Joshua 16 commentary

This and the following chapter should not be separated. They give the lots of Ephraim and Manasseh, the children of Joseph, who, next to Judah, were to have the post of honour, and therefore had the first and best portion in the northern part of Canaan, as Judah in the southern part. God's people now, as of old, suffer his enemies to remain. Blessed Lord, when will all our enemies be subdued? 1Co 15:26. Do thou drive them all out; thou alone canst do it. These settled boundaries may remind us, that our situation and provision in this life, as well as our future inheritance, are appointed by the only wise and righteous God, and we should be content with our portion, since he knows what is best for us, and all we have is more than we deserve.

1. And the lot of the children of Joseph fell, etc The sacred writer first states what the lot was which fell to the two children of Joseph, and then describes the lot of Ephraim. It is strange, however, that when the half of the tribe of Manasseh had already been settled beyond the Jordan, more words are employed in describing the remaining half than in describing the whole of the inheritance of the tribe of Ephraim, though the latter was the more populous, and justly claimed for itself a larger territory. But the longer detail given concerning the posterity of Manasseh is owing to particular circumstances. First, the writer repeats how a settlement had been given them without lot in the country of Basan. Secondly, he mentions the ratification by Joshua of the command which Moses had given by divine authority in regard to the daughters of Selophead. Seeing, then, there was no doubt in regard to the boundaries of Ephraim, and there was no danger of dispute, their allocation is only briefly glanced at.

But here a new question arises. When the right of primogeniture had passed from Manasseh to Ephraim, how did the posterity of that tribe which had precedence in rank obtain their cities among the children of Manasseh? For theirs seems in this way to have been the inferior condition. My explanation is this, When the portion of Manasseh was too extensive in proportion to the amount of population, a calculation was made, and certain cities were deducted to complete the just share of the tribe of Ephraim; not that they were mixed up with the children of Manasseh, to hold their dwellings among them by a precarious tenure, Latin, “Quasi precario.” French, “Comme par emprunt ou par prieres;” “As by loan or by entreaty.” — Ed. but their boundaries were merely extended in the direction of the Manassites whom a narrower possession might suffice.

In the end of the chapter, Ephraim is severely censured for his effeminacy in not having expelled the Canaanites from Gezer. For had they proceeded in a manly and hearty manner to make good their right to the land which had fallen to them by lot, the victory was in their hands. There would have been no temerity in the attempt, since the decision of the lot was as valid as if the Lord himself had stretched forth his hand from heaven. But their disgraceful sloth is more clearly expressed and their culpability greatly heightened by the fact, that they made tributaries of those with whom it was not lawful to enter into any kind of arrangement. Seeing, then, God had distinctly forbidden his people to transact business of any kind with those nations, and least of all to enter into pactions with them, stipulating for their pardon and safety, the Ephraimites sinned much more grievously in exacting tribute than if they had tolerated them without paction. A long clause is here added by the Septuagint, to the effect that the Canaanite continued to dwell in Ephraim till Pharaoh, king of Egypt, came up and took it, drove out the Canaanites, Perizzites, and dwellers in Gezer, and gave it as a dowry to his daughter, (who had married Solomon.) — Ed.

CHAPTER 17

Joshua 17:1-10

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

1. Fuit quoque sors tribui Manasse (ipse enim fuit primogenitus Joseph) ipsi Machir primogenito Manasse patri Gilead (ipse enim fuit vir bellicosus), fuit inquam, ei Gilead et Basan.

2. There was also a lot for the rest of the children of Manasseh by their families; for the children of Abiezer, and for the children of Helek, and for the children of Asriel, and for the children of Shechem, and for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida: these were the male children of Manasseh the son of Joseph by their families.

2. Fuit item filiis Manasse reliquis per familias suas, filiis Abiezer, et filiis Abiezer, et filiis Helec, et filiis Hepher, et filiis Semida. Isti sunt filii Manasse, filii Joseph mares per familias suas.

3. But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.

3. Porro Selphead filio Hephner, filii Gilead, filii Machir, filii Manasse non fuerunt filii sed filiae: quarum ista sunt nomina, Mahala, et Noa, Hogla, Melcha, et Thirza.

