JOSHUA 13 COMME TARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE

Land Still to Be Taken

1 When Joshua had grown old, the Lord said to him, “You are now very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over.

BAR ES, "Joshua is bidden to allot the whole of the promised land among the twelve tribes in faith that God would perfect in due time that expulsion of the Canaanites which Joshua himself could not carry further (see Jos_11:23).

CLARKE, "Joshua was old - He is generally reputed to have been at this time about a hundred years of age: he had spent about seven years in the conquest of the land, and is supposed to have employed about one year in dividing it; and he died about ten years after, aged one hundred and ten years. It is very likely that he intended to subdue the whole land before he made the division of it among the tribes; but God did not think proper to have this done. So unfaithful were the Israelites that he appears to have purposed that some of the ancient inhabitants should still remain to keep them in check, and that the respective tribes should have some labor to drive out from their allotted borders the remains of the Canaanitish nations.There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed - That is, very much

when compared with that on the other side Jordan, which was all that could as yet be said to be in the hands of the Israelites.

GILL, "Now Joshua was old, and stricken in years,.... How old he was cannot be said precisely, but it is very probable he was now about an hundred years of age, for he lived to be an hundred ten; and the land of Canaan was seven years in dividing, as the Jews generally say, and it seems as if he did not live long after that:

and the Lord said unto him: either spoke to him out of the tabernacle, or appeared

to him in a dream or vision:

thou art old, and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed: that is, very much of the land of Canaan, which God had promised to Abraham, yet remained unconquered by Joshua, and unpossessed by the children of Israel; and the old age of Joshua is observed, to intimate to him that through it, and the infirmities of it, he was unable to go out to war, and to finish this work, which must be left to be done by others hereafter; and that he should with all expedition set about another work he was capable of doing, before he died, which was the division of the land among the tribes of Israel.

HE RY, "Here, I. God puts Joshua in mind of his old age, v. 1. 1. It is said that Joshua was old and stricken in years, and he and Caleb were at this time the only old men among the thousands of Israel, none except them of all those who were numbered at Mount Sinai being now alive. He had been a man of war from his youth (Exo_17:10); but now he yielded to the infirmities of age, with which it is in vain for the stoutest to think of contesting. It should seem Joshua had not the same strength and vigour in his old age that Moses had; all that come to old age do not find it alike good; generally, the days of old age are evil days, and such as there is no pleasure in, nor expectation of service from. 2. God takes notice of it to him: God said to him, Thou art old. Note, It is good for those who are old and stricken in years to be put in remembrance of their being so. Some have gray hairs here and there upon them, and perceive it not (Hos_7:9); they do not care to think of it, and therefore need to be told of it, that they may be quickened to do the work of life, and make preparation for death, which is coming towards them apace. But God mentions Joshua's age and growing infirmities, (1.) As a reason why he should now lay by the thoughts of pursuing the war; he cannot expect to see an end of it quickly, for there remained much land, more perhaps than he thought, to be possessed, in several parts remote from each other: and it was not fit that at his age he should be put upon the fatigue of renewing the war, and carrying it to such distant places; no, it was enough for him that he had reduced the body of the country. “Let him be gathered to rest with honour and the thanks of his people for the good services he had done them, and let the conquering of the skirts of the country be left for those that shall come after.” As he had entered into the labours of Moses, so let others enter into his, and bring forth the top-stone, the doing of which was reserved for David long after. Observe, God considers the frame of his people, and would not have them burdened with work above their strength. It cannot be expected that old people should do as they have done for God and their country. (2.) As a reason why he should speedily apply himself to the dividing of that which he had conquered. That work must be done, and done quickly; it was necessary that he should preside in the doing of it, and therefore, he being old and stricken in years, and not likely to continue long, let him make this his concluding piece of service to God and Israel. All people, but especially old people, should set themselves to do that quickly which must be done before they die, lest death prevent them, Ecc_9:10.

JAMISO ,"Jos_13:1-33. Bounds of the land not yet conquered.

Now Joshua was old and stricken in years— He was probably above a hundred years old; for the conquest and survey of the land occupied about seven years, the partition one; and he died at the age of one hundred ten years (Jos_24:29). The distribution, as well as the conquest of the land, was included in the mission of Joshua; and his advanced age supplied a special reason for entering on the immediate discharge

of that duty; namely, of allocating Canaan among the tribes of Israel - not only the parts already won, but those also which were still to be conquered.

K&D, "Introduction to the Division of the Land. - Jos_13:1-7. Command of the Lord to Joshua to distribute the land of Canaan by lot among the nine tribes and a half. Jos_13:1 contains only the commencement of the divine command; the conclusion follows in Jos_13:7. Jos_13:2-6 form a parenthesis of several clauses, defining the last clause of Jos_13:1 more fully. When Joshua had grown old, the Lord commanded him, as he was advanced in years, and there was still much land to be taken, to divide “this land,” i.e., the whole of the land of Canaan, for an inheritance to the nine tribes and a half, and promised him at the same time that He would drive out the Canaanites from those portions of the land that were not yet conquered (Jos_13:6). The words “grown old and come into years” (vid., Gen_24:1; Gen_18:11, etc.) denote advanced age in its different stages up to the near approach of death (as, for example, in Jos_23:1). Joshua might be ninety or a hundred years old at this time. The allusion to Joshua's great age serves simply to explain the reason for the command of God. As he was already old, and there still remained much land to be taken, he was to proceed to the division of Canaan, that he might accomplish this work to which he was also called before his death; whereas he might very possibly suppose that, under existing circumstances, the time for allotting the land had not yet arrived. - In Jos_13:2-6 the districts that were not yet conquered are enumerated separately.

COFFMA , "Here begins the second half of the Book of Joshua, the half which relates the division of the land of Canaan among the children of Israel. Scholars are still advocating all kinds of alleged "sources" for this material and at least a half dozen dates for the time when it was written. One insurmountable fact is that Israel accepted these divisions as originating with God Himself through Moses and Joshua, and despite the Israelites' character of never having been able to get along with any other nation in human history, the twelve tribes accepted these divisions, and as far as we have been able to determine never, even one time, engaged in quarrels, disagreements, or wars among themselves over the undisputed boundaries of their possessions! Could such a thing have happened if the origin of these divisions had been otherwise than as indicated in this chapter?

"Who actually made the divisions? Who made the allocations? Joshua 13:7 suggests that it was Joshua; Joshua 14:1 that it was Eleazer the priest and the heads of families; Joshua 14:5 that it was the people as a whole. These, however, are not mutually exclusive."[1]

We may even go a bit further and declare that it was God who made the allocations, by His determination of the issue in the casting of lots. "The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah" (Proverbs 16:33).

Regarding alternative allegations regarding the date and authorship of these chapters, there is, as yet, no agreement whatever among the scholars and critics. Every seminary has its own theory, and as "prestigious" theologians are replaced by others just as "prestigious," these theories are fluid, constantly changing and being

replaced by more theories just as fluid. If one does not wish to be contradicted by the new theories that will be current 10 years from now, let him accept the time-tested understanding of JOSHUA's authorship, as advocated here. othing can destroy the conviction of the great majority of mankind that for thousands of years has ascribed these writings to Joshua. Concerning all the suggestions as to alternative dates and authors, Blair also commented that, "On the evidence available, it is difficult to come to any conclusion; ...the basic form of these divisions dates back to the conquest."[2]

These detailed boundaries and scores of particular places mentioned here, "Were vital for the tribes themselves, for these were the title-deeds of their inheritance."[3] We shall not be concerned with a discussion of each one of the places mentioned here, because, as John Calvin said, "Great labor (on that project) would produce little fruit to the reader."[4] About one-fourth of all the place-names given here are absolutely "unknown."[5] Several of them are the grounds of contention among archeologists, with some claiming one site, and others another site, as the location of a given city. Besides that, in a number of other cases, there are as many as four towns with the same name! The important thing is that the people concerned did know and did understand the boundaries which are here outlined. Before moving to a study of the Sacred Text itself, we take time to notice the following:

"The whole land has been subdued (Joshua 11:23-12), but here we read that even in Joshua's old age there remained "very much land to be possessed." This plainly comes through from an older source than Joshua 12, and is very much nearer the true state of things. The later writer, however, in order to bring the statement into harmony with what was written in Joshua 12, proceeds to explain the phrase "very much land" by referring it to distant places in the West and in the orth, some of which never came into the possession of Israel at all."[6]

We have included this comment, not for any value in it, there being none at all, but for the purpose of showing the biased and fallacious reasoning of critics. ote that Holmes says that the later writer brought the place into harmony with what was already written, but how could he know that it was not the original author himself who brought about the harmony? Furthermore, the "very much land" in the orth and West had already been identified with that Canaan which God promised the Israelites even from the days of Abraham and the later patriarchs! Sure, Israel did not finally possess all of it, but that will be fully explained under Joshua 13:6, below. God's promise to "drive them out" was never an unconditional declaration, but it was always contingent upon Israel's obedience and cooperation, neither of which God received.

Dean Stanley described this portion of the Book of Joshua, as, "The Domesday Book," comparing it to the book of that name which was compiled by William the Conquerer (1085-1086). However, Plummer pointed out the essential differences in the books,[7] but, as far as God's intention of destroying the occupants of Israel's remaining possessions was concerned, it was indeed the Doomsday Book. That Israel failed to carry out God's intention in this matter did not change God's

purpose.

The conflict with which we are confronted here in the view of "a task well done" as contrasted "with much yet left to do," is a fact of all life, especially in the spiritual sector. This experience of the secular Israel is a type of the Christian Church, or a type of the human heart.

"The work of subduing God's enemies is gradual. One successful engagement does not conclude the war. The enemy renews his assaults, and when force fails, he tries fraud. When direct temptations are of no avail, he resorts to enticements. The victory belongs only to him who has learned to keep guard over himself, and to direct his ways to the counsels of God."[8]

" ow Joshua was old and well stricken in years; and Jehovah said unto him, Thou art old and well stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. This is the land that yet remaineth: all the region of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites; from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the border of Ekron northward, which is reckoned to the Canaanites; the five lords of the Philistines; the Gazites, and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avvim, on the south; all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongeth to the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the border of the Amorites; and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon toward the sunrising, from Baal-gad under mount Hermon unto the entrance of Hamath; all the inhabitants of the hill-country from Lebanon unto Misrephoth-maim, even all the Sidonians; them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only allot thou it unto Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee. ow therefore divide this land for an inheritance unto the nine tribes and the half tribe of Manasseh."

"Thou art old ..." (Joshua 13:1). "Joshua was 110 years old the year he died (Joshua 24:29); so he must have been more than 90 years old at this time."[9] If one wonders why the age of Joshua is stressed here, "It was a principal reason why he should speedily apply himself to the dividing of that which he had conquered."[10] Henry further observed that, "All people, but especially old people, should set themselves to do quickly that which must be done before they die, lest death prevent them."[11] "Joshua's original commission required that he should `divide the land' to Israel, and his advanced age was a special reason for discharging that duty at once."[12]

"Joshua 13:2-3 name the still unconquered areas in the south, and Joshua 13:4-5, and Joshua 13:6 name those in the north."[13]

"Sihor ..." (Joshua 13:3). "This word originally referred to the ile river. Here, however, it is located east of Egypt and apparently designates the southern border of Canaan .... the Brook of Egypt (Wady el-'Arish).[14]

"From the south ..." (Joshua 13:4). This connects with what precedes."[15] "This indicates the southern limit of the still unconquered territory, and Joshua 13:3 gives the northern limit."[16] Jamieson pointed out the wisdom of putting these limits and

boundaries on record, "As in any case of misunderstanding or dispute about the exact limits of each district of property an appeal could always be made to this authoritative document."[17] This southern limit included the Mediterranean coast as far as the Brook of Egypt. The northern limit was to Aphek, to the border of the Amorites. "This was the Aphek in the allotment to Asher, and the `border of the Amorites' was the northern boundary of the territory of Bashan."[18] We learn from these same sources that Aphek was the site of the Syrian temple of Astarte, dedicated to her as mourning for Tammuz, the ruins of which are still visible. It is not believed that Asher ever actually occupied the territory this far.

"Them will I drive out from before the children of Israel ..." (Joshua 13:6). This was by no means an unconditional promise. Despite this, some people have taken upon themselves to deny the authenticity of Divine revelation on this matter, affirming that, "God promised that Joshua should conquer the whole land,"[19] and then, of course, it did not happen! Again from Clarke, "This is a total mistake."[20] God never absolutely, or U CO DITIO ALLY, promised to put Israel in possession of the whole land of Canaan. The promise of their possessing it DEPE DED upon their fidelity to God. They were OT faithful, but rebelled against God repeatedly, and that is why Israel actually failed to possess great portions of the promised land. Furthermore, they did not drive out the Canaanites, even where they did possess it, and eventually Israel was seduced and corrupted by the pagan worship that surrounded them to such a degree, and in such an aggravated sense, that God removed Israel, absolutely, and altogether, from their status of being God's Chosen People. From the days of Hosea, and afterward, Israel's status was that of a "slave" and not that of a wife, in the house of God. Read Hosea, especially the 9th chapter. (Also see our full discussion of this question in Vol. 2 of my series on the minor prophets.) "If Israel, through sloth, or cowardice, or affection to those idolaters (of Canaan), sit still and let them alone, they must blame themselves, and not God, if they be not driven out."[21] Although Israel never held all of the land described by these boundaries, this chapter shows that ALL of Canaan was indeed promised by God to Israel, contingent only upon their obedience and cooperation, neither of which they gave.

CALVI , "1. ow Joshua was old, etc (127) Since we have seen above that the land was pacified by the subjugation of thirty-one kings, it is probable that some cessation now took place for the purpose of resting from their fatigues, lest the people should be worn out by continual service. or could that justly be blamed, provided they rested only for a time and continued always intent on the goal set before them. But lest that intermission which was given for the purpose of recruiting new vigor might prove an occasion of sloth, the Lord employs a new stimulus to urge them to proceed. For he orders the whole inheritance to be divided into tribes, and the whole line of the Mediterranean coast which was possessed by the enemy to be put into the lot. A division of this kind might indeed seem absurd and ludicrous, nay, a complete mockery, seeing they were dealing among themselves with the property of others just as if it had been their own. But the Lord so appointed for the best of reasons. First, they might have cast away the hope of the promise and been contented with their present state. ay, although after the lot was cast they had

security in full for all that God had promised, they by their own cowardice, as far as in them lay, destroyed the credit of his words. or was it owing to any merit of theirs that his veracity did not lie curtailed and mutilated. The allocation by lot must therefore have been to them an earnest of certain possession so as to keep them always in readiness for it. Secondly, Those who happened to have their portion assigned in an enemy’s country, inasmuch as they were living in the meanwhile as strangers on precarious hospitality beyond their own inheritance, must have acted like a kind of task-masters spurring on the others. And it surely implied excessive stupor to neglect and abandon what had been divinely assigned to them.

We now see to what intent the whole land behooved to be divided by lot, and the seat of each tribe allocated. It was also necessary that this should be done while Joshua was alive, because after his death the Israelites would have been less inclined to obedience, for none of his successors possessed authority sufficient for the execution of so difficult a task. Moreover, as God had already by the mouth of Moses commanded it to be done, had he not performed the business thus committed to him, the whole work might have gone to wreck when the lawful minister was removed. Although the exact time is not stated, still it is probable that as there was no hope that while Joshua continued alive the people would again take up arms with the view of giving a wider extent to their boundaries, he then only attempted to divide the land, as if he were proclaiming and promising, by a solemn attestation, that the distribution would certainly be carried into effect, because the truth of God could not fail in consequence of the death of any man.

BE SO ,". ow Joshua was old — To what age Joshua was advanced we cannot determine, because we do not know how old he was when the Israelites came out of Egypt. Some think he was three and forty at that time, and then he was fourscore and three when they came into Canaan. And now, it may be gathered from probable conjectures, that he wanted not much of a hundred. And, in this declining age, he could not hope to live to conquer what remained of the land unsubdued, and therefore he was to go about another business, namely, the dividing of it. The Lord said unto him, Thou art old — Therefore delay not to do the work which I have commanded thee to do. It is good for those that are stricken in years to be reminded that they are so; that they may be quickened to do the work of life, and prepare for death, which is coming on apace.

TRAPP, " ow Joshua was old [and] stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old [and] stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.

Ver. 1. Thou art old and stricken in years,] q.d., Thou hast not long to do; up therefore and be doing; work while it is yet day; the night of death cometh, when none can work. Divide what thou hast conquered, yea, that which is yet to be conquered, among the tribes; for all is theirs, unless they forget their charter. See the true Christian’s charter, which he cannot forfeit. [1 Corinthians 3:22-23]

COKE, "Ver. 1. ow Joshua was old and stricken in years— By assigning to Joshua

the same age with Caleb, it is easy to justify what the sacred historian says; for Caleb was now eighty-five years old, ch. Joshua 14:10. Joshua, however, is commonly made to be more, for reasons drawn from the chronology of the time which elapsed from the departure out of Egypt, till the building of the temple of Solomon. See Bedford's Script. Chronol. b. v. c. 2. We suppose him, with the generality of interpreters, to have been about one hundred years of age; for, allowing him to have been forty-five when he left Egypt, if we add to them the forty years spent in the wilderness, and the seven which it took him to conquer the land of Canaan, we shall find him to be ninety-two years of age at the end of the war. ow he lived one hundred and ten years; so that, according to our supposition, he must have made the division of the country seven or eight years after the conquest. See Vignoles, tom. 1: p. 1-16.

And the Lord said unto him, Thou art old, &c.— It is evident that Joshua meditated new conquests: to divert him from which, God leads him to reflect on his great age; as if he had said, "Although a part of the country which I promised to give unto my people remains still to be conquered, yet it is time to make a division of the whole. If this people keep my covenant, I will fully perform my promises; but, in the mean time, it is proper to exercise their faith, and try their submission." God had never promised Joshua that he should conquer the whole land of Canaan; but only, that he should bring his people into it, Deuteronomy 31:23 and divide its territories among them, ch. Joshua 1:6. On the one hand, his great age no longer allowed him to bear the fatigues of war; and, on the other, it invited him to a speedy division of the country among the children of Israel, in order to prevent, by his authority, all contest and ground of discontent among them.

WHEDO , "LIST OF U CO QUERED CITIES A D DISTRICTS, Joshua 13:1-6.

1. Joshua was old — It was time for Joshua to be placed on the retired lists. Since he could not vigorously carry on the war, and no great captain had been raised up, it was deemed by God better that the delicate question of division should be made by Joshua, whose influence and authority would go far towards an amicable partition of the land. Joshua was now about one hundred years old.

[Much land to be possessed — The writer proceeds (Joshua 13:2-6) to name the unconquered districts. Joshua had effectually subdued Palestine, and gained for Israel a firm and lasting foothold there. It does not militate against this fact that there remained still unsubdued a number of scattered cities and provinces in various parts of the land. See note on Joshua 11:23. It is usual, when a land is invaded and subdued, for the unconquered tribes to forsake the plains and seek refuge in the hills; but the unconquered nations here enumerated abode chiefly in the plains.]

ELLICOTT, "DESCRIPTIO OF THE TERRITORY TO BE DIVIDED

(Joshua 13:1-14).

(b) According to its boundaries.

(1) Joshua was old and stricken in years.—Rather, he had aged, and was advanced in days. Old is too absolute a word. He did not live beyond a hundred and ten years (Joshua 24:29), and this was not a great age for the time. But in several instances the Hebrew word here employed is used not so much in respect of the number of years men lived, but rather in regard to the weakening of the vital powers. So it is said in Genesis 27, “Isaac was old,” i.e., he had aged, for he lived forty-three years after that. So in regard to David, “the king was very old,” i.e., much aged, in 1 Kings 1:15, for he could not have been more than seventy when he died. The hardships and anxieties of his life had aged him. So it was perhaps with Joshua. Moses was a signal exception; he had not aged at one hundred and twenty. But Jehovah constantly talked with Moses, and knew him face to face; and may we not say that that heavenly intercourse even sustained the vital powers? The work of the Lord, though it be successfully carried on, as it was by Joshua, may wear men out by its very excitement. But personal intercourse with Him is like eating of the tree of life, and “in His presence is the fulness of joy.” In this personal intercourse Moses was more highly favoured than his successor, Joshua.

(1, 7) There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed . . . ow therefore divide this land.—The land had still to be inherited—i.e., not overrun, or conquered, as far as it could be said to be conquered by defeating the armies that took the field; all this was done already, but the land had not passed out of the hands of its actual possessors into the hands of Israel. It is remarkable that we have here a distinct order given to Joshua to divide to Israel land which was not yet conquered. In these verses several nations are named—viz., the Philistines, the Geshurites, the Avites, the Giblites, the Sidonians, besides anything more which may be included in the sometimes generic, and sometimes more specific, name of the Canaanites. Of these tribes, the Philistines and “all the Sidonians” (or Phœnicians) were certainly not yet conquered. Can we say that they were ever conquered at any period in the history of the kingdom of all Israel, except in so far as they were reduced to the condition of tributaries?

We may say, then, that while the list of kings in Joshua 12 represents the territory in that aspect in which it was conquered, by the reduction of a number of fortified posts and strongholds, and the subjugation of all the principal rulers of the country, the description of its boundaries in Joshua 13 represents it as not yet conquered—viz., as still containing several nations whom the Israelites must dispossess when God gave them the opportunity and ordered them to drive them out.

It is important to mark clearly the distinction between the work done by Joshua and the work left for Israel. Joshua overthrew the ruling powers of Palestine, destroyed the kingdoms, defeated the armies, and captured the fortresses to such an extent as to give Israel a firm foothold in the country. But he did not exterminate the population from every portion even of that territory which he distributed to the several tribes. And there were several nations—of whom the Philistines and

Phœnicians were the chief—whom he left entirely intact. The purpose of this is explained in Judges 2:20-23; Judges 3:1-4. The work done by Joshua was thus distinctly limited.

The work left for Israel was partly similar to that which Joshua had done, and partly different. It was the same when any great war broke out between Israel and the unconquered nations: for example, in the time of Deborah and Barak, or in the wars with the Philistines. But for the most part it was entirely different, and was the completion of the conquest of the land in detail throughout the several towns and villages. But how was this to be effected? Certainly not after the manner of the capture of Laish by the Danites, described in Judges (Joshua 18:27), when they came “unto a people that were at quiet and secure; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire.” The rules laid down in the law of Moses were to be the guiding principle for Israel, as also for Joshua. The seventh and twelfth chapters of Deuteronomy give them clearly, and they are these.

(1) Utter extermination of the nations when Jehovah should deliver them up—i.e., not at the pleasure of Israel, but at the Divine decree. The signal for this extermination was generally a determined and obstinate attack on Israel. “It was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might destroy them utterly” (Joshua 11:20). But while they “stood still in their strength” (Joshua 11:13) they were usually unmolested.

(2) The destruction of all traces of idolatry in the conquered territory (Deuteronomy 12:1-2 : “In the land which the Lord God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it . . . ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods . . . overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and . . . hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.” So also Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 7:25). All investigation of idolatrous practices and usages was forbidden (Deuteronomy 12:30).

(3) o covenant or treaty was to be made between Israel and the nations of Canaan, and all intermarriage was prohibited. (Deuteronomy 7:2-3; comp. Joshua 23:12-13.)

Of these rules, the first entails responsibility, chiefly upon the leaders—as Joshua and his successors; the second and third, upon all the people. And on the observance or non-observance of the two latter rules the completion of the conquest in detail very much depended. It is obvious that the persistent and general destruction of objects of Canaanitish worship, with the refusal to make treaties or intermarry, would tend to perpetuate a state of irritation in the minds of the Canaanites. Had these rules been faithfully observed, there would have been constant outbreaks of hostility, terminating in the further and more rapid extermination of the enemies of Israel, or else in their absolute submission to Israelitish law; and thus the entire conquest would have been completed in a comparatively short time. But, in fact, the second and third rules were constantly broken. Mixed marriages were common, and idolatry was maintained instead of being destroyed. Hence Israelites and Canaanites were mingled together, and it became impossible to carry out Rule 1; for one set of

inhabitants could not be exterminated without inflicting serious injury upon the other.

When we consider the above rules, it is impossible not to be struck with the wisdom of them when regarded as a means to the proposed end. We are also able to understand more clearly why so much stress was laid upon the necessity of adherence to the Book of the Law in Joshua’s commission (Joshua 1:6-8). The fact that these rules are not what human nature would be at all disposed to obey continuously and as a matter of set practice (have they ever been observed yet in any conquest recorded in history?) is worth noting, as a proof of the undesigned veracity of the story. It is a mark of thorough consistency between the law and the history of Israel. And if the authorship of Deuteronomy belonged to the late date which some claim for it, how could we account for the insertion of a law which was never kept, and could not be kept at the time when some suppose it was written? From the days of Solomon and thenceforward, the relation of the remnant of the conquered Canaanites to Israel was fixed. The Phœnicians and Philistines maintained a separate national existence to the last.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:1

ow Joshua was old. This is usually regarded as the second part of the Book of Joshua; the first being devoted to the history of the conquest of Palestine, while the second is engaged with the history of its division among the conquerors. Dean Stanley, in his 'Sinai and Palestine,' as well as in his 'Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,' describes this portion of the Book of Judges as the 'Domes. day Book' of the land of Canaan, and the remark has been constantly repeated. There is, however, a considerable difference between the great survey of the Conqueror and this one. The former was an accurate account, for purposes of taxation, national detente, and public order, of the exact extent of soil owned by each landowner, and it went so far as to enumerate the cattle on his estate, to the great disgust of the Saxon chronicler, who had an Englishman's dislike of inquisitorial proceedings. There is no trace either of such completeness, or of such an inquisitorial character in this survey, neither has it quite the same object. It assigns to each tribe the limits of its future possessions, and enumerates the cities contained in each portion of territory. Bat it makes scarcely any effort to describe the possessions of particular families, still less of individual landowners. Joshua and Caleb are the only exceptions. Knobel observes that the most powerful tribes were first settled in their territory—those, namely, of Judah and Joseph. He remarks that the author must have had written sources for his information, for no single Israelite could have been personally acquainted with all the details here given. And stricken in years. Rather, advanced in age. There is no foundation for the idea of some commentators that the Jews, at the time this book was written, made any formal distinction in these words between different stages of old age. The Hebrew language rejoiced in repetition, and this common phrase is only a means of adding emphasis to the statement already made. And there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. The Hebrew מאד is stronger than our version. Perhaps the best equivalent in modern English is, "And the amount of land that remaineth for us to occupy is very great indeed." We may

observe here that, as with the literal so with the spiritual Israel, whether the antitype be the Christian Church or the human heart, the work of subduing God's enemies is gradual. One successful engagement does not conclude the war. The enemy renews his assaults, and when force fails he tries fraud; when direct temptations are of no avail he resorts to enticements. The only safeguard in the war is strength, alertness, courage, patience. The faint hearted and unwatchful alike fail in the contest, which can be carried on successfully only by him who has learned to keep guard over himself, and to direct his ways by the counsels of God.

EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Victories in Old Age

Joshua 13:1

God often speaks very plainly. Few care to be told to their face that they are old. But the Almighty recognizes these awkward facts and bids men recognize them. He is sometimes almost blunt, as He was in addressing Joshua. His is the directness of loving faithfulness. Matthew Henry says: "It is good for those who are old... to be put in remembrance of their being so". And it was for Joshua"s highest good that God now puts him in memory of this unwelcome fact.

The Bible renders us the great service of introducing us to numerous aged or ageing people. They are not the least interesting figures of its fascinating and often pathetic gallery. Abraham, Sarah, David, Zacharias, and Elizabeth, have honoured place among the venerable saints of Scripture. It is to be observed that old age is associated in the Bible, I think invariably, with the saints. The tragedy of godless old age is not alluded to. Only the old age which is a crown of glory, because found in the way of righteousness, is honoured in the sacred treasury of honour.

I. Achievement—Jehovah cheers His aged servant by a great and inspiring implication. It lurks delightfully in that "yet". Thank God for that delectable adverb. "Yet" carries the idea of "in addition," and addition implies something already in existence. "There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed." Much land had already been possessed. Great victories had been won. The territory of the enemy had been heroically acquired. Joshua had not lived in vain. His greyed head had won its laurels and won them worthily and well. There is a gospel of sweet reminiscence and kindly hope in that gracious "yet".

The Lord, the great Encourager, delights to remind his old warriors of the battles they have by His grace fought and won. He gives them light at evening time in many ways, and not least by recalling to them the "land" they have already "possessed". Divinely inspired memories are among the treasures of old age.

1. When we are old we, in many cases, have the recollection of temporal achievement.

2. It is a great thing to come to age and know that we have achieved doctrinally.

Blessed are they who have possessed themselves of "much" of this Emmanuel"s Land!

3. Experimentally some of God"s children achieve grandly ere they are old. They become experts in believing prayer. They abound in thanksgiving. They delight themselves in the Law of the Lord. They hate every evil way. They have fellowship with all such as love Jesus Christ in sincerity. Happy souls that in old age can give glory to God because they have possessed themselves of "much land" in the Canaan of Christian experience!

4. It appertains to some to recognize in their old age that they have achieved altruistically.

II. Omission.—When God said to Joshua , "Thou art old... and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed," there was kindly reproof in the faithful word. If there had been achievement, there had been omission. "There remaineth yet"—much had been left undone. He and his braves had possessed themselves grandly, but imperfectly. Jerusalem, Gezer, Bethshean, were but instances of the "very much" that was still unaccomplished. Those forte were still untaken.

What a parable of life! Age reveals, and increasingly reveals, our omissions. Oh, the Jerusalems, Gezers, Bethshean"s, of our soldiership! Why did we not take those proud fortresses when we had boundless vigour? "There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed."

III. Opportunity.—Even though Joshua was old, he had spacious opportunity before him. "Very much land remained" "to be possessed". He had not the opportunity of earlier days, but it was an opportunity relatively very great. The "very much" was the measure of his possibilities.

Age always has its opportunity, greater or lesser. What land may not veteran victors possess! Do not regard old age as defeat; make it a triumph. God can strengthen Joshua to possess "very much land," albeit he be "old". Bishop Creighton said, "We can scarcely recognize as one of the problems of life how to grow old happily". But it is one of life"s hardest and yet most hopeful problems.

IV. Endeavour.—"The Lord said unto him, Thou art old... and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed." Then Joshua must make immediate endeavour. "You are not dangerously ill," said a physician to a patient; "but you are dangerously old." Ah, that is the spiritual peril of some. At once such must bestir themselves. There is no time to be lost if the "very much land" is not to be lost. Arise, my friend, and call earnestly upon thy God and go forth to the battle and to the victory! "Tis time to live if I grow old" was a favourite exclamation of John Wesley in his closing years. And it is well for all old people to soliloquize thus if they would be victors whilst the shadows lengthen.

Very trustful such may well be as they war their good warfare. Philip Henry

declared, "Christ is a Master that does not cast off His old servants". o! He never does. And He will not cast you off in the time of old age! The comforter shall still be with you. The Risen Lord shall empower you. You shall possess the land.

—Dinsdale T. Young, The Gospel of the Left Hand, p43.

PI K, "The thirteenth chapter of Joshua is another chapter which offers very little scope for the commentator, for it consists largely of geographical details. After a brief but blessed word from the Lord to Joshua himself, the first six verses contain a list of those parts of the land which had not yet been possessed by Israel, together with an assurance from God that He would drive out from before His people the inhabitants of those sections also. In the next six verses the Lord gives orders concerning the dividing of apportioning of Canaan, naming some of the places therein and the bounds thereof. Then comes a reference to the portion which Moses had allotted unto the two and a half tribes on the eastward side of Jordan, with a detailed description of the same. Parenthetically, mention is made of Israel’s slaying of Balaam, and twice over we are informed that Moses gave no inheritance to the tribe of Levi. Thus its contents admit of no unified treatment, its central subject being, perhaps, best described as the spoils of victory enjoyed by Israel and the respective portions therein assigned to her tribes.

Canaan was (as we have previously pointed out) at once a Divine gift, yet as to their occupying of the same it was the result of Israel’s own prowess. It was bestowed upon them by free grant from God, nevertheless it had to be conquered by them. Therein there was an accurate shadowing forth of the Christian’s inheritance. That too is wholly of Divine grace and mediatorial purchase, but it is not actually entered into by the heirs of promise without much effort on their part. It is at this point that theologians have so often gone wrong, by attributing either too much or too little unto the creature. Only by cleaving very closely to Holy Writ as a whole—and not by singling out detached fragments—are we preserved from serious error. On the one hand, we must see to it that we return right answers to the questions, "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7); on the other, we must give due place to such exhortations as "Strive to enter in at the strait gate" (Luke 13:24) and "Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest" (Heb. 4:11); and not ignore such statements as "knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance" (Col. 3:24). Only thus will the balance of truth be preserved.

It is indeed true that the child of God has nothing good or spiritual but what the Lord has freely bestowed upon him. But does that mean he is as passive a "receiver" as the earth is when fructified by heaven’s refreshing showers and genial sunshine? Great care needs to be taken in answering that question lest we contradict the Word of Truth. Certainly he is no co-operator with Christ in the work of his redemption. There is not the least warrant for us to say, "God will do His part if we do ours." There is no dividing of the honors: the glory is God’s alone, and we have no ground

for boasting. Most assuredly the elect have nothing to do with their election, for God chose them in Christ before the foundation of the world, and there is not a line in His Word to show that His choice was determined by anything praiseworthy which He foresaw in them. Those ordained to be vessels of honor were "clay of the same lump" as the vessels appointed to dishonor. or had they a thing to do with their redemption, for all that was required to make atonement for their sins and reconcile them to God was accomplished by Christ centuries before they existed. or had they anything whatever to do with their regeneration, for they were dead in trespasses and sins when the Spirit quickened them into newness of life.

But it is quite wrong to infer from the above that the regenerated soul remains a passive agent. Equally wrong is it to suppose that he is how possessed of any self-sufficiency, that his new nature empowers him to perform his duty. Though he has become a living branch of the Vine, yet he is entirely dependent upon the Vine’s nourishing and fructifying. But we must not confine ourselves to that particular figure and relationship. The Christian is a moral agent, and grace has been given him to improve. Means of grace have been provided, and he is responsible to employ the same. He has a conflict to engage him, a race to run. There is a world for him to overcome, a devil to resist, a salvation to be worked out with fear and trembling. True, in and of himself he is quite incapable of accomplishing such tasks; nevertheless, through Christ he "can do all things" (Phil. 4:13). He must tread the narrow way if he would actually enter into the fullness of Life, and is required to endure unto the end if he is to be finally saved. He must fight the good fight of faith if he is to enter into the eternal inheritance. These things are just as true and real as those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

It must not be forgotten that Scripture itself records, and without the least condemnation or criticism, such utterances as "by the word of Thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer" (Ps. 17:4), "I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep Thy word" (Ps. 119:101), "I keep under my body" (1 Cor. 9:27), "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith" (2 Tim. 4:7). Those are not carnal boastings but true statements of fact, and due place must be given to them in our theological system, or our doctrinal beliefs are very defective. True indeed, it was by Divine grace that those men conducted themselves thus, yet they were active moral agents therein, and not passive ciphers. Thus also was Canaan a Divine gift unto Abraham and his descendants, but they had to fight—fight long and hard—in order to enter into possession of the same. True also that the Lord fought for them, and that their victories must be ascribed unto Him who so signally showed Himself strong in their behalf; nevertheless that altered not the fact that they fought and subdued their foes. Both the Divine and the human sides are to be recognized and owned by us.

In like manner our salvation has the same two sides unto it. God is indeed both the Alpha and the Omega thereof, yet He deals with us as rational creatures and enforces our responsibility in connection with the same. So far as we can discover, the plants in the garden and the trees in the orchard owe their growth and fertility entirely to the Creator. But it is otherwise with believers: they are required to use

the means of grace which God has appointed, and look to Him to bless the same. The vegetables and trees are incapable of taking precautions against pests and tornadoes; but we are obligated to avoid evil, resist temptation, and take shelter from the storm. Eternal life is a Divine gift (Rom. 6:23), but we are to "lay hold on" it (1 Tim. 6:12). The celestial inheritance is "the purchased possession" of Christ for His people (Eph. 1:14), yet it is also "the reward" of service unto the Lord (Col. 3:24). Grace is freely given, but we are to use it, and must improve the same if we would receive more (Luke 8:18; Matthew 25:16). "Seek the Lord, and His strength: seek His face evermore" (Ps. 105:4)—there is the meeting-place of the two sides! We have no sufficiency of our own, but if grace be duly sought (Heb. 4:16) then "our sufficiency is of God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

" ow Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the Lord said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed" (Josh. 13:1). Unlike Moses, of whom it is recorded that at the close of a still longer life his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated (Deut. 34:1), the strenuous life Joshua had lived took heavy toll of him, and the infirmities of old age had come upon him. Probably he had then reached the century mark, for he was one of the twelve originally sent forth by Moses to spy out the land, and therefore would be at least as old as Caleb, who was then eighty-five (Josh. 14:10), and most likely quite a few years more, for he was but 110 at the time of his death (Josh. 24:29). But it is blessed to see that, despite his increasing bodily weakness, the Lord did not desert him in his old age, but now honored him with a special visit and a most gracious communication. And that, dear reader, is recorded for the particular comfort and encouragement of His aged pilgrims. Unto them He has given the sure promise: "And even to your old age I am He [the unchanging One]; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you" (Isa. 46:4), and that blessed assurance it is their holy privilege to rest upon day by day with childlike faith.

