishon, which flows at the foot of the Carmel range;
v. 12. and turned from Sarid, as the starting-point, eastward toward the sun-rising unto the border of Chisloth-tabor, on the slopes of Mount Tabor, and then goeth out to Daberath, also in the foothills of Tabor, a city of the Levites,and goeth up to Japhia, a little farther to the east,
v. 13. and from thence passeth on along on the east, still toward the east, to Gittah-hepher, to Ittah-kazin, and goeth out to Bemmon [-methoar], which is drawn to Neah, thus extending to a place which was somewhat north of Nazareth;
v. 14. and the border compasseth it, the territory of Zebulun, on the north side to Hannathon, this being the eastern boundary, going north; and the outgoings thereof are in the Valley of Jiphthahel, a wide valley extending down toward the Kishon;
v. 15. and Kattath, and Nahallal, and Shimron, and Idalah, and Bethlehem, these cities indicating the western or northwestern boundary of Zebulun: twelve cities with their villages.
v. 16. This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun according to their families, these cities with their villages. It was a fertile country with an outlet to the sea, which assured the inhabitants a participation in its blessings also, as Jacob had foretold.
v. 17. And the fourth lot came out to Issachar, for the children of Issachar according to their families.
v. 18. And their border was toward Jezreel, their territory included the fertile and beautiful Plain of Jezreel, or Esdraelon, and Chesulloth, and Shunem, on the western slopes of the Little Hermon, appearing several times in later history,
v. 19. and Haphraim, or Chepharaim, and Shihon, and Anaharath,
v. 20. and Babbith, and Kishion, or Kedesh, a city of the Levites, and Abez,
v. 21. and Bemeth, and En-gan-nim, another Levitical city, with a rich supply of fine water from large springs above the town, and En-haddah, and Beth-pazzez;
v. 22. and the coast reacheth to Tabor, a city on the boundary of Zebulun, and Sha-hazimah, and Beth-shemesh, in the Jordan Valley, near Mount Tabor; and the outgoings of their border were at Jordan: sixteen cities with their villages.
v. 23. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Issachar according to their families, the cities and their villages. So Issachar was richly blessed with material prosperity and gave himself up to the enjoyment of the pleasures of life.
v. 24. And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher according to their families.
v. 25. And their border was Helkath, a Levitical city northeast of Acco, and Hali, and Beten, and Achshaph,
v. 26. and Alammelech, not far from the Kishon, and Amad, on or near the site of the modern Haifa, and Misheal, a Levitical city on the sea, near Mount Carmel; and reacheth to Carmel westward, and to Shihor-libnath, a small stream on the southern slopes of Carmel;
v. 27. and turneth toward the sunrising to Beth-dagon, and reacheth to Zebulun, and to the valley of Jiphthahel toward the north side of Beth-emek and Neiel, places on the boundary of Zebulun, and goeth out to Cabul on the left hand, on the north side of it, four hours southeast of Acco,
v. 28. and Hebron, or Abdon, and Rehob, and Hammon, and Kanah, even unto great Zidon, the ancient capital of Phenicia.
v. 29. And then the coast turneth to Ramah, and to the strong city Tyre, fortified strongly even at that time, and later the rich and proud capital of Phenicia; and the coast turneth to Hosah; and the outgoings thereof are at the sea from the coast to Achzib, three hours north of Acco;
v. 30. Umnah also, and Aphek, and Rehob, in the foothills of the Lebanon range: twenty and two cities with their villages. Thus the territory of Asher extended from the southern slopes of Mount Carmel to Acco along the Mediterranean Sea, and from there to the northern boundary of Canaan, just skirting the narrow coast country of the Pheriicians, with the cities Tyre and Sidon.
v. 31. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Asher according to their families, these cities with their villages. Asher was also richly blessed, both the agricultural and the commercial possibilities of the country being exceptionally good.
v. 32. The sixth lot came out to the children of Naphtali, even for the children of Naphtali according to their families.
v. 33. And their coast was from Heleph, from Allon to Zaanannim, northwest of the Sea of Merom, and Adami, on the road that leads through the pass toward Baalbek, Nekeb, and Jabneel, unto Lakum; and the outgoings thereof were at Jordan, the upper Jordan, also above the Waters of Merom;
v. 34. and then the coast turneth westward to Aznoth-tabor, and goeth out from thence to Hukkok, and reacheth to Zebulun on the south side, and reacheth to Asher on the west side, and to Judah, here apparently a city on the boundary of Asher; upon Jordan toward the sun-rising, for the upper Jordan was Naphtali’s eastern boundary.
v. 35. And the fenced cities, the fortified towns, are Ziddim, Zer, and Ham-math, Rakkath, and Chinnereth,
v. 36. and Adamah, and Ramah, and Hazor,
v. 37. and Kedesh, and Edrei, not that in Bashan, and En-hazor,
v. 38. and Iron, and Mig-dal-el, Horem, and Beth-anath, and Beth-shemesh, not to be confounded with the cities of the same name in Judah and Issachar: nineteen cities with their villages. So Naphtali’s territory was largely in the forested foothills of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges. The tribe was a liberty-loving mountain people, for which reason they had been compared by Jacob with a hind let loose.
v. 39. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Naphtali according to their families, the cities and their villages.
v. 40. And the seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families.
v. 41. And the coast of their inheritance, west. of Benjamin, north of Judah, south of Ephraim, was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Irshemesh, three cities of Judah which were yielded to the Danites, the last named being assigned to the Levites,
v. 42. and Shaalabbin, and. Ajalon, and Jethlah,
v. 43. and Elon, Thimnathah, and Ekron, Jos 15:10-11,
v. 44. and Elte-keh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath,
v. 45. and Jehud, and Beneberak, and Gath-rimmon,
v. 4. G. and Me-jarkon, and Bak-kon, with the border before Japho, over against Joppa, or Jaffa, that is, extending to the gardens or suburbs of this nourishing seaport.
v. 47. And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them, there was hardly room enough for their rapidly growing tribe; therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, or Laish, in the extreme northern part of Canaan, north of the territory of Naphtali, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem Dan, after the name of Dan, their father. The story of this campaign is related in detail Judges 18.
v. 48. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families, these cities with their villages. The Danites did not occupy the territory allotted to them altogether, being hindered in their attempts by the heathen inhabitants of the plains, Jdg 1:34, and apparently unable to muster men and courage for a successful venture.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 5, 8 The second casting of lots fell to Simeon
The second casting of lots fell to Simeon
"The second time Joshua cast lots, the lot indicated the tribe of Simeon"
Read full note →
The second
number two in a list (See: Ordinal Numbers)
clan by clan
"and Joshua assigned the land to each of their clans"
Their inheritance was in the middle of the inheritance that belonged to the tribe of Judah
The land is spoken of as if it were an inheritance that the tribes received as a permanent possession. AT: "The land that they received as an inheritance was in the middle of the land that the tribe of Judah received as an inheritance" (See: Metaphor)
translationWords
Simeon
clan
inherit
Judah
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1–2 19:1 Simeon, Jacob and Leah’s second son, was older…
19:1 Simeon, Jacob and Leah’s second son, was older than Judah. However, he had forfeited a leading role with his violent actions against Shechem (Gen 34:25-26). The tribal inheritance of his descendants reflected this; their land was carved out of Judah’s territory on the southern periphery of the Negev. This arid land was far from any centers of influence and power.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.