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

4. Hae accesserunt in conspectum Eleazar sacerdotis, et in conspectum Josue filii Nun, atque in conspectum principum, dicendo, Jehova praecepit Mosi ut daret nobis haereditatem in medio fratrum nostrorum. Itaque dedit eis juxta sermonem Jehovae, haereditatem in medio fratrum patris earum.

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

5. Et ceciderunt haereditates Manasse decem, praeter terram Gilead et Basan, quae erant trans Jordanem.

6. Because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance among his sons: and the rest of Manasseh’s sons had the land of Gilead.

6. Filiae enim Manasse sortitae sunt hereditatem in medio filiorum ejus: terra autem Gilead fuit filiis Manasse reliquis.

7. And the coast of Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethah, that lieth before Shechem; and the border went along on the right hand unto the inhabitants of Entappuah.

7. Fuit autem terminus Manasse ab Aser ad Michmethah, quae est coram Sechem, et pergit terminus ad dextram ad habitatores Enthappua.

8. Now Manasseh had the land of Tappuah: but Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim;

8. Ipsius Manasse fuit terra Thappua: ab Thappua quae erat ad terminum Manasse, est filiorum Ephraim.

9. And the coast descended unto the river Kanah, southward of the river: these cities of Ephraim are among the cities of Manasseh: the coast of Manasseh also was on the north side of the river, and the outgoings of it were at the sea:

9. Descenditque terminus ad torrentem arundinis ad meridiem ipsius torrentis: civitates istae tribus Ephraim sunt in medio civitatum Manasse: at terminus Manasse est ab aquilone ipsius torrentis, suntque exitus ejus ad mare.

10. Southward it was Ephraim’s, and northward it was Manasseh’s, and the sea is his border; and they met together in Asher on the north, and in Issachar on the east.

10. Ad meridiem est ipsius Ephraim, et ad aquilonem ipsius Manasse, estque terminus ejus, et in Aser occurrunt inter se ab aquillone, et in Issachar ab oriente.

CHAPTER 16

Jos 16:1-4. The General Borders of the Sons of Joseph.

1. the lot of the children of Joseph fell--Hebrew, "went forth," referring either to the lot as drawn out of the urn, or to the tract of land thereby assigned. The first four verses describe the territory allotted to the family of Joseph in the rich domains of central Palestine. It was drawn in one lot, that the brethren might be contiguously situated; but it was afterwards divided. The southern boundary only is described here; that on the north being irregular and less defined (Jos 17:10, 11), is not mentioned.

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

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

Jos 16:5-9. The Borders of the Inheritance of Ephraim.

5-9. the border of their inheritance ... was Ataroth-addar--Ataroth-addar (now Atara), four miles south of Jetta [Robinson], is fixed on as a center, through which a line is drawn from Upper Beth-horon to Michmethah, showing the western limit of their actual possessions. The tract beyond that to the sea was still unconquered.

10. they drave not out the Canaanites ... but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute--This is the first mention of the fatal policy of the Israelites, in neglecting the divine command (De 20:16) to exterminate the idolaters.

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

From Bethel to Luz - From Gen 28:19 (note) it appears that the place which Jacob called Beth-el was formerly called Luz; see the note there: but here they seem to be two distinct places. It is very likely that the place where Jacob had the vision was not in Luz, but in some place within a small distance of that city or village, (see the note on Gen 28:12), and that sometimes the whole place was called Beth-el, at other times Luz, and sometimes, as in the case above, the two places were distinguished. As we find the term London comprises, not only London, but also the city of Westminster and the borough of Southwark; though at other times all three are distinctly mentioned.

Archi to Ataroth - Archi was the country of Hushai, the friend of David, 2Sam 15:32, who is called Hushai the Archite. Ataroth, called Ataroth-addar, Ataroth the illustrious, Jos 16:5, and simply Ataroth, Jos 16:7, is supposed to have been about fifteen miles from Jerusalem.

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

Ataroth-addar - See the note on Jos 16:2.

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

Tappuah - This was a city in the tribe of Manasseh, and gave name to a certain district called the land of Tappuah. See Jos 17:8.

The sea - The Mediterranean, as before.