It is to be noted that after informing His servant that he was old and stricken in years—for the Lord never flatters man, nor withholds His Truth (except in judgment) from man—He did not say "but there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed": instead it was "and there remaineth." Thus He was not saying this by way of reproach. It appears to us that God so addressed Himself to Joshua on this occasion, First, to instruct Him: to let him know that He was no Egyptian taskmaster, who imposed burdens grievous to be borne; rather did He tenderly remember that Joshua was dust. By virtue of growing frailty he would be unfit to complete so vast a task as conquering the whole of Canaan—the major part of which remained to be done. Second, to humble him. While Joshua had much ground to be thankful for the considerable success with which the Lord had crowned his efforts, he had no reason to be elated, for the energy was still in possession of the remoter sections of Israel’s inheritance. Third, it was, as the following verses make clear, for the purpose of acquainting him with his immediate duty.

While the Lord took knowledge of the enfeebled frame of His servant, yet He did not for that reason encourage him to be slack. On the contrary, He assigned him a

new though much lighter task. It is not the revealed will of God that His people should spend their old age in idleness. He does not preserve them through all the dangers of youth and the trials of maturity that they should be mere cumberers of the ground. He may well suffer them to become exceedingly tottery and perhaps bedridden and entirely dependent upon others; yet even so it is their privilege and duty to beg Him to make good in them that precious word, "They shall still bring forth fruit in old age: they shall be fat and flourishing" (Ps. 92:14). They may still commune with the Lord, and manifest the effects thereof. The decay of nature is no reason why grace should languish. Even when thoroughly helpless, the fruits of patience, meekness and gratitude may be borne, and they may carry themselves as the monuments of God’s goodness and the memorials of His faithfulness, and thereby "show forth His praises." Though the strenuous efforts of earlier years be no longer possible, the ministry of prayer is available unto the very end, and who can say that more will not be accomplished therein for eternity than by any other spiritual activity?

As intimated above, one of the Lord’s designs in now appearing unto Joshua was to make known unto him his duty; yea, this seems to have been His leading object. What that duty consisted of was revealed in verse 7: he was to superintend in the apportioning of the land unto the nine and a half tribes—the other two and a half having already been allotted their heritage by Moses. It was most essential that he should be the one to perform this task. Clothed as he was with Divine authority, called of God to be Israel’s head, so markedly used by Him in vanquishing the armies of the Amorites and destroying their strongholds, none so well fitted as he now to divide the spoils of victory. Enjoying the confidence of the congregation, it behooved him to set about this important task while life and sufficient strength remained; and not leave unto some successor to do what could be far better and more appropriately done by himself. The decisions of the one who had in the hearing of the nation commanded the sun and the moon to stand still would not be challenged by the tribes; whereas it was not nearly so likely that they would freely accept the rulings of another Joshua then must not delay.

ELLICOTT, "DESCRIPTIO OF THE TERRITORY TO BE DIVIDED

(Joshua 13:1-14).

(b) According to its boundaries.

(1) Joshua was old and stricken in years.—Rather, he had aged, and was advanced in days. Old is too absolute a word. He did not live beyond a hundred and ten years (Joshua 24:29), and this was not a great age for the time. But in several instances the Hebrew word here employed is used not so much in respect of the number of years men lived, but rather in regard to the weakening of the vital powers. So it is said in Genesis 27, “Isaac was old,” i.e., he had aged, for he lived forty-three years after that. So in regard to David, “the king was very old,” i.e., much aged, in 1 Kings 1:15, for he could not have been more than seventy when he died. The hardships and

anxieties of his life had aged him. So it was perhaps with Joshua. Moses was a signal exception; he had not aged at one hundred and twenty. But Jehovah constantly talked with Moses, and knew him face to face; and may we not say that that heavenly intercourse even sustained the vital powers? The work of the Lord, though it be successfully carried on, as it was by Joshua, may wear men out by its very excitement. But personal intercourse with Him is like eating of the tree of life, and “in His presence is the fulness of joy.” In this personal intercourse Moses was more highly favoured than his successor, Joshua.

(1, 7) There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed . . . ow therefore divide this land.—The land had still to be inherited—i.e., not overrun, or conquered, as far as it could be said to be conquered by defeating the armies that took the field; all this was done already, but the land had not passed out of the hands of its actual possessors into the hands of Israel. It is remarkable that we have here a distinct order given to Joshua to divide to Israel land which was not yet conquered. In these verses several nations are named—viz., the Philistines, the Geshurites, the Avites, the Giblites, the Sidonians, besides anything more which may be included in the sometimes generic, and sometimes more specific, name of the Canaanites. Of these tribes, the Philistines and “all the Sidonians” (or Phœnicians) were certainly not yet conquered. Can we say that they were ever conquered at any period in the history of the kingdom of all Israel, except in so far as they were reduced to the condition of tributaries?

We may say, then, that while the list of kings in Joshua 12 represents the territory in that aspect in which it was conquered, by the reduction of a number of fortified posts and strongholds, and the subjugation of all the principal rulers of the country, the description of its boundaries in Joshua 13 represents it as not yet conquered—viz., as still containing several nations whom the Israelites must dispossess when God gave them the opportunity and ordered them to drive them out.

It is important to mark clearly the distinction between the work done by Joshua and the work left for Israel. Joshua overthrew the ruling powers of Palestine, destroyed the kingdoms, defeated the armies, and captured the fortresses to such an extent as to give Israel a firm foothold in the country. But he did not exterminate the population from every portion even of that territory which he distributed to the several tribes. And there were several nations—of whom the Philistines and Phœnicians were the chief—whom he left entirely intact. The purpose of this is explained in Judges 2:20-23; Judges 3:1-4. The work done by Joshua was thus distinctly limited.

The work left for Israel was partly similar to that which Joshua had done, and partly different. It was the same when any great war broke out between Israel and the unconquered nations: for example, in the time of Deborah and Barak, or in the wars with the Philistines. But for the most part it was entirely different, and was the completion of the conquest of the land in detail throughout the several towns and villages. But how was this to be effected? Certainly not after the manner of the capture of Laish by the Danites, described in Judges (Joshua 18:27), when they

came “unto a people that were at quiet and secure; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire.” The rules laid down in the law of Moses were to be the guiding principle for Israel, as also for Joshua. The seventh and twelfth chapters of Deuteronomy give them clearly, and they are these.

(1) Utter extermination of the nations when Jehovah should deliver them up—i.e., not at the pleasure of Israel, but at the Divine decree. The signal for this extermination was generally a determined and obstinate attack on Israel. “It was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might destroy them utterly” (Joshua 11:20). But while they “stood still in their strength” (Joshua 11:13) they were usually unmolested.

(2) The destruction of all traces of idolatry in the conquered territory (Deuteronomy 12:1-2 : “In the land which the Lord God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it . . . ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods . . . overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and . . . hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.” So also Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 7:25). All investigation of idolatrous practices and usages was forbidden (Deuteronomy 12:30).

(3) o covenant or treaty was to be made between Israel and the nations of Canaan, and all intermarriage was prohibited. (Deuteronomy 7:2-3; comp. Joshua 23:12-13.)

Of these rules, the first entails responsibility, chiefly upon the leaders—as Joshua and his successors; the second and third, upon all the people. And on the observance or non-observance of the two latter rules the completion of the conquest in detail very much depended. It is obvious that the persistent and general destruction of objects of Canaanitish worship, with the refusal to make treaties or intermarry, would tend to perpetuate a state of irritation in the minds of the Canaanites. Had these rules been faithfully observed, there would have been constant outbreaks of hostility, terminating in the further and more rapid extermination of the enemies of Israel, or else in their absolute submission to Israelitish law; and thus the entire conquest would have been completed in a comparatively short time. But, in fact, the second and third rules were constantly broken. Mixed marriages were common, and idolatry was maintained instead of being destroyed. Hence Israelites and Canaanites were mingled together, and it became impossible to carry out Rule 1; for one set of inhabitants could not be exterminated without inflicting serious injury upon the other.

When we consider the above rules, it is impossible not to be struck with the wisdom of them when regarded as a means to the proposed end. We are also able to understand more clearly why so much stress was laid upon the necessity of adherence to the Book of the Law in Joshua’s commission (Joshua 1:6-8). The fact that these rules are not what human nature would be at all disposed to obey continuously and as a matter of set practice (have they ever been observed yet in any conquest recorded in history?) is worth noting, as a proof of the undesigned veracity of the story. It is a mark of thorough consistency between the law and the history of

Israel. And if the authorship of Deuteronomy belonged to the late date which some claim for it, how could we account for the insertion of a law which was never kept, and could not be kept at the time when some suppose it was written? From the days of Solomon and thenceforward, the relation of the remnant of the conquered Canaanites to Israel was fixed. The Phœnicians and Philistines maintained a separate national existence to the last.

EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY

JOSHUA'S OLD AGE- DIVISIO FOR THE EASTER TRIBES.

Joshua Ch. 13, 14:1-5.

"THE Lord said unto Joshua, Thou art old and stricken in years." To many men and women this would not be a welcome announcement. They do not like to think that they are old. They do not like to think that the bright, joyous, playful part of life is over, and that they are arrived at the sombre years when they must say, ''There is no pleasure in them."

Then, again, there are some who really find it hard to believe that they are old. Life has flown past so swiftly that before they thought it was well begun it has gone. It seems so short a time since they were in the full play of their youthful energies, that it is hardly credible that they are now in the sere and yellow leaf. Perhaps, too, they have been able to keep their hearts young all the time, and still retain that buoyant sensation which seems to indicate the presence of youth. And are there not some who have verified the psalm - "They that are planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age, they shall be fat and flourishing "?

But however much men may like to be young, and however much some may retain in old age of the feeling of youth, it is certain that the period of strength has its limit, and the period of life also. To the halest and heartiest, if he be not cut off prematurely, the time must come when God will say to him, "Thou art old." It is a solemn word to hear from the lips of God. God tells me my life is past; what use have I made of it? And what does God think of the use I have made of it? And what account of it shall I be able to give when I stand at His bar?

Let the young think well of this, before it is too late to learn how to live.

To Joshua the announcement that he was old and stricken in years does not appear to have brought any painful or regretful feeling. Perhaps he had aged somewhat suddenly; his energies may have failed consciously and rapidly, after his long course of active and anxious; military service. He may have been glad to hear God utter the word; he may have been feeling it himself, and wondering how he should be able to go through the campaigns yet necessary to put the children of Israel in full possession of the land. That word may have fallen on his ear with the happy feeling -

how considerate God is! He will not burden my old age with a load not suited for it. Though His years have no end, and He knows nothing of failing strength, "He knoweth our frame. He remembereth that we are dust." He will not "cast me off in the time of old age, nor forsake me when my strength faileth." Happy confidence, especially for the aged poor! It is the want of trust in the heavenly Father that makes so many miserable in old age. When you will not believe that He is considerate and kind, you are left to your own resources, and often to destitution and misery. But when between Him and you there is the happy relation of father and child; when through Jesus Christ you realize His fatherly love and pity, and in real trust cast yourselves on Him who clothes the lilies and feeds the ravens, your trust is sure to be rewarded, for your heavenly Father knoweth what things you have need of before you ask them.

So Joshua finds that he is now to be relieved by his considerate Master of laborious and anxious service. ot of all service, but of exhausting service, unsuited to his advancing years. Joshua had been a right faithful servant; few men have ever done their work so well. From that day when he stood against Amalek from morning to night, while the rod of Moses was stretched out over him on the hill; thereafter, during all his companionship with Moses on the mount; next in that search-expedition when Caleb and he stood so firm, and did not flinch in the face of the congregation, though every one was for stoning them; and now, from the siege of Jericho to the victory of Merom, and all through the trying and perilous sieges of city after city, year after year, Joshua has proved himself the faithful servant of God and the devoted friend of Israel. During these last years he has enjoyed supreme power, apparently without a rival and without a foe; yet, strange to say, there is no sign of his having been corrupted by power, or made giddy by elevation. He has led a most useful and loyal life, which there is some satisfaction in looking back on. o doubt he is well aware of unnumbered failings: "Who can understand his errors?" But he has the rare satisfaction - oh! who would not wish to share it? - of looking back on a well-spent life, habitually and earnestly regulated amid many infirmities by regard to the will of God. either he, nor St. Paul after him, had any trust in their own good works, as a basis of salvation; yet Paul could say, and Joshua might have said it in spirit: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness."

Yet Joshua was not to complete that work to which he had contributed so much: "there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed." At one time, no doubt, he thought otherwise, and he desired otherwise. When the tide of victory was setting in for him so steadily, and region after region of the land was falling into his hands, it was natural to expect that before he ended he would sweep all the enemies of Israel before him, and open every door for them throughout the land, even to its utmost borders. Why not make hay when the sun shone? When God had found so apt an instrument for His great design, why did He not employ him to the end? If the natural term of Joshua's strength had come, why did not that God who had supernaturally lengthened out the day for completing the victory of Bethhoron, lengthen out Joshua's day that the whole land of Canaan might be secured?

Here comes in a great mystery of Providence. Instead of lengthening out the period of Joshua's strength, God seems to have cut it short. We can easily understand the lesson for Joshua himself. It is the lesson which so many of God's servants have had to learn. They start with the idea they are to do everything; they are to reform every abuse, overthrow every stronghold of evil, reduce chaos to order and beauty; as if each were

"the only man on earth Responsible for all the thistles blown And tigers couchant, struggling in amaze Against disease and winter, snarling on For ever, that the world's not paradise."

Sooner or later they find that they must be satisfied with a much humbler role. They must learn to

"be content in work, To do the thing we can, and not presume, To fret because it's little. 'Twill employ Seven men, they say, to make a perfect pin, . . . Seven men to a pin, and not a man too much! Seven generations, haply to this world. To right it visibly a finger's breadth, And mend its rents a little."

Joshua must be made to feel - perhaps he needs this - that this enterprise is not his, but God's. And God is not limited to one instrument, or to one age, or to one plan. ever does Providence appear to us so strange, as when a noble worker is cut down in the very midst of his work. A young missionary has just shown his splendid capacity for service, when fever strikes him low, and in a few days all that remains of him is rotting in the ground. What can God mean? we sometimes ask impatiently. Does He not know the rare value and the extreme scarcity of such men, that He sets them up apparently just to throw them down? But "God reigneth, let the people tremble." All that bears on the Christian good of the world is in God's plan, and it is very dear to God, and "precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints." But He is not limited to single agents. When Stephen died, He raised up Saul. For Wycliffe He gave Luther. When George Wishart was burnt He raised up John Knox. Kings, it is said, die, but the king never. The herald that announces “The king is dead," proclaims in the same breath, "God save the king!" God's workers die, but His work goes on. Joshua is super- annuated, so far as the work of conquest is concerned, and that work for a time is suspended. But the reason is that, at the present moment, God desires to develop the courage and energy of each particular tribe. And when the time comes to extend still farther the dominion of Israel, an agent will be found well equipped for the service. From the hills of Bethlehem, a godly youth of dauntless bearing will one day emerge, under whom every foe to Israel shall be brought low, and from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the entire Promised Land shall come under Israel's dominion. And the conquests of David will shine with a brighter lustre than Joshua's, and will be set, as it were, to music of a higher strain. Associated with David's holy songs and holy experience, and with his early life of sadness and humiliation, crowned at last with glory and honour, they will more fitly symbolize the work of the great Joshua, and there will then be diffused over the world a more holy aroma than that of Joshua's conquests, - a fragrance sweet and refreshing to souls innumerable, and fostering

the hope of glory, - the rest that remaineth for the people of God, the inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.

So Joshua must be content to have done his part, and done it well, although he did not conquer all the land, and there yet remained much to be possessed. Without entering in detail into all the geographical notices of this chapter, it will be well to note briefly what parts of the country were still unsubdued.

First, there were all the borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri; the five lords of the Philistines, dwelling in Gaza, Ashdod, Ascalon, Gath, and Ekron; and also the Avites. This well defined country consisted mainly of a plain "remarkable in all ages for the extreme riches of its soil; its fields of standing corn, its vineyards and olive yards, are incidentally mentioned in Scripture ( 15:5); and in the time of famine the land of the Philistines was the hope of Palestine (2 Kings 8:2). . . . It was also adapted to the growth of military power; for while the plain itself permitted the use of war chariots, which were the chief arm of offence, the occasional elevations which rise out of it offered secure sites for towns and strongholds. It was, moreover, a commercial country; the great thoroughfare between Phoenicia and Syria on the north and Egypt and Arabia on the south. Ashdod and Gaza were the keys of Egypt, and commanded the transit trade, and the stores of frankincense and myrrh which Alexander captured in the latter place prove it to have been a depot of Arabian produce."

"Smith's " Bible Dictionary."

Geshuri lay between Philistia and the desert, and the Avites were probably some remainder of the Avims, from whom the Philistines conquered the land (Deuteronomy 2:23).

In many respects it would have been a great boon for the Israelites if Joshua had conquered a people that were so troublesome to them as the Philistines were for many a day. What Joshua left undone, Saul began, but failed to achieve, and at last David accomplished. The Geshurites were subdued with the Amalekites while he was dwelling at Ziklag as an ally of the Philistines (1 Samuel 27:8), and the Philistines themselves were brought into subjection, and had to yield to Israel many of their cities (1 Samuel 7:14; 2 Samuel 8:1, 2 Samuel 8:12).

Another important section of the country unsubdued was the Phoenician territory -the land of the Sidonians (Joshua 13:4, Joshua 13:6). Also the hilly country across Lebanon, embracing the valley of Coele-Syria, and apparently the region of Mount Carmel (“from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim," Joshua 13:6, and comp. Joshua 11:8). o doubt much of this district was recovered in the time of the Judges, and still more in the time of David; but David made peace with the King of Tyre, who still retained the rocky strip of territory that was so useful to a commercial nation, but would have been almost useless to an agricultural people like the Israelites.

Joshua was not called on to conquer these territories in the sense of driving out all

the old inhabitants; but he was instructed to divide the whole land among his people - a task involving, no doubt, its own difficulties, but not the physical labour which war entailed. And in this division he was called first to recognise what had already been done by Moses with the part of the country east of the Jordan. That part had been allotted to Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh; and the allotment was still to hold good.

It is remarkable with what fulness the places are described. First, we have the boundaries of that part of the country generally (Joshua 13:9-12); then of the allotments of each of the two and a half tribes (Joshua 13:15-31). With regard to the district as a whole, the conquest under Moses was manifestly complete, from the river Arnon on the south, to the borders of the Geshurites and Maachathites on the north. The only part not subdued were the territories of these Geshurites and Maachathites. The Geshurites here are not to be confounded with the people of the same name mentioned in Joshua 13:2, who were at the opposite extreme - the southwest instead of, as here, the north-east of the land. But no doubt the Syrian Geshurites and Maachathites were brought into subjection by David, with all the other tribes in that region, in his great Syrian war, "when he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates " (2 Samuel 8:3). But instead of expelling or exterminating them, David seems to have allowed them to remain in a tributary condition, for Geshur had its king in the days of Absalom (2 Samuel 13:37), to whom that prince fled after the murder of Amnon. With the Maachathites also David had a family connection (2 Samuel 3:3).

But though the subjugation and occupation of the eastern part of the land was thus tolerably complete (with the exceptions just mentioned), it remained in the undisturbed possession of Israel for the shortest time of any. From Moabites and Ammonites on the south, Canaanites and Syrians on the north and the east, as well as the Midianites, Amalekites, and other tribes of the desert, it was subject to continual invasions. In fact, it was the least settled and least comfortable part of all the country; and doubtless it became soon apparent that though the two tribes and a half had seemed to be very fortunate in having their wish granted to settle in this rich and beautiful region, yet on the whole they had been penny-wise and pound-foolish. ot only were they incessantly assailed and worried by their neighbours, but they were the first to be carried into captivity, when the King of Assyria directed his eyes to Palestine. They had shown somewhat of the spirit of Lot, and they suffered somewhat of his punishment. It is worthy of remark that even at this day this eastern province is the most disturbed part of Palestine. The Bedouins are ever liable to make their attacks wherever there are crops or cattle to tempt their avarice. People will not sow where they have no chance of reaping; and thus it is that much of that productive region lies waste. The moral is not far to seek: in securing wealth, look not merely at the apparent productiveness of the investment, but give heed to its security, its stability. It is not all gold that glitters either on the stock-exchange or anywhere else. And even that which is real gold partakes of the current instability. We must come back to our Saviour's advice to investors, if we would really be safe: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust do corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in

heaven, where moth and rust do not corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal."

The specification of the allotments need not detain us long. Reuben's was the farthest south. His southern and eastern flanks were covered by the Moabites, who greatly annoyed him. "Unstable as water, he did not excel." Gad settled north of Reuben. In his lot was the southern part of Gilead; Mahanaim, and Peniel, celebrated in the history of Jacob, and Ramoth-gilead, conspicuous in after times. East of Gad were the Ammonites, who proved as troublesome to that tribe as Moab did to Reuben. To the half tribe of Manasseh the kingdom of Og fell, and the northern half of Gilead. Jabesh-gilead, where Saul routed the Ammonites, was in this tribe (1 Samuel 11:1-15). Here also were some of the places on the lake of Galilee mentioned in the gospel history; here the "desert place" across the sea to which our Lord used to retire for rest; here He fed the multitude; here He cured the demoniac; and here were some of the mountains where He would spend the night in prayer.

In our Lord's time this portion of Palestine was called Perea. Under the dominion of the Romans, it was comparatively tranquil, and our Lord would sometimes select it, on account of its quiet, as his route to Jerusalem. And many of His gifts of love and mercy were doubtless scattered over its surface.

Two statements are introduced parenthetically in this chapter which hardly belong to the substance of it. One of these, occurring twice, respects the inheritance of the Levites (Joshua 13:14, Joshua 13:33). o territorial possessions were allotted to them corresponding to those of the other tribes. In the one place it is said that "the sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel made by fire were their inheritance"; in the other, that "the Lord God of Israel was their inheritance." We shall afterwards find the arrangements for the Levites more fully detailed (chaps, 20, 21). This early allusion to the subject, even before the allotments in Western Palestine begin to be described, shows that their case had been carefully considered, and that it was not by oversight but deliberately that the country was divided without any section being reserved for them.

The other parenthetical statement respects the death of Balaam. "Balaam also, the soothsayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword among them that were slain by them" (Joshua 13:22). It appears from umbers 31:8 that the slaughter of Balaam took place in the days of Moses, by the hands of the expedition sent by him to chastise the Midianites for drawing the Israelites into idolatry. That the fact should be again noticed here is probably due to the circumstance that the death of Balaam occurred at the place which had just been noted - the boundary line between Reuben and Gad. It was a fact well worthy of being again noted. It was a fact never to be forgotten that the man who had been sent for to curse was constrained to bless. As far as Balaam's public conduct was concerned, he behaved well to Israel. He emphasized their Divine election and their glorious privileges. He laid especial stress upon the fact that they were not a Bedouin horde, rushing about in search of plunder, but a sacramental host, executing the judgments of a righteous

God - "The Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them." This was a valuable testimony, for which Israel might well be grateful. It was when Balaam took part in that disgraceful plot to entice Israel into sensuality and idolatry that he came out in his real colours. It seemed to him very clever, no doubt, to obey the Divine command in the letter by absolutely refusing to curse Israel, while at the same time he accomplished the object he was sent for by seducing them into sins which brought down on them the judgments of God. evertheless, he reckoned without his host. Possibly he gained his reward, but he did not live to enjoy it; and "what shall a man be profited if he gain the whole world and forfeit his own life?" (Matthew 16:26, R.V.). The two and a half tribes were well taught by the fate of Balaam that, in the end, however cunningly a man may act, his sin will find him out. They were emphatically reminded that the sins of sensuality and idolatry are exceedingly hateful in the sight of God, and certain to be punished. They were assured by the testimony of Balaam, that Israel, if only faithful, would never cease to enjoy the Divine protection and blessing. But they were reminded that God is not mocked: that whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Balaam had sown to the flesh; of the flesh it behoved him to reap corruption. And so must it ever be; however ingeniously you may disguise sin, however you may conceal it from yourself, and persuade yourself to believe that you are not doing wrong, sin must show itself ultimately in its true colours, and your ingenious disguises will not shield it from its doom: - "The wages of sin is Death."

PARKER, "For All Gleaners

"There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed."— Joshua 13:1

This is no threat. This is no sentence of discouragement. This indeed is inspiration.—It is true of every department of life. It is true, for example, of a man"s own individuality: every man is not yet master of his entire self: some men have possessed themselves of their whole reason who have yet left their imagination unchastened and unsubdued.—Many men are chaste who are not generous. Many men are generous who are not just. Many men are impulsively good who are not rationally benevolent.—Such men may say to themselves, "There is yet very much land to be possessed."—It is true with all intellectual education.—He knows best how much land is yet to be conquered who has conquered the most.—The advanced student is the most modest.—The wisest man is most assured of his ignorance.—Sir Isaac ewton said that he was like a child on the seashore who gathered a few pebbles, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before him.—It is true with regard to the spread of the kingdom of Christ.—Take a map of the world, and show where Christianity has made progress, and where it is unknown; and even the imagination will be appalled by the extent of land yet to be covered.—We need not rest because there is no more to be done.—We do not obliterate what is to be done by closing our eyes and resolutely refusing to look upon it. The infinite darkness is still round about us, and is not at all decreased by the closing of our eyes.—But instead of the text being a discouragement, it is an encouragement; the land is there in order that it may be possessed; it is not afar off and inaccessible, but is immediately in front of us, and is intended for our use; we may have to obtain

possession through battle and even through suffering, but the battle and the suffering do not destroy the possibility of possession.—What is worth holding that has not to be secured through suffering and loss of a temporary kind? The kingdom of heaven itself lies at the end of a strait road; but the very straitness of the road gives some hint of the value of the kingdom.—The Church must enter into a full realisation of the fact that the work yet to be done is greater than any work that has yet been accomplished: it is not an acre that awaits conquest, but a whole continent; not a whole continent only, but a whole world.—The work to be done enlarges in proportion to the work that is done.—If the work were superficial only, it might be completed with comparative ease, but it is cubic, solid, through-and-through work, and, therefore, it is difficult, but its difficulty is an indication of its glory.

MACLARE , "U WO BUT CLAIMEDJoshua 13:1 - Joshua 13:8.Joshua was now a very old man and had occupied seven years in the conquest. His work was over, and now he had only to take steps to secure the completion by others of the triumph which he would never see. This incident has many applications to the work of the Church in the world, but not less important ones to individual progress, and we consider these mainly now.

I. The clear recognition of present imperfection.That is essential in all regions, ‘ ot as though’; the higher up, the more clearly we see the summit. The ideal grows loftier, as partially realised. The mountain seems comparatively low and easy till we begin to climb. We should be continually driven by a sense of our incompleteness, and drawn by the fair vision of unattained possibilities. In all regions, to be satisfied with the attained is to cease to grow.This is eminently so in the Christian life, with its goal of absolute completeness.How blessed this dissatisfaction is! It keeps life fresh: it is the secret of perpetual youth.Joshua’s work was incomplete, as every man’s must be. We each have our limitations, the defects of our qualities, the barriers of our environment, the brevity of our day of toil, and we have to be content to carry the fiery cross a little way and then to give it up to other hands. There is only One who could say,’ It is done.’ Let us see that we do our own fragment.II. The confident reckoning on complete possession.Joshua’s conquest was very partial. He subdued part of the central mountain nucleus, but the low-lying stretch of country on the coast, Philistia and the maritime plain up to Tyre and Sidon and other outlying districts, remained unsubdued. Yet the whole land was now to be allotted out to the tribes. That allotment must have strengthened faith in their ultimate possession, and encouraged effort to make the ideal a reality, and to appropriate as their own in fact what was already theirs in God’s purpose. So a great part of Christian duty, and a great secret of Christian progress, is to familiarise ourselves with the hope of complete victory. We should acquire the habit of contemplating as certainly meant by God to be ours, complete conformity to Christ’s character, complete appropriation of Christ’s gifts. God bade Jeremiah buy a ‘field that was in Anathoth’ at the time an invading army held the land. A Roman paid down money for the ground on which the besiegers of Rome

were encamped. It does not become Christians to be less confident of victory. But we have to take heed that our confidence is grounded on the right foundation. God’s commandment to Joshua to allot the land, even while the formidable foes enumerated in the context held it firmly, was based on the assurance [Joshua 13:6]: ‘Them will I drive out before the children of Israel.’ Confidence based on self is presumption, and will end in defeat; confidence based on God will brace to noble effort, which is all the more vigorous and will surely lead to victory, because it distrusts self.III. The vigorous effort animated by both the preceding.How the habit of thinking the unconquered land theirs would encourage Israel. Efforts without hope are feeble; hope without effort is fallacious.Israel’s history is significant. The land was never actually all conquered. God’s promises are all conditional, and if we do not work, or if we work in any other spirit than in faith, we shall not win our allotted part in the ‘inheritance of the saints in light.’ It is possible to lose ‘thy crow.’ ‘Work out your own salvation.’ ‘Trust in the Lord and do good, so shalt thou dwell in the land.’

PETT, "Joshua 13:1

‘ ow Joshua was old and bearing the signs of old age (well stricken in years). And YHWH said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and there remains yet very much land to be possessed.” ’Reference here is to lands untouched or uncontrolled by Joshua. ‘Possessed’ here refers not so much to the initial conquest of land and weakening of the peoples in preparation for moving in and taking over, but to that moving in and taking over. Joshua had expressed Israel’s ‘right’ of ownership. Such peoples were now vulnerable and weakened, and it would be up to the different tribes to take advantage of the situation and possess them literally. But some had still not been ‘possessed’. It must be remembered that conquering kings saw land as ‘possessed’ once they had conquered it, thus in terms of the times most of Canaan was ‘possessed’. But that possession then had to be continually enforced in order that tribute or settlement might be received. That was a more difficult matter, and was the problem that Israel faced.

Most of Canaan probably did not see themselves as possessed. In contrast Israel now considered that the land was theirs, not only by promise but by conquest. Final possession would, however, only become evident when tribute was claimed or the conquerors began to settle in the land. This case was especially unusual in that Israel were a stateless people and would therefore actually want to settle in the ‘possessed’ land and take it over, whilst YHWH had demanded the expulsion of the local inhabitants. This task, a very different thing from initial ‘conquering’, would now pass on to the individual tribes. But meanwhile a new problem had arisen. The arrival of the Philistines in the coastal plain.

“Old and advanced in years.” Forty years (a generation) had passed since Joshua had been one of the spies in Canaan ( umbers 13:8), plus the time spent in conquering Canaan. Thus he was at least in his seventies, or even older.

BI 1-33, "Thou art old and stricken in years.

Joshua’s old age

“The Lord said unto Joshua, Thou art old and stricken in years.” To many men and women this would not be a welcome announcement. They do not like to think that they are old. They do not like to think that the bright, joyous, playful part of life is over, and that they are arrived at the sombre years when they must say, “There is no pleasure in them.” Then, again, there are some who really find it hard to believe that they are old. Life has flown past so swiftly that before they thought it was well begun it has gone. But however much men may like to be young, and however much some may retain in old age of the feeling of youth, it is certain that the period of strength has its limit, and the period of life also, To Joshua the announcement that he was old and stricken in years does not appear to have brought any painful or regretful feeling. Perhaps he had aged somewhat suddenly; his energies may have failed consciously and rapidly, after his long course of active and anxious military service. He may have been glad to hear God utter the word; he may have been feeling it himself, and wondering how he should be able to go through the campaigns yet necessary to put the children of Israel in full possession of the land. So Joshua finds that he is now to be relieved by his considerate Master of laborious and anxious service. Not of all service, but of exhausting service, unsuited to his advancing years. Joshua had been a right faithful servant; few men have ever done their work so well. He has led a most useful and loyal life, which there is some satisfaction in looking back on. No doubt he is well aware of unnumbered failings: “Who can understand his errors?” But he has the rare satisfaction—oh! Who would not wish to share it?—of looking back on a well-spent life, habitually and earnestly regulated amid many infirmities by regard to the will of God. Yet Joshua was not to complete that work to which he had contributed so much: “there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.” At one time, no doubt, he thought otherwise, and he desired otherwise. When the tide of victory was setting in for him so steadily, and region after region of the land was falling into his hands, it was natural to expect that before he ended he would sweep all the enemies of Israel before him, and open every door for them throughout the land, even to its utmost borders. Why not make hay when the sun shone? When God had found so apt an instrument for His great design, why did He not employ him to the end? If the natural term of Joshua’s strength had come, why did not that God who had supernaturally lengthened out the day for completing the victory of Bethhoron lengthen out Joshua’s day, that the whole land of Canaan might be secured? Here comes in a great mystery of Providence. Instead of lengthening out the period of Joshua’s strength, God seems to have cut it short. We can easily understand the lesson for Joshua himself. Joshua must be made to feel—perhaps he needs this—that this enterprise is not his, but God’s. And God is not limited to one instrument, or to one age, or to one plan. Never does Providence appear to us so strange as when a noble worker is cut down in the very midst of his work. A young missionary has just shown his splendid capacity for service, when fever strikes him low, and in a few days all that remains of him is rotting in the ground. “What can God mean?” we sometimes ask impatiently. “Does He not know the rare value and the extreme scarcity of such men, that He sets them up apparently just to throw them down?” But “God reigneth, let the people tremble.” All that bears on the Christian good of the world is in God’s plan, and it is very dear to God, and “precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” But He is not limited to single agents. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)

God takes note of our ,failing strength

He says, concerning this man and that, Grey hairs are here and there upon him, and he knoweth it not. About some supposedly strong men, He says, They are wearing out; they are old at forty; at fifty they will be patriarchal, so far as the exhaustion of strength is concerned; they will die young in years, but old in service. God’s work does take much out of a man, if the man is faithful. A man may pray himself into a withered old age in one night: in one little day a man may add years to his labour. We can work off-handedly: the work need not take much out of us; but if we think about it, ponder it, execute it with both hands—if it is the one thought of the soul, who can tell how soon the strongest man may be run out, and the youngest become a white-haired patriarch? But blessed is it to be worked out in this service. A quaint minister of the last century said, “It is better to rub out than to rust out.” How many are content to “rust out”! They know nothing about friction, sacrifice, self-slaughter, martyrdom. (J. Parker, D.D.)

There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.

Unconquered territory

I. Revealed truth yet to be learned. We have not yet secured all the sacred knowledge which God has made possible, and which it would be profitable for us to acquire. Here is this book set out before us, the great region of revealed religion. May we not say that “there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed”? Who among us is familiar with all its histories, is acquainted with all its facts, knows all its truths, has seen all its beauties, or learned all its lessons? Some of you have been through the pass of Llanberis—perhaps twenty times. Did you ever see it twice alike? Always the same thing; and yet a different appearance, because seen under different circumstances. If you were to go through it twenty times twenty times, it would never appear twice alike. The light would be falling on it at different angles, and thus make a difference. On a cloudy day you would see something you did not see on a bright day, and on a rainy day you would see something you did not see on a fine day. It is thus with this book. You say that you read the Bible through last year, and you ask, “What is to be gained by reading it through again this year?” Have you the same hopes? the same joys? the same sorrows? the same aspirations? the same motives? and the same experiences? I care not how often you have read it, you have never read it as you feel now, with your present experience and in your present circumstances.

II. A holy character to be acquired. There remaineth much of that to be possessed. Men in ancient times had not a Divine standard to measure themselves by, or a Divine pattern to contrast themselves with, and learn how deficient they were and full of blemishes. We have had a perfect pattern set before us. In the life of our Lord Jesus Christ we have the map of the good land; see it in its length and breadth, and realise how true it is that there are glorious portions of it over which our flag has not floated, provinces which we have not made our own.

III. Christian usefulness. I am not going to slander the Christian Church, and tell you that former times were better than these. There is nothing gained by telling lies for God. If you want to quicken God’s people you must not talk as if the Church were more sleepy now than it ever was before. I do not believe it. As I read ecclesiastical history, I cannot find many periods when the Church, as a whole, was more vigorous and devoted than now. Let us not ignore what God has done for us, and enabled us to do. “Not unto us, but

unto Him be the praise and glory.” But when we take into account all that has been done and all that has been attempted against the world’s ignorance, vice, and ungodliness, may we not still say, “There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed”? It is not the season for slothfulness, selfishness, or prayerlessness; the call is urgent and great. “There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.” Why did God keep His people to that struggle? He gave the people the land, and then they had to fight for it. They crossed the Jordan with the best title-deeds man ever possessed; they came from heaven, they were given by Him to whom all the earth belongs. The title-deed of the people said, “The land is yours”; and after God had given it to them they had to buckle on the sword, sharpen the spear, and go and win every acre of it. This is God’s way—He gives it to you, and yet He says, “Get it; work it out with fear and trembling.” Why does He treat us so? I cannot tell; but this I know, that if we cease to work the powers of evil never will. (Charles Vince.)

The Christian’s work

Canaan, though commonly used as a type of heaven, is, in some of its aspects, a type rather of a state of grace than of a state of glory. And taking this view of it, I remark that—

I. Canaan, as the Israelites found it, represents the state of man’s heart when the grace of God enters it. Think of a soul like thine, made at first in the image of God; a being such as thou art, once occupying a rank in creation next to and but a little lower than that of angels; a heart like thine which, though blighted by sin, still retains some traces of departed glory, alienated from the true God, held captive of the devil, ruled by unholy passions, full of corruptions as difficult to root out as were these sons of Anak who, in Goliath and his giant race, disturbed the peace of Israel and defied the armies of the living God many long years after the land was, in a sense, both conquered and possessed. The Hebrews did not enter Canaan to find an empty land, which they had nothing to do but to occupy; nor does Jesus, when He enters our heart by His Spirit and saving grace. It is in possession of His enemies. They are there to dispute His rights, and resist His entrance—sons of Anak, indeed; more formidable still; for giant sins are less easily conquered than giant men.

II. The blessings of the kingdom of grace, like those of Canaan, have to be fought for. Bring out every sin before the Lord, and let it be condemned to death; pass the sword of the Spirit through and through it, till it has breathed out its cursed life, and has no more dominion over you. As the apostle says, “Let him that nameth the name of Christ depart from alliniquity.” Beware how you leave innate corruption and old sinful habits to draw down on you the anger of a holy God and the afflictions threatened on Israel (Num_33:55).