And the separate cities - That is, the cities that were separated from the tribe of Manasseh to be given to Ephraim; see Jos 17:9.

The Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer - It appears that the Canaanites were not expelled from this city till the days of Solomon, when it was taken by the king of Egypt his father-in-law, who made it a present to his daughter, Solomon's queen. See 1Kgs 9:16. And see the note on Jos 10:33. The Ephraimites, however, had so far succeeded in subjecting these people as to oblige them to pay tribute, though they could not, or at least did not, totally expel them.

Of the names and places in this chapter, we may say the same as of others already mentioned. See the note on Jos 15:1. Many of those towns were small, and, we may rationally conclude, slightly built, and consequently have perished perhaps more than a thousand years ago. It would be therefore useless to look for such places now. Several of the towns in England, a land not exposed to such revolutions as that of Palestine has ever been, mentioned by Caesar and other ancient writers, are no longer discernible. Several have changed their names, and not a few their situation. Tradition states that the city of Norwich anciently stood some miles from its present situation; and we have the fullest proof that this was the case with the city of Salisbury. Such changes do not affect the truth of the ancient geography of our own country; nor can they impeach that of the sacred historian before us.

Children of Joseph - That is, of Ephraim, and the half tribe of Manasseh, which are here put together in one; because in these first verses he speaks of them in common; and then of their several portions.

Manasseh - That is, half Manasseh. Their inheritance - Their several portions which here follow. It is said, they took their inheritance, which also Judah had done before them, because the tribes of Judah and Joseph did take their inheritances before the rest; and it was fit they should do so, for the security of the main camp, and the body of the people which were at Gilgal, chap.18:5.

East - side - That is, the north - east side. It is no wonder, if some of these descriptions are dark to us at this distance of time; there having been so many alterations made in places, and so many circumstances, being now altogether undiscoverable. But this is certain, that all the descriptions here mentioned, were then evident to the Israelites, because these were the foundations of all the possessions which then they took, and peaceably possessed in succeeding ages.

Toward the sun - The midland sea, towards the west.

To Jericho - Not to the city of Jericho, which belonged to Benjamin's lot, chap.18:21, but to its territory.

The separate cities - That is, besides those cities which were within Ephraim's bounds, he had some other cities, to which all of all their territories were annexed out Manasseh's portion, because his tribe was all here, and was larger than Manasseh's.

AND the lot of the children of Joseph * fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto the † water of Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho throughout mount Peth-el;

i. e. Of Ephraim, and the half Tribe of Manasseh, which are here put together in one; not because they had but one Lot, for Ephraim had one here, v. 5. and Manasseh another, Ios. 17. 1. but because in these first Verses he speaks of them in common, and of the South border, which seems to be the same, either wholly or in a great part: and then he comes to the particular description of their several portions. It is here farther remarkable, that God so disposed of these Lots, that they came forth in decent and due order; Iudah's first, to whom the Sovereignty was promised; and then Ioseph's, who succeeded Reuben in the other Priviledg of the Birth-right, the double-portion, 1 Chron. 5. 1, 2.

Of which see 2 King. 2. 19, 20, 21, 22.

The Wilderness of Beth-aven, as appears by comparing Ios. 18. 12. which speaks of the very same border which was on the South of Ephraim, and on the North of Benjamin.

Marginal references: ‡ Heb. W[illegible: 1+ letters] forth.

2 And goeth out from Beth-el to Luz , and passeth along unto the borders of Archi, to Ataroth,

Or, from Bethel-luzah, as the LXX. here join the words; for Bethel was anciently called Luz, Gen. 28. 19. and 48. 3. Though some think this was another Luz, spoken of Iudg. 1. 26. Others make Bethel and Luz two neighbouring Towns, which afterwards being more built and inhabited, became one, as oft hath happened.

Marginal references: Judg. 1. [illegible: 1 word]

3 And goeth down westward to the coast of Japhleti, unto the coast of Beth-horon the nether ▪ and to Gezer: and the goings out thereof are at the sea.

Of the two Beth-horons, see Jos. 10. 10, 11.