III. The most advanced Christian has much to do in the way of sanctification. How truly may it be said to the most experienced, aged, honoured Christian, as the Lord said to Joshua, “Thou art old and well stricken in years, and yet there is much land to be possessed. Sin still has more or less power over you, and it should have none; your corruptions are wounded, dying of mortal wounds, but they are not yet dead; your affections are set on heaven, yet how much are they still entangled with earthly things; your heart, like the needle of a sailor’s compass to its pole, points to Christ, but how easily is it disturbed, how tremblingly and unsteadily does it often point to Him; your spirit has wings, but how short are its flights, and how often, like a half-fledged eaglet, has it to seek the nest, and come back to rest on the Rock of Ages; your soul is a garden

in which, when north and south winds blow to call out its spices, Christ delights to walk, but with many a beautiful flower, how many vile weeds are there—ready to spring up, and ill to keep down; requiring constant care and watching.” Indeed, so many impurities and imperfections cleave to the best of us, that it seems to me a change must take place at death only second to what took place at conversion. How that is done is a mystery which we cannot fathom; but it would seem as if grace, like that species of cereus which opens its gorgeous flower only at midnight burst out into fullest beauty amid the darkness of a dying hour. (T. Guthrie, D. D.)

The uncompleted work

There is much land to be possessed in—

I. The knowledge of God. Columbus was not content to pick up a few shells on the beach of the new world—he explored the continent; alas! we are too soon satisfied with coasting for a little on that great continent of the Divine nature.

II. The study of the bible. Christians are too prone to keep to the beaten tracks; they do not make excursions into less familiar paths; some pages well thumbed, others clean and uncut.

III. Christian character. Canaan was occupied by seven nations of ugly names; but our hearts and lives are cursed by still uglier things. We must not be content until all these are brought under obedience to Christ.

IV. The heathen world. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)

On progress in religion

Christians, God has assigned you a glorious portion. Opening before you the discoveries of revelation, He said, “Make all this your own; advance; leave nothing unpossessed.” At first you were filled with spiritual ardour, “laying aside every weight,” &c. But, alas! your love has waxen cold.

I. Yes, Christians, there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed—many cities and strongholds, many fine plains, and “springs of water,” many beautiful valleys, and very “fruitful hills”—or, to speak less in figure, much of your religion is unattained, unoccupied, unenjoyed; you are far from its boundaries. Very little of it indeed do some of you possess; you command only a small, inconsiderable corner, scarcely affording you a subsistence.

1. Consider your knowledge. After so many years of hearing, what additions have you made to your stores? Are you filled with holy prudence to ponder “the path of your feet,” to “look well to your goings,” and to discern snares where there is no appearance-of danger? Do you “walk circumspectly; not as fools, but as wise”?

2. Observe your holiness. For the knowledge of persons may surpass their experience; and a growth in gifts is very distinguishable from a growth in grace. Review, then, your sanctification; and suffer me to ask, Have you no remaining corruptions to subdue? Is your obedience universal, unvarying, cheerful? Have you fully imbibed the tempers of your religion? Are there no deficiencies perceivable in every grace, in every duty?

3. Think of your privileges. It is the privilege of Christians to be “careful for nothing.” It is the privilege of Christians to “enter into rest.” It is the privilege of Christians to “have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is the privilege of Christians to “count it all joy when they fall into divers temptations; and to glory in tribulation also.” And all this has been exemplified. Men have “received the gospel in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: they have taken pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake”; they have “taken joyfully the spoiling of their goods”; they have approached the flames with rapture; they have loved and longed for “His appearing”—but where are you? Always in darkness and alarms, &c. Do you belong to the same company?

II. Whence is this? Why will you suffer all this remaining religion to be unpossessed? How shall I awaken you from your negligence, and convince you of the propriety and necessity of making fresh and continual advances?

1. I place before you the commands of God. You are forbidden to draw back; you are forbidden to be stationary. Something more is necessary than languid, partial, occasional, temporary progression. You are required to be “steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord”; to “add to your faith, virtue,” &c.

2. I surround you with all the images employed by the sacred writers when they would describe the nature of a religious life. For which of them does not imply progress, and remind us of the importance of undiminished ardour and increasing exertion? Light. Growing grain. Mustard seed. Leaven.

3. I call forth examples in your presence; they teach you the same truth. Who said, “I beseech thee, show me Thy glory “? A man who had “seen God face to face.” Who prayed, “Teach me Thy statutes: open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law”? A man who had “more understanding than all his teachers,” a man who “understood more than the ancients.”

4. I hold up to view the advantages of progressive religion.

(1) A Christian should be concerned for the honour of God. He is under infinite obligations to “show forth the praises of Him, who hath called us,” &c.; but “herein is” our “Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit.”

(2) A Christian should be concerned for the welfare of his fellow-creatures. He should be a blessing to his family, to his country.

(3) A Christian should be concerned for his own prosperity. And has he to learn wherein it consists? Need he be told that adding grace to grace is adding “strength to strength,” dignity to dignity, beauty to beauty, joy to joy? It is an awful proof that you have no real religion if you are satisfied with what you have. A degree of experience, however small, would stimulate; the relish would provoke the appetite; and having “tasted that the Lord is gracious,” your language would be, “evermore give us this bread.”

III. Some admonitions with regard to your future efforts.

1. Shake off indolence. Nothing is more injurious to our progress; and, alas! nothing is more common. Man loves indulgence; he needs a stimulus, to make him arise from the bed of sloth, to exert his faculties, and to employ the means of which he is possessed. And one would naturally conclude that in religion he would find it. As he sits at ease revelation draws back the veil, and shows him the most astonishing realities—an eternal world; whatever can sting with motive; whatever can alarm with

fear; whatever can animate with hope. What a Being to please, on whom it depends to save or to destroy! What a state of misery is there to escape! What an infinite happiness to secure!

2. Beware of diversion. Discharge yourself as much as possible from superfluous cares. Distinguish between diligence in lawful business and “entangling yourselves in the affairs of this life.” There are not only diversions from religion, but diversions in it; and of these also you are to beware. Here, finding you are unsuspicious of danger, the enemy often succeeds; for his end is frequently answered by things good in themselves. He is satisfied if he can draw off your attention from great things, and engross it with little ones; if he can make you prefer opinions to practice, and controversy to devotion.

3. Guard against despondency. There are indeed many things which, when viewed alone, have a tendency to discourage the mind. We know your weakness, and we know the difficulties and dangers to which you are exposed. But you have the promise of a faithful God.

4. Be afraid of presumption. Our dependence upon God is absolute and universal. “In Him we live, and move, and have our being.” His agency is more indispensable in spiritual things than in natural; sin has rendered us peculiarly weak, helpless, and disaffected.

5. It would be profitable for you to “call to remembrance the former days,” and especially to review the beginning of your religious course.

6. It will not be less profitable for you to look forward, and survey the close of all. Christians! “it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now is your salvation nearer.” Would you slumber on the verge of heaven? The stream increases as it approximates the sea; motion accelerates as it approaches the centre. (W. Jay.)

Territory yet to be taken by the Church

Who in the sketch of the inheritance given by God, the outline of the borders assigned to them in the grant of heaven, and sealed by covenant oath, could, in this seat of plenty and portion of the Church, behold with satisfaction and content so much of what mercy had made their own, still retained under the dominion of darkness, and occupied to the keeping out of their full right the true heirs of promise? Who, whatever his achievements in conquest and attainments in grace, but in this view feels the confined results of all his operations, and sees on every hand very much land yet to be possessed? Notwithstanding all that has been achieved by the Church of God, the spiritual inclosures of grace, and those precious plants of righteousness, where once grew the thorn and the briar, none whose contemplations seldom reach beyond such beauteous spots of mercy, such flourishing vineyards of grace, can possibly conceive of the melancholy darkness which still broods over by far the greater part of the land, those moral wastes of ignorance and corruption which everywhere meet the eye and distress the heart of the Christian traveller. Ah! what extensive wastes of sin everywhere meet the eye, for the cultivation of which but few hands are found! Vast multitudes in the possession of intelligence, and bearing the stamp of immortality, are living without the fear of God, or any hope of futurity, as indifferent to all the momentous concerns of eternity as they are ignorant of all the affecting realities of the gospel. The worldly-mindedness, profligacy, and pride of the rich, and their prevailing disregard of all that is serious and devout, demonstrate that they are equally without God and without hope in

the world, and, till renewed by grace, or removed by death, are the pollution and burden of the place where they live. These are the Anakims, a people tall and strong, and as the sons of Anak, a gigantic race, who in their power and influence contract the inheritance of the saints, and hold them from a more enlarged possession, till the powers of heaven subdue or destroy. But with the promise of an inheritance wide as the world, and stretched in its extent to the remotest boundaries of the earth, how much, very much land yet remaineth to be possessed! (W. Seaton.)

More beyond

Spain inscribed on her coins the picture of the pillars of Hercules, which stood on either side of the Straits of Gibraltar, the extreme boundary of her empire, with only an unexplored ocean beyond; and on the scroll over there was written, “Ne plus ultra”—nothing beyond. But afterwards, when Columbus had discovered America, Spain struck out the negative and left the inscription, “Plus ultra”—more beyond.

2 “This is the land that remains: all the regions of the Philistines and Geshurites,

BAR ES, "This and Jos_13:3 name the still unconquered districts in the southern half of the land, Jos_13:4-6 those in the north.

Geshuri - A district on the south of Philistia, the inhabitants of which are again named in 1Sa_27:8; but are not to be confounded with the land of the Geshurites mentioned in Jos_13:13; Jos_12:5.

CLARKE, "The borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri - The borders of the Philistines may mean the land which they possessed on the sea-coast, southwest of the land of Canaan. There were several places named Geshuri, but that spoken of here was probably the region on the south of Canaan, towards Arabia, or towards Egypt. -Calmet. Cellarius supposes it to have been a country in the vicinity of the Amalekites.

GILL, "This is the land that yet remaineth,.... Unconquered and not enjoyed, namely, what is after described; and this account is given for Joshua's information, that

he might know what to divide, and for the people of Israel's sake, that they might know what they had a right to a claim upon; what they should endeavour to possess themselves of, and what the Lord would deliver into their hands, provided they were obedient to his will, for, because they were not, hence many of these places never came into their possession, though divided to them by lot:

all the borders of the Philistines; whose country bordered and lay upon the shores of the Mediterranean sea, in the southwest of the land of Canaan:

and all Geshuri; the principal city belonging to it is said to be in Syria, 2Sa_15:8; and had a king over it in the times of David, 2Sa_3:3; and seems never to have come into the hands of the Israelites.

HE RY 2-5, "He gives him a particular account of the land that yet remained unconquered, which was intended for Israel, and which, in due time, they should be masters of if they did not put a bar in their own door. Divers places are here mentioned, some in the south, as the country of the Philistines, governed by five lords, and the land that lay towards Egypt (Jos_13:2, Jos_13:3), some westward, as that which lay towards the Sidonians (Jos_13:4), some eastward, as all Lebanon (Jos_13:5), some towards the north, as that in the entering in of Hamath, Jos_13:5. Joshua is told this, and he made the people acquainted with it, 1. That they might be the more affected with God's goodness to them in giving them this good land, and might thereby be engaged to love and serve him; for, if this which they had was too little, God would moreover give them such and such things, 2Sa_12:8. 2. That they might not be tempted to make any league, or contract any dangerous familiarity with these their neighbours so as to learn their way, but might rather be jealous of them, as a people that kept them from their right and that they had just cause of quarrel with. 3. That they might keep themselves in a posture for war, and not think of putting off the harness so long as there remained any land to be possessed. Nor must we lay aside our spiritual armour, nor be off our watch, till our victory be completed in the kingdom of glory.

JAMISO 2-6, "This is the land that yet remaineth— that is, to be acquired. This section forms a parenthesis, in which the historian briefly notices the districts yet unsubdued; namely, first, the whole country of the Philistines - a narrow tract stretching about sixty miles along the Mediterranean coast, and that of the Geshurites to the south of it (1Sa_27:8). Both included that portion of the country “from Sihor, which is before Egypt,” a small brook near El-Arish, which on the east was the southern boundary of Canaan, to Ekron, the most northerly of the five chief lordships or principalities of the Philistines.

K&D 2-4, "Jos_13:2-4

All the circles of the Philistines (geliloth, circles of well-defined districts lying round the chief city). The reference is to the five towns of the Philistines, whose princes are mentioned in Jos_13:3. “And all Geshuri:” not the district of Geshur in Peraea (Jos_13:11, Jos_13:13, Jos_12:5; Deu_3:14), but the territory of the Geshurites, a small tribe in the south of Philistia, on the edge of the north-western portion of the Arabian desert which borders on Egypt; it is only mentioned again in 1Sa_27:8. The land of the Philistines and Geshurites extended from the Sichor of Egypt (on the south) to the territory of Ekron (on the north). Sichor (Sihor), lit. the black river, is not the Nile,

because this is always called היאר (the river) in simple prose (Gen_41:1, Gen_41:3; Exo_

1:22), and was not “before Egypt,” i.e., to the east of it, but flowed through the middle of

the land. The “Sichor before Egypt” was the brook (Nachal) of Egypt, the �ινοκορο�ρα, the modern Wady el Arish, which is mentioned in Jos_15:4, Jos_15:47, etc., as the

southern border of Canaan towards Egypt (see at Num_34:5). Ekron (�ρρακών, lxx), the most northerly of the five chief cities of the Philistines, was first of all allotted to the tribe of Judah (Jos_15:11, Jos_15:45), then on the further distribution it was given to Dan (Jos_19:43); after Joshua's death it was conquered by Judah (Jdg_1:18), though it was not permanently occupied. It is the present Akîr, a considerable village in the plain, two hours to the south-west of Ramlah, and on the east of Jamnia, without ruins of any antiquity, with the exception of two old wells walled round, which probably belong to the times of the Crusaders (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 23). “To the Canaanites is reckoned (the territory of the) five lords of the Philistines,” i.e., it was reckoned as belonging to the land of Canaan, and allotted to the Israelites like all the rest. This remark was necessary because the Philistines were not descendants of Canaan (see at Gen_10:14), but yet were to be driven out like the Canaanites themselves as being invaders of Canaanitish

territory (cf. Deu_2:23). סרני, from סרן, the standing title of the princes of the Philistines (vid., Jdg_3:3; Jdg_16:5.; 1Sa_5:8), does not mean kings, but princes, and is

interchangeable with שרים (cf. 1Sa_29:6 with 1Sa_29:4, 1Sa_29:9). At any rate, it was the native or Philistian title of the Philistine princes, though it is not derived from the same

root as Sar, but is connected with seren, axis rotae, in the tropical sense of princeps, for which the Arabic furnishes several analogies (see Ges. Thes. p. 972).

The capitals of these five princes were the following. Azzah (Gaza, i.e., the strong): this was allotted to the tribe of Judah and taken by the Judaeans (Jos_15:47; Jdg_1:18), but was not held long. It is at the present time a considerable town of about 15,000 inhabitants, with the old name of Ghazzeh, about an hour from the sea, and with a seaport called Majuma; it is the farthest town of Palestine towards the south-west (see Rob. Pal. ii. pp. 374ff.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 35ff.; Stark, Gaza, etc., pp. 45ff.). Ashdod

(%ζωτος, Azotus): this was also allotted to the tribe of Judah (Jos_15:46-47), the seat of Dagon-worship, to which the Philistines carried the ark (1Sa_5:1.). It was conquered by Uzziah (2Ch_26:6), was afterwards taken by Tartan, the general of Sargon (Isa_20:1), and was besieged by Psammetichus for twenty-nine years (Herod. ii. 157). It is the present Esdud, a Mahometan village with about a hundred or a hundred and fifty miserable huts, upon a low, round, wooded height on the road from Jamnia to Gaza, two miles to the south of Jamnia, about half an hour from the sea (vid., Rob. i. p. 368). Ashkalon: this was conquered by the Judaeans after the death of Joshua (Jdg_1:8-9); but shortly afterwards recovered its independence (vid., Jdg_14:19; 1Sa_6:17). It is the present Askulân on the sea-shore between Gaza and Ashdod, five hours to the north of Gaza, with considerable and widespread ruins (see v. Raum. pp. 173-4; Ritter, xvi. pp.

69ff.). Gath (Γέθ): this was for a long time the seat of the Rephaites, and was the home of

Goliath (Jos_11:22; 1Sa_17:4, 1Sa_17:23; 2Sa_21:19.; 1Ch_20:5.); it was thither that the Philistines of Ashdod removed the ark, which was taken thence to Ekron (1Sa_5:7-10). David was the first to wrest it from the Philistines (1Ch_18:1). In the time of Solomon it was a royal city of the Philistines, though no doubt under Israelitish supremacy (1Ki_2:39; 1Ki_5:1). It was fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch_11:8), was taken by the Syrians in the time of Joash (2Ki_12:18), and was conquered again by Uzziah (2Ch_26:6; Amo_6:2);

but no further mention is made of it, and no traces have yet been discovered

(Note: According to the Onom. (s. v. Geth), it was a place five Roman miles from Eleutheropolis towards Diospolis, whereas Jerome (on Mic 1) says: “Gath was near the border of Judaea, and on the road from Eleutheropolis to Gaza; it is still a very large village;” whilst in the commentary on Jer 25 he says: “Gath was near to and conterminous with Azotus,” from which it is obvious enough that the situation of the Philistine city of Gath was altogether unknown to the Fathers. Hitzig and Knobel

suppose the Βαιτογάβρα of Ptolemy (5:16, 6), Betogabri in Tab. Peuting. ix. e. (the Eleutheropolis of the Fathers, and the present Beit Jibrin, a very considerable ruin), to be the ancient Gath, but this opinion is only founded upon very questionable etymological combinations; whereas Thenius looks for it on the site of the present Deir Dubban, though without any tenable ground.)

(see Rob. ii. p. 420, and v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 191-2). “And the Avvites (Avvaeans) towards the south.” Judging from Deu_2:23, the Avvim appear to have belonged to those tribes of the land who were already found there by the Canaanites, and whom the Philistines subdued and destroyed when they entered the country. They are not mentioned in Gen_10:15-19 among the Canaanitish tribes. At the same time, there is not sufficient ground for identifying them with the Geshurites as Ewald does, or with the Anakites, as Bertheau has done. Moreover, it cannot be decided whether they were

descendants of Ham or Shem (see Stark. Gaza, pp. 32ff.). מ2ימן (from, or on, the south)

at the commencement of Jos_13:4 should be attached to Jos_13:3, as it is in the

Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, and joined to העוים (the Avvites). The Avvaeans dwelt to the south of the Philistines, on the south-west of Gaza. It gives no sense to connect with the what follows, so as to read “towards the south all the land of the Canaanites;” for whatever land to the south of Gaza, or of the territory of the Philistines, was still inhabited by Canaanites, could not possibly be called “all the land of the Canaanites.” If, however, we were disposed to adopt the opinion held by Masius and Rosenmüller, and understand these words as relating to the southern boundaries of Canaan, “the possessions of the king of Arad and the neighbouring petty kings who ruled in the southern extremity of Judaea down to the desert of Paran, Zin, Kadesh,” etc., the fact that Arad and the adjoining districts are always reckoned as belonging to the Negeb would at once be decisive against it (compare Jos_15:21. with Jos_10:40; Jos_11:16, also Num_21:1). Moreover, according to Jos_10:40, Jos_10:21, and Jos_11:16-17, Joshua had smitten the whole of the south of Canaan from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza and taken it; so that nothing remained unconquered there, which could possibly have been mentioned in this passage as not yet taken by the Israelites. For the fact that the districts, which Joshua traversed so victoriously and took possession of, were not all permanently held by the Israelites, does not come into consideration here at all. If the author had thought of enumerating all these places, he would have had to include many other districts as well.

Beside the territory of the Philistines on the south-west, there still remained to be taken (Jos_13:4, Jos_13:5) in the north, “all the land of the Canaanites,” i.e., of the Phoenicians dwelling on the coast, and “the caves which belonged to the Sidonians unto Aphek.” Mearah (the cave) is the present Mugr Jezzin, i.e., cave of Jezzin, on the east of Sidon, in a steep rocky wall of Lebanon, a hiding-place of the Druses at the present time (see at Num_34:8; also F. v. Richter, Wallfahrten in Morgenland, p. 133). Aphek, or

Aphik, was allotted to the tribe of Asher (Jos_19:30; Jdg_1:31); it was called %φακα by the Greeks; there was a temple of Venus there, which Constantine ordered to be

destroyed, on account of the licentious nature of the worship (Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 55). It is the present Afka, a small village, but a place of rare beauty, upon a terrace of Lebanon, near the chief source of the river Adonis (Nahr Ibrahim), with ruins of an ancient temple in the neighbourhood, surrounded by groves of the most splendid walnut trees on the north-east of Beirut (see O. F. v. Richter, pp. 106-7; Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 663; and V. de Velde, Reise. ii. p. 398). “To the territory of the Amorites:” this is obscure. We cannot imagine the reference to be to the territory of Og of Bashan, which was formerly inhabited by Amorites, as that did not extend so far north; and the explanation given by Knobel, that farther north there were not Canaanites, but Amorites, who were of Semitic origin, rests upon hypotheses which cannot be historically sustained.

CALVI , "2.This is the land, etc The ancient boundaries long ago fixed by God, are recalled to remembrance, in order that Joshua. and the people may feel fully persuaded that the covenant made with Abraham would be fulfilled in every part. Wherefore they are enjoined to make it their study to acquire the parts still remaining to be possessed. The inference will be appropriate if we make a practical application of this perseverance to that which is required of us, viz., to forget the things which are behind, and reach forth unto those that are before, and press toward the mark for the prize of our high calling. (Philippians 3:14.) (128) For it would be of no use to run in the race without endeavoring to reach the goal.

The boundary commenced with a river separating Egypt toward the sea from the Holy Land, and most probably the river ile, as we interpret it according to the received opinion, or a small stream which flowed past the town of Rhinocornea, believed by many to be Raphia or Raphane. (129) It is indeed beyond dispute that the inheritance of the people commencing in that quarter was contiguous to Egypt. But although I have followed the opinion of the majority of expositors, that the boundaries were not extended further than to the less cultivated and in a manner desert land, lest greater proximity might have been injurious by leading to too close familiarity with the Egyptians, I by no means repudiate a different opinion.

The third verse raises a question. After it is said that the territories towards the sea-coast were five, a sixth is added, namely, that of the Avites. Some think that it is not counted among the five because it was an insignificant province. But I would have my readers to consider whether there may not be an indirect antithesis between a free people, their own masters, and five territories ruled by sovereigns. Hence the Avites being in different circumstances are mentioned separately, the plural number being used for the sake of distinction. In the enumeration of the sovereignties they are not arranged in the order of their dignity or opulence, but the first place is given to Aza because of its nearness to Egypt, and the same remark applies to Ashdod and the others.

The Septuagint translators, according to their usual custom, employ the Greek γ (gamma) to express the Hebrew ע (ain), and thus give the name of Gaza to that which in Hebrew is Aza, in the same way as they convert Amorrha into Gomorrha. (130) This sufficiently exposes the mistake of those who suppose that its name is Persian, and derived from its resources (131) in consequence of Cambyses, when

about to carry on war in Greece, having made it the depot of his treasures. But as in the Acts, (Acts 8:26,) Luke speaks of “Gaza which is desert,” it appears that a city of the same name was erected near it, but on a different site. Ashdod is the same as that which the Greeks called Azotus. The whole of this tract, which is either on the sea-coast or verging towards it, extends as far as Sidon. And there are some who think that the Phoenicians were once masters both of Gaza and Azotus. How far Lebanon extends is sufficiently known. (132) For it sometimes comprehends Mount Hermon; and on account of its length part of it is surnamed Antilibanus. (133) The reader will find the subject of Mount Hermon considered in Deuteronomy 4:0. Towards the east is Hamath, which is also Antioch of Syria.

BE SO , "Joshua 13:2-3. This is the land that yet remaineth — Unconquered by thee, and to be conquered by the Israelites, if they behave themselves aright. All Geshuri — A people in the north-east of Canaan, as the Philistines were on the south-west. Which is counted to the Canaanite — That is, which, though now possessed by the Philistines, who drove out the Canaanites, the old inhabitants of it, Deuteronomy 2:23; Amos 9:7; yet it is a part of the land of Canaan, and therefore belongs to the Israelites. The Avites — Or, the Avims, as they are called Deuteronomy 2:23, who, though they were expelled out of their ancient seat, and most of them destroyed by the Caphtorims or Philistines, as is there said, yet many of them escaped, and planted themselves not very far from the former.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:2 This [is] the land that yet remaineth: all the borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri,

Ver. 2. All the borders of the Philistines.] Anciently called Caphtorims. [Deuteronomy 2:23 Amos 9:7] Their country lay along the coast of the midland sea; whereby the Israelites were kept from much trading with other nations, that they might not learn their manners. Hence Judea is called an "isle," though part of the continent. [Isaiah 20:6] Like Benjamin, who had his mess by himself.

COKE, "Ver. 2. This is the land that yet remaineth; all the borders of the Philistines— i.e. The country which they kept upon the sea-coast, to the south-west of the land of Canaan. See ch. Joshua 22:10-11.

And all Geshuri— This name was given to a city and region situate on the north-east of the Holy Land, toward mount Hermon. Both of them fell to the lot of the tribe of Manasseh, Deuteronomy 3:14. Joshua 12:5. It should, however, be observed, that there was another country of Geshuri, on the south of the land of Canaan, towards Egypt, the inhabitants of which country are sometimes joined with the Amalekites. It was they who tried David's valour; 1 Samuel 27:10; 1 Samuel 30:20. There was a third city of Geshuri in Syria, the king of which protected Absalom his son-in-law, 2 Samuel 3:3; 2 Samuel 13:37; 2 Samuel 15:8 and which appears to have been not far from the land of Geshuri situate in the tribe of Manasseh, 1 Chronicles 2:23.

CO STABLE, "The Philistines were not native Canaanite people. They had migrated to Canaan from the northwest. They had by this time displaced the Canaanites in the southwest portion of the Promised Land. Because the land they occupied was part of what God had promised Israel, the Israelites were responsible to drive them out too. The Israelites were not successful in doing this. The Philistines increased in power and influence over the Israelites, eventually becoming the major enemy of Israel during King Saul"s reign more than three centuries later. In Joshua"s time, however, they were a smaller, secondary target of the Israelites.

WHEDO , "2. All the borders of the Philistines — This territory is in the southern part of the Holy Land, lying on the Mediterranean. It was a confederacy of five powerful cities, Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron. These enemies of the sea-coast afterwards gave great trouble to the Hebrews.

The Philistines, according to Genesis 10:14, sprang from Mizraim. See note, Acts 8:40.

All Geshuri — Hebrew, all the Geshuri. These are not to be confounded with the Geshurites of Joshua 12:5, but were a nomadic and predatory people of the desert south of Philistia. David invaded their country and smote them while he dwelt at Ziklag. 1 Samuel 27:8.

PETT, "Joshua 13:2-4 a

“This is the land that yet remains. All the regions of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites, from the Shihor which is before (east of) Egypt even to the border of Ekron northward, which is counted to the Canaanites; the five Tyrants of the Philistines, the Gazites and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites. Also the Avvim to the South.”All this up to verse 9 is described as words of YHWH. What this means is that as Joshua summarised the situation he was conscious that he was expressing YHWH’s will communicated to him probably through his thoughts. He saw all his plans as YHWH’s plans because he was seeking to fulfil God’s requirements as outlined in the Books of Moses.

The mention of these as yet unpossessed lands was a reminder that even Joshua’s ‘conquests’ had not covered the whole of the land promised to Israel, most of which, if not all, would be in the hands of the people of God at one time or another before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. YHWH wanted it to be known that their present exclusion was not intended to be permanent, therefore they are mentioned first.

It is clear that the Philistines were now seen as in the land although not yet as a major threat to Israel. This would date this statement to around 1200 BC and support the 13th century BC date for the conquest (the alternative suggested is the 15th century BC).

It is always possible that the particular phrase ‘ the five Tyrants (seranim) of the Philistines’ was inserted later by a scribe to bring the passage up to date, (with ‘land of the Philistines also possibly being an update, although this could refer back to the earlier occupation by a trading station - Genesis 26) and it would then read ‘which is counted to the Canaanites; the Gazites and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites. Also the Avvim.’ But ‘counted to’ fits well with the idea of the references to the Philistines being original, with the idea being that in spite of being Philistine it belonged to the land of Canaan, and the phrase itself makes better sense that way. The Philistines were a race of warriors who brought the Canaanites under their own domination, with they themselves being the military aristocracy. They did not try to drive them out of the country in the way that, at least theoretically, the Israelites did. Altering the text to fit a theory without any other evidence usually casts doubt on the theory.

As the text stands the Geshurites (compare 1 Samuel 27:8) were a people living in the egeb between the Philistines and the Egyptian border (and were not the same as the Geshurites in Joshua 12:5; Joshua 13:11, although possibly connected). The Shihor is given as the border. In Isaiah 23:3; Jeremiah 2:18 the Shihor (egyptian ‘s-hr’, waters of Horus) is the ile proper, thus here the branch in the Delta nearest to Canaan is considered roughly to be the boundary so as to include the Wilderness of Shur. The idea is that anything east of the Egyptian Delta is included in the inheritance. In view of this there is no real justification for seeing the ‘Torrent-Wadi (nahal) of Egypt’ (Joshua 15:4; Joshua 15:47 - probably Wadi el-Arish) as being in mind.

Ekron is the northernmost of the five major Philistine cities, ruled over by five ‘Tyrants’ (seranim - a word uniquely used of Philistine lords) whose inhabitants are mentioned. Thus the description covers both Philistine and Geshurite territory. All this was seen as Canaanite territory, ‘counted to the Canaanites’, and thus included in the inheritance. If we connect ‘on the South’ to the Avvim, who ‘lived in villages as far as Gaza’ (Deuteronomy 2:23) and were displaced by the Philistines, this would place the Avvim within the broad description of Geshurite territory.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:2

This is the land which yet remaineth. The powerful league of the Philistines, as well as the tribes near them, remained unsubdued. In the north, likewise, the neighbourhood of Sidon, and the territory of Coele, Syria, which lay between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, was as yet in the hands of the enemy. Rabbis Kimchi and Solomon Jarchi translate by "borders." Masius suggests the French marque, and the modern German grenze. All the borders of the Philistines. Literally, all the circles (Geliloth) of the Philistines. The expression is found in several places in this book (see Joshua 18:17; Joshua 22:10, Joshua 22:11). We may compare the expression the circles of Swabia, Franconia, etc; in the history of Germany. The expression here may have more affinity with what is known as the "mark system" in the history of ancient Germany, and refer to the patch of cultivated ground which extended for some distance round each city. But this is rendered improbable by the

fact that one circle only retained its name (Joshua 20:7; Joshua 21:32), and is still known as Galilee (see notes on these passages). Galilee was too large a district to have been originally a clearing round a town. Geshur (see note on Joshua 12:5). Ewald conjectures that these Geshurites were the aboriginal inhabitants of the country (see 1 Samuel 27:8), and were the same as the Avites or Avvites. See next verse, where the Avvites are distinguished from the five lords of the Philistines. It is worthy of remark that the name Talmai, the name of one of the "sons of Anak" (Joshua 15:14), comes in again as the name of a king of Geshur (2 Samuel 3:3, 2 Samuel 13:37). It occurs, however, as a Hebrew name in Bartholomew, or Bar-Tolmai, i.e; the son of Talmai, or Tolmai, one of the twelve apostles. Ewald supposes that these aborigines were dispossessed by the Canaanitish tribes, and that the old name of Geshur was still applied to those regions on which this primitive race had retained its hold.

PI K, ""This is the land that yet remaineth [i.e. to be possessed]: all the borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri" (v. 2). From there to the end of verse 6 follows a list of the more remote sections of Palestine which were still occupied by the heathen. Here, then, by clear implication, was another task assigned unto Joshua: to stir up the people unto further efforts, that while he could not personally take any further part in the fighting he must press upon the nation the duty still devolving upon them. Instead of now taking their ease and being satisfied with those portions of their inheritance which had already been secured, they must continue to "possess their possessions," and not miss God’s best for them. It is highly probable that the great majority of Israel were quite ignorant of the extent of the land, unacquainted with the terms of the promise made by the Lord unto Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21, etc. During their lengthy sojourn in Egypt their ancestors had lapsed into idolatry (see Leviticus 17:7; Ezekiel 20:7, 8; 23:3), and so unacquainted were they with the Lord Himself that when Jehovah commissioned Moses to lead His people out of the house of bondage he asked, "When I . . . say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me to you; and they shall say to me, What is His name? what shall I say unto them?" (Ex. 3:13).

Sufficient attention has not been paid unto what has just been pointed out. While it be far from excusing the conduct of Israel under Moses—in view of the wondrous deliverance the Lord wrought for them and the signal favors shown by Him unto them at the Red Sea, at Sinai. and during the forty years that followed—yet it does supply the key which explains much that otherwise is altogether unaccountable. Their children had been reared in the wilderness, and now they had entered Canaan under Joshua it is likely that they knew little or nothing of its boundaries. Thus we consider it was for this reason that it was now necessary for the Lord to instruct Joshua by the details furnished in Joshua 13:2-5, that he might inform the people of the full extent of that land which had been given to them. The spiritual application of this unto ourselves is not difficult to perceive. Even after their regeneration, God’s people are totally ignorant of the unsearchable riches that are theirs in Christ, until informed of the same from the Scriptures. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him "(1 Cor. 2:9). evertheless it at once follows, "But

God hath revealed them unto Us by His Spirit"—in His Word; and as we diligently search that Word we learn what those things are.

Matthew Henry pointed out three reasons why the Lord commissioned Joshua to acquaint Israel with the fact that "there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed," and to amplify that statement by announcing to them all the geographical details given in verses 2-5. First, that they might be more affected with God’s goodness in giving them so extensive a portion, and thereby be engaged to love and serve Him. He would have them occupied with the Divine bounty, that their obedience to Him might be prompted by gratitude and not by a slavish fear. And thus it is to be with His people today: deep appreciation of His grace and goodness is to prompt them to run in the path of His commandments. Second, that they might not be tempted to make any league or contract any dangerous familiarity with those neighbors, so as to learn their ways; but might be jealous of them, as those who kept them out of their rightful inheritance. In like manner, Christians, as they contemplate the possession purchased for them, are to conduct themselves as strangers and pilgrims in this scene, keeping their garments unspotted from the world, walking with God in separation therefrom. Third, that they might keep themselves in a posture of war, and not think of putting off their harness as long as there remained any of the land to be possessed.

In closing this article, a final word upon the application of verses 1-5 to the aged pilgrim. You may, dear reader, be stricken in years, nevertheless the fact must be faced that "‘there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed." o matter what be your growth in grace or the extent of your progress in spiritual things, you are not as completely conformed to the image of Christ as you should be, nor have you as fully possessed your possessions (Obad. 1:17), as it is your privilege to do. Take a leaf out of the apostle’s book. ear the close of his life he declared, "Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do; forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:13, 14). Do thou the same. As for verses 2-5, we too should sit down and draw up a list of those parts of our heritage not yet experientially possessed by us—and note that verse 2 is headed by the most difficult one, for the later Scriptures show that Israel had most trouble from the Philistines. Do you ask, What good could that do? It should humble. It should prompt to more definite prayer. We read of "the meekness and gentleness of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:1). Are those graces made good in you ?

When Joshua had become old and more or less enfeebled, the Lord appeared unto His servant, and after informing him that there remained yet very much land to be possessed, and naming some of the places and peoples to be conquered, He declared, "them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee" (Josh. 13:6). It had been so with Moses: under God he had begun the task of occupying Canaan (namely that part thereof which lay to the east of Jordan), but only a small beginning had been made. Joshua had been used to carry forward the enterprise

considerably, yet it was far from being completed—others would be raised up later to effect the Divine purpose. And it has been the same ever since. A start was all that was made by the apostles in the evangelizing of the Gentiles, for when the last of them expired there remained yet very much land to be possessed. Calvin and Luther were mightily employed in delivering God’s people from the deadly shackles of Rome, yet when the last of the Reformers was called home how much yet remained to be accomplished!

It is the same now. At the close of the most active and self-sacrificing life in the service of Christ, each succeeding minister of His leaves this scene with very much of the world still occupied by the enemy. But observe now the blessed consolation the Lord gave unto Joshua: "them will I drive out," not "from before thee," for he would not live to see it accomplished, but "from before the children of Israel." As he had carried forward the work begun by Moses, so others would be Divinely appointed and equipped to advance his efforts—the honor of laying the capstone thereon being reserved for David centuries later. A similar assurance should be the very real confidence of every aged minister of the Gospel. There is no statement in Scripture, so far as the writer can perceive, to show that a time will ever come when all upon earth will be saved, or even nominally receive the Truth: yet the Divine promise is given, "One generation shall praise Thy works to another" (Ps. 145:4); yea, that some "shall fear Thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations" (Ps. 72:5). The words of Christ in Matthew 28:20, make it clear that He will have some of His on earth till the last, and His "all that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me" (John 6:37) proves that neither man nor devil will prevent the salvation of the entire election of grace. "The foundation of God standeth sure . . . The Lord knoweth them that are His" (2 Tim. 2:19) provides a grand haven of rest for every anxious heart.

3 from the Shihor River on the east of Egypt to the territory of Ekron on the north, all of it counted as Canaanite though held by the five Philistine rulers in Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron; the territory of the Avvites

BAR ES, "Sihor is derived from a root signifying “to be black,” and is suitable enough as an appellative of the Nile Isa_23:3. Here it most probably stands for “the river of Egypt” (Num_34:3 note), the modern “Wady el Arish”.