4 So the children of Joseph, Manasseh , and Ephraim, took their inheritance .

i. e. Half Manasseh, by a Synecdoche.

i. e. Their several Portions which here follow. Some think that they had but one Lot between them, and therefore they are now said to take their inheritance, to wit, by dividing it between them according to the direction of Ioshua and Eleazar, &c. For that Phrase being used of them, and not, to my remembrance, of any other Tribes, may seem to have some peculiar signification, which doth not agree to the other Tribes. But there being mention of a peculiar Lot taken out for Manasseh, Josh. 17. 1. shews that their several inheritances fell to them, as the rest did to the other Tribes, even by several Lots: and it is said of them, that they took their inheritance, which also Iudah had done before them, because the Tribes of Iudah and Ioseph did take their Inheritances before the rest; and it was fit they should do so, for the security of the main Camp, and the body of the people which were at Gilgal. See Ios. 18. 5.

i. e. The North-east side. It is no wonder, if some of these Descriptions are dark and doubtful to us at this distance of time and place; there having been so many alterations made in places, and so many circumstances, being now altogether undiscoverable. But this is evident to every man of common sense, that this and all the descriptions here mentioned, were then certain and evident to the Israelites, because these were the foundation of their present practice, and of all the Possessions which then they took, and peaceably possessed in succeeding Ages.

6 And the border went out toward the sea , to Mickmethah on the north-side, and the border went about eastward unto Taanath-shiloh, and passed by it on the east to Janohah:

The Mid-land sea, towards the West.

7 And it went down from Janohah to Ataroth, and to Naarath, and came to Jericho , and went out at Jordan.

Not to the City of Iericho, which belonged to Benjamin's Lot, Ios. 18. 21. but to its Territory.

9 And the separate cities for the children of Ephraim were among the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages.

i. e. Besides those Cities which were within Ephraim's bounds, he had some other Cities, to which also their Territories were annexed, out of Manasseh's Portion, because his Tribe was all here, and was larger than Manasseh's.

Marginal references: Chap. 17. 9.

10 And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer : but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serveth under tribute .

Nor were they driven out till Solomon's time, 1 King 9. 16.

As Ios. 17. 13. 1 King. 9. 16.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1+ letters]udg. [illegible: 1+ letters]. 29.

Inheritance of the Tribe of Joseph - Joshua 16-17

Jos 16:1 The descendants of Joseph drew one lot, that the inheritance of the half tribe of Manasseh might not be separated from that of the tribe of Ephraim. But the territory was immediately divided between the two separate tribes of the children of Joseph, Ephraim receiving the southern portion of the land that had fallen to it by lot, and half Manasseh the northern. Accordingly we find the southern boundary of the whole territory described first of all in Jos 16:1-4, both the boundary which separated it from the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:11.), and that which divided it from Dan (Jos 19:40.); then the territory of Ephraim is given, with a minute description of the northern boundary (Jos 16:5-10); and finally the territory assigned to the families of Manasseh (Jos 17:1-13), without any precise delineation of its northern boundaries, all that is stated being that the Manassites touched Asher and Issachar towards the north, and also received some scattered towns with their villages in the territory of both those tribes (Jos 17:10-11). To this there is appended in vv. 14-18 the complaint of the children of Joseph concerning the inheritance that had fallen to them. Territory of the tribe of Joseph. - Jos 16:1. “And there came out the lot of the children of Joseph from Jordan by Jericho.” “The lot came out,” viz., from the turn (cf. Jos 19:1, Jos 19:17, Jos 19:24). The expression “came up” is used in the same sense in Jos 18:11. The connection of these two words with the rest of the sentence, “from Jordan by Jericho,” may be explained on the supposition that the lot which came out of the urn determined the inheritance that fell to the tribe, so that we might paraphrase the verse in this manner: “There came out the lot to the children of Joseph, namely, the inheritance, which goes out from, or whose boundary commences at, the Jordan by Jericho,” i.e., from that part of the Jordan which is opposite to Jericho, and which is still more precisely defined by the additional clause, “by the water of Jericho eastward.” The water of Jericho is the present fountain of es Sultan, half an hour to the north-west of Riha, the only large fountain in the neighbourhood of Jericho, whose waters spread over the plain, and form a small brook, which no doubt flows in the rainy season through the Wady Kelt into the Jordan (see Rob. ii. pp. 283-4; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 558-9). “The wilderness” is in opposition to “the lot,” so that the sense is, “namely, the desert going up from Jericho to the mountains to Bethel.” According to Jos 18:12, the reference is to the desert of Beth-aven, which was on the east of Bethel, between the Wady Suwar (Tuwar) and Mutyah (see at Jos 7:2). Towards the east this desert terminates with the Jebel Kuruntul (Quarantana) on the north-west of Jericho, where it descends precipitously into the valley of the Jordan, or v. v., where it rises out of the Jordan valley. According to Jos 18:12, the same boundary went up by the shoulder of Jericho towards the north, i.e., along the northern range of mountains by Jericho, which cannot be any other than the “conspicuous double height, or rather group of heights,” in front of the mountain of Quarantana, at the eastern foot of which lies the fountain of Ain es Sultan (Rob. ii. p. 284). In all probability, therefore, the boundary ran up towards the north-west, from the Sultan fountain to Ain Duk, and thence in a westerly direction across to Abu Seba (along which road Robinson had a frightful desert on his right hand: Pal. ii. p. 310), and then again towards the north-west to Beitin (Bethel), according to Jos 18:13, along the southern shoulder (or side) of Luz, i.e., Bethel.

Jos 16:2

“And it went out from Bethel to Luz.” Bethel is distinguished from Luz in this passage, because the reference is not to the town of Bethel, which was called Luz by the Canaanites (vid., Gen 28:19), but to the southern range of mountains belonging to Bethel, from which the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which stood upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:22). From this point the boundary went over “to the territory of the Arkite to Ataroth,” We know nothing further about the Arkite than that David’s friend Hushai belonged to that family (2Sa 15:32; 2Sa 16:16; 1Ch 27:33). Ataroth, called Ataroth-Adar in Jos 18:13, was not the present village of Atâra, an hour and a half to the south of Jiljilia (Rob. iii. p. 80), as I once supposed, but the ruins of Atâra, three-quarters of an hour to the south of Bireh (Beeroth, Rob. ii. p. 314), with which the expression “descended” in Jos 18:13 perfectly harmonizes. Consequently the boundary was first of all drawn in a south-westerly direction from Beitin to Bireh (Jos 18:25), and then southwards to Atârah.

Jos 16:3

From this point “it went down westward to the territory of the Japhletites to the territory of lower Beth-horon,” or, according to Jos 18:13, “to the mountain (or range) which is on the south by lower Beth-horon.” The Japhletite is altogether unknown as the Asherite of this name cannot possibly be thought of (1Ch 7:32-33). Lower Beth-horon is the present Beit-Ur Tachta, a village upon a low ridge. It is separated from Upper Beth-horon, which lies farther east, by a deep wady (see at Jos 10:10, and Rob. iii. p. 59). “And to Gezer,” which was probably situated near the village of el Kubab (see at Jos 10:33). “And the goings out thereof are at the sea” (the Mediterranean), probably running towards the north-west, and following the Wady Muzeireh to the north of Japho, which was assigned to the Danites, according to Jos 19:46.

Jos 16:4

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

Jos 16:5-6 Territory of the tribe of Ephraim, according to its families. - Jos 16:5. “The border of their inheritance was from the east Atroth-addar and (along the line) to Upper Beth-horon,” - a brief description of the southern boundary, which is more minutely described in Jos 16:1-3. Upper Beth-horon is mentioned here instead of Lower Beth-horon (Jos 16:3). This makes no difference, however, as the two places stood quite close to one another (see at Jos 10:10). In Jos 16:6-8 the northern boundary of Ephraim is given, namely, from the middle, or from “a central point near the watershed” (Knobel), first towards the east (Jos 16:6 and Jos 16:7), and then towards the west (Jos 16:8). The eastern half of the northern boundary went ימּה, i.e., when regarded from the west, or looked at towards the west, to the north side of Michmethah. According to Jos 17:7, this place was before Shechem, and therefore in any case it was not far from it, though it has not been discovered yet. Knobel supposes it to have been on the site of the present Kabate (Seetzen, ii. p. 166), Kubatiyeh, an hour and a half to the south of Jenin (Rob. iii. 154), assuming that Michmethah might also have been pronounced Chemathah, and that ב may have been substituted for מ. But Kabate is six hours to the north of Shechem, and therefore was certainly not “before Shechem” (Jos 17:7). It then turned “eastward to Taanath-shiloh” (Τηαν̀θ Σηλώ, lxx), according to the Onom. (s. v. Thenath) ten Roman miles from Neapolis (Sichem), on the way to the Jordan, most probably the Thena of Ptol. (v. 16, 5), the present Tana, Ain Tana, a heap of ruins on the south-east of Nabulus, where there are large cisterns to be found (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 295; Ritter, Erdk. xv. p. 471). And “then went by on the east to Janoah” (i.e., Jano in Acrabittena regione, twelve Roman miles from Neapolis: Onom.), the present ruins of Janûn, a miserable village, with extensive ruins of great antiquity, about three hours to the south-east of Nabulus, three-quarters of an hour to the north-east of Akrabeh (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 297; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 268).