Ekron (“Akir”) lay on the northern boundary of Judah Jos_15:11, and was actually conquered by the men of that tribe Jdg_1:18, though assigned in the allotment of the land to Dan Jos_19:43. It seems to have fallen again into the hands of the Philistines in the days of the Judges 1Sa_5:10, was reconquered by Samuel (compare 1Sa_7:14), but figures in subsequent times as a Philistine city only (compare 1Sa_17:52; 2Ki_1:2, 2Ki_1:16, etc.).

Lords - The Hebrew word סרן seren means “an axle,” and is applied as a title special

to the chiefs (compare Jdg_3:3 and marginal references) of the Philistines Gen_10:14.

Gaza was the most southern of the Philistine cities (compare Jos_10:41; Jos_11:22). It was allotted to the tribe of Judah Jos_15:47, and was, with Askalon, taken by the warriors of that tribe Jdg_1:18. Both cities were soon re-occupied by the Philistines, and subsequently are always mentioned as Philistine cities. Gaza lay on the direct route of the Egyptian armies in their invasions of Syria, by whom it was captured more than once. Special judgments are denounced against Gaza for the cruelty of its people toward the Jews in the time of their humiliation Amo_1:6-7; Zep_2:4; Zec_9:5, and in the time of Jerome the ancient city was a ruin of which the foundations could hardly be traced, and the then existing town was built on another site. Gaza was in later times an episcopal see, and is now a thriving place containing some 15,000 inhabitants, a larger population than that of Jerusalem.

Ashdod (“Esdud;” Azotus, Act_8:40) was, like Gaza, allotted to Judah (see Jos_15:46-47), but was soon regained by the Philistines, and became a principal seat of their Dagon worship. Here the ark of God was taken after its capture by the Philistines (1Sa_5:1 ff). Its name ( “fortress,” “castle”), no less than its history (compare 2Ch_26:6; Isa_20:1; Neh_4:7, etc.) indicates its importance as a stronghold; it withstood for twenty-nine years the longest siege on record by the Egyptian king Psammetichus. Like Gaza, it was doomed by the Jewish prophets to desolation, and it was utterly destroyed by the Maccabees (1 Macc. 10:77-84; 11:4). It was, however, rebuilt by the Romans, and figures in Christian times as an episcopal city.

Askelon (see Jdg_1:18), the birthplace of Herod the Great, figures as an important town and seaport in the history of the Crusades, and very massive ruins still attest the ancient strength and grandeur of the place. It is situated about midway between Gaza and Ashdod.

Gath seems to have been first taken by David 1Ch_18:1. It is not named again in the book of Joshua. It was the town of Goliath 1Sa_17:4, and is mentioned in David’s elegy over Saul as a leading Philistine city 2Sa_1:20. It was the nearest of the Philistine cities to Jerusalem, but both the name and the city have perished; its site is conjecturally placed (by Condor) at Tell es Safi.

Avites - See Deu_2:23 note.

CLARKE, "From Sihor, which is before Egypt - Supposed by some to be the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, near to the Arabian Desert; called also the river of Egypt, Num_34:5; Jer_2:18. On this subject an intelligent friend favors me with the following opinion: - “The river Sihor is supposed by some to be the Nile, or a branch of it. Others think it the same as what is frequently called the river of Egypt, which lay before or

towards the borders of Egypt; which arose out of the mountains of Paran, and ran westward, falling into that bay of the Mediterranean which lies south of the land of the Philistines. This river is often mentioned as the boundary of the Israelites to the southwest, as Euphrates, the great river, was on the northeast. “There was a desert of considerable distance between what is called the river of Egypt and the isthmus of Suez. Solomon reigned to the borders of Egypt, i.e., to this desert; but not in Egypt, nor to the river Nile. “Upon the whole, (though there are difficulties in the matter), I incline to think that the river in question was not the Nile. Sihor (black) might, from some circumstances, be applied to another river as well as the Nile; though some places in Isaiah and Jeremiah seem to restrict it to the Nile.” - J. C.

Ekron northward - Ekron was one of the five lordships of the Philistines, and the most northern of all the districts they possessed. Baal-zebub, its idol, is famous in Scripture; see 2Ki_1:2, etc. The five lordships of the Philistines were Gaza, Ashdod, Askalon, Gath, and Ekron. There is no proof that ever the Israelites possessed Ekron; though, from Jos_15:11, some think it was originally given to Judah, but the text does not say so; it only states that the border of the tribe of Judah went out Unto the Side of Ekron. From Jos_19:43, we learn that it was a part of the lot of Dan, but it does not appear to have been possessed by any of those tribes.

Counted to the Canaanite - It is generally allowed that the original possessors of this country were the descendants of Canaan, the youngest son of Ham. The Philistines sprang from Mizraim, the second son of Ham, and, having dispossessed the Avim from the places they held in this land, dwelt in their stead. See Gen_10:13, Gen_10:14.

Five lords of the Philistines - These dynasties are famous in the Scriptures for their successful wars against the Israelites, of whom they were almost the perpetual scourge.

Also the Avites - These must not be confounded with the Hivites. The Avites seem to have been a very inconsiderable tribe, who dwelt in some of the skirts of Palestine. They had been originally deprived of their country by the Caphtorim; and though they lived as a distinct people, they had never afterwards arrived to any authority.

GILL, "From Sihor, which is before Egypt,.... Which Jarchi and Kimchi interpret of the river Nile, and so that river is called, Jer_2:18; it seems to have this name from the waters of it being black and turbid; and hence it was called by the Greeks "Melas"; and by the Latins "Melo"; though it is thought, that not properly the river itself is here meant, which did not reach to the borders of Palestine, but a branch of it, a rivulet from it, for so a traveller (a) writes,"in a journey of about five days from Gaza towards Egypt, the hithermost arm of the Nile is received by the sea, and is commonly called Carabus?"

even unto the borders of Ekron northward: that is, from the southwest of Palestine, near to which was the river Nile, to the northern part of it, where stood the principality of Ekron, one of the five which belonged to the Philistines:

which is counted to the Canaanite; which was reckoned as belonging to the posterity of Canaan, though the Philistines got possession of it, who descended from Mizraim; and indeed it was only accounted as belonging to Canaan and his sons; of right, and according to the grant of God, it belonged to the seed of Abraham:

five lords of the Philistines; who had not kings, as other countries and cities in the

land of Canaan had, and their cities were called lordships, principalities, and not kingdoms, and are as follow:

the Gazathites, and the Ashdothites, the Eshkalonites, the Gittites,

and the Ekronites: so called from Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron, the cities they were in possession of:

also the Avites; it is not certain whether these were a distinct principality from the other five, or a people dispersed among them; which seems most likely, since those were the original inhabitants, but were driven out or destroyed by the Philistines, though it seems some remained and dwelt among them; see Deu_2:23.

JAMISO ,"also the Avites: From [on] the south— The two clauses are thus connected in the Septuagint and many other versions. On being driven out (Deu_2:23), they established themselves in the south of Philistia. The second division of the unconquered country comprised

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:3 From Sihor, which [is] before Egypt, even unto the borders of Ekron northward, [which] is counted to the Canaanite: five lords of the Philistines; the Gazathites, and the Ashdothites, the Eshkalonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avites:

Ver. 3. From Sihor.] Or ile, which hath its name Sihor from blackness, and ile from muddiness. So much of Egypt as this river watereth, is a black mould, so fruitful, as they do but throw in the seed, and have four rich harvests in less than four months, as travellers tell us.

Also the Avites.] Who, belike, still held part of their old possession. [Deuteronomy 2:22-23]

COKE, "Ver. 3. From Sihor, which is before Egypt— Here the sacred historian, intending, in a particular manner, to describe the extent of the country of the Philistines, fixes its northern limits at the river Sihor, which, it is generally thought, was only the Pelusiack branch of the ile. See on umbers 34:5.

Le Clerc, Calmet, Mills, Bishop Clayton, and many others, are of this opinion.

Even unto the borders of Ekron northward— Ekron was a considerable city in the land of the Philistines, particularly famous for the altars of Beelzebub, called, in the ew Testament, the prince of the devils. He was esteemed the chief deity of the country. Ekron was a portion of the tribe of Judah, and afterwards of Dan; but neither of them took it from its original possessors.

Which is counted to the Canaanite— The first possessors of the country were the descendants of Canaan, the youngest son of Ham. With respect to the Philistines,

they, it is well known, sprung from Mizraim, the second son of Ham; and, in a course of time, dispossessed the Avims of the places they held in the land of Canaan, and there settled themselves under the name of Philistines. See on Genesis 10:13 and Deuteronomy 2:23.

Five lords of the Philistines— The whole country of the Philistines, from Sihor to Ekron, was divided into five governments. The Scripture calls them chiefs, saraim, or saranaim; an old Phoenician word, as some think, signifying the same as sarim in Hebrews 1.e. prince or governor: the LXX translate it, satrapes, and the Vulgate petty kings; which does not answer, so well as the expression used by the LXX, to the idea that the Scripture gives of the government of the Philistines, which was rather aristocratical than monarchical. Achish, king of Gath in the time of David, is perhaps the only one of these lords who became absolute in his government. The land of the Philistines was of inconsiderable extent, not above forty English miles long, and very narrow, but rendered famous for its fertility and commerce. The Avites are to be distinguished from the Hivites, who inhabited the country near mount Hermon, to the north of Canaan; the latter dwelt on the west, and did not make a separate government. Though they, as well as the Philistines, were deprived of their country by the Caphtorims, yet some of them remained in certain districts, where they lived under the dominion of their conquerors.

CO STABLE, "Verses 3-5The "Shihor" is probably the brook of Egypt, the modern Wadi el Arish, that marked the southwestern boundary of the Promised Land. "Sidon" may represent the inhabitants of the Phoenician coast and of the Lebanon mountains. [ ote: Butler, p152.] The land of the Gebalite ( Joshua 13:5) refers to the city-state of Byblos. [ ote: Hess, p231.]

WHEDO , "3. Sihor is not, in this passage, the ile, as some have supposed, but rather the Wady el-Arish or Rhinocorura, which is before Egypt, that is, east of Egypt, constituting the southern boundary of Canaan. It is also called “the river of Egypt.” Joshua 15:4. Ekron, the most northerly city of the Philistines, is represented by the modern village of Akir twenty-four miles west of Jerusalem, containing about fifty mud houses, without a remnant of antiquity except two large, finely built wells. [

Which is counted to the Canaanite — As all that belonged to the Canaanite was now to be divided among the nine and one half tribes of Israel, it was important to know the whole extent of their ancient territory. The Philistines were not of Canaanitish but Egyptian origin, being descended from Mizraim.

Genesis 10:14. They seem to have expelled the original Canaanites, and dwelt in their coasts by the sea.]

Gazathites, and Ashdothites — See Joshua 11:22, note. Eshkalon stood upon the Mediterranean, about fifteen miles north of Gaza. Retaining nearly the same name, it now consists of very thick walls and ruins of temples and theatres.

Gittites — People of Gath.

Avites — An early, but probably not an aboriginal, people in Philistia.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:3

From Sihor. This word, which has the article in Hebrew, is literally the black river. This has been thought to be the ile, known to both Greeks and Latins by that title. The Greeks called it µέλας. So Virgil says of it, "AEgyptum nigra foecundat arena." The Vulgate has "a fluvio turbido qui irrigat AEgyptum." The LXX. translates by ἀοίκητος. The phrase which is "before" ( על־פני ) Egypt seems to exclude the idea of the ile, since the ile flowed through the centre of Egypt, and it is impossible to make על־פן equivalent to בקרב. As Drusins remarks, moreover, the ile is always called either יאר or "the river of Egypt." The interpreation which has found most favour of late, therefore, refers this expression to a small river that flows into the sea at the extreme southern border of Palestine. This river was known as the "river of Egypt" (Genesis 15:18), and is now called the Wady-el-Arisch (cf. also Joshua 15:4, Joshua 15:47, as well as umbers 34:5; 1 Kings 8:65; Isaiah 27:12, where the word is nahal, or winter torrent, a word inapplicable to the ile). For Sihor, or Shichor, see Isaiah 23:3; Jeremiah 2:18, and especially 1 Chronicles 13:5, which seems decisive against the ile. Which is counted to the Canaanite. These words are connected by the Masorites with what follows: The five lords of the Philistines are reckoned to the Canaanite. The five lords of the Philistines. The Philistines (Deuteronomy 2:23. Cf. Genesis 10:14, and 1 Chronicles 1:12) are supposed to be of Egyptian origin. Ewald believes Caphtor to be Crete, and supposes the Cherethites and Pelethites who formed David's body-guard (2 Samuel 15:18) to be Cretans and Philistines (see Ezekiel 25:16). But this opinion is disputed by many commentators of note, and is far from probable in itself. They were David's most trusted and faithful troops, and it seems hardly probable that so truly national a monarch would have assigned the post of honour around his person to the hereditary enemies of his race. Ritter, however, believes the Cherethites and Pelethites to be Philistines, and appeals to 1 Samuel 30:14, and still more forcibly to Zephaniah 2:4, Zephaniah 2:5. It should be remembered, too, that Ittai was a Gittite, or native of Gath (see 2 Samuel 15:21). The term here used, translated lords (satraps, LXX), is peculiar to the Philistines. It is to be found also in 3:3; 1 Samuel 5:8, etc. In 1 Kings 7:30 the word means an axle, or perhaps the outside plating of the wheel, and in the kindred languages it signifies a wheel. The expression is remarkable in connection with the phrase "circles of the Philistines." The Eshkalalonites. The inhabitants of Ashkelon, as the Gittites are of Gath. Also the Avites. Literally, "and the Avites." There is no "also" in the original, though the Avites or Avim are supposed (see Deuteronomy 2:23, and note on Geshuri in the last verse)to have been aborigines preceding the Canaanites, and dispossessed by the Philistines. Keil, however, disputes this view, and holds that we have no evidence that any but a Canaanitish people dwelt in

southwestern Palestine. This Canaanitish tribe, he thinks, was driven out by the Philistines. Some few of the Avites, or rather Avvites, continued to dwell among their conquerors. But the coincidence between Deuteronomy 2:22, Deuteronomy 2:23, and 1 Samuel 27:8, makes strongly for Ewald's view above. And Keil and Delitzsch, in their later joint work, incline to it. See Introduction III. The word Avvim, like Havoth, or Havvoth (see verse 30), is supposed to mean villages, or inhabited enclosures.

4 on the south; all the land of the Canaanites, from Arah of the Sidonians as far as Aphek and the border of the Amorites;

BAR ES, "Read “on the south,” and connect the words with the verse preceding. They indicate the southern limit of the still unconquered territory in this neighborhood, as Jos_13:3 gives the northern one.

Mearah - The “cave” (see the margin) has been referred to “Mugar Jczzin” (“cave of Jezzin”), between Tyre and Sidon, or to a district characterized by deep cave-like ravines near Sidon and Dan-Laish.

CLARKE, "The land of the Canaanites - This lay on the south of the country of the Philistines, towards the sea-coast.

Mearah - Supposed to be the city Maratha, on the Mediterranean Sea. - Calmet. Or the river Majora, which falls into the Mediterranean Sea, between Sidon and Berytus. See Pliny, Hist. Nat. lib. v., c. 20.

Aphek - See on Jos_12:18 (note).

To the borders of the Amorites - Though the term Amorite is sometimes used to designate the inhabitants in general of the land of Canaan, yet it must be considered in a much more restricted sense in this place. As no Amorites are known to have dwelt in this quarter, Calmet supposes we should read Aramites or Syrians. Joshua, says he, proceeds from Sidon to Aphek, a city of Syria, between Heliopolis and Babylon where was the temple of the Venus of Aphek, and which is spoken of in 1Ki_20:26; 2Ki_13:17, as the capital of the kings of Syria. From this Joshua passes on to the frontiers of the Syrians, towards Gebal or Gabala, which, according to Ptolemy, was situated in Phoenicia. This conjecture of Calmet is not supported by any authority either from the ancient versions or MSS. Houbigant, however, approves of it: the emendation is simple as it consists in

the interchange of only two letters in the same word, הארמי haarammi, for האמרי haemori.

GILL, "From the south, all the land of the Canaanites,.... That is, of those Canaanites who were particularly so called, in distinction from those of the other nations or tribes, and who dwelt in several parts of the land, some in the east and others in the west, see Jos_11:3; and, as it seems here, some in the south: now on the side of the south, as Kimchi interprets it, all the land of the Canaanites was left, that is, remained unconquered and not possessed:

and Mearah that is beside the Sidonians; the inhabitants of Sidon, and parts adjacent: what this place was, which belonged to the Sidonians, for so it may better be rendered, is not certain; some take it to be a cave belonging to them: Sandys (b) speaks of a number of caves cut out of the rock in those parts, called the caves of the Sidonians, and afterwards the caves of Tyre; so it is interpreted by the Targum, and in the Syriac and Arabic versions others take it to be the river Magoras, Pliny (c) makes mention of as on the borders of Lebanon near Zidon and Berytus: mention is made of the waters of Mearah along with the waters of Tiberias in Jewish writings (d); but rather something of more importance than a cave or a river is meant; most likely a tract of land near Sidon, and which belonged to it, and reached

unto Aphek, to the borders of the Amorites; of this place; see Gill on Jos_12:18.

JAMISO ,"all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah— (“the cave”)

that is beside the Sidonians— a mountainous region of Upper Galilee, remarkable for its caves and fastnesses.

unto Aphek— now Afka; eastward, in Lebanon.

to the borders of the Amorites— a portion of the northeastern territory that had belonged to Og. The third district that remained unsubdued:

BE SO ,"Joshua 13:4. From the south — That is, from those southern parts of the sea- coast now possessed by the Philistines, all the more northern parts of the sea-coast being yet inhabited by the Canaanites, almost as far as Sidon. The Amorites —The Amorites were a very strong and numerous people, and we find them dispersed in several parts, some within Jordan, and some without it, some in the south, and others in the north, of whom he speaks here.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:4 From the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that [is] beside the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the borders of the Amorites:

Ver. 4. All the land of the Canaanites.] Who yet held out against the Israelites, but hindered them not from dividing the land. o more shall those remnants of corruption hinder the saints from possession of their mansions prepared for them by Christ. [John 14:2]

COKE, "Ver. 4. From the south, all the land of the Canaanites— To the south of the country of the Philistines, on the sea-coast, lay the Canaanites, properly so called, who remained still unconquered. Mearah, a city unknown, towards the north, but in the territory of Sidon, was in the same class. See Calmet. Aphek was probably the

city which we find in the tribe of Asher, not very distant from Sidon, but farther eastward.

To the borders of the Amorites— There were Amorites in all the land of Canaan, to the north as well as to the south and east. Joshua proceeds from Sidon to Aphek, a city in Syria, betwixt Heliopolis and Byblos, where stood the temple of Venus of Aphek, and which is spoken of 1 Kings 20:26. 2 Kings 13:17 as the capital of Syria. From this place, in the verse following, he passes on to the borders of the Syrians, towards Gabal, or Gebala, which, according to Ptolemy, lay in Phoenicia.

WHEDO , "4. [From the south — This is to be connected with the Avites in the preceding verse, and stands in contrast with northward in the same verse. The Masoretic pointing is here noticeably wrong. Joshua 13:2-3 describe the unconquered territory in the south, from its northern limit, Ekron, to its southern, the land occupied by the Avites; Joshua 13:4-6 describe the northern lands.] Mearah belonged to the Sidonians. The word beside is a mis-translation. Mearah signifies a cavern. Its location is a matter of conjecture. Aphek is identified by Gesenius with Aphaca of classical times, famous for its temple of Venus. Its modern name is Afka, situated some eighteen miles northeast of Beyroot. It was assigned to the tribe of Asher. Joshua 19:30.

To the borders of the Amorites — This is taken by most interpreters to refer to the land of Bashan, which formerly belonged to the Amorites and was ruled by Og.

PETT, "Joshua 13:4-5 (4b-5)

‘All the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah which belongs to the Zidonians, to Aphek, to the border of the Amorites and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon toward the sunrising (the east), from Baal-gad under Mount Hermon to the entering in of Hamath.’These refer to northern areas. ‘Canaanites’ probably here signifies ‘Phoenicians’ south of Zidon (see Judges 3:3 - ‘Canaanites’ does not just refer to people who lived in the land of Canaan but is also regularly used extra-Biblically of Phoenicians further to the north). Me‘arah was presumably an important area on the southern Zidonian border (although ‘Me’ may be ‘from’ followed by the name of a town). Mention of ‘the Amorites’ here probably has reference to the kingdom of the Amurru in Lebanon, well known from Hittite and Egyptian sources. Aphek, which means ‘fortress’ and was a common name, was probably on its southern border. Designations of peoples were very fluid and depended on the viewpoint of those who used them.

Gebal (Byblos) was an important coastal town north of Zidon. The land of the Gebalites would possibly be in some way connected with it and this may have in mind its southern border. ‘All Lebanon’. The adjoining regions to the Lebanon Range, probably again thinking of its southern border. It is not likely that Joshua had these territories in mind as part of the promised land. Baal-gad (compare Joshua 11:17) was in the far north of Israel’s territories at the foot of and to the

west of Mount Hermon. It may be Tell Haus or Hasbeiyah, both in the Wadi et-Teim. ‘The entering in of Hamath’ or more probably ‘Lebo of Hamath’ (mentioned in inscriptions), is modern Lebweh at the head of the road north to Hamath.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:4

From the south. The LXX. and the best modern commentators connect these words with what precedes. This gives a better sense than joining it to what follows. For the south was not "all the land of the Canaanites," but a large part of it belonged, as we have just seen, to a tribe not of Canaanitish origin, while the land of the Canaanites (see note on Joshua 3:10) extended far to the northward. Therefore we must understand the words "all the land of the Canaanites" to begin a fresh section, and to be descriptive of the territory extending from Philistia northward towards Sidon. So the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic. Mearah. The margin has "the cave." But there is no article in the original The LXX. reads ἀπὸ γάζης for Mearah, having clearly, as Masius observes, substituted Zain for Resh. But this mistaken reading compels a mistranslation of the passage. Vandevelde supposes it to be a remarkable cave still existing near Sidon, which is mentioned by William of Tyre as having been fortified by the Crusaders. He speaks of it as municipium quoddam, and states that it was commonly known as the "cave of Tyre." "spelunca inexpugnabilis." It was afterwards "the last retreat of the Emir Fakkr-ed-Din" (Vandevelde, s.v. Mearah). There is a village now, north of Sidon, called Mog-heiriyeh, or the village of the cave. So also Kuobel. Beside the Sidonians. Rather, near, or in the direction of, or which belong to the Sidonians. Aphek. Or Aphekah. This (Knobel) was the northern Aphek (Joshua 19:30; 1:31), in the tribe of Asher, known later as Aphaca, and now as Afka. ot the Aphekah of Joshua 15:53, probably the Aphek of 1 Samuel 4:1. It is the same Aphek which in later times was captured by the Syrians, and was the scene of several decisive victories of Israel (1 Kings 20:26, 1 Kings 20:30; 2 Kings 13:17). It is doubtful which Aphek is meant in Joshua 12:18, though it is probably the southern Aphek. The situation is described as one of "rare beauty" (Delitzsch), "on the north.west slopes of Lebanon," amid exquisite groves (Conder). Here the Syrian Astarte was worshipped, and the ruins of her temple, dedicated to her as mourning for Tammuz, or Adonis, may still be seen. See Kenrick, 'Phoenicia,' 310, 311, and Mover's 'Die Phonizier,' 1.192. Perhaps it was never actually occupied by the Asherites, but remained in the hands of Syria, and as a place of great resort was the natural point to which the attacks of Israel would be directed. Vandevelde, however, believes in four and Conder in seven cities of this name, and they suppose the Aphek which was the scene of the battle with the Syrians to have been on the east of Jordan, from the occurrence of the word "Mishor" in the narrative in 1 Kings 20:1-43. The term "Mishor" is, however, applied to other places beside the territory east of Jordan (see Gesenius, s.v. Mishor). The Aphek in 1 Samuel 29:1 cannot be identified with any that have been named. To the borders of the Amorites. This can hardly be anything but the northern border of the kingdom of Bashan, in the neighbourhood of Mount Hermon.

5 the area of Byblos; and all Lebanon to the east, from Baal Gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo Hamath.

BAR ES, "Giblites - The people of Gebal (“Jebail”, 22 miles north of Beyronut). They were “stone-squarers” 1Ki_5:18 and (ship) “caulkers” Eze_27:9.

CLARKE, "The land of the Giblites - This people dwelt beyond the precincts of the land of Canaan, on the east of Tyre and Sidon. See Eze_27:9; Psa_83:7; their capital was named Gebal. See Dodd.

All Lebanon - See on Jos_11:17 (note).

GILL, "And the land of the Giblites,.... This was another country that remained unconquered; the Greeks call it Byblus, and near to which Pliny (e) speaks of a place called Gabale, and is now called Gibyle; it is (f) said to be"pleasantly situated by the seaside, and at present it contains but a little extent of ground, but yet more than enough for the small number of its inhabitants:''it was in greater splendour, and its inhabitants of more fame, in the times of Ezekiel, Eze_27:9,

and all Lebanon toward the sunrising; or east of the land; all that inhabited that mountain remained unconquered, though the conquest was carried as far as the borders thereof:

from Baalgad, under Mount Hermon; of which see Jos_11:17;

unto the entering into Hamath: which was the north border of the land; see Num_34:8.

JAMISO ,"all the land of the Giblites— Their capital was Gebal or Bylbos (Greek), on the Mediterranean, forty miles north of Sidon.

all Lebanon, toward the sunrising— that is, Anti-libanus; the eastern ridge, which has its proper termination in Hermon.

entering into Hamath— the valley of Baalbec.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:5 And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath.

Ver. 5. And the land of the Giblites.] Called Gebal in Psalms 83:7, Ezekiel 27:9. Enemies to the Church.

COKE, "Ver. 5. And the land of the Giblites— This people dwelt out of the land of Canaan; their capital, named Gebal, was seated to the east of Tyre and Sidon. Ezekiel 27:9. Psalms 83:7. The Giblites are named among the workmen sent by king Hiram to Solomon. See 1 Kings 5:18 and the margins of our Bibles. Some traces of the name Giblites are still to be met with in the city of Gibyle in Syria, which Maundrell describes, and thinks to have been the ancient Gebal. See his Journey from Aleppo, p. 33. The Israelites extended their conquers as far as Lebanon, toward the sun rising, penetrating no further. Respecting which, Baal-Gad, and Hamath, see ch. Joshua 11:17 and umbers 34:8.

WHEDO , "[5. Giblites — Inhabitants of Gebal, the Gyblos of the Greeks, the modern Jebail, situated on the seacoast at the foot of the northern slopes of Lebanon, and about seventeen miles north of Beyroot. A multitude of gray granite columns are built into the modern walls and houses, choke up the harbour, and lie scattered over the surrounding fields, and they attest the antiquity of the town. The Giblites were employed in building Solomon’s temple, (1 Kings 5:18, note,) and. according to Ezekiel 27:9, were skilled in shipbuilding.

Baal-gad — See on Joshua 11:17. Hamath was probably founded by the youngest son of Canaan, (Genesis 10:18,) and so was one of the oldest cities in the world. In Amos 6:2, it is called “the great.” Its king Toi made peace with David, (2 Samuel 8:9,) but Solomon seems to have subjugated the kingdom and made it a part of his own empire. 2 Chronicles 8:3. It early fall into the hands of the great Assyrian conquerors. 2 Kings 18:34. It still exists, in the beautiful valley of the Orontes, about sixty miles southeast of Antioch, and has a population of 30,000. It lies on both sides of the river, and is noted for the immense wheels, eighty feet in diameter, which are turned by the rapid current and used for irrigation. The entering into Hamath is a geographical term used to designate the northern border of Israel. umbers 34:8; 1 Kings 8:65; 2 Kings 14:25. It was evidently some great pass connected with the Lebanon mountains, but which one has been a matter of dispute. Robinson and Porter identify it with the depression between the northern end of Lebanon and the usairiyeh mountains, which opens westward, towards the coast of the Mediterranean. But as the Israelites never occupied territory so far north as that, most sacred geographers identify this entering with the southern opening into the great valley of Coele-Syria. This is by far the most notable entrance into the ancient kingdom and land of Hamath.]

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:5

The Giblites. The inhabitants of Gebal, called Jebail (i.e; hill city, from Jebel) by the Arabs, and Byblus by the Greeks. This is Masius's idea, and other commentators have accepted it (see 1 Kings 5:1-18 :32; Psalms 83:7; and Ezekiel 27:9, where the LXX. translates by Byblus). In the first named passage the word is translated "stone squarers," in our version (where it is the 18th and not the 32nd verse). All the other versions render "Giblites" as here, and no doubt the inhabitants of the Phoenician city of Jebail are meant, since in the ruins of Jebail the same kind of masonry is found as is seen in Solomon's temple. Byblus was the great seat of the worship of Tammuz, or Adonis. Here his father Cinyras was supposed to have been king, and the licentious worship, with its corrupting influences, was spread over the whole region of Lebanon and even Damascus. This territory was never actually occupied by the Israelites (see for this passage also Joshua 11:8, Joshua 11:17; and Joshua 12:7). Hamath. The spies penetrated nearly as far as this ( umbers 42:21), and David reduced the land into subjection as far as the borders of this territory. But the Israelites never subdued it. Toi, king of Hamath, was an ally, not a tributary of David (2 Samuel 8:9). The border of Israel is always described as extending "to the entering in of Hamath" (1 Kings 8:65; 2 Kings 14:25), though Jeroboam II. is said to have "recovered" (Joshua 13:28) Hamath itself. This "entering in of Hamath" commences at the end of the region called Coele Syria, according to Robinson, 'Later Biblical Researches,' sec. 12, at the northeast end of the Lebanon range. So Vandevelde and Porter. Vandevelde remarks that the expression refers to an "entrance formed by ature herself," namely, the termination of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges. The city of Hamath, which gave its name to the territory, is situated on the Orontes, and was known later as Epiphaneia, no doubt after Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria.

K&D 5-7, "Jos_13:5-7

There still remained to be taken (2) “the land of the Giblites,” i.e., the territory of the population of Gebal (1Ki_5:18; Eze_27:9), the Byblos of the classics, on the Mediterranean Sea, to the north of Beirut, called Jebail by the Arabs, and according to Edrisi (ed. Jaubert, i. p. 356), “a pretty town on the sea-shore, enclosed in good walls, and surrounded by vineyards and extensive grounds planted with fruit trees” (see also Abulfed. Tab. Syr. p. 94). It is still a town with an old wall, some portions of which apparently belong to the time of the Crusades (see Burckhardt, Syr. p. 296, and Ritter, Erdk. xvii. pp. 60ff.).

(Note: The evidence adduced by Movers (Phönizier, ii. 1, p. 103), that the Giblites did not belong to the Canaanites, has more plausibility than truth.)

“And all Lebanon toward the sunrising:” i.e., not Antilibanus (Knobel), but the Lebanon which is to the east of the territory of Gebal, “from Baal-gad under Mount Hermon,” i.e., Paneas Banjas at the foot of Hermon (see at Jos_11:17), “unto the entering in to Hamath,” i.e., as far up as the territory of the kingdom of Hamath, with the capital of the same name on the Orontes (see at Num_34:8). Lastly, there still remained (3) “all the inhabitants of the mountains, from Lebanon to Misrephothmaim,” i.e., the promontory of Nakura (see at Jos_11:8), namely “all the Sidonians,” i.e., all the Phoenicians who dwelt from Lebanon southwards, from the boundary of the territory of Hamath down to the promontory of Nakura. According to ancient usage, the Sidonians stand for the Phoenicians generally, as in Homer, on account of Sidon being the oldest capital of Phoenicia (see Ges. on Isa. i. pp. 724ff.). All these the Lord would root out before Israel,

and therefore Joshua was to divide the whole of northern Canaan, which was inhabited by Phoenicians, among the Israelites. “only divide thou it by lot for an inheritance,” etc.

to cause it to fall, here used with ,ה>יל .only, i.e., although thou hast not yet taken it ,רקreference to the lot, i.e., to divide by lot. “Fulfil thy duty in the distribution of the land, not even excepting what is still in the firm grasp of the enemy; for I will take care to perform what I have promised. From this we may learn to rely so perfectly upon the word of God, when undertaking any duty, as not to be deterred by doubts of fears” (Calvin).

6 “As for all the inhabitants of the mountain regions from Lebanon to Misrephoth Maim, that is, all the Sidonians, I myself will drive them out before the Israelites. Be sure to allocate this land to Israel for an inheritance, as I have instructed you,

BAR ES, "The King James Version would exhibit the sense more clearly if the words from the beginning of Jos_13:2 to the words “the Sidonians” in this verse were placed in a parenthesis, and the order of the words before us changed thus: “I will drive them out.” The “them” meaning the inhabitants of the “very much land to be possessed,” spoken of in Jos_13:1.

CLARKE, "Misrephoth-maim - See on Jos_11:7 (note).

These will I drive out - That is, if the Israelites continued to be obedient; but they did not, and therefore they never fully possessed the whole of that land which, on this condition alone, God had promised them: the Sidonians were never expelled by the Israelites, and were only brought into a state of comparative subjection in the days of David and Solomon. Some have taken upon them to deny the authenticity of Divine revelation relative to this business, “because,” say they, “God is stated to have absolutely promised that Joshua should conquer the whole land, and put the Israelites in possession of it.” This is a total mistake.

1. God never absolutely, i.e., unconditionally, promised to put them in possession of this land. The promise of their possessing the whole was suspended on their fidelity to God. They were not faithful, and therefore God was not bound by his promise to give them any part of the land, after their first act of national defection from his worship.

2. God never said that Joshua should conquer the whole land, and give it to them; the promise was simply this: “Thou shalt bring them into the land, and thou shalt divide it among them:” both of which he did, and procured them footing by his conquests, sufficient to have enabled them to establish themselves in it for ever.

3. It was never said, Thou shalt conquer it all, and then divide it; no. Several of the tribes, after their quota was allotted them, were obliged to drive out the ancient inhabitants. See on Jos_11:18 (note).

GILL, "All the inhabitants of the hill country,.... Not in Judea, but in and about Lebanon, as follows:

from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim; of which see Jos_11:8,

and all the Sidonians; the inhabitants of the ancient city of Sidon, and the villages and lands belonging to it: these remained unconquered, and never were possessed by the Israelites:

them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: which, though it may have a special respect unto the Sidonians, with whom the clause is closely connected, yet may include all the above lands unconquered, out of which, as well as Sidon, the Lord promises to drive the inhabitants, to make way for the children of Israel; that is, on condition of their obedience, for it appears that not only the Sidonians, but many others, even the chief, and most of those mentioned, were never possessed by them:

only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance; that is, the whole land, as Abarbinel rightly remarks, both what was subdued and what was not; that was the business, and all the business, Joshua had now to do; he was not to be employed in making any further conquests, but leave them to others, and apply himself to the division of the land, by lot, to the tribes that as yet had no portion assigned them:

as I have commanded thee; now, at this time.

HE RY, "He promises that he would make the Israelites masters of all those countries that were yet unsubdued, though Joshua was old and not able to do it, old and not likely to live to see it done. Whatever becomes of us, and however we may be laid aside as despised broken vessels, God will do his own work in his own time (Jos_13:6): I will drive them out. The original is emphatic: “It is I that will do it, I that can do it when thou are dead and gone, and will do it if Israel be not wanting to themselves.” “I will do it by my Word,” so the Chaldee here, as in many other places, “by the eternal Word, the captain of the hosts of the Lord.” This promise that he would drive them out from before the children of Israel plainly supposes it as the condition of the promise that the children of Israel must themselves attempt their extirpation, must go up against them, else they could not be said to be driven out before them; if afterwards Israel, through sloth, or

cowardice, or affection to these idolaters, sit still and let them alone, they must blame themselves, and not God, if they be not driven out. We must work out our salvation, and then God will work in us and work with us; we must resist our spiritual enemies, and then God will tread them under our feet; we must go forth to our Christian work and warfare, and then God will go forth before us.

JAMISO ,"All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misrephoth-maim— (See on Jos_11:8) - that is, “all the Sidonians and Phoenicians.”

them will I drive out— The fulfillment of this promise was conditional. In the event of the Israelites proving unfaithful or disobedient, they would not subdue the districts now specified; and, in point of fact, the Israelites never possessed them though the inhabitants were subjected to the power of David and Solomon.

only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance— The parenthetic section being closed, the historian here resumes the main subject of this chapter - the order of God to Joshua to make an immediate allotment of the land. The method of distribution by lot was, in all respects, the best that could have been adopted, as it prevented all ground of discontent, as well as charges of arbitrary or partial conduct on the part of the leaders; and its announcement in the life of Moses (Num_33:54), as the system according to which the allocations to each tribe should be made, was intended to lead the people to the acknowledgment of God as the proprietor of the land and as having the entire right to its disposal. Moreover, a solemn appeal to the lot showed it to be the dictate not of human, but divine, wisdom. It was used, however, only in determining the part of the country where a tribe was to be settled - the extent of the settlement was to be decided on a different principle (Num_26:54). The overruling control of God is conclusively proved because each tribe received the possession predicted by Jacob (Gen_49:3-28) and by Moses (Deu_33:6-25).

CALVI , "6.All the inhabitants of the hill country, etc Joshua is again admonished, though the Israelites do not yet possess those regions, not to defer the partition, but trust to the promise of God, because it would detract injuriously from his honor if there were any doubt as to the event. It is accordingly said: Only do what is thy duty in the distribution of the land; nor let that which the enemy still hold securely be exempted from the lot; for it will be my care to fulfil what I have promised. Hence let us learn in undertaking any business, so to depend on the lips of God as that no doubt can delay us. It is not ours, indeed, to fabricate vain hopes for ourselves; but when our confidence is founded on the Lord, let us only obey his commands, and there is no reason to fear that the event will disappoint us.

He afterwards assigns the land of Canaan to nine tribes and a half tribe, because the portion of the Reubenites, Gadites, and half tribe of Manasseh had already been assigned beyond the Jordan. Though there is a seeming tautology in the words, Which Moses gave them, as Moses gave them, there is nothing superfluous, because in the second clause the donation is confirmed; as if God were ordering that which was done to be ratified, or saying, in other words, As Moses gave them that land, so let them remain tranquil in the possession of it. (134) For this reason also he is distinguished by the title of servant of God, as if it were said, Let no one interfere with that decree which a faithful minister has pronounced on the authority of God. It was certainly necessary to provide by anticipation against the disputes which

otherwise must have daily arisen.

BE SO ,"Joshua 13:6. Them will I drive out — Whatever becomes of us, however we may be laid aside as broken vessels, God will do his work in his own time. I will do it by my word; so the Chaldee here, as in many other places: by the eternal Word, the captain of my host. But the promise of driving them out from before the children of Israel, supposes that the Israelites must use their own endeavours, must go up against them. If Israel, through sloth or cowardice, let them alone, they are not likely to be driven out. We must go forth in our Christian warfare, and then God will go before us.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:6 All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, [and] all the Sidonians, them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee.

Ver. 6. Them will I drive out, &c., ] viz., If the Israelites rule with me and be faithful with my saints, as Hosea 11:12; else "they shall know my breach of promise," as umbers 14:34.

WHEDO , "6. Misrephoth-maim — See chap. Joshua 11:8, note.

Them will I drive out — God’s promises of good to man are all grounded on the implied condition of his obedience and faithful co-operation. This promise never was fulfilled, through the failure of the Hebrew nation to maintain an all-conquering faith in their divine Ally.

Divide thou it — The pronoun it is to be referred to the land in the first verse, and the intervening verses are to be read parenthetically. Without a special command, Joshua, who supposed that all the land must be first conquered, would not have dared to allot territory still held by the enemy.

By lot — A difficulty here arises. The land was to be apportioned by lot, and yet, according to umbers 26:53-56, it was also to be divided according to the size of the tribes. The best solution of this difficulty is the supposition that the lot only determined the relative location of each portion, ( umbers 33:54,) while the extent and bounds were to be fixed by a board of commissioners. See Joshua 14:1, note. The manner of the lot is unknown, but probably there were two urns, one containing the names of the tribes, and the other the location of the portions; then by drawing one card or pebble from each urn, the question would be decided by the divine Providence, which directed the lots. The lot thus publicly drawn would allay jealousies and prevent disputes. As the result was in exact harmony with Jacob’s prophecy in his dying hour two hundred and fifty years before, and in striking fulfilment of Moses’ prediction just before his death, it would confirm the Israelites’ faith in Jehovah, who had inspired these predictions, and so guided the lots as to secure their accomplishment.

PETT, "Joshua 13:6

“All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, even all the Zidonians, them will I drive out from before the children of Israel. Only allot it to Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded you.”For Misrephoth-maim compare Joshua 11:8. The reference is to the Zidonians in the hill country south of Zidon. This too was allotted to Israel as an inheritance. For the whole range of unpossessed territory compare Judges 3:3. Thus God confirmed His promise that the whole land would be theirs. He always gives full measure. It was not His fault if they did not go ahead and take it.

PULPIT, "All the Sidonians. The word כל here, as elsewhere, must be taken in a restricted sense. A large portion of the Sidonian territory was taken, but Sidon retained its independence (see 1:31, 1:32). It is clear, too, that the promise was conditional. Had not the Asherites been willing to tolerate the existence of the Canaanites in their midst, they need not have done so (see 1:28).

COKE, "Ver. 6. All the inhabitants of the hill-country—will I drive out— God promises to expel these nations; but, upon a condition implied, that the Israelites did not render themselves unworthy this favour by their disobedience: a condition which having never been fulfilled, there is no room to wonder that the Lord did not give them all that he had promised. The Sidonians never submitted to the yoke of the Hebrews; and all that David and Solomon could do to the nations about Lebanon was to make them tributary. But why was it that, so far from giving to his people all the land of Canaan, God suffered them to remain so manyyears in a state of war before they became masters of the places which they kept? It was certainly not owing (as Josephus, Hist. Jud. l. v. c. 1. hardily asserts) to the weakness of Joshua, nor to the situation or strength of the cities in the promised land. Providence disposed the event in this manner for reasons well worthy its adorable Wisdom 1. It was not proper that the country should be depopulated all at once. Had the natives been driven out immediately, the wild beasts would have been too numerous for the conquerors. Exodus 23:29. Deuteronomy 22:2. God preserved a part of the Canaanites in order to try the faith, piety, and fidelity of the Israelites. 3. or can it be denied, that the progress of the Israelites was retarded through their default, negligence, and improper conduct. Psalms 106:34; Psalms 35:4. And, upon the whole, the goodness of God is, in a very sensible manner, evident, who punishes his enemies slowly and by degrees, to give them time to be converted.

REFLECTIO S.—Joshua now was growing old, and the fatigues of war probably hastened infirmities upon him: God, therefore, gives him rest after his toils; and, as his finishing service, appoints him to make the division of what yet should be conquered, as well as of the country already possessed. ote; (1.) Old age wants a quiet resting-place, and, after a busy life, to be recollected against the near approach of death. (2.) The strongest must bow, and the best of men pay this tribute to nature; and they who are advancing in years need be reminded of it, that what they yet have to do they may do quickly.

The country here described was very extensive; yet God promises to put them in possession of it, if they continue obedient. If the Philistines afterwards proved such troublesome neighbours, they must blame their sins, which prevented their extirpation; and their negligence or cowardice, which restrained them from putting in force the liberty given them by the Divine promise. ote; If we sin against our own mercies, we have nobody but ourselves to blame for our sufferings.

PI K, ""Them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites" (v. 6). We regard this statement as one with a clearly implied proviso attached to it, and as such addressed to their responsibility, presupposing their concurrence. Therefore we agree with Matthew Henry’s comments thereon: "This promise that He would drive them out front before the children of Israel plainly supposes it as the condition of the promise that the children of Israel themselves must attempt and endeavor their extirpation, must go up against them, else they could not be said to be driven out before them. If afterwards, through sloth or cowardice or affection to these idolaters, they sat still and let them alone, they must blame themselves, and not God, if they be not driven out." or was that Puritan alone in so understanding those words of the Lord. Even the high Calvinist J. Gill remarked thereon, "Which the Lord would deliver into their hands, providing they were obedient to His will, for, because they were not, many of those places never came into their possession, though divided to them by lot"; and again (later), "that is on condition of their obedience, for it appears that not only the Sidonians but many others, even the chief, and most of those mentioned, were never possessed by them."

The same is true of Christians and their eternal inheritance: there are certain conditions which they are obligated to meet. "Conditions" not in the Romish sense, as con-causes with the Father’s choice and the Son’s atonement; nor in the Arminian sense, of an absolute power lying in their own wills and strength to comply therewith. But according to the order of things which God has established, for the enforcing of their moral agency—as there must be a sowing before reaping, the cross before the crown. Principal causes (God’s grace and Christ’s merits) do not exclude necessary means—grace must not be turned into lasciviousness nor Christ made the minister of sin. Scripture is unmistakably plain on this point: "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end" (Heb. 3:14, and note well the "if" in John 8:51; 1 Corinthians 15:2; Colossians 1:23). As remission of sins is promised to none but those who repent (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19) and believe (Acts 10:43), so only he that endures to the end shall be saved (Matthew 24:13). "Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest [the antitypical Canaan], lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief" (Heb. 4:11), as the Israelites in the wilderness. That warning is a real one, which we ignore at our eternal peril.

"Only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites . . . as I have commanded thee" (Josh. 13:6). This was the business in which Joshua was now to engage: to apportion it—

the entire territory, both what was already subdued and those parts of it which still remained to be conquered. " ow therefore divide this land for an inheritance unto the nine tribes, and the half tribe of Manasseh, with whom the Reubenites and the Gadites have received their inheritance, which Moses gave them, beyond Jordan eastward" (vv. 7, 8). Having received orders and authority from God, Joshua was to set about this task at once with all diligence. He was not to wait until all the tribes had actually secured their inheritance, but must define or mark out the portion allotted to each of them, so that they might know the particular section to which he had Divine title, and go forward, take and occupy the same. Thus Joshua was to act with full confidence in God. Though he should be called to leave the field of battle and enter his rest, others would be raised up to carry on the conflict until the Divine purpose was realized. This, we say again, needs to be borne in mind by the Lord’s people in all generations, for considerable unbelief is often mingled with their grief when some much-used servant of His is removed from this world—as though the cause of Christ was jeopardized thereby.

Once more Joshua was to count implicitly upon Jehovah: to work while it was yet day for him, and to leave the outcome to his Master. Probably the major part of the land was then occupied by the Canaanites, yet he was personally to superintend the allotting of the whole of it to Israel. Thus was he called upon to trust in the Lord with all his heart, and lean not unto his own understanding (Prov. 3:5), as had oah and Abraham before him (Heb. 11:7, 8). That is the principle by which every servant of God is ever to act. As Paul declared, "For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5, 7). The apostle and his fellow workers lived and labored by faith, being inspired with courage and strength from having their hearts occupied with things invisible. Theirs was not a single act, but a constant course of trustfulness. To walk by faith is to conduct ourselves in the firm belief of those things we do not see, resting on the sure Word of God and being practically influenced thereby. It is to live in a steady expectation of things to come—the realities and glories of heaven. It is the opposite of being governed by our senses or regulated by visible objects, for "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1), making them real and precious to the soul.

It was at this point that the predecessor of Joshua had failed; though, through not linking up parallel passages with umbers 13:1-3, many have not perceived this—another case where Scripture must be compared with Scripture if we are to obtain the complete picture. "And ye came near unto me every one of you, and said, We will send men before us, and they shall search us out the land, and bring us word again by what way we must go up, and into what cities we shall come. And the saying pleased me well: and I took twelve men of you" and sent them forth (Deut. 1:22, 23). Those words seem to make two things quite evident. First, that this project originated with the people. Second, that Moses failed to discern the distrust which prompted their proposal—his approval thereof being a case of evil communications corrupting good manners. At a later date, when chiding the children of Gad and of Reuben, he said, "Wherefore discourage ye the heart of the children of Israel from going over into the land which the Lord hath given them? Thus did your fathers, when I sent them from Kadesh-barnea to see the land" ( um. 32:7, 8), which shows

they had a spirit of unwillingness to go up into it.

From the account given in umbers 13:17-20, we learn that they questioned the value of the promised inheritance, as the language "see the land, what it is . . . whether it be good or bad . . . whether it be fat or lean" makes clear. Thus it was rank unbelief in the word of the Lord which lay behind their policy, while their "by what way we must go up" of Deuteronomy 1:22, showed their lack of confidence in being Divinely directed as to the best route to take. What need was there to go and examine the kind of land which the Lord had chosen for them, when He had already informed them that it was one "flowing with milk and honey" (Ex. 3:8)? What occasion was there to investigate the approaches into it when there were the pillars of cloud and of fire to guide and show them the way? or have we any need to ask what God’s will for us is, when He has already made known the same, or to inquire as to our path of duty, when we possess His Word as a lamp unto our feet. But alas, Israel had a better opinion of their own policy and judgment than of God’s; and is it not often the same with us?

Though approving of the carnal suggestion of the people, before acting on the same Moses evidently sought confirmation from the Lord, and we are told that He said, "Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan" ( um. 13:2). In thus giving permission, God acted in judgment. Deuteronomy 1:6-8, makes it clear that a year previously Israel had received Divine orders to go forward and possess the land which had been given unto their fathers, but as soon as they left Horeb one sin after another was committed by them ( um. 11 and 12). God had been provoked by their waywardness, and in order to make further manifest the hardness of their hearts He now gave them up to their lusts. The sequel at once demonstrated their unbelief and perversity. God also suffered their desire to be granted in order to serve as a solemn warning to His people in all generations. If we profit not from the recorded sins and punishments of others, then is our case indeed inexcusable. When God gratifies our self-will and suffers us to follow the schemes of our own devising, we pay dearly for it. If we have more confidence in our own wisdom or the representations of our senses than we have in the Divine counsels, we shall inevitably taste the bitterness of our foolishness.

It seems rather strange that, after a full description of the territory given to the two and a half tribes had previously been furnished in the closing verses of umbers 32 the middle of Deuteronomy in. a briefer reference in Deuteronomy 29 and a fuller one again in Joshua 12:4-6, a further account of the same should be repeated here. Matthew Henry suggested the following explanation. First, as the reason why the nine and a half tribes should now be assigned their portions: since their brethren had already been provided for, it was just and meet that they should be so too. Second, as the pattern for Joshua now to follow. He was not being ordered to do something unprecedented, for he had been personally present when Moses had distributed the eastern section of Palestine unto the two and a half tribes, and from his example he might well now act. Third, as an inducement unto Joshua to make no delay in performing this task, that the remaining tribes might no longer be kept out of their heritage. Thus the Lord who had provided for the former was equally

solicitous about the welfare of the latter. Fourth, that the portion given to the two and a half tribes years before now being specified in detail signified a ratification of the original grant, thus obviating any disputes about the boundaries. Joshua was not free to make any alterations.

The account given of the portions allocated unto the two and a half tribes closes with the ominous statement, " evertheless the children of Israel expelled not the Geshurites, nor the Maachathites: but the Geshurites and Maachathites dwell among the Israelites until this day" (v. 13). This is the first time that anything of this nature is recorded of them, though if we are permitted to go through the book of Judges we shall see that other of the tribes were equally remiss at a later date. It reminds us of a similar and most regrettable failure on the part of Queen Elizabeth and those who succeeded her. Under the Reformation in the days of Luther and Calvin, the Protestant sections of Europe were delivered from the idolatries of the mass, Mariolatry and the worship of idols; but those who followed were found sadly wanting in purging themselves from other popish evils and superstitions. It is worthy of note that as the two and a half tribes were placed in their inheritance before their fellows, so (centuries later) they were displaced before the other tribes were, being carried captive to Assyria, and that because they "went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land" (1 Chron. 5:25, 26). Such a proportion does Providence often observe in the dispensations of prosperity and adversity, setting the one over against the other.

7 and divide it as an inheritance among the nine tribes and half of the tribe of Manasseh.”

CLARKE, "The nine tribes, and the half tribe of Manasseh - The other half tribe of Manasseh, and the two tribes of Reuben and Gad, had got their inheritance on the other side of Jordan, in the land formerly belonging to Og king of Bashan, and Sihon king of the Amorites.

GILL, "Now therefore divide this land for an inheritance,.... Having the

command and authority of God for it, he was to set about it at once, with all diligence and application:

unto the nine tribes: of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin, Dan, Ephraim, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali, in which order they are placed, when the Lord gave to Moses the names of the men that should divide the land under Eleazar and Joshua, Num_34:16,

and the half tribe of Manasseh; that half which had no inheritance on the other side Jordan, and for which a prince of the children of Joseph was appointed to divide, Num_34:23.

HE RY, "Here we have, I. Orders given to Joshua to assign to each tribe its portion of this land, including that which was yet unsubdued, which must be brought into the lot, in a believing confidence that it should be conquered when Israel was multiplied so as to have occasion for it (Jos_13:7): Now divide this land. Joshua thought all must be conquered before any must be divided. “No,” said, God, “there is as much conquered as will serve your turn for the present; divide this, and make your best of it, and wait for the remainder hereafter.” Note, We must take the comfort of what we have, though we cannot compass all we would have. Observe,

1. The land must be divided among the several tribes, and they must not always live in common, as now they did. Which way soever a just property is acquired, it is the will of that God who has given the earth to the children of men that there should be such a thing, and that every man should know his own, and not invade that which is another's. The world must be governed, not by force, but right, by the law of equity, not of arms.

2. That it must be divided for an inheritance, though they got it by conquest. (1.) The promise of it came to them as an inheritance from their fathers; the land of promise pertained to the children of promise, who were thus beloved for their fathers' sakes, and in performance of the covenant with them. (2.) The possession of it was to be transmitted by them, as an inheritance to their children. Frequently, what is got by force is soon lost again; but Israel, having an incontestable title to this land by the divine grant, might see it hereby secured as an inheritance to their seed after them, and that God kept this mercy for thousands.

3. That Joshua must not divide it by his own will. Though he was a very wise, just, and good man, it must not be left to him to give what he pleased to each tribe; but he must do it by lot, which referred the matter wholly to God, and to his determination, for he it is that appoints the bounds of our habitation, and every man's judgment must proceed from him. But Joshua must preside in this affair, must manage this solemn appeal to Providence, and see that the lot was drawn fairly and without fraud, and that every tribe did acquiesce in it. The lot indeed causeth contention to cease, Pro_18:18. But, if upon this lot any controversy should arise, Joshua by his wisdom and authority must determine it, and prevent any ill consequences of it. Joshua must have the honour of dividing the land, (1.) Because he had undergone the fatigue of conquering it: and when, through his hand, each tribe received its allotment, they would thereby be made the more sensible of their obligations to him. And what a pleasure must it needs be to a man of such a public spirit as Joshua was to see the people that were so dear to him eating of the labour of his hands! (2.) That he might be herein a type of Christ, who has not only conquered for us the gates of hell, but has opened to us the gates of heaven, and, having purchased the eternal inheritance for all believers, will in due time put them all in possession of it.

BE SO , "Joshua 13:7. ow, therefore, divide this land — Both that which was conquered and that which remained unconquered was to be divided, that every tribe might know what belonged to them by God’s gift, and be encouraged to attempt the conquest of it when they were able; might be preserved from entering into any covenant or society with those who kept their inheritance from them; and likewise with a view to hinder the unconquered people from joining their forces together to recover their country, the Israelites inhabiting the cities and fields that lay between them.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:7 ow therefore divide this land for an inheritance unto the nine tribes, and the half tribe of Manasseh,

Ver. 7. ow therefore divide this land.] Even those parts thereof also that are yet unsubdued; for it is theirs, but so as they must win it before they wear it. Sic petitur caelum. The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence.

PETT, "Verse 7The Command to Divide the Land (Joshua 13:7).

Joshua 13:7

‘ ow therefore divide this land for an inheritance for the nine tribes and the half tribe of Manasseh.’“This land” is the whole land of Canaan not just the part mentioned above. God has now turned from the land yet to be possessed to the whole land. It was to be divided between all but the two and a half tribes Beyond Jordan. The inheritance was under the covenant. It was a fruit of the covenant promises, reminding them that it was a gift from God.

Division of the Land East of the Jordan

8 The other half of Manasseh,[a] the Reubenites and the Gadites had received the inheritance that Moses had given them east of the Jordan, as he, the servant of the Lord, had assigned it to them.

GILL, "With whom the Reubenites and the Gadites have received their inheritance,.... That is, along with the half tribe of Manasseh, but not with that half of it before mentioned, who was to haven division of a part with the nine tribes, but with the other half of the tribe settled beyond Jordan; with them the tribes of Reuben and Gad had received their portion at their own request, and so were to have no share in the present distribution:

which Moses gave them beyond Jordan eastward; at their desire, Num_32:1, and upon certain conditions to be performed by them, Num_32:20,

even as Moses the servant of the Lord gave them; this character of Moses, as the "servant of the Lord", seems to be observed to show that he gave the said tribes their inheritance: according to the will of God, and in obedience to it: here end the words of the Lord to Joshua, and next follows an account of the land given to the two tribes and a half described by the writer of this book.

HE RY 8-13, " Here is a general description of the country that was given to the two tribes and a half, which Moses gave them, even as Moses gave them, Jos_13:8. The repetition implies a ratification of the grant by Joshua. Moses settled this matter, and, as Moses settled it, so shall it rest; Joshua will not, under any pretence whatsoever, go about to alter it. And a reason is intimated why he would not, because Moses was the servant of the Lord, and acted in this matter by secret direction from him and was faithful as a servant. Here we have, [1.] The fixing of the boundaries of this country, by which they were divided from the neighbouring nations, Jos_13:9, etc. Israel must know their own and keep to it, and may not, under pretence of their being God's peculiar people, encroach upon their neighbours, and invade their rights and properties, to which they had a good and firm title by providence, though not, as Israel, a title by promise. [2.] An exception of one part of this country from Israel's possession, though it was in their grant, namely, the Geshurites and the Maachathites, Jos_13:13. They had not leisure to reduce all the remote and obscure corners of the country in Moses's time, and afterwards they had no mind to it, being easy with what they had. Thus those who are not straitened in God's promises are yet straitened in their own faith, and prayers, and endeavours.

(2.) A very particular account of the inheritances of these two tribes and a half, how they were separated from each other, and what cites, with the towns, villages, and fields, commonly known and reputed to be appurtenances to them, belonged to each tribe. This is very fully and exactly set down in order that posterity might, in reading this history, be the more affected with the goodness of God to their ancestors, when they found what a large and fruitful country, and what abundance of great and famous cities, he put them in possession of (God's grants look best when we descend to the particulars); and also that the limits of every tribe being punctually set down in this authentic record disputes might be prevented, and such contests between the tribes as commonly happen where boundaries have not been adjusted nor this matter brought to a certainty. And we have reason to think that the register here prescribed and published of the lot of each tribe was of great use to Israel in after-ages, was often appealed to, and always acquiesced in, for the determining of meum and tuum -mine and thine.

[1.] We have here the lot of the tribe of Reuben, Jacob's first-born, who, though he had

lost the dignity and power which pertained to the birthright, yet, it seems, had the advantage of being first served. Perhaps those of that tribe had an eye to this in desiring to be seated on that side Jordan, that, since they could not expect the benefit of the best lot, they might have the credit of the first. Observe, First, In the account of the lot of this tribe mention is made of the slaughter, 1. Of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who reigned in this country, and might have kept it and his life if he would have been neighbourly, and have suffered Israel to pass through his territories, but, by attempting to oppose them, justly brought ruin upon himself, Num_21:21, etc. 2. Of the princes of Midian, who were slain afterwards in another war (Num_31:8), and yet are here called dukes of Sihon, and are said to be smitten with him, because they were either tributaries to him, or, in his opposition to Israel, confederates with him, and hearty in his interests, and his fall made way for theirs not long after. 3. Of Balaam particularly, that would, if he could, have cursed Israel, and was soon after recompensed according to the wickedness of his endeavour (Psa_28:4), for he fell with those that set him on. This was recorded before (Num_31:8), and is here repeated, because the defeating of Balaam's purpose to curse Israel was the turning of that curse into a blessing, and was such an instance of the power and goodness of God as was fit to be had in everlasting remembrance. See Mic_6:5. Secondly, Within the lot of this tribe was that Mount Pisgah from the top of which Moses took his view of the earthly Canaan and his flight to the heavenly. And not far off thence Elijah was when he was fetched up to heaven in a chariot of fire. The separation of this tribe from the rest, by the river Jordan, was that which Deborah lamented; and the preference they gave to their private interests above the public was what she censured, Jdg_5:15, Jdg_5:16. In this tribe lay Heshbon and Sibmah, famed for their fruitful fields and vineyards. See Isa_16:8, Isa_16:9; Jer_48:32. This tribe, with that of Gad, was sorely shaken by Hazael king of Syria (2Ki_10:33), and afterwards dislodged and carried into captivity, twenty years before the general captivity of the ten tribes by the king of Assyria, 1Ch_5:26.

JAMISO ,"With whom—Hebrew, “him.” The antecedent is evidently to Manasseh, not, however, the half-tribe just mentioned, but the other half; for the historian, led, as it were, by the sound of the word, breaks off to describe the possessions beyond Jordan already assigned to Reuben, Gad, and the half of Manasseh (see on Num_32:1; see on Num_32:33; also see Deu_3:8-17). It may be proper to remark that it was wise to put these boundaries on record. In case of any misunderstanding or dispute arising about the exact limits of each district or property, an appeal could always be made to this authoritative document, and a full knowledge as well as grateful sense obtained of what they had received from God (Psa_16:5, Psa_16:6).

K&D 8-10, "Jos_13:8-10

To the command of God to divide the land on this side the Jordan among the nine tribes and a half (Jos_13:7), the historian appends the remark, that the other two tribes and a half had already received their inheritance from Moses on the other side (Jos_13:8). This he proceeds to describe in its full extent (Jos_13:9-13), and then observes that the tribe of Levi alone received no landed inheritance, according to the word of the Lord (Jos_13:14). After this he gives a description in vv. 15-33 of the land assigned by Moses to each of the two tribes and a half.

(Note: Knobel's remark, that Jos_13:8-14 anticipate the following section (vv. 15-33) in an unsuitable manner, rests upon a thorough misunderstanding of the whole; for the account of the division of the land to the east of the Jordan among the two

tribes and a half (vv. 15-33) could not be introduced in a more appropriate manner than by a description of the circumference of the land and of its principal parts (Jos_13:9-13).)

The remark in Jos_13:8 is so closely connected with what precedes by the expression “with whom” (lit., with it), that this expression must be taken as somewhat indefinite: “with whom,” viz., with half Manasseh, really signifying with the other half of Manasseh, with which the Reubenites and Gadites had received their inheritance (see Num 32 and Deu_3:8-17). The last words of Jos_13:8, “as Moses the servant of Jehovah gave them,” are not a tautological repetition of the clause “which Moses gave them,” but simply affirm that these tribes received the land given them by Moses, in the manner commanded by Moses, without any alteration in his arrangements. The boundaries of the land given in Jos_13:9-13 really agree with those given in Jos_12:2-5 and Deu_3:8, although the expression varies in some respects. The words of Jos_13:9, “the city that is in the midst of the river,” i.e., the city in the valley, viz., Ar, are more distinct than those of Jos_12:2, “and from the middle of the river.” “All the plain” is the Amoritish table-land, a tract of land for the most part destitute of trees, stretching from the Arnon to Heshbon, and towards the north-east to Rabbath-Ammân (see at Deu_3:10), which is called in Num_21:20 the field of Moab Medeba, now called Medaba (see at Num_21:30). Dibon, now a ruin called Dibân, to the north of Arnon (see at Num_21:20). -Jos_13:10, as in Jos_12:2.

BE SO , "Joshua 13:8. With whom — That is, with the other half of the tribe before mentioned. Which Moses gave them — By my command, and therefore do not thou disturb them in their possessions, but proceed to divide the other possessions to the rest. With this verse end the words of God to Joshua, begun Joshua 13:1; and in the next verse the writer of this book begins to describe the country which God ordered to be given to the fore-named two tribes and a half, that there might be no future dispute about this division; but it might be held as good as that which was made by lot among the rest of the tribes.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:8 With whom the Reubenites and the Gadites have received their inheritance, which Moses gave them, beyond Jordan eastward, [even] as Moses the servant of the LORD gave them;

Ver. 8. Even as Moses the servant of the Lord gave them.] So do thou confirm it. Here then is no tautology, as at first it may seem to be.

COFFMA ,""With him the Reubenites and the Gadites received their inheritance, which Moses gave them, beyond the Jordan eastward, even as Moses the servant of Jehovah gave them: from Aroer, that is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon, and the city that is in the middle of the valley, and all the plain of the Medeba unto Dibon; and all the cities of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, unto the border of the children of Ammon; and Gilead, and the border of the Geshurites and Maacathites, and all mount Hermon, and all Bashan unto Salecah; all the kingdom of Og in Bashan, who reigned in Ashteroth and in Edrei (the same was left of the remnant of the Rephaim); for these did Moses smite, and drove them out. evertheless the children of Israel drove not out the Geshurites, nor the Maacathites: but Geshur and Maacath dwell in the midst of Israel unto this day.

Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave no inheritance; the offerings of Jehovah, the God of Israel, made by fire are his inheritance, as he spake unto him."

See a complete discussion of the events here repeated from Deuteronomy 3:1-17, and from umbers 32.

"Aroer ..." (Joshua 13:9). This is one of at least three cities, possibly four, that bore this name![22]

The mention here (Joshua 13:14) of Levi's not receiving an inheritance also carries the notation that they were to receive all of the offerings made by fire. They were also assigned certain cities throughout Israel, as more particularly noted in Joshua 21. In Paul's eloquent support of the principle that the Christian church should adequately support its ministers, he appealed to the example of the Levites (2 Corinthians 9).

CO STABLE, "Verses 8-14This pericope of verses records the boundaries of Israel"s whole transjordanian territory. The peoples the Israelites did not annihilate, and their land that they did not possess, were in the northern part of this area (cf. Joshua 12:5). Gilead ( Joshua 13:11) included land on both sides of the Jabbok River east of the Jordan.

"The Transjordanian tribes receive a disproportionate amount of attention in this book that records the Conquest and division of the land west of the Jordan (cf. Joshua 1:12-15; Joshua 4:12; Joshua 12:1-6; Joshua 13:8-33; Joshua 22:1-34). The author was eager to uphold the unity of the Twelve Tribes in spite of the geographic separation and an undercurrent of feeling that only the land west of the Jordan was truly the Promised Land." [ ote: Madvig, p318.]

PETT, "Joshua 13:8

‘With him the Reubenites and the Gadites received their inheritance, which Moses gave them Beyond Jordan Eastward, even as Moses the Servant of YHWH gave them.’This takes up the previous reference to Manasseh. Manasseh (‘with him’) also received, along with Reuben and Gad, an inheritance east of Jordan. ote the double stress on it being ‘given by Moses’. The writer wishes the listener to be aware that they too received what was promised and in the will of YHWH, as expressed by Moses, and that that was also an inheritance under the covenant. This inheritance will now be delineated.

It will be noted that in Joshua there is a continually heavy emphasis on the allotment to the two and a half tribes (Joshua 1:12-15; Joshua 4:12; Joshua 12:1-6; Joshua 13:8-13; Joshua 22:1-34). This points to the early date of the narrative. It was written when there was a great consciousness of the fact that they had received their inheritance outside the land, and to justify their having done so. The writer wanted it made clear that they were equally a part of Israel, within the covenant and

in obedience to YHWH.

PULPIT, "With whom. Literally, with him. The construction is defective, but the meaning is clear enough. To avoid the repetition of the words "the half tribe of Manasseh," the historian writes עמו meaning thereby the other half of the tribe.

9 It extended from Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge, and from the town in the middle of the gorge, and included the whole plateau of Medeba as far as Dibon,

GILL, "From Aroer, that is on the bank of the river Arnon,.... A city belonging to Moab, from whence the description begins, the river Arnon, on which it was situated, being the border between Moab and the Amorites, Num_21:13,

and the city that is in the midst of the river; or "even the city"; meaning the same city of Aroer, it lying both on the bank of it, and in the middle of it, or it was a double city, as may seem from Isa_17:2; and so differently situated at that river:

and all the plains of Medeba unto Dibon; of these two places, see Num_21:30; between them lay a plain, which some take to be the plain of Moab; but it rather seems to be a plain that was between these two places, and, according to Jos_13:17, Dibon itself was in a plain.

BE SO , :Joshua 13:9-11. The city that is in the midst of the river — Some interpreters render this clause, The city in the midst of the valley; judging that, as Arnon was but a small brook, it could hardly have a city, or an island large enough for a city to be built on, in the midst of it. But certainly a city might be built on ground lying between two streams of the same river: see on Joshua 12:2. Medeba unto Dibon — Two cities anciently belonging to the Moabites, and taken from them by the Amorites, ( umbers 21:30,) and from them by the Israelites; and, after the Israelites were gone into captivity, recovered by the first possessors, the Moabites. And Maachathites — Whose land God had given to the Israelites without Jordan,

though they had not yet used the gift of God, nor taken possession of it, as is noted, Joshua 13:13.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:9 From Aroer, that [is] upon the bank of the river Arnon, and the city that [is] in the midst of the river, and all the plain of Medeba unto Dibon;

Ver. 9. From Aroer, that is upon the bank.] Besides which, it may seem there was another Aroer, in the midst of the river, [Isaiah 17:2] as Venice in the midst of the sea, and taking for her motto,

“ Media insuperabilis unda. ”

PETT, "Joshua 13:9-10

‘From Aroer which is on the edge of the valley of Arnon, and the city that is in the middle of the valley, and all the tableland of Medeba to Dibon, and all the cities of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, to the border of the children of Ammon.’This was the kingdom of Sihon. Aroer was on the edge of the southern border (Moab’s northern border) marked by the Arnon River as it flowed through the deep valley of Arnon. It had its guardpost actually in the deep valley right on the edge of the river (see Joshua 12:2; also Deuteronomy 3:12). ‘The tableland of Medeba to Dibon’ was describing from north to south. The two cities were joined by a highway. It refers to the high plateau of Moab at a level of around six hundred metres (two thousand feet). Together with ‘the cities’ it was intended to represent the whole of ‘half Gilead’ to the Ammonite border (see Joshua 12:2).

Medeba (modern Medaba) was ten kilometres (six miles) south of Heshbon. It was situated on a high mound and could be seen across the whole plain of Medeba. It was an old Moabite town originally captured by Sihon ( umbers 21:21-30) and then taken from him by Israel, becoming a Reubenite city (Joshua 13:16). It was mentioned along with Dibon (where the Stone was found) on the Moabite Stone as being later taken from Moab by Omri (of Israel), and then recovered by Mesha, king of Moab. These towns thus changed hands fairly regularly.

Dibon was modern Dhiban, six kilometres (four miles) north of the Arnon. In Joshua 13:17 it is reckoned to Reuben. Along with Aroer it was rebuilt by Gad ( umbers 32:34), being renamed Dibon-gad ( umbers 33:45). Gad were presumably giving assistance to Reuben in order to guard the southern border. Dibon was also later the name of a town in Judah ( ehemiah 11:25). (Alternately Dibon-gad may have been named that to distinguish it from Dibon in Reuben, just as there was another Aroer (Joshua 13:25)).

Gad and Reuben were closely connected tribes which was no doubt why they wished to settle down together. They shared a position on the south side of the Tabernacle with Simeon ( umbers 2:10-16). They were in ‘the camp of Reuben’. Compare

umbers 32:1 where they together desired ‘the land of Jazer’, connected with the city of Jazer ( umbers 21:32 - Khirbet Gazzir?) and the land of Gilead, of which the southern part was divided between them. They cooperated fully with each other in possessing the land, and Gad helped Reuben with their defences. But Reuben would take the full force of Moabite invasions and would become weaker and weaker so that Gad eventually became the major tribe and Reuben virtually disappeared from view. By the time of the Moabite Stone they had lost any significance and were not mentioned on it.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:9

Aroer. Three, or even four, cities of this name were known, and have been identified by modern travellers under names somewhat similar.

1. Aroer upon Aruon, on the north bank of that river, at the extreme south of the territory of Reuben (see Deuteronomy 2:36; Deuteronomy 3:12; Deuteronomy 4:48; Joshua 12:2; Joshua 13:9, Joshua 13:16; and probably Jeremiah 48:19).

2. Aroer in Gad (Joshua 13:25), described there as "before," i.e; on the way to "Rabbah." It was no doubt some short distance to the westward of this chief city of the Ammonites (see also umbers 32:34, where the Gadites are said to have built it). These two are probably the "cities of Aroer" referred to in Isaiah 17:2 (but see next note but one, where also 2 Samuel 24:5 will be discussed).

3. A city in Judah (1 Samuel 30:28).

To one of these cities probably belonged Shammah or Shammoth, the Hararite or Harorite (2 Samuel 23:11; he is called Harodite in 2 Samuel 23:25, and 1 Chronicles 11:27). The river Arnon (see note on Joshua 12:2). The city that is in the midst of the river. This city (or perhaps cities) has received but little attention from commentators, probably by reason of its bearing no name. Those who have tried to identify it have failed In Deuteronomy 2:36, in this passage, and in 2 Samuel 24:5, it is mentioned in connection with Aroer. In Joshua 7:2, instead of "the city that is in the midst of the river," we find simply "the middle ( |תו ) of the river." But as 2 Samuel 24:5 stands in our version, the city referred to stood in the middle of the river of Gad. This would suggest the idea that the old derivation of Aroer by Wells and others from the word עיר (city) doubled, with the signification of the double city, is nearer the mark than that of wasteness, or desolateness, or nakedness, as of a region bare of trees, which has found favour of late, and it is not without support in Hebrew forms. A city, moreover, in the midst of or "on the brink of" a winter torrent would be less likely to be waste or desolate than in other situations. But we are not yet at the end of our difficulties. The word ahal, which comes before Gad in the passage of which we are now speaking, has the article. Thus the translation, "river of Gad" cannot be maintained. And besides, the enumeration of the people must have begun at the Arnon, or southern border of Israel beyond Jordan. It is possible that the text may be corrupt here, as it is in other parts of 2 Samuel, and

possibly the meaning may be that the officers pitched in Aroer, passed through Reuben, and having come within the confines of Gad arrived at Jazer. This again is rendered doubtful by the close connection of Aroer and Jazer in Joshua 13:25. It is of course, therefore, possible that the reference in 2 Samuel 24:1-25. is to the Jabbok, not the Arnon ravine. A question, of such intricacy can only be Settled, if settled at all, by an investigation on. the spot. The plain. The word here is מישור . This derived from the root ישר signifies level ground, and is applied to the region north of Moab, especially that part of it which belonged to Reuben. Flat, and almost unbroken, even by trees, it was particularly adapted for grazing land (see also note above, and on 2 Samuel 24:4). Medeba. This is mentioned in Scripture, together with Dibon, as here in umbers 21:30; Isaiah 15:2. It was on the level ground before mentioned (see Gesenius, s.v. מישור ). Dibon (see Jeremiah 48:18, Jeremiah 48:22, called Dimon in Isaiah 15:9; but Dibon in Isaiah 15:2; see also umbers 33:45, umbers 33:46). It was one of the cities built by the children of Gad ( umbers 32:34). It is now called Dhiban, and is a short distance north of the Arnon. The Moabite stone, found at Dibon in 1868, mentions the occupation of Medeba by Omri, and implies that Dibon, the principal city in those parts, was also subject to him, but recovered finally by Mesha.