Jos 16:7

From Janoah the boundary went down “to Ataroth and Naarath,” Ataroth, a different place from the Ataroth or Atroth-addar mentioned in Jos 16:3 and Jos 16:5, is apparently to be sought for on the eastern slope of the mountains by the side of the Ghor, judging from the expression “went down;” but it has not yet been discovered. Naarath, probably the same as Naaran, in eastern Ephraim (1Ch 7:28), is described in the Onom. (s. v. Naaratha) as viculus Judaeorum Naorath, five Roman miles (i.e., two hours) from Jericho, probably on the north-east. The boundary line then touched Jericho, i.e., the district of Jericho, namely on the north side of the district, as Jericho was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:21). At this point it also coincided with the southern boundary of the tribe of Joseph (Jos 16:1) and the northern boundary of Benjamin (Jos 18:12).

Jos 16:8

The western half of the northern boundary went from Tappuah westwards to the Cane-brook, and terminated at the sea. Tappuah, called En-tappuah in Jos 17:7, as the southern boundary of Manasseh, which is there described, and which ran from Michmethah to En-tappuah, coincides with the northern boundary of Ephraim, must not be identified with the royal town of that name mentioned in Jos 12:17, and therefore was not Kefr Kud (Capercota), on the west of Jenin (Ginäa). This place was so far to the north, viz., seven hours to the north of Nabulus, that the boundary from Michmethah, in the neighbourhood of Shechem (Nabulus) onwards, would have run from south to north instead of in a westerly direction. Still less can En-tappuah be found, as Van de Velde supposes, in the old well of the deserted village of Atüf, five hours to the east of Nabulus. It must have been to the west of Shechem; but it has not yet been discovered, as the country to the west of Nabulus and Sebastieh has “not been examined” (Van de Velde). The Cane-brook is no doubt the brook of that name mentioned by Bohad. (vita Salad. pp. 191, 193); only it is not quite clear “whether the Abu Zabura is intended, or a brook somewhat farther south, where there is still a Nahr el Kassab.”

Jos 16:9

The tribe of Ephraim also received some scattered towns in the territory of the tribe of Manasseh, in fact all those towns to which Tappuah belonged, according to Jos 17:8, with the dependent villaGes.The reason why the Ephraimites received scattered towns and villages in the tribe-territory of Manasseh, is supposed by Calvin, Masius, and others, to have been, that after the boundaries had been arranged, on comparing the territory allotted to each with the relative numbers of the two tribes, it was found that Ephraim had received too small a possession. This is quite possible; at the same time there may have been other reasons which we cannot discover now, as precisely the same thing occurs in the case of Manasseh (Jos 17:11).

Jos 16:10

From Gezer, however (see Jos 16:3), they could not drive out the Canaanites, so that they still dwelt among the Ephraimites, but were reduced to a state of serfdom. This notice resembles the one in Jos 15:63, and is to be interpreted in the same way.The inheritance of Manasseh on this side of the Jordan was on the north of Ephraim.

The Lot of Joseph. (b. c. 1444.)

1 And the lot of the children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto the water of Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho throughout mount Beth-el, 2 And goeth out from Beth-el to Luz, and passeth along unto the borders of Archi to Ataroth, 3 And goeth down westward to the coast of Japhleti, unto the coast of Beth-horon the nether, and to Gezer: and the goings out thereof are at the sea. 4 So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance.

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

The Inheritance of Joseph's Children. (b. c. 1444.)

5 And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus: even the border of their inheritance on the east side was Ataroth-addar, unto Beth-horon the upper; 6 And the border went out toward the sea to Michmethah on the north side; and the border went about eastward unto Taanath-shiloh, and passed by it on the east to Janohah; 7 And it went down from Janohah to Ataroth, and to Naarath, and came to Jericho, and went out at Jordan. 8 The border went out from Tappuah westward unto the river Kanah; and the goings out thereof were at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim by their families. 9 And the separate cities for the children of Ephraim were among the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages. 10 And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute.

Here, 1. The border of the lot of Ephraim is set down, by which it was divided on the south from Benjamin and Dan, who lay between it and Judah, and on the north from Manasseh; for east and west it reached from Jordan to the great sea. The learned, who aim to be exact in drawing the line according to the directions here, find themselves very much at a loss, the description being short and intricate. The report of those who in these latter ages have travelled those countries will not serve to clear the difficulties, so vastly unlike is it now to what it was then; not only cities have been so destroyed as that no mark nor footstep of them remains, but brooks are dried up, rivers alter their courses, and even the mountain falling cometh to nought, and the rock is removed out of his place, Job xiv. 18. Unless I could hope to solve the doubts that arise upon this draught of the border of Ephraim, it is to no purpose to mention them: no doubt it was then perfectly understood, so as that the first intention of recording it was effectually answered, which was to notify the ancient landmarks, which posterity must by no means remove. 2. Some separate cities are spoken of, that lay not within these borders, at least not if the line was drawn direct, but lay within the lot of Manasseh (v. 9), which might better be read, and there were separate cities for the children of Ephraim among the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, because it proved that Manasseh could spare them, and Ephraim had need of them, and it might be hoped that no inconvenience would arise from this mixture of these two tribes together, who were both the sons of Joseph, and should love as brethren. And by this it appears that though, when the tribes were numbered in the plains of Moab, Manasseh had got the start of Ephraim in number, for Manasseh was then 52,000, and Ephraim but 32,000 (Num. xxvi. 34, 37), yet by the time they were well settled in Canaan the hands were crossed again, and the blessing of Moses was verified, Deut. xxxiii. 17, They are the ten thousands of Ephraim and they are the thousands of Manasseh. Families and kingdoms are diminished and increased, increased and diminished again, as God pleases. 3. A brand is put upon the Ephraimites, that they did not drive out the Canaanites from Gezer (v. 10), either through carelessness or cowardice, either for want of faith in the promise of God, that he would give them success if they would make a vigorous effort, or for want of zeal for the command of God, which obliged them utterly to drive out the Canaanites, and to make no peace with them. And, though they hoped to satisfy the law by putting them under tribute, yet (as Calvin thinks) this made the matter worse, for it shows that they spared them out of covetousness, that they might be profited by their labours, and by dealing with them for their tribute they were in danger of being infected with their idolatry; yet some think that, when they brought them under tribute, they obliged them to renounce their idols, and to observe the seven precepts of the sons of Noah; and I should think so, but that we find in the sequel of the story that the Israelites were so far from restraining idolatry in others that they soon fell into it themselves. Many famous places were within this lot of the tribe of Ephraim, though not mentioned here. In it were Ramah, Samuel's city (called in the New Testament Arimathea, of which Joseph was, that took care of our Saviour's burial), and Shiloh, where the tabernacle was first set up. Tirzah also, the royal city of Jeroboam and his successors, and Deborah's palm-tree, under which she judged Israel, were in this tribe. Samaria, built by Omri after the burning of the royal palace of Tirzah, was in this tribe, and was long the royal city of the kingdom of the ten tribes; not far from it were Shechem, and the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, and Sychar, near which was Jacob's well, where Christ talked with the woman of Samaria. We read much of Mount Ephraim in the story of the Judges, and of a city called Ephraim, it is probable in this tribe, to which Christ retired, John xi. 54. The whole kingdom of the ten tribes is often, in the prophets, especially in Hosea, called Ephraim.