10 and all the towns of Sihon king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon, out to the border of the Ammonites.

GILL, "And all the cities of Sihon king of the Amorites, which reigned in Heshbon,.... A city he took from the Moabites, and made it his royal seat, Num_21:26,

unto the border of the children of Ammon; which was the river Jabbok, Deu_3:16.

11 It also included Gilead, the territory of the

people of Geshur and Maakah, all of Mount Hermon and all Bashan as far as Salekah—

GILL, "And Gilead,.... The land of Gilead, which was part of the kingdom of Og, half of which was given to Reuben, and the other half to Gad:

and the border of the Geshurites and Maachathites; of which see Deu_3:14,

and all Mount Hermon; called also Sirion, Shenir, and Sion, Deu_3:9,

and all Bashan unto Salcah; another part of the dominions of Og, Deu_3:10.

K&D, "Jos_13:11-13

Gilead is the whole country of that name on both sides of the Jabbok (see at Jos_12:2and Deu_3:10), the present Belka and Jebel Ajlun, for the description of which see the remarks at Num_32:1. “The territory of the Geshurites and Maachathites” is referred to in Jos_12:5 as the boundary of the kingdom of Og, and in Deu_3:14 as the boundary of the land which was taken by Jair the Manassite; here it is included in the inheritance of the tribes on the other side of the Jordan, but it was never really taken possession of by the Israelites, and (according to Jos_13:13) it had probably never been really subject to king Og. The other notices in Jos_13:11 and Jos_13:12 are the same as in Jos_12:4-5.

12 that is, the whole kingdom of Og in Bashan, who had reigned in Ashtaroth and Edrei. (He was the last of the Rephaites.) Moses had defeated them and taken over their land.

GILL, "All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei,.... See Gill on Jos_12:4,

who remained of the remnant of the giants; was descended from those that remained in Ashtaroth, after the rest were cut off by Chedorlaomer, Gen_14:5; called there the Rephaim, as here:

for these did Moses smite, and cast them out: that is, not only the giants, but the inhabitants of the above kingdom, the greatest part of them; for the Geshurites and

13 But the Israelites did not drive out the people of Geshur and Maakah, so they continue to live among the Israelites to this day.

GILL, "Nevertheless, the children of Israel expelled not the Geshurites, nor the Maachathites,.... Neither in the times of Moses, nor in the times of Joshua:

but the Geshurites and the Maachathites dwell among the Israelites until this day: in full possession of their cities unmolested; yea, in later times they became separate and distinct kingdoms; for we read both of the king of Geshur, and of the king of Maachah, 2Sa_3:3.

K&D, "Jos_13:14

The tribe of Levi was to receive no land, but the firings of Jehovah, i.e., the offerings, including the tithes and first-fruits (Lev_27:30-32, compared with Num_18:21-32), were to be its inheritance; so that the God of Israel himself is called the inheritance of Levi in Jos_13:33 as in Num_18:20, to which the words “as He said unto them” refer (see the commentary on Num_18:20).

WHEDO , "13. Expelled not the Geshurites — See Joshua 12:5. Geshur and Maacah so late as David’s time were small independent States. 2 Samuel 3:3; 2 Samuel 13:37. The contrast between the radical policy of Moses and the conservative policy of the children of Israel in respect to these States seems to imply a censure upon the Israelites.

PETT, "Joshua 13:13

‘ evertheless the children of Israel did not drive out the Geshurites, nor the Maacathites, but Geshur and Maacah dwelt in the midst of Israel to this day.’

These peoples were Aramaeans to the north of Bashan, south west of Mount Hermon (see Deuteronomy 3:14). This is the first of a series of similar statements, compare Joshua 15:63; Joshua 16:10; Joshua 17:12. These were people living ‘in the land’ who worshipped ‘the gods of Aram’ (Judges 10:6). It was important land as the main trade route to Damascus ran through it (and it was south of Laish where Dan finally settled). They should have been driven out, but even at this stage, while Joshua was still alive, Israel were disobedient and did not seek to do it. They were content with what they had. God had done His part, but they did not do their part.

This is often the case with God’s people. Having achieved a certain amount they then relax and do not go on to greater things. They settle down and miss the opportunities that face them, and allow things to linger in their lives that may one day be their ruin or make them second best. Let us each take care that that does not happen to us.

14 But to the tribe of Levi he gave no inheritance, since the food offerings presented to the Lord, the God of Israel, are their inheritance, as he promised them.

GILL, "Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave none inheritance,.... Neither the Lord, nor Moses by his order, nor did he appoint any inheritance for them, either beyond Jordan, or on this side it, for the Lord was to be their inheritance, Num_18:20;

the sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel made by fire are their inheritance, as he said unto them; Deu_18:1; and which are put for the whole of what was granted to them for their subsistence, as tithes, firstfruits, &c.

K&D, "Jos_13:14

The tribe of Levi was to receive no land, but the firings of Jehovah, i.e., the offerings, including the tithes and first-fruits (Lev_27:30-32, compared with Num_18:21-32), were to be its inheritance; so that the God of Israel himself is called the inheritance of Levi in Jos_13:33 as in Num_18:20, to which the words “as He said unto them” refer (see the commentary on Num_18:20).

CALVI , "14.Only unto the tribe of Levi, etc This exception was also necessary, lest the Levites might allege that they were unjustly disinherited, and thus excite great commotions in regard to their right. He therefore reminds them that Moses was the author of this distinction, and, at the same time, shows that they have no reason to complain of having been in any way defrauded, because an excellent compensation was given them. For although the sacrifices were not equally divided among the Levites, their subsistence was sufficiently provided for by all the first-fruits and the tithes. Moreover, as God allures them by hire to undertake the charge of sacred things, so he exhorts the people in their turn to be faithful in paying the sacred oblations by declaring that their sacrifices are the maintenance of the Levites. (135)

BE SO , "Joshua 13:14. To the tribe of Levi he — amely, Moses; gave none inheritance — That is, none in the land beyond Jordan, where yet a considerable part of the Levites were to have their settled abode. This is mentioned as the reason both why Moses gave all that land to the Reubenites, and Gadites, and Manassites, and why Joshua should divide the land only into nine parts and a half, as was said, Joshua 13:7; because Levi was otherwise provided for. Made by fire — Which are here put for all the sacrifices and oblations, including first-fruits and tithes, that were assigned to the Levites, and this passage is repeated to prevent those calumnies and injuries which God foresaw the Levites were likely to meet with, from the malice, envy, and covetousness of their brethren.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:14 Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave none inheritance; the sacrifices of the LORD God of Israel made by fire [are] their inheritance, as he said unto them.

Ver. 14. Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave none inheritance.] Because God was to be their portion: Yεος η προσοδος, as Lucian speaketh of his heathenish priests.

WHEDO , "14. Only unto the tribe of Levi — Moses did not give any inheritance to the nine and a half tribes, not from lack of purpose, but from lack of opportunity. But the Levites he excluded from a territorial allotment by an express prohibition to Joshua. They received scattered cities with a narrow margin of pasture lands, but no separate share of the land. See chap. 21. Sacrifices is here used, in a broad sense, to include all offerings, even those, like the show bread, which were eaten and not burned. The Vulgate has it sacrificia et victimae. They were to receive a tenth of the fruits of the field, the trees, and the cattle. Twelve tribes received allotments because the two sons of Joseph were each reckoned as a tribe.

PETT, "Joshua 13:14

‘Only to the tribe of Levi he gave no inheritance. The offerings of YHWH, the God of Israel, made by fire are his inheritance.’As the inheritances of the tribes were now revealed it was made clear that for the tribe of Levi there was no earthly inheritance. Their inheritance was to partake of

the holy things (but see also Joshua 14:4). The inference was that this was something better than earthly riches could supply.

Compare Joshua 13:33 where their inheritance was ‘YHWH the God of Israel’; Joshua 14:3-4 where their inheritance included the Levitical cities to dwell in situated among each of the tribes, together with the country around for their cattle and substance. But they were ‘sojourners’ there, not permanent dwellers (e.g. Judges 17:7; Judges 19:1); and Joshua 18:7 where their inheritance was ‘the priesthood of YHWH’. Thus the idea of the inheritance of Levi was other-worldly, spoken of within the context of the tribes whose inheritance was outside the land, as theirs was ‘outside’ the land, and then again by Joshua when finally settling the distribution (Joshua 18:7). The pattern is consistent and clear.

The phrase ‘offerings of YHWH made by fire’ or similar is found regularly in the Law of Moses referring to various offerings and sacrifices which were burnt by fire and where certain parts went to the priests and Levites (over sixty times - see for example Leviticus 1:9; Leviticus 2:3; Leviticus 3:3; Leviticus 7:5; Deuteronomy 18:1; 1 Samuel 2:28). Fire was the means by which holy things could be put beyond the reach of men and separated to God.

PULPIT,"Joshua 13:14

Only unto the tribe of Levi. See umbers 18:20-24, where the original command is recorded. Like the clergy under the Christian dispensation, it was seen that they could not at once perform the duties of the priesthood, and act as instructors of the people, if they were burdened, like the rest, with the duty of carrying on war. Their place was supplied by the division of the tribe of Joseph into two, so that the inheritance of Israel was still divided among twelve tribes. Bahr, in his 'Symbolik des Alten Testaments,' 2:48, 49, gives other reasons for the dispersion of the Levites throughout the land. If the Levites were to keep the Law and Word of God, to take measures for its being properly kept by the nation in general, to spread abroad a knowledge of the precepts of the religion of Israel, to stir up the tribes to a devout and religious life, it was not merely desirable, but absolutely necessary, that they should be scattered among the tribes. On the other hand, to secure a proper esprit de corps, a mutual sustaining influence, and a common action, too complete a dispersion would have been a mistake. Hence their collection into the Levitical cities, which, however (see note on Joshua 21:11), were not given up wholly to them. The Divine wisdom which dictated the provisions of the Mosaic law is clearly visible here. The instinct of the Christian Church in early times devised a similar provision for the evangelisation of the people in the organisation of the ancient and mediaeval cathedrals. As he said unto them. This quotation of umbers 18:20, umbers 18:24 by a later writer would, under all ordinary circumstances, be regarded as a proof that the Book of Joshua was quoting one of the books of Moses. But the "Elohistic" and "Jehovistic" theory escapes this conclusion in the cumbrous fashion to which reference has been already made. Origen regards this passage as symbolical of the more spiritually earnest among the laity, who" so excel others invirtue of mind and grace of merits, as that the Lord should be called their inheritance." "How very

rare," he says, "are those who devote themselves to wisdom and knowledge and preserve their mind clear and pure, and exercise their minds in all excellent virtues, who illuminate the way wherein they walk for simpler souls by the grace of learning, and thus attain to salvation. They are the true priests and Levites, whose inheritance is the Lord, who is wisdom". The Sacrifices. The word is derived from אש fire. It does not itself, as Keil asserts, signify fire in any place in Holy Writ, but it is used of the shewbread in Le Joshua 24:7, Joshua 24:9. It thus came to mean any sacrifice, whether offered by fire or not. And thus the tenth which ( umbers 18:21, umbers 18:23, umbers 18:24) was given to the Levites, as being offered for God's service, might be reckoned as in some sense a sacrifice. With this passage we may compare various passages in the ew Testament, where, in this respect at least, the Christian ministry stands on the same footing (1 Corinthians 9:11, 1 Corinthians 9:13; Galatians 6:6, Galatians 6:7). Thus the maintenance of the Christian ministry is a kind of sacrifice—as we find such deeds called, in fact, in Hebrews 13:16. And an order of men who are set apart to the ministry of souls has a right to claim a sufficient maintenance at the hands of those to whom they minister—a point which in these days of affluence and clerical destitution combined ought to be more largely recognised than it is (see umbers 18:20-24). "For the law is entrusted to the priests and Levites, and they devote their energies to this alone, and without any anxiety are able to give their time to the Word of God. But that they may be able to do this, they ought to depend upon the support of the laity. For if the laity do not allow the priests and Levites all the necessaries of life, they would be obliged, to engage themselves in temporal occupations, and would thus have less time for the law of God. And when they had no time to spare for the study of God's law, it is thou who wouldst be in danger. For the light of knowledge that is in them would grow dim, because thou hast given no oil for the lamp, and through thy fault it would come to pass, what the Lord said, 'If the blind lead the blind, shall they not both fall into the ditch?'". These words are well worthy of attention now, when a multiplicity of worldly business and a weight of worldly cares are devolved upon God's ministers by a laity which has to too great an extent washed its hands of all cooperation in the work of God's Church

15 This is what Moses had given to the tribe of Reuben, according to its clans:

BAR ES, "Jos_13:15-24

Inheritance of the tribe of Reuben. This territory was the most southerly of the trans-Jordanic possessions of Israel, and adjoined Moab, which lay only on the other side of the Arnon. Hence, the Reubenites became in after times much intermixed with the Moabites, who in fact eventually acquired much of the land, and several, if not all, of the cities here named as belonging to Reuben. This acquisition was probably assisted by the fact that the territory north of Arnon had formerly belonged to the Moabites, from whom it was wrested by the Amorites (see Num_21:27, etc. notes). It is not likely that the Amorite conquerors had completely extirpated the Moabite inhabitants. Hence, in the days when the Reubenites became engrossed in their pastoral pursuits, and probably not very long after the days of Joshua, the Moabites easily encroached on their inheritance, and in the end probably reoccupied nearly the whole of the ancient kingdom of Sihon (Compare Deu_33:6 note).

GILL, "And Moses gave unto the tribe of the children of Reuben inheritanceaccording to their families. According to the number of them, and sufficient for them.

HE RY, " We have here the lot of the tribe of Reuben, Jacob's first-born, who, though he had lost the dignity and power which pertained to the birthright, yet, it seems, had the advantage of being first served. Perhaps those of that tribe had an eye to this in desiring to be seated on that side Jordan, that, since they could not expect the benefit of the best lot, they might have the credit of the first. Observe, First, In the account of the lot of this tribe mention is made of the slaughter, 1. Of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who reigned in this country, and might have kept it and his life if he would have been neighbourly, and have suffered Israel to pass through his territories, but, by attempting to oppose them, justly brought ruin upon himself, Num_21:21, etc. 2. Of the princes of Midian, who were slain afterwards in another war (Num_31:8), and yet are here called dukes of Sihon, and are said to be smitten with him, because they were either tributaries to him, or, in his opposition to Israel, confederates with him, and hearty in his interests, and his fall made way for theirs not long after. 3. Of Balaam particularly, that would, if he could, have cursed Israel, and was soon after recompensed according to the wickedness of his endeavour (Psa_28:4), for he fell with those that set him on. This was recorded before (Num_31:8), and is here repeated, because the defeating of Balaam's purpose to curse Israel was the turning of that curse into a blessing, and was such an instance of the power and goodness of God as was fit to be had in everlasting remembrance. See Mic_6:5. Secondly, Within the lot of this tribe was that Mount Pisgah from the top of which Moses took his view of the earthly Canaan and his flight to the heavenly. And not far off thence Elijah was when he was fetched up to heaven in a chariot of fire. The separation of this tribe from the rest, by the river Jordan, was that which Deborah lamented; and the preference they gave to their private interests above the public was what she censured, Jdg_5:15, Jdg_5:16. In this tribe lay Heshbon and Sibmah, famed for their fruitful fields and vineyards. See Isa_16:8, Isa_16:9; Jer_48:32. This tribe, with that of Gad, was sorely shaken by Hazael king of Syria (2Ki_10:33), and afterwards dislodged and carried into captivity, twenty years before the general captivity of the ten tribes by the king of Assyria, 1Ch_5:26.

K&D 15-18, "The Possessions of the Two Tribes and a Half. - Jos_13:15-23. The tribe of Reuben received its inheritance in the south-namely, the territory from Aroër in the

Arnon valley, and from Ar in that valley, onwards, and the plain (table-land) by Medeba (see Jos_13:9), with Heshbon the capital and her towns, i.e., the towns dependent upon it, in the plain. Heshbon, almost in the centre between the Arnon and the Jabbok, was situated upon the border of the inheritance of the Reubenites, and was ceded to the Gadites, who gave it up to the Levites (Jos_21:39; 1Ch_6:66 : see at Num_32:37). Dibon, called Dibon of Gad in Num_33:45, because the Gadites had built, i.e., fortified it, was on the south of Heshbon, only an hour from Aroër, on the Arnon (Jos_13:9). Bamoth-baal, also called Bamoth simply (Num_21:20; Isa_15:2), is to be sought for on the Jebel Attarus (see at Num_21:20). It was thence that Balaam saw the end of the Israelitish camp (Num_22:41). Bethbaal-meon, the present ruin of Myun, three-quarters of an hour S.E. of Heshbon (see at Num_32:38). Jahza, where Sihon was defeated, was to the east of Medeba, according to the Onom.; and Dibon was on the border of the desert (see at Num_21:23). Kedemoth, on the border of the desert, to the north-west of Kalaat Balua, is to be sought on the northern bank of the Balua, or upper Arnon (see at Num_21:13). Mephaath, where there was a garrison stationed (according to the Onom.) as a defence against the inhabitants of the desert, is to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Jahza, with which it is always associated (Jer_48:21). Kedemoth and Mephaath were given up to the Levites (Jos_21:37; 1Ch_6:64).

CALVI , "15.And Moses gave unto the tribe, etc What he seemed to have said with sufficient clearness he now follows more fully in detail, not only that the reading might incite the people to gratitude, seeing the divine goodness recorded in public documents, and, as it were, constantly before their eyes, but also that each might enjoy his inheritance without molestation and quarrel. For we know how ingenious human cupidity is in devising pretexts for litigation, so that no one can possess his right in safety unless a plain and perspicuous definition of his right make it impossible to call it in question. That country had been given without casting lots. It was therefore open to others to object that the just proportion had not been kept, and that the inequality behooved to be corrected. Therefore, that no unseasonable dispute might ever disturb the public peace, the boundaries are everywhere fixed by the authority of God, and disputes of every kind are removed by setting up landmarks. God does not by one single expression merely adjudge the whole kingdom of Sihon to the tribe of Reuben, but he traces their extreme limit from Aroer to the banks of the Arnon, and thus, making an entire circuit, contracts or widens their territory so as not to leave the possession of a single acre ambiguous. Moreover, how useful this exact delineation was may be learned from profane history, where we everywhere meet, not only with invidious but pernicious disputes among neighbors as to their boundaries.

We may add that the care which the Lord condescended to take in providing for his people, and in cherishing mutual peace among them, demonstrates his truly paternal love, since he omitted nothing that might conduce to their tranquillity. And, indeed, had not provision been thus early made, they might have been consumed by intestine quarrels. (136)

I again beg my readers to excuse me if I do not labor anxiously in describing the situation of towns, and am not even curious in regard to names. ay, I will readily

allow those names which it was thought proper to leave as proper nouns in Hebrew to be used appellatively, and so far altered as to give them a Latin form. (137)

It is worthy of notice, that when the land of the Midianites is referred to, the princes who ruled over it are called Satraps of Sihon, to let us know that they shared in the same overthrow, because they had involved themselves in an unjust war, and belonged to the government of Sihon, an avowed enemy. And to make it still more clear that they perished justly, it is told that among the slain was Balaam, by whose tongue they had attempted to wound the Israelites more grievously than by a thousand swords; (138) just as if it had been said that in that slaughter they found the hostile banner, by which they had declared themselves at open war with the Israelites. When it is said that the Jordan was a boundary, and a boundary, it will be proper, in order to prevent useless repetition, to interpret that Jordan was a boundary to them according to its limits. (139)

BE SO , "Joshua 13:15. Moses gave, &c. — Having informed us in general what Moses gave to the two tribes and a half, the sacred historian proceeds to set down in particular what share each of them had in this country. According to their families — Dividing the inheritance into as many parts as they had families. But this is only spoken of the greater families; for the lesser distributions to the several small families were made by inferior officers, according to the rules which Moses had given them.

WHEDO , "15. Children of Reuben — In umbers 32 the children of Reuben and Gad are represented as petitioning Moses for an allotment on the east of Jordan, and they received their portion chiefly between the Arnon and the Jabbok. This district is now called the Belka, and Burckhardt describes the country and climate as exceedingly picturesque and delightful. “In the Belkan mountains we were refreshed by cool winds, and everywhere found a grateful shade of pine, oak, and wild pistachio trees, with a scenery more like that of Europe than any I had yet seen in Syria. The superiority of the pasturage of the Belka over that of all southern Syria is the cause of its possession being much contested. The Bedouins have this saying: ‘Thou canst not find a country like the Belka.’” Reuben and Gad had much cattle, and no wonder they desired a possession in these rich and delightful pasture hinds.

Verses 15-23REUBE ’S LOT, Joshua 13:15-23.

[From this point on through chapter 19 follows a minute description of the territorial possessions assigned by Joshua to the tribes of Israel, and, while to a modern reader these chapters may appear as a dry and tiresome list of names, we should remember that they were as necessary and important as are the details of a modern deed of real estate to prevent future litigation. These lists of cities and borders were evidently compiled from the most ancient registers, and in all

probability are substantially identical with those written by Joshua’s own hand, or under his supervision and direction. Their minuteness not only shows the care of the commissioners who determined them, but also the progress already made in the art of mensuration. See notes on Joshua 18:4; Joshua 18:9.

COFFMA , "Verse 15"And Moses gave unto the tribe of the children of Reuben according to their families. And their border was from Aroer, that is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon, and the city that is in the middle of the valley, and all the plain by Medeba; Heshbon, and all its cities that are in the plain: Dibon, and Bamoth-baal, and Beth-baal-meon, and Jahaz, and Kedemoth, and Mephaath, and Kiriathaim, and Sibmah, and Zereth-shahar in the mount of the valley, and Beth-peor, and the slopes of Pisgah, and Beth-jeshimoth, and all the cities of the plain, and all the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses smote with the chiefs of Midian, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the princes of Sihon, that dwelt in the land. Balaam also the son-of Beor, the soothsayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword among the rest of the slain. And the border of the children of Reuben was the Jordan, and the border thereof. This was the inheritance of the children of Reuben, according to their families, the cities and the villages thereof."

This material is an expansion of umbers 32:33-42; and this location of Reuben east of the Jordan was discussed in Vol. 3 of our Pentateuchal series under that reference. There we learned that Israel actually took possession of that land; "But in the reigns of the wicked Omri and Ahab, the power of Israel declined; and, following the battle of Ramoth-Gilead and the defeat and death of Ahab, the Moabites succeeded in shaking off the Israelitish yoke and even recovering a portion of Sihon's former kingdom."[23]

Due to the uncertainty regarding the identity of some of the places mentioned here, we cannot now precisely outline the territory of Reuben; but, as Morton said, "Essentially, it was as follows:"[24] the Arnon river was the south boundary; on the north the boundary was the Wadi Hesban; on the west was the Jordan river and the Dead Sea; and on the east was an indefinite boundary marked by the edge of the desert.

The tragic story of Reuben was summarized this way by Cook:

"The Reubenites became much intermixed afterward with the Moabites, who, in fact, later acquired much of their land, and several, if not all of the cities mentioned in this passage"[25]

It was the shameful worship of Baal as promulgated by the daughters of Moab in the disaster at Baal-Peor that proved to be very attractive to the Israelites; and it must be accepted as very probable that this was precisely the thing that, in the end, destroyed Reuben, whose tribe was the very first to go into captivity. (See my comments on this in the parallel text in umbers.)

"Bamoth-baal ... Beth-baal ... etc." (Joshua 13:17). ote the predominance of the name of the Moabitish god, "Baal" in these place-names. These "high places were probably so-called from the altars that were erected on hills for the impure worship of this Canaanite Priapus."[26] This pagan god was the god of gardens, fertility, and procreation. His worship was an excuse for lewdness, lustfulness, and persistent, morbid and excessive sexual excitement.[27]

Beth-peor is the place where Israel received Moses' farewell address (Deuteronomy 3:29); here Balaam uttered one of his prophesies ( umbers 23:28); "It was also in easy reach of Shittim, where Israel followed Baal-peor ( umbers 25:3)."[28] Woudstra also thought that the inclusion a moment later in the sacred text of an account of Balaam's death might have been intended as an indirect warning to the Reubenites. This is certainly possible.

(For full comment on Balaam and his efforts to curse Israel, see our discussion of this in Vol. 3 of the Pentateuchal series, pp. 459-488.)

PETT, "Joshua 13:15

‘And Moses gave to the tribe of Reuben according to their families.’The division of the land took account of the sizes of the tribes ( umbers 26:53-54). ote how the ‘numbers’ are expressed as ‘according to their families’. Thus ‘families’ is basically a number word in these contexts. The word for ‘tribe’ also signifies a staff or rod of authority, also used for chastisement. It is used especially in formal lists and descriptions where authority over, and responsibility for chastisement of, the people is in mind. In a sense the tribe was the rod, to direct and to punish.

Between Joshua 13:14-15 LXX adds ‘This is the division which Moses divided to the sons of Israel in the plains of Moab beyond Jordan over against Jericho.’ This was clearly an insertion in order to explain ‘Moses gave’. It is stressed that the original division in the land Beyond Jordan Eastward was arranged by Moses.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:15

Reuben. This passage is an expansion of umbers 32:33-42. We learn from it that the Israelites actually took possession of this land. But in the reigns of the wicked kings Omri and Ahab the power of Israel declined, and after the battle of Ramoth-Gilead, and the defeat and death of Ahab, the Moabites succeeded in shaking off the Israelitish yoke, and in wresting from Israel moreover a considerable portion of the territory of Sihon. In the next reign an attempt was made to regain possession of the lost territory. We learn from the Moabite stone that the important towns here mentioned, Medeba, Dibon, Baalmeon, Kiriathaim (or Kirjathalm, as it is here called), Ataroth, ebo, Aroer, had fallen into the hands of Mesha at the rebellion, and that he had erected a citadel at Dibon, which had become his capital. Hence the endeavour to invade Moab from the south, recorded in 1 Kings 3:1-28; which,

however, though successful as a military promenade, was attended with no permanent results. For Isaiah (Isaiah 15:1-9)and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 48:1-47) mention most of these places, as well as Elealeh and Heshbon, the former capital of Sihon, as being strongholds of the Moabite power. Jahaz, too, the place where Sihon gave battle of the Israelites, is numbered by Mesha, as well as at a later date by Isaiah and Jeremiah, among the possessions of Moab; while Horonaim, mentioned among the Moabite cities by the two prophets, is incidentally noticed by Mesha as having been captured from the Edomites. In this early extinction of the tribe of Reuben we may see the fulfilment of Jacob's prophecy (Genesis 49:1-33). The plain by Medeba. See verse 10; so again in the next verse.

16 The territory from Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge, and from the town in the middle of the gorge, and the whole plateau past Medeba

GILL, "And their coast was from Aroer that is on the bank of the river Arnon,.... As the country of Sihon is described, Jos_13:9; from whence it appears that it was his country which was given to Reuben, though not all of it:

and the city that is in the midst of the river; See Gill on Jos_13:9,

and all the plain by Medeba; which reached unto Dibon, Jos_13:9.

WHEDO , "16. Aroer — A city on the northern bank of the river Arnon, and on the southern border of the territory conquered from Sihon, king of the Amorites. Compare umbers 21:26. Its ruins, called Araayr, were discovered by Burckhardt on the summit of a lofty wall of rock overlooking the ancient Arnon. It is to be distinguished from the Aroer before Rabbah (Joshua 13:25) and the Aroer in the south of Judah. 1 Samuel 30:28. The city that is in the midst of the river is a subject of dispute. Some think it is the city Aroer itself. Others conjecture that Aroer consisted of two parts, or an upper and lower city, one on the high bank of the river, and the other in the valley below, where it may have been surrounded by the waters of the stream. Others think it was a city at the junction of the Arnon and one of its tributaries, where Burckhardt saw a hill with ruins on it. Keil thinks that it was Ar

of Moab, and at that junction Ar Moab is located on Menke’s map.

Plain by Medeba — “The whole plain of Medeba was occupied by the Reubenites; but the city itself was, perhaps, strongly fortified, and suffered to remain, like many in western Palestine, in the hands of its old inhabitants. Its ruins still exist, and bear their old name under the Arabic form Madeba. They lie about four miles southeast of Heshbon, with which they are connected by an ancient paved road. The city occupied a low hill, a mile and a half in circumference. The whole site is covered with ruins; not a solitary building remains standing. The plain around it, though now desolate, is fertile, and thickly dotted with ancient cities.” — J.L. Porter.

PETT, "Verses 16-20‘And their border was from Aroer which is on the edge of the valley of Arnon, and the city which is in the middle of the valley, and all the tableland by Medeba; Heshbon and all her cities which are in the tableland; Dibon and Bamoth-baal and Beth-baal-meon, and Jahaz and Kedemoth and Mephaath, and Kiriathaim and Sibmah, and Zereth-shahar in the mount of the valley, and Beth-peor, and the slopes of Pisgah and Beth-jeshimoth.’The inheritance was deliberately listed in terms of cities and villages rather than borders (see verse 23), although borders were briefly mentioned. This was to bring out the splendour of what they had received. As they had already been settled the identification of borders was not so important (they were already practically determined). For the first mentioned cities see on Joshua 12:2; Joshua 13:9.

Bamoth-baal means ‘high places of Baal’ ( umbers 22:41). Thus it had almost certainly been a centre of Baal worship. It is also mentioned in umbers 21:19-20. Balak took Balaam to it when he wanted to look down over the full extent of the forces of Israel so it must have been in a commanding position. For Beth-baal-meon, modern Ma‘in, compare ‘Beth-meon’ (Jeremiah 48:23) and Beon ( umbers 32:3). Built by the Reubenites it was later captured by the Moabites and along with Kiriathaim and Jahaz was mentioned in the Moabite Stone.

For Jahaz see Joshua 21:36; umbers 21:23; Deuteronomy 2:32; Judges 11:20. It was the place where Sihon fought Israel and was vanquished. Residence in it was soon to be assigned to the Merarite Levites (Joshua 21:24; Joshua 21:36). It was later lost to Israel. Its site is in doubt. Kedemoth is probably modern ez-Za‘feran about sixteen kilometres north of the Arnon just inside Sihon’s territory on the eastern border. It became a levitical city (Joshua 21:37; 1 Chronicles 6:29) giving its name to a nearby desert area (Deuteronomy 2:26). The site of Mephaath is unknown (but see Joshua 21:37; Jeremiah 48:21) although Tel el-Yawah has been suggested. Kiriathaim is the dual form of qirya (city, town) and therefore means double city. See umbers 32:37; Genesis 14:5). Its site has not yet been located.

“Sibmah, and Zereth-shahar in the mount of the valley, and Beth-peor, and the slopes of Pisgah and Beth-jeshimoth.” Sibmah is identical with Sebam ( umbers 32:3; umbers 32:38). Originally a land for cattle ( umbers 32:4) it became famous

for its vines and summer fruit. It later reverted to Moab. Isaiah 16:8-9 and Jeremiah 48:32 bewailed its desolation. It is possibly to be identified with Khirbet Qurn el-Qibsh near Heshbon. Zereth-shahar was probably situated on a height overlooking the Jordan Rift valley (compare verse 27). It has been connected with es-Sara, the hot springs on the north west slope of Mount ‘Attarus.

Beth-peor (House or Temple of Peor) was probably related to the worship of Baal-peor ( umbers 25:3-5). It was near here that Israel gathered to hear Moses’ final exhortation (Deuteronomy 3:29; Deuteronomy 4:44-46) and that Moses was buried (Deuteronomy 34:6). It was thus near Mount ebo. It is remarkable that the site of Moses’ sepulchre was so quickly forgotten (Deuteronomy 34:6), a sign of how involved the people were with the conflicts in Canaan. Possibly he was buried secretly by Joshua at his own request to prevent an obsession with his tomb, because he did not want men’s eyes fixed outside the land of God’s promises and covenant. Or it simply be that his body was never found. (We do not know what, ‘He (YHWH) buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor’ actually indicates, and whether He was to be seen as using a human instrument).

Beth-jeshimoth (house of the deserts) was near the north east shore of the Dead Sea ( umbers 33:49) in the Jordan Rift valley. The ‘slopes of Pisgah’ (Ashdoth-pisgah’) may refer to the entire edge of the Moabite plateau east and north east of the Dead Sea (compare Joshua 13:20; Deuteronomy 3:17; Deuteronomy 4:49). Pisgah also refers to a specific peak or ridge associated with Mount ebo ( umbers 21:20; Deuteronomy 3:27; Deuteronomy 34:1).

So all these towns and cities had been redeemed for YHWH. But because of Israel’s later disobedience they were lost and seized by Moab. It is a warning of what happens if we start well but fail to go on in the same way.

17 to Heshbon and all its towns on the plateau, including Dibon, Bamoth Baal, Beth Baal Meon,

BAR ES, "Jos_13:17-21

See the marginal references for some of these names. Heshbon, Kedemoth, and Mephaath became eventually Levitical cities.

CLARKE, "Bamoth-baal - The high places of Baal, probably so called from altars erected on hills for the impure worship of this Canaanitish Priapus.

GILL, "Heshbon, and all her cities that are in the plain,.... Which was by Medeba, and reached to Dibon:

Dibon, and Bamothbaal, and Bethbaalmeon; Dibon was rebuilt by Gad, though it belonged to Reuben, and perhaps was inhabited by both, being on the borders of each; and Bamothbaal signifies the high places of Baal; see Num_22:41; perhaps this is the same with Bamoth in the valley, Num_21:20; and Bethbaalmeon is the same with Baalmeon in Num_32:38; where it is highly probable was a temple of Baal, since both "beth" signifies an house, and "meon" an habitation.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:17 Heshbon, and all her cities that [are] in the plain; Dibon, and Bamothbaal, and Bethbaalmeon,

Ver. 17. Bamothbaal and Bethbaalmeon.] Places of much idolatry, that land desolating sin: such as are now Sichem and Loretto; where, whensoever the Ave Maria bell rings, which is at sunrising, noon, and sun setting, all men, in what place soever, house, field, street, or market, do presently kneel down and say an Ave Maria, &c.

WHEDO , "17. Heshbon — The ancient capital of Sihon, king of the Amorites. See on umbers 21:26-28. Its ruins, some twenty miles east of the Jordan at the spot where it empties into the Dead Sea, still bear the name of Hesban. It was on the summit and sides of a low hill that rises from the undulating plain, and commands a wide prospect. After its capture by the Israelites it was rebuilt by the tribe of Reuben, ( umbers 32:37,) and afterwards assigned to the Levites. Joshua 21:39.

Dibon — A city three miles north of the Arnon, captured and occupied by the Israelites after they defeated Sihon. umbers 21:30. It was rebuilt by the tribe of Gad, and called Dibon-gad. umbers 32:34; umbers 33:45. In Isaiah 15:9, it is called Dimon. It is identified with extensive ruins still bearing the name of Diban. Both Medeba and Dibon are mentioned on the famous Moabite stone recently discovered near this place. See note on 1 Kings 16:23.

Bamoth-baal — That is, high places of Baal, so called, probably, because it had been a noted place of Baal worship. Knobel regards this place as identical with the modern Jebel Attarus, a mountain a few miles northwest of Dibon, but the true site of the place is as yet only a matter of conjecture.

Bethbaal-meon — Called also Baal-meon ( umbers 32:38) and Beon. umbers 32:3. It was evidently also associated with the worship of Baal. Its ruins are found in the modern Main, a few miles southwest of Medeba and a little north of the Wady

Zerka.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:17

Bamoth Baal. The high places or altars of Baal. The frequent mention of Baal in this passage shows how common the worship of Baal was in Palestine. The Moabites worshipped him under the name of Chemosh, to whom Mesha, on the Moabite stone, attributes all his victories (cf. umbers 21:29; 11:24; 1 Kings 11:7, 1 Kings 11:33. So Beth-Peor below (cf. umbers 25:3).

18 Jahaz, Kedemoth, Mephaath,

CLARKE, "Jahaza - A city near Medeba and Dibon. It was given to the Levites, 1Ch_6:78.

Kedemoth - Mentioned Deu_2:26; supposed to have been situated beyond the river Arnon.

Mephaath - Situated on the frontiers of Moab, on the eastern part of the desert. It was given to the Levites, Jos_21:37.

GILL, "And Jahazah,.... Called Jahaz, Num_21:23, where the battle was fought between Sihon and Israel:

and Kedemoth; near to which was a wilderness, which took its name from it, from whence Moses sent messengers with words of peace to Sihon, Deu_2:26,

and Mephaath; thought to be the Maipha of Ptolemy (f); here Jerom says (g), in his time was a garrison of Roman soldiers, because of the desert that was near. It was a city, with its suburbs, given to the Levites, as were the two preceding, Jos_21:36; Adrichomius (h) takes it to be the same with Malle, which, Josephus says, (i) was called the city of the strangers.

WHEDO , "18. Jahaza — Written also Jahaz. It was the place of the decisive battle of the Israelites with Sihon, ( umbers 21:23,) and seems to have been on the confines of the desert, to the southeast of Heshbon, but its site has not been discovered, Kedemoth was also a city of this eastern desert, but as this region has not yet been explored its exact situation is not known. Mephaath is always

mentioned in connexion with the two cities previously named, but, like them, is unknown. In the time of Eusebius it was the station of a Roman garrison to cheek the wandering Arabs of the desert.

19 Kiriathaim, Sibmah, Zereth Shahar on the hill in the valley,

CLARKE, "Kirjathaim - This city, according to Eusebius, was nine miles distant from Medeba, towards the east. It passed from the Emim to the Moabites, from the Moabites to the Amorites, and from the Amorites to the Israelites, Gen_14:6; Deu_2:20. Calmet supposes the Reubenites possessed it till the time they were carried away by the Assyrians; and then the Moabites appear to have taken possession of it anew, as he collects from Jer_48:1 etc., and Eze_25:9 etc.

Sibmah - A place remarkable for its vines. See Isa_16:8, Isa_16:9, Jer_48:32.

Zareth-shahar, in the mount of the valley - This probably means a town situated on or near to a hill in some flat country.

GILL, "And Kirjathaim,.... Of which See Gill on Num_32:37,

and Sibmah; of which See Gill on Num_32:3 and See Gill on Num_32:38,

and Zarethshahar, in the mount of the valley; which was built on one of the mountains that looked over the valley of Moab, as did Nebo, Pisgah, Abarim; perhaps it is the same place Josephus (k) calls Zara, to which he joins the valley of the Cilicians, and mentions it along with Heshbon, Medeba, and other cities of Moab; according to Adrichomius (l), it was in the mount of the valley of Bethpeor, which next follows.

K&D 19-22, "Kirjathaim, where Chedorlaomer defeated the Emim, is probably to be found in the ruins of et-Teym, half an hour to the west of Medaba (see at Gen_14:5). Sibmah (Num_32:38), according to Jerome (on Isa_16:8), only 500 paces from Heshbon, appears to have hopelessly disappeared. Zereth-hashachar, i.e., splendor aurorae, which is only mentioned here, was situated “upon a mountain of the valley.” According to Jos_13:27, the valley was the Jordan valley, or rather (according to Gen_14:3, Gen_14:8) the vale of Siddim, a valley running down on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. Seetzen conjectures that the town referred to is the present ruin of Sará, on the south of Zerka Maein. - Beth-peor, opposite to Jericho, six Roman miles higher than (to the east of) Libias: see at Num_23:28. The “slopes of Pisgah” (Jos_12:3; Deu_3:17): to the south of the former, on the north-eastern shore of the Dead Sea (see at Num_

27:12). Beth-jeshimoth (Jos_12:3), in the Ghor el Seisabân, on the north-east side of the Dead Sea (see at Num_22:1). In Jos_13:21, the places which Reuben received in addition to those mentioned by name are all summed up in the words, “and all the (other) towns of the plain, and all the kingdom of Sihon,” sc., so far as it extended over the plain. These limitations of the words are implied in the context: the first in the fact that towns in the plain are mentioned in Jos_13:17; the second in the fact that, according to Jos_13:27, “the rest of the kingdom of Sihon,” i.e., the northern portion of it, was given to the Gadites. The allusion to Sihon induced the author to mention his defeat again; see at Num 31, where the five Midianitish vassals who were slain with Sihon are noticed in Num_31:8, and the death of Balaam is also mentioned. “Dukes of Sihon,”

properly vassals of Sihon; נסיכים does not signify anointed, however, but means literally

poured out, i.e., cast, moulded, enfeoffed. The word points to the “creation of a prince by the communication or pouring in of power” (Gusset, s. v.).

BE SO , "Joshua 13:19. In the mount of the valley — In the mount which overlooked the great plain before mentioned, or which bordered upon the valley, a mount which, it seems, was then famous among the Israelites; whether that where Moses was buried, which was near to Beth-peor, or some other.

WHEDO , "19. Kirjathaim — The word means the double city, and in the English version is sometimes written Kiriathaim. In its plain Chedorlaomer and his confederate kings smote the Emim in the days of Abraham. Genesis 14:5. There is some uncertainty as to its site, but J.L. Porter very plausibly identifies it with Kureijat, a ruined town on the southwestern slope of Jebel Attarus.

Sibmah — From Isaiah 16:8-9, and Jeremiah 48:32, this place seems to have been famous for the cultivation of the vine. According to Jerome it was hardly five hundred paces distant from Heshbon, but no trace of its name has yet been found among the ruined cities of that district.

Zareth-shahar — This place was in a mount of the valley, that is, a mountain overlooking the valley of the Jordan and Dead Sea. Seetzen conjectured that its name still lingered in the ruins of Sara, a little northwest of Jebel Attarus, and near the mouth of the Wady Zerka.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:19

Sibmah (see umbers 32:38). The vine of Sibmah forms a feature in the lament of Isaiah (Isaiah 16:8) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 48:32) over Moab. It was close by Heshbon, on the borders of Reuben and Gad. Zareth-shahar, or the splendour of the dawn, now garar, was on the borders of the Dead Sea. Canon Tristram, in his 'Land of Moab,' mentions the gorgeous colouring of the landscape here, more beautiful and varied, no doubt, at dawn than at any other time of the day.

20 Beth Peor, the slopes of Pisgah, and Beth Jeshimoth—

CLARKE, "Beth-peor - The house or temple of Peor, situated at the foot of the mountain of the same name. See Num_25:3.

GILL, "And Bethpeor,.... So called from Peor, the idol of the Moabites, and where very likely there had been a temple built to the honour of it; over against this place was a valley, where Israel abode some time, Deu_3:29,

and Ashdodpisgah; of which see Deu_3:17,

and Bethjeshimoth; of which see Num_33:49.

WHEDO , "20. Beth-peor — That is, house of Peor. The town probably got its name from having been the chief seat of the worship of the Moabite god Baal-peor. umbers 25:3-5. It was situated on or beside Mount Peor, and close to the valley where the Israelites encamped immediately before descending into the plain of the Jordan. Deuteronomy 3:29. It was in this valley — apparently the modern Wady Hesban — Moses was buried, (Deuteronomy 34:6,) and Mount Pisgah, on which he died, could not have been far distant to the south. The valley of Heshbon has never been fully explored. “Whatever traveller may succeed in doing so will be rewarded by the discovery of the ruins of Beth-peor, and the closest approximation that has yet been made to the place of Moses’ sepulchre.” — J.L. Potter. Ashdoth-pisgah and

Beth-jeshimoth — See notes on Joshua 12:3.

21 all the towns on the plateau and the entire realm of Sihon king of the Amorites, who ruled at Heshbon. Moses had defeated him and the Midianite chiefs, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—princes allied with Sihon—who lived in

that country.

BAR ES, "Jos_13:21

Dukes of Sihon - Rather “vassals of Sihon,” probably those “dedicated” or “appointed” with a libation.

CLARKE, "The princes of Midian - See the history of this war, Num_31:1, etc.; and from that place this and the following verse seem to be borrowed, for the introduction of the death of Balaam here seems quite irrelevant.

GILL, "And all the cities of the plain,.... In the champaign country, as well as those in the mountainous part:

and all the kingdom of Sihon; or, as Masius renders the words, "which all had been the kingdom of Sihon"; for the whole kingdom of Sihon was not given to Reuben, only a part of it, and the rest to Gad, as in Jos_13:27,

king of the Amorites, which reigned in Heshbon; as in Jos_13:10,

whom Moses smote with the princes of Midian, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur,

and Hur, and Reba; not at the same time that Sihon was smitten by him, but afterwards in a war with Midian, Num_31:8; where their names are given as here; and there they are called kings of Midian, petty kings, and, as it seems by what follows, were subject to Sihon, and therefore are here mentioned:

which were dukes of Sihon dwelling in the country; for Midian, as Kimchi supposes, and not without reason, was under the government of Sihon, and these were his nobles, though they dwelt in the land of Midian.

BE SO , "Joshua 13:21. Cities of the plain — Opposed to the cities of the mountain or the valley. All the kingdom of Sihon — A great part of it; in which sense we read of all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, Matthew 3:5; and all Galilee, Matthew 4:23. Whom Moses smote — ot in the same time or battle, as appears by comparing umbers 21:23-24, with umbers 31:8, but in the same manner. Dukes of Sihon — But how could they be so, when they were kings of Midian? umbers 31:8. There were divers petty kings in those parts, who were subject to other kings, and such these were, but are here called dukes or princes of Sihon, because they were subject and tributaries to him, and therefore did one way or other assist Sihon in this war, though they were not killed at this time.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:21 And all the cities of the plain, and all the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, which reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses smote with the princes of Midian, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, [which were] dukes of Sihon, dwelling in the country.

Ver. 21. Dukes of Sihon.] His vassals; and after his death they made themselves kings, but were shortly after slain by the sword of Israel. [ umbers 31:8]

WHEDO , "21. All the cities of the plain — That is, all the other mirror cities of the southern plain which had not been particularly described.

All the kingdom of Sihon — These words must not be taken as the entire extent of the territory belonging to Sihon, but must be qualified by the statement of Joshua 13:27, that the northern part of his kingdom, which extended even to the Sea of Chinnereth, was allotted to Gad. The words are therefore to be understood of the southern part of his territory, which, lying south of Mount Gilead, and including by far the larger part of the kingdom, with its capital and most important cities, might easily have been called all the kingdom.

Dukes of Sihon — For their defeat by Moses see umbers 31:1-12. These dukes were sheiks of the neighbouring towns, tributary to and dependent upon Sihon.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 21(21) The princes of Midian . . . which were dukes of Sinon, dwelling in the country.—

The conquest of the Midianites is recorded in umbers 31. The orders given were, “Avenge the Lord of Midian” (Joshua 13:3); “avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites” (Joshua 13:2), because they tempted Israel to idolatry and uncleanness. But this verse in Joshua supplies us with a further reason for hostilities between Midian and Israel. The Midianites were “dukes of Sihon,” and a part of his government. Through them he appears to have exercised his dominion over the conquered territory which he had taken from Moab. This land Israel had now, in turn, taken from him. But in order to its complete subjugation, the removal of Sihon’s dukes, the princes or kings of Midian, was also necessary. This was brought about in the manner described in umbers 22-25, , 31. The relation between Midian and Moab which is implied, but not explained in umbers, is explained by the apparently casual remark in this place. It is another example of undesigned agreement between Joshua and the Pentateuch. Of the same kind is the allusion to Balaam, as (Joshua 13:22) the soothsayer, or diviner. In umbers we do not read of anything but prophecy and counsel as coming from Balaam’s lips; but it is abundantly evident, from hints scattered through the story, that he was a sooth-sayer, or diviner, as well as a prophet. The elders of Moab and Midian went to him with the reward of divination in their hands ( umbers 22:7); “ either is there any divination against Israel” ( umbers 23:23) the word in each of these places is

radically connected with the epithet applied to Balaam here. (Comp. umbers 24:1 : “He went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments”—where a different word is employed.) He is thus shown to have been an unscrupulous man, who, if he could not obtain the knowledge that he desired from above, would not hesitate to seek it from below, that he might secure his base gain.

PETT, "Verse 21-22‘And all the cities of the tableland and all the kingdom of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses smote with the chiefs of Midian, Evi and Rekem, and Zur and Hur, and Reba, the princes of Sihon who dwell in the land. Balaam also, the son of Beor, the soothsayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword among the rest of their slain.’For ‘cities of the tableland’ compare Deuteronomy 3:10. This was clearly a local name for the whole area. (Contrast ‘the cities of the plain’ - Genesis 19:29).

The description is a brief summary of larger events occurring at different times, the slaying of Sihon and his forces at one time ( umbers 21:21-31) and the slaying of the ‘leaders of Sihon’ and Balaam at another ( umbers 31 where they are also named). It would appear that these Midianite chiefs were vassals to Sihon, probably due to receiving certain rights to the use of lands for grazing, who were not present when Sihon was slain. Their subsequent appearance to avenge Sihon was met with by the denunciation of YHWH and their defeat at the hands of Israel ( umbers 31). The word translated ‘princes’ is a rare one occurring only five times in the Old Testament. See especially Psalms 83:11 where it refers to Midianite leaders as here. Thus it was seemingly a term especially applied to Midianite leaders. The other references are Ezekiel 32:30 where it refers to vague ‘princes of the north’; Micah 5:4 where it is subordinate leaders to the shepherds; and Daniel 11:8 where it has a different meaning altogether.

Balaam was said in umbers 24:25 to have ‘returned to his place’ (see umbers 22:5). However it appears that either he dwelt among the Midianites or was recalled by the Midianites to obtain revenge for Sihon for here he was slain along with them. The slaying of such a powerful soothsayer (compare Deuteronomy 8:14), who was made wealthy by divining on behalf of people against their enemies, was looked on as a great feat.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:21

Cities of the plain. "Mishor" once more. See above, Joshua 13:9, not as in Genesis 19:1-38; where the word is Ciccar. These, therefore, were not Sodom and its neighbours, but cities of the Amorites. Such touches as this, which display the minute acquaintance of our author with his subject, are almost of a necessity lost in a translation. But where our version has "plain," the original has Mishor when the uplands of Gilead and Bashan are meant, Arabah when the writer is speaking of the Wadys in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea, Shephelah when he refers to the lowlands of Western palestine, bordering on the Mediterranean, Bik'ah when he speaks of the great valley of Coele Syria, Ciccar when he speaks of the territory due

north of Jordan. With the princes of Midian. The word here used, נשיא signifies exalted persons, persons of rank, as we should say. It would seem to imply rather civil functions than the more absolute authority which the word שר also rendered "prince" in Hebrew, carries with it. With this passage compare umbers 31:8. The Hebrew has no "with," so that the difficulty some have found in the passage need not have arisen. It is nowhere said that Moses smote the "princes of Midian" together with Sihon. All that is stated is that they, as well as Sihon, were smitten, as the history in umbers tells us they were. Dukes of Sihon. According to Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, and others, the word here translated "dukes" is derived from |נס to pour out, means "anointed." See Psalm if. 6, where it is translated "set." But Keil rejects this interpretation, and says that the word never signifies to anoint. It is always used, he says, of foreign princes. But he has overlooked Micah 5:4 (Hebrews). See Knobel, who explains it of drink offerings, and regards these "dukes" as men pledged by a solemn treaty to be Sihon's allies, though not vassals. Kimchi thinks that Sihon, before his reverses at the hand of Israel, had held some authority in Midian, and these were his prefects, or under-kings. The term is applied to Zebah and Zalmunna in Psalms 83:12 (in the Hebrew).

22 In addition to those slain in battle, the Israelites had put to the sword Balaam son of Beor, who practiced divination.

GILL, "Balaam also, the son of Beor the soothsayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword,.... At the same time that the princes of Midian were slain, and which is also observed; see Gill on Num_31:8. Kimchi supposes that he returned to Midian, on hearing that the counsel he gave to them, to ensnare Israel with their daughters, had taken effect, in order to receive his wages, and so received his righteous doom and just reward; it is commonly said by the Jews (m), that he was slain by Phinehas:

among them that were slain by them; among the above princes, and the common soldiers, of which there was a great slaughter; even all the males of Midian were slain, Num_31:7.

BE SO ,"Joshua 13:22. Were slain by them — This was recorded before, ( umbers 31:8,) and is here repeated, because the defeating of Balaam’s purpose to curse Israel, and the turning that curse into a blessing, was such an instance of the power and goodness of God, as was fit to be had in everlasting rememberance.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:22 Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword among them that were slain by them.

Ver. 22. Balaam also the son of Beor.] The spellman of Satan: though by his words he might seem a friend to Israel, yet was he worthily cut off by them for his wicked counsel. So shall all such perish as "turn aside, like Balaam, unto their crooked ways: but peace shall be upon Israel." [Psalms 125:5] See 1:11.

COKE, "Ver. 22. Balaam also the son of Beor, the sooth-sayer, did the children of Israel slay— Why is mention here made of Balaam? Probably, as we must suppose, because he had advised Sihon and the Midianitish princes to engage in war against the children of Israel. At least it is very certain, that he had suggested to the Midianites the means of reducing the Israelites to idolatry. See umbers 25:17.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:22

The soothsayer. Or diviner, one who pretended to foretell future events. Balaam, it would seem, instead of returning to his own land, went to visit the Midianites, whose elders had joined in the invitation given by Moab ( umbers 22:7), and persuaded them to entice the Israelites into idolatry and licentiousness (see umbers 25:1-18) For this crime he met with the punishment he had deserved, and was involved in the destruction which fell on the Midianites by God's express command, in consequence of their treachery ( umbers 25:16-18. See Blunt, 'Undesigned Coincidences,' Part I. 24)

23 The boundary of the Reubenites was the bank of the Jordan. These towns and their villages were the inheritance of the Reubenites, according to their clans.

BAR ES, "Jos_13:23

Jordan ... - i. e. the Jordan and its territory (compare similar expressions in Num_34:6; Deu_3:16). The portion of the tribe of Reuben at its northern extremity touched the Jordan; the main part of his inheritance lay on the east of the Dead Sea.

CLARKE, "The cities and the villages - By villages, חצרים chatserim, it is likely

that moveable villages or tents are meant, such as are in use among the Bedouin Arabs; places where they were accustomed to feed and pen their cattle.

GILL, "And the border of the children of Reuben was Jordan, and the border thereof,.... As their border eastward was Aroer on the river Arnon, so their border westward was the river Jordan:

this was the inheritance of the children of Reuben, after their families, the cities and the villages thereof; which Moses gave them on the other side Jordan; and next follow an account of the inheritance of the tribe of Gad in those parts.

K&D, "“And (this) was the boundary of the sons of Reuben, the Jordan and its territory,” i.e., the Jordan, or rather land adjoining it. The meaning is, that the territory of Reuben, viz., with the places mentioned last (Jos_13:20), reached to the territory of the Jordan; for so far as the principal part was concerned, it was on the east of the Dead Sea, as it only reached from the Arnon to Heshbon, i.e., up to the latitude of the northern

extremity of the Dead Sea. “The towns and their villages.” חצר, farm premises, used, as

in Lev_25:31, to denote places not enclosed by a wall.

PI K, ""Balaam also the son of Besor, the soothsayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword among them that were slain by them" (Josh. 13:23). othing definite is known about the early life of this mysterious person. He is introduced abruptly in the Scriptures, being mentioned first in umbers 22:5. A "soothsayer" was one who essayed to foretell the future and possess strange powers by means of the occult forces of evil. Balaam was a magician of renown and had, apparently, acquired some knowledge of the true God—probably by hearing of what He had wrought in Egypt and at the Red Sea (see Joshua 2:10). Israel had then crossed the wilderness, and had arrived at the country of the Moabites—in the vicinity of the Jordan. Balak its king was afraid that Israel would destroy his people, and sent for Balaam to use his enchantments against them. Accordingly, his servants visited the prophet "with the rewards of divination in their hand," and invited him to return with them to their master, and pronounce such a curse on the Israelites that the Moabites might smite them ( um. 22:5-7). Balaam’s character was at once revealed by his response to this temptation: he neither accepted nor refused. Instead of reprimanding them, he bade them lodge with him, and he would return his answer next morning.

During the night God appeared to him, and said, "Thou shalt not go with them;

thou shalt not curse the people. ext morning Balaam informed his visitors "The Lord refuseth to give me leave to go with you," and they departed without him—though he dishonestly failed to tell them why he must not accept their commission. Refusing to be discouraged by Balaam’s repulse, Balak sent again to him, promising to promote him with very great honor if he would come and curse Israel. Though he knew the mind of the Lord. he temporized and invited the princes to stay with him that night. Prompted by the love of gain, he now mocked God by pretending to ask His permission—as though He might change His mind; and God now mocked him, giving him leave to go, but commanding him to utter only the word He gave him. This is evident from "And God’s anger was kindled because he went," and from "the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him." ( um. 22:22).

Rebuked by the dumb ass and told by the angel, "I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me," Balaam acknowledged his sin; yet when the word "Go with the men" was given to test him further, he was carried forward against all checks by the violent impulse of his lusts. When he arrived at his destination, so powerfully did the Spirit of God restrain that Balaam blessed Israel instead of cursing them. evertheless, so strongly did he love "the wages of unrighteousness" (2 Pet. 2:15), and so determined was he to earn the same, that he now devised a method which promised to ensure the ruin of Israel ( um. 31:16, and cf. Revelation 2:14), and which had been completely successful had not God intervened (Ps. 106:28, 29). Thus did he definitely range himself against Israel and defy the Lord. Soon after he reaped what he had sown: linking his interests with the Moabites and Midianites, he died with them ( um. 22:7; 31:8). Such is the doom of the double-hearted, and those who are in bondage to covetousness. one can serve God and mammon.

WHEDO , "23. This was the inheritance of… Reuben — The tribe of Reuben never did excel. Compare Genesis 49:4. They were never noted for mighty deeds, and their indifference in the war with Sisera, when the mighty ones went up to battle and they “abode among the sheepfolds to hear the bleatings of the flocks,” is properly satirized in the song of Deborah.

Judges 5:16, note. Their territory was overrun by the army of Tiglath-pileser, and they were carried away captive into upper Mesopotamia. 1 Chronicles 5:26. Then their depopulated cities and country were repossessed by their ancient owners, the Moabites, and hence it is that we find so many cities of Reuben afterwards in possession of the Moabites.

PETT, "Verse 23‘And the border of the children of Reuben was Jordan, and its border. This was the inheritance of the children of Reuben according to their families, its cities and villages.’Literally ‘the border was --- Jordan and a border.’ The phrase occurs in Joshua 13:27; in Joshua 15:12; Joshua 15:47 of the Great Sea; umbers 34:6 of the Great Sea; Deuteronomy 3:16-17 of the Arnon in its valley and of Jordan. It seems to be a

technical term to describe water as forming a continuing border.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:23

And the border thereof. These words have been omitted in the Vulgate, which does not understand them. The LXX. translates, "And the borders of Reuben were the Jordan-border." This seems to be the meaning of the original. The phrase often occurs, as in Joshua 15:12 and umbers 34:6. Knobel's explanation is probably the correct one, that the phrase means to refer to the natural boundary marked out by the river or sea and its banks. "The boundary of the children of Reuben was Jordan and the natural boundary thus formed." As Dean Stanley reminds us in his 'Lectures on the Jewish Church,' Reuben, as predicted by Jacob (Genesis 49:4), sank at once into insignificance. o ruler, no judge arose from this tribe and its territory. Villages. Hebrew חצרי, LXX . ἐπαύλεις, Vulgate viculi. The original meaning is a piece of ground enclosed by a hedge or wall. Here it would mean,either with Gesenins and Keil, farm hamlets, or perhaps clearings of cultivated ground, which in Palestine would naturally be enclosed in some way, to prevent the ravages of wild beasts. In the primitive villages of Servia, where wild beasts are not entirely extirpated, not only are all the homesteads enclosed, but a fence is placed across the road, and removed when a vehicle has to pass through. Or perhaps the primitive Jewish community was similar to the primitive Teutonic community as described by Marshall in his 'Elementary and Practical Treatise on Landed Property,' published in 1804, who described the early distribution of land in this country as follows: "Round the village lay a few small enclosures for rearing young stock. Further a field the best land for arable purposes was chosen, and divided into three parts, for the necessary, rotation of fallow, wheat or rye, and spring crops. The meadows near the water courses were set aside for the growth of fodder for the cattle or for pasturage for milch cows, etc. The irreclaimable lands were left for what we now call 'common' uses for fuel, and the inferior pasturage." These arrangements are found to exist in India (see Sir H. Maine, 'Village Communities,' sec. 4). But there, as in Palestine, the necessity for water was the cause of important modifications. Since the word is used to denote the court

and as it is used of the enclosure of a nomadic camp (Genesis 25:16, where our version has towns; perhaps Deuteronomy 2:23, where our version has Hazerim, following the LXX.—which, however, alters the word to the more usual Hazeroth—and the Vulgate; Isaiah 42:11, with which compare the expression tents of Kedar, Psalms 120:5), the translation villages can hardly be the correct one here or elsewhere (see also 2 Samuel 17:28).

24 This is what Moses had given to the tribe of

Gad, according to its clans:

GILL, "And Moses gave inheritance unto the tribe of Gad,.... On the other side Jordan, as he did to Reuben:

even unto the children of Gad, according to their families: according to the number and largeness of them, dividing to each their part and portion.

HE RY, "The lot of the tribe of Gad, Jos_13:24-28. This lay north of Reuben's lot; the country of Gilead lay in this tribe, so famous for its balm that it is thought strange indeed if there be no balm in Gilead, and the cities of Jabesh-Gilead and Ramoth-Gilead which we often read of in scripture. Succoth and Penuel, which we read of in the story of Gideon, were in this tribe; and that forest which is called the wood of Ephraim (from the slaughter Jephthah made there of the Ephraimites), in which Absalom's rebellious army was beaten, while his father David lay at Mahanaim, one of the frontier-cities of this tribe, Jos_13:26. Sharon, famous for roses, was in this tribe. And within the limits of this tribe lived those Gadarenes that loved their swine better than their Saviour, fitter to be called Girgashites than Israelites.

K&D 24-26, "Inheritance of the tribe of Gad. - This tribe received Jaëzer (probably es Szyr: see at Num_21:32) and “all the towns of Gilead,” i.e., of the southern half of Gilead, which belonged to the kingdom of Sihon; for the northern half, which belonged to the kingdom of Og, was given to the Manassites (Jos_13:31), “and the half of the land of the sons of Ammon, to Aroër before Rabbah,” i.e., that portion of the land of the Ammonites between the Arnon and the Jabbok, which the Amorites under Sihon had taken from the Ammonites, namely, the land on the east of Gilead, on the western side of the upper Jabbok (Nahr Ammân: Deu_2:37; Deu_3:16; cf. Jdg_11:13); for the land of the Ammonites, i.e., the land which they still held in the time of Moses, on the eastern side of Nahr Ammân, the Israelites were not allowed to attack (Deu_2:19). Aroër before Rabbah, i.e., Ammân (see Deu_3:11), is Aroër of Gad, and must be distinguished from Aroër of Reuben on the Arnon (Jos_13:16). It is only mentioned again in Jdg_11:33 and 2Sa_24:5, and was situated, according to 2 Sam., in the valley of Gad, that is to say, in a wady or valley through which Gesenius supposes an arm of the Jabbok to have flowed, and Thenius the Jabbok itself, though neither of them has sufficient ground for his conjecture. It is also not to be identified with the ruin of Ayra to the south-west of Szalt, as this is not in a wady at all; but in all probability it is to be sought for to the north-east of Rabbah, in the Wady Nahr Ammân, on the side of the Kalat Zerka Gadda, the situation of which suits this verse and Jdg_11:33. - In Jos_13:26 the extent of the territory of Gad is first of all described from north to south: viz., from Heshbon (see Jos_13:17) to Ramath-mizpeh, or Ramoth in Gilead (Jos_20:8), probably on the site of the present Szalt (see at Deu_4:43), “and Betonim,” probably the ruin of Batneh, on the mountains which bound the Ghor towards the east between the Wady Shaib and Wady Ajlun, in the same latitude as Szalt (V. de Velde, Mem. p. 298); and then, secondly, the northern boundary is described from west to east, “from Mahanaim to the territory of

Lidbir.” Mahanaim (double-camp: Gen_32:2), which was given up by Gad to the Levites (Jos_21:30), in which Ishbosheth was proclaimed king (2Sa_2:8-9), and to which David fled from Absalom (2Sa_17:24, 2Sa_17:27; 1Ki_2:8), is not to be sought for, as Knobelsupposes, in the ruins of Meysera, to the south of Jabbok, four hours and a half from Szalt, but was on the north of the Jabbok, since Jacob did not cross the ford of the Jabbok till after the angel had appeared to him at Mahanaim (Gen_32:3, Gen_32:23). It was in or by the valley of the Jordan (according to 2Sa_18:23-24), and has probably been preserved in the ruins of Mahneh, the situation of which, however, has not yet been determined (see at Gen_32:3). Lidbir is quite unknown; the lamed, however, is not to be taken as a prefix, but forms part of the word. J. D. Michaelis and Knobel suppose it to be the same as Lo-debar in 2Sa_9:4-5; 2Sa_17:27, a place from which provisions were brought to David at Mahanaim on his flight from Absalom, and which is to be sought for on the east of Mahanaim.

CALVI , "24.And Moses gave inheritance unto the tribe of Gad, etc The observation made above applies also to the tribe of Gad, namely, that their legitimate boundaries were carefully defined in order to prevent disputes as to their possession. Meanwhile God is extolled for his liberality in having expelled nations of great celebrity, and substituted them in their stead. This is expressed more clearly in regard to the half tribe of Manasseh, when sixty cities are enumerated as included in their inheritance. Hence, too, it is manifest that Moses was not munificent through mistake, because it was well known to God how many cities he was giving them out of his boundless liberality. In a short clause the tribe of Levi is again excluded, that the Levites might not be able at some future period to pretend that the grant which the Reubenites, Gadites, and half tribe of Manasseh had obtained without the casting of lots, belonged in common to them also; for they are expressly forbidden to share with their brethren. This made it easy for them to interpret shrewdly for their advantage, that they were entitled to share with others. Here, however, it is not the sacrifices, as a little before, but God Himself that is said to be their inheritance; if they are not satisfied with it, they only convict themselves of excessive pride and insufferable fastidiousness. (140)

WHEDO , "GAD’S LOT, Joshua 13:24-28.

24. The tribe of Gad had their inheritance in the central district of eastern Palestine, between Reuben and Manasseh, so that the mountains of Gilead fell largely to them. Mr. Buckingham describes this elevated region as having “its plains covered with a fertile soil, its hills clothed with forests, and at every new turn presenting the most magnificent landscapes that could be imagined. Every new direction of our path opened up to us views which surprised and charmed us by their grandeur and beauty. Deep valleys, filled with murmuring streams and verdant meadows, offered all the luxuriance of cultivation, and herds and flocks gave life and animation to the scene.” Mr. E. Smith travelled through Gilead in 1834. and found the ground clothed with luxuriant grass a foot or more in height, and decked with a rich variety of wild flowers.

COFFMA , "Verse 24

"And Moses gave unto the tribe of Gad, unto the children of Gad, according to their families. And their border was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer that is before Rabbah; and from Heshbon unto Ramoth-Mizpeh, and Betonim; and from Mahanaim unto the border of Debir; and in the valley of Beth-haram, and Beth-nimrah, and Succoth, and Zaphon, the rest of the kingdom of Sihon king of Heshbon, the Jordan and the border thereof, unto the uttermost part of the sea of Chinneroth, beyond the Jordan eastward. This is the inheritance of the children of Gad according to their families, the cities and the villages thereof."

Gad's territory included the balance of the old empire of Sihon as far north as the Jabbok River and somewhat beyond it. The western boundary was the Jordan River. At the Jordan, Gad controlled the area as far as the southern tip of Lake Galilee (Chinneroth, here). Gad received that part of Ammon's territory that Sihon had conquered. Otherwise, Israel was forbidden to encroach on Ammon's land, but the part they had already lost to Sihon, Israel could acquire. On the southeast, the town of Aroer marked the boundary between Gad and Ammon.

Ramoth-Mizpeh is thought to be the same as Ramoth-Gilead. Gad's territory was famous for "balm," for the "wood of Ephraim" where Absalom's rebellious army was beaten; also Sharon, famous for its roses, was in this territory. Also, as Matthew Henry said, "Here lived those Gadarenes who loved their swine more than their Saviour!"[29]

PETT, "Verses 24-28The Portion of Gad (Joshua 13:24-28).

Joshua 13:24

‘And Moses gave to the tribe of Gad, to the children of Gad according to their families.’“The tribe of Gad” indicates Gad as a unity under its leaders. ‘The children of Gad’ sees them as inheriting from YHWH as ‘children’ of Gad. They too received ‘according to their families’ (see Joshua 13:15).

The southern border of Gad was indicated as north of Heshbon (Joshua 13:26), its eastern border as ‘half the land of the children of Ammon to Aroer east of Rabbah’, a different Aroer from that on Reuben’s southern border. It also incorporated in it the Jazir towns and ‘all the cities of Gilead’ which was probably a technical term similar to ‘the cities of the tableland’ in Reuben.

“All the land of Gilead” was used of the whole of Transjordanian territory from the northern border of Bashan to the Arnon (2 Kings 10:33), then distinguished as comprising Bashan and ‘Gilead’, the latter specifically stated as including territory in Manasseh, Gad and Reuben . So ‘Gilead’ could refer to both. But each Transjordanian tribe also applied it to their own section of Gilead.

More confusingly ‘half the hill country of Gilead’ could be applied to the combined territory of Reuben and Gad (Deuteronomy 3:12) with ‘the rest of Gilead’ being applied to the territory of Manasseh (Joshua 3:13). However ‘half Gilead’ could refer separately to the part of Gilead that was in Reuben (Joshua 12:2), as compared with the part that was in Gad (Joshua 12:5).

Here then it represents part of the northern ‘half Gilead’ (Joshua 12:5) in contrast with the southern ‘half Gilead’ (Joshua 12:2) of ‘all Gilead’ (Deuteronomy 3:10) which included both, as in umbers 32:29. The term ‘Gilead’ was also used elsewhere of the portion of Machir (Manasseh) - umbers 32:39-40. (Deuteronomy 3:13 describes this as ‘the rest of Gilead’). Compare Judges 11.

The reference to cities in umbers 32:34-36 in respect of ‘building’ activities possibly included cities that Gad fortified in Reubenite territory, while Reuben were fortifying others, and would not then refer to cities they inherited. Gad did not fear invasion from Reuben but did fear the Moabites and so assisted in rapidly building defence points in Reuben before they dared cross the Jordan with Joshua. Alternately they may have included cities of a similar name.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:24

Unto the tribe of Gad. The border of Gad extended further eastward than that of Reuben. Westward, of course, its border was the Jordan. Its northern border was nearly coincident with that of the land of Gilead, and passed by Maha-naim and Jabesh Gilead, unto the extreme southernmost point of the sea of Galilee. Many of these places also are mentioned in Isaiah 15:1-9 and Jeremiah 48:1-47. (see note above, Jeremiah 48:16).

25 The territory of Jazer, all the towns of Gilead and half the Ammonite country as far as Aroer, near Rabbah;

BAR ES, "Jos_13:25

All the cities of Gilead - i. e. of Gilead in the narrower sense, included in the territory of Sihon, and distinct from Bashan Deu_3:10.

Half the land of the children of Ammon - i. e. that half of the Ammonite territory which had been conquered by the Amorites. This, after the overthrow of Sihon, the Israelites took for their own. The land which the Ammonites still held in the days of Moses, the Israelites were not permitted to attack.

Rabbah was a border fortress, the principal stronghold of the Ammonites Num_21:24, and the residence of their king. It was attacked and taken by Joab 2 Sam. 11; 12; 1Ch_20:1, but appears in later times again as an Ammonitish city Jer_49:3; Eze_25:5; Amo_1:13-15. In the third century B.C. it received from Ptolemy Philadelplus the name of Philadelphia, and was in later times the seat of a Christian bishop; but has now for many centuries been in ruins, remarkable for their grandeur and extent.

CLARKE, "Half the land on the children of Ammon - This probably was land which had been taken from the Ammonites by Sihon, king of the Amorites, and which the Israelites possessed by right of conquest. For although the Israelites were forbidden to take the land of the Ammonites, Deu_2:37, yet this part, as having been united to the territories of Sihon, they might possess when they defeated that king and subdued his kingdom.

GILL, "And their coast was Jazer,.... Their southern coast; of Jazer, see Num_21:32; where it is called Jaazer, and is mentioned in Isa_16:8; and in Jer_48:32, where it is spoken of as a city of Moab, as it was in the days of those prophets:

and all the cities of Gilead; which lay in those parts, for the whole was not given to this tribe, half of Gilead was given to the half tribe of Manasseh, Jos_13:31,

and half the land of the children of Ammon; not what then belonged to them, but what had been taken from them by the Amorites; and which Israel taking from them, had a right to retain, though they were forbid meddling with any of their land in present possession; see Deu_2:19 Jdg_11:13,

unto Aroer that is before Rabbath; Aroer was a city of Moab, situated on the river Arnon, Jos_13:9; and stood over against Rabbath, a city of the Amorites, since called Philadelphia, the same that Joab took, 2Sa_12:26; though Reland thinks (n), that according to the situation of these cities another Aroer must be here meant, and which belonged to the Amorites.

BE SO , "Joshua 13:25. All the cities of Gilead — All the cities of eminence; all the cities properly so called, which lay in that part of Gilead; and thus what is here assured may well agree with Joshua 13:31, where half the country of Gilead is said to be given to the Manassites, for there is no mention of any cities being there. Half the land of the children of Ammon — ot of that which was now theirs, for that the Israelites were forbidden to meddle with; but of that which was anciently theirs, till taken from them by the Amorites, from whom the Israelites took it. Aroer — The border between them and Moab. Rabbah — The chief city of the Ammonites.

WHEDO , "25. Jazer — Written also Jaazer. It was an important city, having

dependent villages, ( umbers 21:32,) and giving its name to the surrounding country, “the land of Jazer.” umbers 32:1. It was one of the four cities of Gad assigned to the Levites. Joshua 21:39. Jeremiah (Jeremiah 48:32) speaks of the “sea of Jazer,” which may have been some lake or pool in the vicinity. Burckhardt, Van de Velde, and others, identify it with a ruined town called Seir or Sir, some twelve miles north of Heshbon.

All the cities of Gilead — That is, of the southern portion of Gilead, for the northern was given to Manasseh. Joshua 13:31.

Half the land of the children of Ammon — The country between the Arnon and the Jabbok. See Judges 11:13, note. This ancient possession of the children of Lot Israel captured, not of Ammon, but of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who had previously taken it out of the hand of the king of Moab.

umbers 21:26. Yet it retained the name of its ancient owners.

Aroer that is before Rabbah — That is, Aroer is before or in front of Rabbah to one who advances towards Rabbah from the Jordan. This Aroeris supposed by many to be identical with the ruined site Ayra, which Burckhardt discovered about seven miles southwest of es-Salt, and nearly half way between the Jordan and Rabbah. Rabbah was the great city and capital of the Ammonites, and is called in Deuteronomy 3:11 Rabbath of the children of Ammon, and here Og’s great iron bedstead was preserved. But as Israel was not to meddle with the children of Ammon, (Deuteronomy 2:19,) Rabbah was not disturbed, nor included in the territory of Gad. It was afterwards besieged and taken by David. 2 Samuel 12:29. Its ruins are known under the modern name of Amman, about twenty-two miles east of the Jordan.

PETT, "Joshua 13:25

‘And their border was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, to Aroer that is east of (‘before’) ‘Rabbah.’Strictly this was indicating the border by the cities and towns contained within it. Jazer was a group of towns as well as a city and was frequently mentioned (see Joshua 21:39; umbers 21:32; umbers 32:1; umbers 32:3; umbers 32:35). It fell on the border between the Amorites and the Ammonites. During David’s time it furnished ‘mighty men of valour’ (1 Chronicles 26:31) and was one of the towns on the route of the census taking (2 Samuel 24:5). In Isaiah 16:6-12 and Jeremiah 48:28-34 it was once more regained by Moab, and even later by Ammon (1 Maccabees 5:4). It may possibly be identified with Khirbet Gazzir on the Wadi Sza‘ib near es-Salt.

“All the cites of Gilead” was an identifiable area consisting of an area within Gad. ‘Half the land of the children of Ammon’ was a third area on the western side of the north-south extension of the Jabbok, stretching to Aroer east of Rabbah, originally taken from Ammon by the Amorites. Rabbath was the capital of Ammon (Rabbath-

ammon - Judges 11:33 - now called Amman)

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:25

Aroer that is before Rabbah. A different Aroer to that mentioned in Joshua 13:9. This was near (Hebrew, opposite to, the expression being equivalent to the French en face) Rabbah, or the great city of the children of Ammon. Keil supposes that this territory had been taken from the Ammonites by Sihon, since the Israelites were not permitted to possess themselves of the land of the Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2:19). For Rabbah, see 2 Samuel 11:1; 2 Samuel 12:26. It is called Rabbath in Deuteronomy 3:11.

26 and from Heshbon to Ramath Mizpah and Betonim, and from Mahanaim to the territory of Debir;

BAR ES, "Jos_13:26

The border of Debir - Rather perhaps “the border of Lidbir,” which is regarded as identical with the Lo-debar of 2Sa_9:4; 2Sa_17:27, one of the towns from which provisions were brought to David at Mahanaim Gen_32:2.

Jos_13:29-33

On the conquest of Bashan, see especially Num_32:33, etc. and notes.

CLARKE, "Ramath-mizpeh - The same as Ramoth-gilead. It was one of the cities of refuge, Jos_20:8; Deu_4:47.

Mahanaim - Or the two camps. Situated on the northern side of the brook Jabbok, celebrated for the vision of the two camps of angels which Jacob had there; see Gen_32:2.

GILL, "And from Heshbon unto Ramathmizpeh, and Betonim,.... This was their coast from the south to the north, and so describes their eastern border, which reached from Heshbon, given to the tribe of Reuben, Jos_13:7; to these places mentioned; Ramathmizpeh, the same with Ramothgilead, which Jerom (o) says was a village in his time, and lay two miles from Philadelphia or Rabbath before mentioned, to

the east; it should be to the west; of Betonim we nowhere else read, it seems to have been near to Ramath:

and from Mahanaim unto the border of Debir; the former of these was the place where the angels met Jacob, and who gave it the name from thence; and in later times a city of this name was built there, and was near the river Jabbok, Gen_32:2; Debir is different from that in the tribe of Judah, Jos_15:15; in the Septuagint version here it is called Daibon, perhaps the same with Dibon, the tribe of Gad rebuilt, and is called Dibongad, Num_32:34; unless Lidbar here should be the same with Lodebar in Gilead, 2Sa_17:27.

WHEDO , "26. From Heshbon — Which belonged to the Reubenites, (Joshua 13:17,) but stood so near the boundary between Reuben and Gad as to be occupied in common by both tribes. Compare Joshua 13:17 and Joshua 21:39, notes.

Ramath-mizpeh — Probably identical with Ramoth-gilead and Mizpeh of Gilead, which was allotted to the Levites and appointed one of the cities of refuge. Joshua 20:8; Joshua 21:38. Most modern scholars are inclined to locate it at the village of es-Salt, thirty miles north of Heshbon. “This is indicated,” says Porter, “(1) by its position on the summit of a steep hill; (2) by its old ecclesiastical name, Saltus Hieralicus, which appears to point to its original sacerdotal and holy character; (3) by the fact that about two miles to the northwest of es-Salt is the highest peak of the mountain range, still bearing the name Jebel Jilead; (4) by the statement of Eusebius that Ramoth-Gilead lay in the fifteenth mile from Philadelphia towards the west, and this is the exact distance of es-Salt from Rabbath-Ammon.” From its lofty position and sacred character it became a great sanctuary of the eastern tribes. See Judges 10:17, note.

Betonim — Probably identical with a ruined village Batneh, marked on the maps of Menke and Van de Velde about five miles west of es-Salt.

Mahanaim — The place where Jacob met with the angels of God, and therefore called by a name which signifies a double host or camp. Genesis 32:2, note. It stood on the border between Gad and Manasseh, (Joshua 13:30,) and was assigned to the Levites. Chap. Joshua 21:38. Here after Saul’s death Abner made Ishbosheth king, (2 Samuel 2:8,) and to this place David fled during the rebellion of Absalom. Its site is yet a matter of uncertainty. Some think it is the modern Mahneh, near Jebel Ajlun; while Porter suggests that it may have stood upon the site now occupied by the ruins of Gerasa. The border of Debir is utterly unknown. The Hebrew for of Debir is לדבר, and the first letter ל, lamedh, may be a part of the name, Lidbir. Reland thinks it may be the same as Lodebar, which, according to 2 Samuel 9:4, must have been in this same vicinity.

PETT,"Joshua 13:26

‘And from Heshbon to Ramath Mizpeh, and Betonim, and from Mahanaim to the border of Lidebir.’

Heshbon in Reuben indicated the southern border of Gad as commencing north of Heshbon. Ramath-mizpeh (the watchtower Ramath) was clearly the northern border. It was possibly the same as Ramoth-gilead (Ramoth in Gilead - Joshua 21:38). This was a walled city that featured regularly in wars with Syria. It provided residence for the Merarite Levites (Joshua 21:38; 1 Chronicles 6:80). Betonim means ‘pistachio nuts’. It has not been identified directly but Batneh, three miles west of es-Salt, recalls the name. Mahanaim means ‘two camps’. It was on the border of Gad with Manasseh (see Joshua 13:30), probably close to the northern bank of the River Jabbok. (Gad extended some kilometres north of the Jabbok). It was where Jacob met the angels of God before meeting Esau (Genesis 32:2). It was a Merarite Levite city in the territory of Gath (Joshua 21:38). Lidebir may have been Lo-debar (2 Samuel 9:4), probably not far from Mahanaim.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:26

Ramath-Mizpeh. This is idenitified with Ramoth-Gilead by Vandevelde, and must have been the Mizpeh of Gilead mentioned in 11:29. It is supposed to be identical with the place called Mizpah, Galeed, and Jegar-sahadutha by Jacob and Laban respectively (Genesis 31:47-49). If it be the same as Ramoth-Gilead, it is the scene of the celebrated battle against the Syrians, in which Ahab lost his life (1 Kings 22:1-53), and where the fall of the dynasty of Omri was brought about by the revolt of Jehu (2 Kings 9:1-37). Conder, however, thinks the two are distinct places, and fixes Ramoth-Mizpeh on the north border of Gad, about 25 reties west of Bozrah.

Mahanaim The dual of מהנה two hosts or camps. It received its name from Jacob, who with his own company met the angels of God, and who commemorated the meeting by this name (see Genesis 32:2). Here Ishbesheth was crowned (2 Samuel 2:8). Here David took refuge when he crossed the Jordan, to avoid falling into the hands of Absalom (2 Samuel 17:24). Debir. ot the Debir mentioned in 10:1-18; but another Debir in the land of Gilead, whose site is unknown.

27 and in the valley, Beth Haram, Beth imrah, Sukkoth and Zaphon with the rest of the realm of Sihon king of Heshbon (the east side of the Jordan, the territory up to the end of the Sea of Galilee[b]).

CLARKE, "Beth-aram - This city was rebuilt by Herod, and called Livias, in honor of Livia, the wife of Augustus. Josephus calls it Julias, Julia being the name which the Greeks commonly give to Livia. - Calmet.

Succoth - A place between Jabbok and Jordan where Jacob pitched his tents, from which circumstance it obtained its name, see Gen_33:17.

GILL, "And in the valley, Betharam,.... The same with Bethharan; see Gill on Num_32:36,

and Bethnimrah; sometimes called Nimrah, Num_32:3; near to which were some waters, called the waters of Nimrim, Isa_15:6; It was in Jerom's (p) time a large village; it seems to have its name from leopards, which perhaps had their haunts hereabout:

and Succoth: the place where Jacob pitched his tent after he had passed over Jabbok; it is called in the Jerusalem Talmud (q) Thaarabah:

and Zaphon; which in the same Talmud is Amatho or Amathus, which Jerom says (r)is a village beyond Jordan, twenty one miles from Pella to the south, though he places it in the tribe of Reuben:

the rest of the kingdom of Sihon king of Heshbon; which was not given to the tribe of Reuben, Jos_13:21,

Jordan and his border; that is, the cities which were near it, as Kimchi; or that were upon the bank of it, as Jarchi:

even unto the edge of the sea of Chinnereth; the same with the lake of Gennesaret, Luk_5:1,

on the other side Jordan eastward; the other from that in which the inheritance of Gad lay, which was beyond Jordan, from the land of Canaan.

K&D 27-28, "On the north, the territory of Gad seems to have extended to the Jabbok, and only to have stretched beyond the Jabbok at Mahanaim, which formed the boundary of half-Manasseh, according to Jos_13:30. In the valley of the Jordan, on the other hand, the boundary reached to the Sea of Galilee. “The valley” is the valley of the Jordan, or the Arabah from Wady Hesbân above the Dead Sea up to the Sea of Galilee, along the east side of the Jordan, which belonged to the kingdom of Sihon (Jos_12:3; Deu_3:17). The northern boundary of the tribe of Reuben must have touched the Jordan in the neighbourhood of the Wady Hesbân. In the Jordan valley were Beth-haram, the future Libias, and present er Rameh (see at Num_32:36); Beth-nimra, according to the Onom. five Roman miles to the north, the present ruin of Nimrein (see at Num_32:36); Succoth, according to the Onom. trans Jordanem in parte Scythopoleos (see at Gen_33:17); Zaphon (i.e., north), probably not far from the southern extremity of the Sea of

Galilee. “The rest of the kingdom of Sihon,” the other part having been given to the Reubenites (Jos_13:21).

WHEDO , "27. The valley — The Jordan valley from the border of Reuben northward to the sea of Chinnereth. Beth-aram is doubtless the same as Beth-haran in umbers 32:36. In Eusebius, Jerome, and the Talmud it is called Bethramtha. It has not been accurately identified, but very probably will be found at the ruins called er-Ram just north of the Wady Heshban. The site of Beth-nimrah is still preserved in imrin, located, according to Robinson’s map, near the mouth of the Wady Shoaib, and about twelve miles north of er-Ram. In umbers 32:3, it is called simply imrah. From its abundance of water and likeness of name in the Septuagint it seems to meet the requirements of the Bethabara of the ew Testament. See note on John 1:28.

Succoth — An important place east of the Jordan, where Jacob built a house and made booths for his cattle after his meeting with Esau. Genesis 33:17. Its exact location is unknown. Zaphon is mentioned again only at Judges 12:1, where see note. o modern trace of it has been discovered.

The rest of the kingdom of Sihon — That is, the portion of it that was left after allotting the southern part to the tribe of Reuben. See note on Joshua 13:21.

Sea of Chinnereth — See note on Joshua 11:2. The subsequent fate of the children of Gad was very like that of the tribe of Reuben. See note on Joshua 13:23.

PETT, "Joshua 13:27

‘And in the valley, Beth-haram and Beth-nimrah, and Succoth and Zaphon, the rest of the kingdom of Sihon, king of Heshbon, Jordan and a border to the uttermost part of the Sea of Chinnereth Beyond Jordan eastward.’“The valley” is the Jordan Rift valley from the Sea of Chinnereth (later the Sea of Galilee) to the Dead Sea. These cities were in the Jordan valley with Jordan as the border. Beth-haram (Beth-haran - umbers 32:36) is probably to be identified with Tell Iktanu, twelve kilometres north east of the mouth of the Jordan. It was probably a border strongpoint to protect their cattle. Beth-nimrah ( imrah - umbers 32:3; imrim - Isaiah 15:6; Jeremiah 48:34) is possibly Tell imrin beside the Wadi Shaib. Succoth (see Psalms 60:6) was not far from a water passage (Joshua 8:5; Joshua 8:16) and from Zarethan (1 Kings 7:46) in the Jordan Rift valley. It refused sustenance to the men of Gideon (Judges 8:5-6) and its leaders were severely punished for it (Judges 8:14-16). Zaphon was near Succoth and is mentioned in Judges 12:1.

These formed the remainder of the kingdom of Sihon, with Jordan up to the Sea of Chinnereth as the border.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:27

The valley. The Emek (see Joshua 8:13). Beth- imrah (see umbers 32:36). Afterwards imrim (Isaiah 15:6; Jeremiah 48:34). ow imrin. Succoth. i.e; booths. Here Jacob rested after his meeting with Esau (Genesis 33:17). Here Gideon "taught the men of Succoth," who had declined to provide food for his army ( 8:5, 8:7, 8:16). It is mentioned in connection with Zarthan, or Zaretan (cf. Joshua 3:16) as being in the tract or ככר of the Jordan, where the metal work of the temple was cast (1 Kings 7:46; 2 Chronicles 4:17). Zaphon. Perhaps, and the orth; what remained of the kingdom of Sihon, i.e; as is implied above, the part which was not assigned to Reuben. Jordan and his border. Literally, Jordan and a border (see note on Joshua 13:23). The edge. Rather, the end (see note on Joshua 13:24).

28 These towns and their villages were the inheritance of the Gadites, according to their clans.

GILL, "This is the inheritance of the children of Gad, after their families,.... As described in Jos_13:27,

the cities and their villages; the cities given them, some of which are mentioned by name, and the villages adjacent and belonging to them were included in them.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:28

This is the inheritance of the children of Gad. The cause of the difference between the Reubenites and the Gadites may perhaps be thus explained. While both inhabited a similar tract of country, a country from its open and pastoral character likely to develop a hardy and healthy race of men, the Reubenites were exposed to the seductions of the Moabitish worship of Chemosh, which, when combined with an ancestral temperament by no means prone to resist such influences (see Genesis 49:4), soon proved fatal to a tribe, itself not numerous (Deuteronomy 33:6), and hemmed in on every side but the north by the unbelievers. The temperament

inherited by the Gadites added to their more favourable situation and the nature of their pursuits, developed a hardy and warlike race ready to do battle, and fearless of their foes (1 Chronicles 5:18). Of this tribe came the valiant Jephthah, and of it also came the brave soldiers of David, whose qualifications stir to poetry the sober chronicler of Judah (1 Chronicles 12:8). We may see here the influence of circumstances on the character of a people. Originally (1 Chronicles 5:18) the Reubenites and the Gadites were alike. But the Reubenites, as we have seen, from unfavourable surroundings, lost the character which the Gadites, more favourably situated, were enabled to preserve. And the distinctions of tribes, producing as they did a separate esprit de corps in each tribe, will serve to explain why one tribe did not immediately succumb to influences which proved fatal to another. In the end, as we know, all the people of Gad fell victims to the temptations which surrounded them, and, save in the case of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin, and the few faithful Israelites who went over to them, irrevocably. The same phenomenon may be observed in the history of nations generally. As long as their manners were simple and their morals pure, they have preserved their liberty, and in many cases have acquired empire. As soon as their bodies were enervated by luxury, and their minds corrupted by vice, they fell a prey to foes whom formerly they would have despised. Thus fell the Greek and Boman republics, thus the Britons became an easy prey to the Saxons, and the Saxons to the Danes. In every instance the history of a tribe and of a nation serves to illustrate the maxim that "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."

29 This is what Moses had given to the half-tribe of Manasseh, that is, to half the family of the descendants of Manasseh, according to its clans:

BAR ES, "Jos_13:29-33

On the conquest of Bashan, see especially Num_32:33, etc. and notes.

CLARKE, "The half tribe of Manasseh - When the tribes of Reuben and Gad requested to have their settlement on the east side of Jordan, it does not appear that any part of the tribe of Manasseh requested to be settled in the same place. But as this tribe was numerous, and had much cattle, Moses thought proper to appoint one half of it to remain on the east of Jordan, and the other to go over and settle on the west side of that river.

GILL, "And Moses gave inheritance unto the half tribe of Manasseh,.... Whether at their request or of himself, there being land enough for them, and the two tribes of Gad and Reuben, is not certain:

and this is the possession of the half tribe of Manasseh, by their families; which is after related and described.

HE RY 29-31, "The lot of the half-tribe of Manasseh, Jos_13:29-31. Bashan, the kingdom of Og, was in this allotment, famous for the best timber, witness the oaks of Bashan - and the best breed of cattle, witness the bulls and rams of Bashan. This tribe lay north of Gad, reached to Mount Hermon, and had in it part of Gilead. Mispeh was in this half-tribe, and Jephthah was one of its ornaments; so was Elijah, for in this tribe was Thisbe, whence he is called the Tishbite; and Jair was another. In the edge of the tribe stood Chorazin, honoured with Christ's wondrous works, but ruined by his righteous woe for not improving them.

K&D 29-31, "The territory of the half tribe of Manasseh extended from Mahanaim onwards, and embraced all Bashan, with the sixty Jair towns and the (northern) half of Gilead (see the comm. on Deu_3:13-15).

BE SO ,"Joshua 13:29. Unto the half-tribe of Manasseh — ot that they desired it, as Reuben and Gad did, ( umbers 32:1,) but partly as a recompense to Machir the Manassite, for his valiant acts against Og, and partly because the country was too large for the two tribes of Reuben and Gad.

COKE, "Verses 29-31Ver. 29-31. And Moses gave inheritance unto the half tribe of Manasseh— It does not appear that the tribe of Manasseh had desired the settlements which Moses gave to the half tribe of it on the east of Jordan, umbers 32:1-2. But as it was numerous, umbers 26:34 and had evidently much cattle, Moses thought proper to associate the half with the tribes of Reuben and Gad. The country was extensive. The half tribe of Manasseh, placed on the north, covered the two others; and Moses, by placing it there, rewarded the family of Machir, who was so famous for his valour in the war against Og. umbers 32:39.

WHEDO , "MA ASSEH’S (EASTER ) LOT, Joshua 13:29-33.

29. The half tribe of Manasseh — The division of a tribe in Israel into two parts is a strange and singular fact. In some respects it seems accidental, in other respects providential. “Machir, Jair, and obah, the sons of Manasseh, were no shepherds. They were pure warriors, who had taken the most prominent part in the conquest of those provinces which up to that time had been conquered, and whose deeds are constantly referred to with credit and renown. umbers 32:39; Deuteronomy 3:13-15. ‘Jair the son of Manasseh took all the tract of Argob… sixty great cities.’ ‘ obah took Kehath and the daughter towns thereof, and called it after his own name.’ Deuteronomy 32:42. ‘Because Machir was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead

and Bashan.’ Joshua 17:1. The district which these ancient warriors conquered was the most difficult in the whole country. And had they not remained in these wild and inaccessible districts, but had gone forward and taken their lot with the rest, who shall say what changes might not have occurred in the history of their nation through the presence of such energetic and warlike spirits?” — Grove, in Smith’s Dict. But perhaps these very warlike spirits were providentially settled in these eastern hills to save western Palestine from the proximity of dangerous foes that might otherwise have settled there.

The country of Bashan, occupied by these Manassites, was, according to Porter, “the richest in all Palestine. It is to this day the granary of a great part of Syria. Its whole surface is dotted with ruined or deserted towns and villages.”

COFFMA , "Verse 29"And Moses gave inheritance unto the half-tribe of Manasseh; and it was for the half-tribe of the children of Manasseh according to their families. And their border was from Mahanaim, all Bashan, all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, and all the towns of Jair, which are in Bashan, three-score cities. and half Gilead, and Ashteroth, and Edrei, the cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan, were for the children of Machir the son of Manasseh, even for the half of the children of Machir according to their families."

"This description of Manasseh's territory consists of little else besides the enumeration of districts, the nucleus of which consisted of all of Bashan and half of Gilead."[30] The prominence of Machir in this paragraph probably came from his power as a good warrior. This territory reached all the way from Mount Hermon almost to the Jabbok River, and also included all of the upper reaches of the Jordan River.

PETT, "The Portion of the Half-tribe of Manasseh (Joshua 13:29-31).

Joshua 13:29

‘And Moses gave to the half-tribe of Manasseh and it was for the half-tribe of the children of Manasseh according to their families.’For this compare Joshua 13:15; Joshua 13:24. It is noteworthy that their portions are said to be given by Moses, not by YHWH. It must not be overemphasised but it is suggesting that it was not YHWH Who gave them this land east of Jordan. It was theirs by concession. Later much of it would be lost because of their disobedience to YHWH.

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:29

The halftribe of Manasseh. The word used for "tribe" in the first and second half of this verse is not the same. Some German critics have derived an argument for the hypothesis that the historical and geographical portions of the book are not by the same hand, from the supposed fact that the former of these words is used almost

exclusively in the first, or historical portion, and the latter in the second, or geographical portion, of the book. The word "almost" would be almost sufficient to overthrow the theory, but this verse is an insuperable objection to it. Is it seriously contended that one half of this verse is taken from one author, and the other from another? Or is it possible that the writer of the book may actually have understood the language he was using, and meant to use the two words in somewhat different senses? Gesenius, it is true, would explain the words as being precisely synonymous. But his own etymological remarks are fatal to his theory. מטה the latter of the two words, is a bough, or shoot (derived from a word signifying to grow), capable of throwing out blossoms (Ezekiel 7:10). It refers, therefore, to the natural descent of the tribe from Manasseh their father. But שבט is allied to שפט; to judge, and the Greek σκήπτρον, and perhaps the English shaft, and signifies a rod as the emblem of authority. Thus it is used in Genesis 49:10, of a royal sceptre. So Psalms 2:9, an iron sceptre, Psalms 45:6. Thus the latter word has reference to the tribe as an organised community, the former to it in reference to its ancestral derivation. This view would seem to be supported by verse 24, where the מטה of Gad is further explained to mean his sons and their families, as well as by this verse, where the שבטis used absolutely, the מטה in connection with the family

30 The territory extending from Mahanaim and including all of Bashan, the entire realm of Og king of Bashan—all the settlements of Jair in Bashan, sixty towns,

CLARKE, "The towns of Jair - These were sixty cities; they are mentioned afterwards, and in 1Ch_2:21, etc. They are the same with the Havoth-jair mentioned Num_32:41. Jair was son of Segub, grandson of Esron or Hezron, and great-grandson of Machir by his grandmother’s side, who married Hezron of the tribe of Judah. See his genealogy, 1Ch_2:21-24.

GILL, "And their coast was from Mahanaim,.... A place in the tribe of Gad, Jos_13:26; which was the boundary of the half tribe that way:

all Bashan; so famous for its oxen, and for pasturage for them, and for its oaks, called by Josephus Batanea:

all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan; which, besides Bashan, took in the kingdom of Argob or Trachonitis, half the land of Gilead, all which was possessed by the half tribe of Manasseh: see Deu_3:13,

and all the towns of, Jair which are in Bashan, threescore cities; of Jair, and his relation to Manasseh, and of his taking these cities, and the number of them, see Num_33:41.

BE SO ,"Joshua 13:30. All the towns of Jair — Who, though of the tribe of Judah, by the father, (1 Chronicles 2:21-22,) yet is called the son of Manasseh, ( umbers 32:41,) because he married a daughter of Manasseh, and wholly associated himself with those valiant Manassites; and with their help took sixty cities or great towns, (Deuteronomy 3:4; Deuteronomy 3:14,) which thence were called the towns of Jair.

WHEDO , "30. All Bashan — This region, distinguished for its fertility, thrifty herds and flocks, and lofty oaks, extended from Gilead on the south to Mount Hermon on the north, and from the Jordan valley on the west far into the eastern and northeastern desert. See on Deuteronomy 3:1-14.

All the towns of Jair — That is, the towns that were taken by Jair, the son of Manasseh, and called by his own name. umbers 32:41. They have the name Havoth-jair and Bashan-havoth-jair, (Deuteronomy 3:14,) and Porter affirms the two names are not to be confounded. “The towns of Havoth-jair were situated in Gilead south of the river Hieromax, while those of Bashan-havoth-jair were in Bashan, and identical with the sixty great cities of Argob.” According to this distinction the threescore cities here mentioned constituted Bashan-havoth-jair. See 1 Kings 4:13, note.

PETT, "Joshua 13:30-31

‘And their border was from Mahanaim, all Bashan, all the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan, and all the towns of Jair which are in Bashan, sixty cities, and half Gilead, and Ashtaroth and Edrei, the cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan, were for the children of Machir, the son of Manasseh, even for the half of the children of Machir according to their families.’The description of the portion of the half-tribe of Manasseh is succint and to the point. It included the whole of the former kingdon of Og, king of Bashan, including the towns of Jair. Jair was a descendant of Manasseh who took several towns and villages in Bashan and Gilead when Bashan was invaded ( umbers 32:41) calling them Havvoth-jair (‘the towns of Jair’ - see also Deuteronomy 3:14). He seems originally to have had sixty ‘cities’ (mainly tent villages?), which reduced to twenty three, which at some time Geshur and Aram (Syria) took from him (1 Chronicles

2:22). But later in the period of the Judges his descendant ruled over thirty cities (Judges 10:3) so he or one of his descendants must have re-established them.

This brings out the precarious nature of life in Bashan. It was a land of cattle and sheep farming and pasturage (Psalms 22:12; Ezekiel 39:18; Amos 4:1; Jeremiah 50:19) and of mighty oaks (Isaiah 2:13; Ezekiel 27:6), but there were enemies to the north. If only they had obeyed God and removed the Geshurites and the Maacathites (Joshua 13:13) they would have avoided many of these troubles. As well as Bashan they possessed north Gilead.

Ashtaroth was presumably a centre for the worship of the Canaanite goddess Ashtaroth and is probably Tell Ashtarah thirty kilometres (eighteen miles) east of the Sea of Galilee (Chinneroth). It is also probably to be identified with the strt of the records of Tuthmosis III, the astarte of the Amarna letters and the astartu of Assyrian inscriptions. Edrei is probably modern Der‘a. It occupies a key point for communications in the Bashan area and has remains dating from the early bronze age.

“Were for the children of Machir, the son of Manasseh, even for the half of the children of Machir according to their families.” Manasseh’s son Machir was clearly a strong character and a powerful man for his name to be applied to the family tribe of Manasseh (Asriel may well have died young - 1 Chronicles 7:14). He represented the whole of Manasseh both east and west. He established his own sub-tribe, the Machirites, and was the father of Gilead, the ancestor of the Gileadites ( umbers 26:29). The warlikeness of his sub-tribe was one reason why they were given Bashan and Gilead (Joshua 17:1). See also umbers 32:39-40; umbers 36:1; Deuteronomy 3:15.

(‘Father of’ and ‘son of’ are relationships that can have wide meaning. They may indicate direct descent, distant descent or adoption. ote how in Genesis 10 indication is given of tribes ‘descended from’ patriarchs because they were connected with patriarchal descendants).

PULPIT, "Joshua 13:30

The towns of Jair. Literally, Havoth-Jair, as in umbers 32:41; Deuteronomy 3:14. The word חית is derived from חוה to live, and the word is compared by Gesenius to the names Eisleben and the like in Germany. So we use the phrase "five," as synonymous with "dwell." Why the term is confined to these particular cities is not known. Gesenius regards it as equivalent to "nomadic encampment." But the ruins of the giant cities of Bashan, recently rediscovered in our own time, and displaying all the signs of high civilisation, dispose of this idea. These cities are mentioned in Deuteronomy 3:4 as "threescore cities, all the region of Argob," and again in Deuteronomy 3:13, "all the region of Argob with all Bashan, which is called the land of giants." "To the east he (Abraham) would leave the barren and craggy fatnesses of the formidable Argob, still (i.e; in Abraham's time, not Joshua's) the asylum of the fiercest outlaws; and would jealously avoid the heathen haunts in groves and on

high places where smoke arose to the foul image, and the frantic dance swept round.". Threescore cities (cf. Joshua 17:1). It was the martial character, as well as the half tribe of Manasseh, that qualified him to receive and subdue this important territory with its wide extent and teeming population. In the article on Manasseh in Smith's 'Dictionary of the Bible,' reference is made to the fact that, while Ephraim only sent 20,800, and Western Manasseh 18,000, Reuben, Gad, and Eastern Manasseh sent the immense number of 120,000, and this while Abner, the supporter of Ishbosheth, had his headquarters at Mahanaim. But the numbers are suspicious, especially when Judah, always a powerful tribe, comes below the insignificant tribe of Simeon in number. And a comparison of 2 Samuel 5:1 with 1 Chronicles 12:22, 1 Chronicles 12:23, would lead to the idea that the coronation of David after the death of Ishbosheth is the event referred to (see also 1 Chronicles 12:38-40).

31 half of Gilead, and Ashtaroth and Edrei (the royal cities of Og in Bashan). This was for the descendants of Makir son of Manasseh—for half of the sons of Makir, according to their clans.

GILL, "And half Gilead,.... The other half not given to the Gadites, who had that half of it which Sihon possessed, and the tribe of Manasseh that half of it which Og possessed, see Deu_3:12,

and Ashtaroth, and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan; which are particularly mentioned, because royal cities, Jos_13:10; see Deu_1:4,

were pertaining unto the children of Machir the son of Manasseh; and who was his only son; however, to his posterity only was this inheritance given, though not to them all:

even to one half of the children of Machir, by their families; which seems to confirm it that Manasseh had no other son, since his whole posterity, both the half tribe on the other side, as well as that in the land of Canaan, were denominated from him; though he seems to have had another son, who p

BE SO ,"Joshua 13:31. Children of Machir — Whom before he called the children of Manasseh, he now calls the children of Machir, because Machir was the most eminent, and, as it may seem, the only surviving son of Manasseh, umbers 26:29; 1 Chronicles 7:14-16.

TRAPP, "Joshua 13:31 And half Gilead, and Ashtaroth, and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan, [were pertaining] unto the children of Machir the son of Manasseh, [even] to the one half of the children of Machir by their families.

Ver. 31. Mackir the son of Manasseh.] Whose children had taken Gilead: and therefore had the like right to it as Jacob had to that portion of ground which he gave to their great-grandfather Joseph.

COKE, "Ver. 31. Half of the children of Machir, by their families— Jair had the honour to be included, though of the tribe of Judah, because he had contributed to the conquest of the country, umbers 32:41-42.; and was moreover great grand-son, by the grand-mother's side, of Machir, who married Hezron, of the tribe of Judah, 1 Chronicles 2:21.

ote; It is repeatedly mentioned, that the Levites had no lot among their brethren; but they had a better, Jehovah, who was their portion; and by his service they were liberally provided for. ote; They who have a portion in the Lord need not envy the world the possession of the land.

WHEDO , "31. Half Gilead — The northern half, for the southern was assigned to Gad. Joshua 13:25.

Ashtaroth — Generally supposed to be identical with the Ashteroth-karnaim of Genesis 14:5. It was doubtless so called from being the seat of worship of the Phenician goddess Ashtoreth, the Greek Astarte. Its ruins are supposed to lie at the modern Tell-Astereh, some fifteen miles east of the Sea of Galilee. Edrei was the other chief city of the kingdom of Bashan, and here King Og was defeated and slain. umbers 21:33-35. It was a stronghold among the rocks, and its ruins have been found in the modern Edra, thirty miles or more northeast of the Sea of Galilee. J.L. Porter visited the ruins a few years ago and thus wrote: “The situation is most remarkable; without a single spring of living water; without river or stream; without access, except over rocks and through defiles all but impassable; without tree or garden. In selecting the site everything seems to have been sacrificed to security and strength. The huge masses of shattered masonry could scarcely be distinguished from the rocks that encircled them, and all, ruins and rocks alike, are black as if scathed by lightning.”

Unto the children of Machir — “Because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan.” Joshua 17:1.

Even to the one half — The heads of the families of this half are named in 1

Chronicles 5:24.]

32 This is the inheritance Moses had given when he was in the plains of Moab across the Jordan east of Jericho.

CLARKE, "Which Moses did distribute - Moses had settled every thing relative to these tribes before his death, having appointed them to possess the territories of Og king of Bashan, and Sihon king of the Amorites. For particulars on this chapter, the reader, if he judge it of consequence, may consult Calmet.

GILL, "These are the countries which Moses did distribute for inheritance in the plains of Moab,.... Which is particularly described, that each might know their proper portion:

on the other side Jordan by Jericho eastward; of the land of Canaan; of Jordan by Jericho; see Gill on Num_22:1.

K&D 32-33, "Jos_13:32 is the concluding formula. (For the fact itself, see Num_34:14-15.) Jos_13:33 is a repetition of Jos_13:14.

COFFMA , "Verse 32"These are the inheritances which Moses distributed in the plains of Moab, beyond the Jordan at Jericho, eastward. But unto the tribe of Levi Moses gave no inheritance: Jehovah, the God of Israel, is their inheritance, as he spake unto them."

Who but Joshua would have been so particular at this point to repeat the allocations made by Moses, doing so in great detail? This is in perfect keeping with what is known of the character and disposition of Joshua, and of no other. He did not wish to carry out even a Divine assignment, without acknowledging in such a dramatic manner the magnificent debt that all of them already owed to the Great Lawgiver.

CO STABLE, "Verse 32-33The description of this territory ends with a reminder of the Levites" inheritance,

who received a special relationship to God rather than a tract of land.

"The two and one-half tribes chose, as Lot did, on the basis of appearance (cf. Genesis 13:10-11), and their inheritance was ultimately lost to them [cf. 1 Chronicles 5:26]. On the other hand the Levites, requesting no portion, were given an inheritance of abiding spiritual significance." [ ote: Campbell, " Joshua ," p356.]

PETT, "Verse 32-33‘These are the inheritances which Moses distributed in the plains of Moab Beyond Jordan at Jericho eastward. But to the tribe of Levi Moses gave no inheritance. YHWH the God of Israel is their inheritance.’The contrast is again drawn between the inheritance Moses gave and the inheritance he could not give. That which was Beyond Jordan eastward was gifted by Moses. But Levi had their inheritance directly from YHWH, and He was their inheritance. The two and one half tribes coveted Transjordan because it was good and suited their way of life. They did not consider the fact that it was outside the promised land, even though granted with YHWH’s permission. But Levi had all their heart set on God, and all they had came from Him. They were truly blessed and could never lose their inheritance, for it was untouchable. It is a reminder to us that we do well not to look at the things that are seen, but at the things that are not seen, for the things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18).

“The plains (or ‘steppes”) of Moab.’ These were a plain in the land taken from Moab by Sihon, north of the Dead Sea eastward (see umbers 22:1; umbers 26:3; umbers 26:63).

33 But to the tribe of Levi, Moses had given no inheritance; the Lord, the God of Israel, is their inheritance, as he promised them.

GILL, "But unto the tribe of Levi Moses gave not any inheritance,.... Neither on the other side Jordan, nor did he order them any in Canaan; but expressly declared they were to have no part in the division of it, though they were his own tribe; which shows him to be a disinterested man, that he faithfully observed the orders and

instructions the Lord gave him:

the Lord God of Israel was their inheritance, as he said unto them; what was given to the Lord out of the sacrifices, and the tithes, and firstfruits, that were theirs; see Num_18:20.

HE RY, " Twice in this chapter it is taken notice of that to the tribe of Levi Moses gave no inheritance (Jos_13:14, Jos_13:33), for so God had appointed, Num_18:20. If they had been appointed to a lot entire by themselves, Moses would have served them first, not because it was his own tribe, but because it was God's; but they must be provided for in another manner; their habitations must be scattered in all the tribes, and their maintenance brought out of all the tribes, and God himself was the portion both of their inheritance and of their cup, Deu_10:9; Deu_18:2.

PARKER, ""The Lord God of Israel was their inheritance, as he said unto them." — Joshua 13:33

This was spoken of the tribe of Levi—in a peculiar sense the religious tribe of Israel.—The kingdom of God has an outward and an inward aspect: it has a land to be conquered, and it has a doctrine to be received and obeyed.—The idea of the text is that man may so live in God as to have no conscious need of outward things: and then the counterpart of the idea is that he who ascends to spiritual functions need have no fear with regard to the supply of physical necessities.—God is not the portion of religious men in the sense of feeding themselves only with thought and consolation and promise; he is pledged so to act upon the impulses and consciences of other men as to see that every lawful necessity is abundantly supplied.—Whilst the Levites were asking for God, God was asking for them, in the very sense of finding them bread and home and security.—If we trusted God more we should receive more from God.—If we will always persist in undertaking our own business, what wonder if God should leave us to ourselves and give us the reward of disappointment? "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."—Blessed is he who has God for a treasurer.—It is more than folly to say that all this is impossible.—We imagine that we must do so much ourselves, or God will do nothing for us; and that statement is so far true as to give the sophism which lies at the heart of it some hold upon the confidence of the least earnest thinkers.—The text certainly suggests that God has appointed some men to be the spiritual teachers and guides of the world.—We cannot get rid of the idea of spiritual ministry.—It is right to disclaim all merely official dignity and importance, but infinitely beyond the merely official lies the grandly personal and real, which all men recognise with admiration, and many men honour with homage and generous support.—When spiritual thinkers and workers give themselves wholly to the function assigned them of God, they will realise more perfectly God"s meaning when he says he has undertaken to be their inheritance; the meaning is not that they are to live upon fine thoughts and splendid conceptions, but that in addition to such thoughts and conceptions God himself will undertake to see that their house is watched and their table is supplied.—"He is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think." "God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love."— o man can work wholly and lovingly for

God, and be neglected by him.—"Trust in the Lord, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed."