Joshua 16 commentary

JOSHUA 16 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Allotment for Ephraim and Manasseh
1 The allotment for Joseph began at the Jordan,
east of the springs of Jericho, and went up from
there through the desert into the hill country of
Bethel.
BAR ES, "To the wilderness - Strike out “to,” for the word is in apposition to
“lot.” The wilderness is Jos_18:12 “the wilderness of Bethaven.”
CLARKE,"The children of Joseph - Ephraim and Manasseh, and their
descendants. The limits of the tribe of Ephraim extended along the borders of Benjamin
and Dan, from Jordan on the east to the Mediterranean on the west.
GILL, "And the lot of the children of Joseph fell,.... Or, "went out" (a); of the pot
or urn, this being the next lot that was drawn to that of Judah, the government being
Judah's, and the birthright Joseph's, 1Ch_5:2; and by his children are here meant the
tribe of Ephraim, and the tribe of Manasseh: or the line and border according to the lot
went forth
from Jordan by Jericho unto the water of Jericho on the east; by which it
appears, that this was the southern border of the lot; for the tribe of Benjamin, in which
Jericho was, lay between Judah and Ephraim, and the border began at Jordan, where it
flowed near Jericho, and proceeded to a water which belonged to that city, and is
generally thought to be the waters Elisha healed, 2Ki_2:19,
to the wilderness that goeth up throughout Mount Bethel; this was the
wilderness of Bethaven, Jos_18:12; Jarchi interprets it of the border that went up
through Mount Bethel; which is true, and so might the wilderness also, for which the
Targum is express; mention is made of a mountain on the east of Bethel, Gen_12:8.

HE RY 1-4, "Though Joseph was one of the younger sons of Jacob, yet he was his
eldest by his most just and best beloved wife Rachel, was himself his best beloved son,
and had been the greatest ornament and support of his family, kept it from perishing in
a time of famine, and had been the shepherd and stone of Israel, and therefore his
posterity were very much favoured by the lot. Their portion lay in the very heart of the
land of Canaan. It extended from Jordan in the east (Jos_16:1) to the sea, the
Mediterranean Sea, in the west, so that it took up the whole breadth of Canaan from side
to side; and no question the fruitfulness of the soil answered the blessings both of Jacob
and Moses, Gen_49:25, Gen_49:26, and Deu_33:13, etc. The portions allotted to
Ephraim and Manasseh are not so particularly described as those of the other tribes; we
have only the limits and boundaries of them, not the particular cities in them, as before
we had the cities of Judah and afterwards those of the other tribes. For this no reason
can be assigned, unless we may suppose that Joshua being himself of the children of
Joseph they referred it to him alone to distribute among them the several cities that lay
within their lot, and therefore did not bring in the names of their cities to the great
council of their princes who sat upon this affair, by which means it came to pass that
they were not inserted with the rest in the books.
JAMISO ,"Jos_16:1-4. The general borders of the sons of Joseph.
the lot of the children of Joseph fell — Hebrew, “went forth,” referring either to
the lot as drawn out of the urn, or to the tract of land thereby assigned. The first four
verses describe the territory allotted to the family of Joseph in the rich domains of
central Palestine. It was drawn in one lot, that the brethren might be contiguously
situated; but it was afterwards divided. The southern boundary only is described here;
that on the north being irregular and less defined (Jos_17:10, Jos_17:11), is not
mentioned.
water of Jericho — (2Ki_2:19), at the joint of its junction with the Jordan.
mount Beth-el — the ridge south of Beth-el. Having described the position of
Joseph’s family generally the historian proceeds to define the territory; first, that of
Ephraim.
K&D 1-4, "Territory of the tribe of Joseph. - Jos_16:1. “And there came out the lot of
the children of Joseph from Jordan by Jericho.” “The lot came out,” viz., from the turn
(cf. Jos_19:1, Jos_19:17, Jos_19:24). The expression “came up” is used in the same sense
in Jos_18:11. The connection of these two words with the rest of the sentence, “from
Jordan by Jericho,” may be explained on the supposition that the lot which came out of
the urn determined the inheritance that fell to the tribe, so that we might paraphrase the
verse in this manner: “There came out the lot to the children of Joseph, namely, the
inheritance, which goes out from, or whose boundary commences at, the Jordan by
Jericho,” i.e., from that part of the Jordan which is opposite to Jericho, and which is still
more precisely defined by the additional clause, “by the water of Jericho eastward.” The
water of Jericho is the present fountain of es Sultan, half an hour to the north-west of
Riha, the only large fountain in the neighbourhood of Jericho, whose waters spread over
the plain, and form a small brook, which no doubt flows in the rainy season through the
Wady Kelt into the Jordan (see Rob. ii. pp. 283-4; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 558-
9). “The wilderness” is in opposition to “the lot,” so that the sense is, “namely, the desert
going up from Jericho to the mountains to Bethel.” According to Jos_18:12, the

reference is to the desert of Beth-aven, which was on the east of Bethel, between the
Wady Suwar (Tuwar) and Mutyah (see at Jos_7:2). Towards the east this desert
terminates with the Jebel Kuruntul (Quarantana) on the north-west of Jericho, where it
descends precipitously into the valley of the Jordan, or v. v., where it rises out of the
Jordan valley. According to Jos_18:12, the same boundary went up by the shoulder of
Jericho towards the north, i.e., along the northern range of mountains by Jericho, which
cannot be any other than the “conspicuous double height, or rather group of heights,” in
front of the mountain of Quarantana, at the eastern foot of which lies the fountain of Ain
es Sultan (Rob. ii. p. 284). In all probability, therefore, the boundary ran up towards the
north-west, from the Sultan fountain to Ain Duk, and thence in a westerly direction
across to Abu Seba (along which road Robinson had a frightful desert on his right hand:
Pal. ii. p. 310), and then again towards the north-west to Beitin (Bethel), according to
Jos_18:13, along the southern shoulder (or side) of Luz, i.e., Bethel.
CALVI , "1.And the lot of the children of Joseph fell, etc The sacred writer first
states what the lot was which fell to the two children of Joseph, and then describes
the lot of Ephraim. It is strange, however, that when the half of the tribe of
Manasseh had already been settled beyond the Jordan, more words are employed in
describing the remaining half than in describing the whole of the inheritance of the
tribe of Ephraim, though the latter was the more populous, and justly claimed for
itself a larger territory. But the longer detail given concerning the posterity of
Manasseh is owing to particular circumstances. First, the writer repeats how a
settlement had been given them without lot in the country of Basan. Secondly, he
mentions the ratification by Joshua of the command which Moses had given by
divine authority in regard to the daughters of Selophead. Seeing, then, there was no
doubt in regard to the boundaries of Ephraim, and there was no danger of dispute,
their allocation is only briefly glanced at.
But here a new question arises. When the right of primogeniture had passed from
Manasseh to Ephraim, how did the posterity of that tribe which had precedence in
rank obtain their cities among the children of Manasseh? For theirs seems in this
way to have been the inferior condition. My explanation is this, When the portion of
Manasseh was too extensive in proportion to the amount of population, a calculation
was made, and certain cities were deducted to complete the just share of the tribe of
Ephraim; not that they were mixed up with the children of Manasseh, to hold their
dwellings among them by a precarious tenure, (153) but their boundaries were
merely extended in the direction of the Manassites whom a narrower possession
might suffice.
In the end of the chapter, Ephraim is severely censured for his effeminacy in not
having expelled the Canaanites from Gezer. For had they proceeded in a manly and
hearty manner to make good their right to the land which had fallen to them by lot,
the victory was in their hands. There would have been no temerity in the attempt,
since the decision of the lot was as valid as if the Lord himself had stretched forth
his hand from heaven. But their disgraceful sloth is more clearly expressed and their
culpability greatly heightened by the fact, that they made tributaries of those with
whom it was not lawful to enter into any kind of arrangement. Seeing, then, God
had distinctly forbidden his people to transact business of any kind with those

nations, and least of all to enter into pactions with them, stipulating for their pardon
and safety, the Ephraimites sinned much more grievously in exacting tribute than if
they had tolerated them without paction. (154)
BE SO ,"oshua 16:1. The lot of the children of Joseph — That is, of Ephraim, and
that half of the tribe of Manasseh which was not yet provided for, Joshua 16:4. One
cannot but observe the providence of God in bringing up their lot next to Judah’s.
For as he had the prerogative of being made the chief of all Jacob’s children,
(Genesis 49:10,) so Joseph had that privilege of the firstborn, a double portion,
transferred to his family. And therefore they have their inheritance assigned them
before any of the other tribes except Judah.
TRAPP, " And the lot of the children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto
the water of Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho
throughout mount Bethel,
Ver. 1. And the lot of the children of Joseph.] See Joshua 15:1.
From Jordan by Jericho.] On the north of Canaan, as Judah’s had fallen on the
south: that these two strongest tribes might be as bulwarks to both sides of the
kingdom. So in their march through the wilderness, in their several companies or
brigades, God put a strong tribe to two weak tribes, as Judah to Issachar and
Zebulon, &c. See Isaiah 26:1; Isaiah 40:11.
Unto the water of Jericho.] Afterwards made no less famous than wholesome by
Elisha’s healing of them. [2 Kings 2:21]
PETT, "Chapter 16 The Lot For the Children of Joseph.
In this chapter the lot allocated to the children of Joseph, seen as one tribe and yet
two, is described. It was the portion north of that of Benjamin and Dan. It was not
necessary to deal with it in such detail because it was discernible from the
boundaries of the other tribes. Their prospective possessions occupied the centre of
Palestine, bounded on the north by the Plain of Esdraelon, and the territories of
Asher and Issachar, and on the south by those of Dan (Joshua 19:41-46) and
Benjamin (Joshua 18:11-28). o list of towns is given, possibly because of the stress
on their need to clear the forest land (Joshua 17:15-18). That was what they should
have been concentrating on rather than towns. Furthermore their area included
Shechem and its related towns which were probably to be left alone having joined
the tribal confederacy. o suggestion was to be given that they had been possessed.
Verse 1
Chapter 16 The Lot For the Children of Joseph.
In this chapter the lot allocated to the children of Joseph, seen as one tribe and yet

two, is described. It was the portion north of that of Benjamin and Dan. It was not
necessary to deal with it in such detail because it was discernible from the
boundaries of the other tribes. Their prospective possessions occupied the centre of
Palestine, bounded on the north by the Plain of Esdraelon, and the territories of
Asher and Issachar, and on the south by those of Dan (Joshua 19:41-46) and
Benjamin (Joshua 18:11-28). o list of towns is given, possibly because of the stress
on their need to clear the forest land (Joshua 17:15-18). That was what they should
have been concentrating on rather than towns. Furthermore their area included
Shechem and its related towns which were probably to be left alone having joined
the tribal confederacy. o suggestion was to be given that they had been possessed.
Joshua 16:1
‘And the lot for the children of Joseph went out from the Jordan at Jericho, at the
waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness going up from Jericho through the
hill country to Bethel.’
Once again the sacred lot was called on to determine the land allocated to Ephraim
and Manasseh. Yet as the other large tribe, their activity in the Central Highlands
was necessary. Thus did the sacred lot and what was necessary for success go hand
in hand.
The border parallels that of Benjamin, but here was looking northward,
commencing with ‘the Jordan of Jericho’, that part of the Jordan close to Jericho
(compare umbers 22:1). The ‘waters of Jericho on the east’ refers to some copious
spring on the east of, and connected with, the wilderness going up from Jericho
through the hill country to Bethel.
COFFMA ,"Verse 1
Joshua 16 and Joshua 17 outline the territory of Joseph's two sons Ephraim and
Manasseh. They had been officially adopted by Jacob as his own sons, endowing
them with status equal in every way to the remainder of the Twelve Patriarchs. By
this maneuver, Jacob gave the "double portion," one of the prerogatives of the
birthright to Joseph, the oldest son of his favorite (and only lawful) wife Rachel.
That, of course, would have made Thirteen Patriarchs instead of Twelve Patriarchs,
but Levi did not inherit with the others because "The Lord was his portion."
All of the scholars speak of the uncertainty, confusion, and inadequate nature of the
instructions here given. Surely, when compared with the detailed account of all
those cities conveyed to Judah, this seems to fall far short. Matthew Henry
complained that, "For this, no reason can be assigned."[1] However, we believe the
reason lies in the fact that God, who must be understood as the author here, had no
particular interest in A Y of the tribes except that of Judah, through whom the
Messiah would eventually be delivered to mankind. The record here is merely to
show that ALL the tribes received their inheritance as God had promised, but that
they failed to drive out the pagan influence that eventually ruined them.
Many witnesses of the confusion and uncertainty attending these descriptions might

be cited: "The border of Joseph is very slightly traced out."[2] "It is by no means
easy to define the boundaries of the tribes."[3] "It is hardly possible to avoid the
conclusion that a passage is missing here."[4] "The material exhibits considerable
disarray, as if its order has been disturbed."[5] "This list must be compared with
Joshua 18:12-13, which describes the northern border of Benjamin."[6] "We may
conclude that all of these passages were abbreviated from full descriptions to suit
the author's purpose."[7] Cook also affirmed that, "From the abrupt manner in
which the statements are introduced, as well as from their imperfect character,
there is probability in the conjecture that some words, in these verses, have fallen
out of the text."[8]
Despite whatever insufficiencies are alleged to characterize the instructions here, the
principal facts are plain enough, and, through comparison with the boundaries of
the other tribes, scholars are able to give accurate outlines of the territories assigned
to Joseph's two sons:
"The territory of the tribes of Joseph was drawn as one allotment. Afterward, it was
divided between Ephraim (the southern part), and the half-tribe of Manasseh (the
northerm part. ote that Ephraim's border is outlined first, although that tribe was
smaller ( umbers 26:34,37), and Ephraim was younger than Manasseh. This was
because the birthright of Joseph's sons had been transferred to Ephraim (Genesis
48:9-20)."[9]
"And the lot came out for the children of Joseph from the Jordan at Jericho, at the
waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness, going up from Jericho through
the hill country to Bethel; and it went out from Bethel to Luz, and passed along the
border of the Archites to Ataroth; and it went down westward to the border of the
Japhletites, unto the border of Beth-horon the nether, even unto Gezer; and the
goings out thereof were at the sea. And the children of Joseph, Manasseh and
Ephraim took their inheritance." One problem here is that Bethel and Luz are often
understood as two different names for the same place; but as Plummer noted: "The
new city did not coincide precisely in its site with the old."[10] It was like old and
new Carthage, or the old Jericho and new Jericho, as we observed in the .T.
othing is known of the Japhletites. The The ew Bible Dictionary does not even
have an entry under that title.
What did this allotment include? Dummelow has given a summary of what was
included:
"The territory of the two tribes, described in Joshua 16:1-4, comprised the central
and most fertile part of Palestine. The south border ran from Jericho to Bethel and
Beth-horon to the sea (the Mediterranean); and the north border ran from Mount
Carmel, along the southern border of the plain of Esdraelon to the Jordan."[11]
Despite the fact of Ephraim's border reaching the Mediterranean at a point
coinciding with the northwest comer of Judah's territory, it appears that Dan also
had a stake in the towns around Joppa (Joshua 19:45-46), thus sharing that part of
the seacoast with Ephraim.

CO STABLE, "Verses 1-10
4. Joseph"s inheritance chs16-17
The writer may have dealt with the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh together since
Jacob had given Joseph the second largest blessing after Judah ( Genesis 49).
Moreover half the tribe of Manasseh had already received its inheritance, and the
remaining half would have been small compared with the other tribes. These one
and one-half tribes together formed a large group of Israelites. Their lot fell in
central Canaan, and their territory consisted of two parts with Ephraim settling in
the southern portion and Manasseh in the northern.
ELLICOTT, "I HERITA CE OF JOSEPH—i.e., of Ephraim and Manasseh
(Joshua 16:1 to Joshua 18:1, inclusive).
(1) The lot of the children of Joseph.—The order of precedence among the tribes of
Israel was always Judah first and the sons of Joseph second. In the words of 1
Chronicles 5:2, “Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief
ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s.” Accordingly in the division of the land of
Canaan under Joshua, there are three successive stages: first, the settlement of the
tribe of Judah in the strongholds of the south of Palestine; secondly, the
establishment of Ephraim and Manasseh in the centre of the country, and in some
strong positions towards the north; thirdly, the settlement of the remaining tribes,
so as to fill up the gaps left between Judah and Joseph, and also upon the outskirts
of their territory, so as to be, as it were, under the shadow of their wings.
In the inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh we observe some features which
distinguish this description from that of Judah’s inheritance in Joshua 15. The
boundaries of the territory are given, but there is no catalogue of cities. There is also
another peculiarity: the tribe of Ephraim is interlocked with the tribe of Manasseh,
and the tribe of Manasseh again with Issachar and Asher, by the possession of cities
in the territory of these other tribes.
(1-3) Comp. Joshua 18:12-14. The south border of Joseph was the north border of
Benjamin. (See Conder’s Bible Handbook, p. 260, and Ordnance Map, sheets 14, 15,
and 18)
Archi is ’Ain ’Arîk (sheet 14).
Ataroth is Ed-Dârieh (sheet 18).
Japhleti is not identified.
Beth-horon is Beit ’Ur.
Gezer is Tell Jezer.

WHEDO , "1. Children of Joseph — That is, Ephraim and the western half of
Manasseh. Their lots were first drawn together that these brothers might be
contiguous, but there was a subsequent division of their joint territory.
The lot… fell — Hebrew, went forth; that is, from the urn in which the lots were
cast. See note on Joshua 13:6. “It is remarkable that of the whole inheritance
assigned to the children of Joseph only the southern boundary is given. But this may
be explained partly on the ground that this double tribe had no definite boundary
on the north, but merely had a number of cities allotted to them within the line
which formed the boundary of Asher and Issachar, (Joshua 17:10-11,) and partly
from the fact that the Josephites did not expel the Canaanites from the northern
part of the territory assigned them, but only gradually brought them into subjection
and dwelt among them. Hence the limits of their land in this direction were not
always the same; and at one time, when they expressed some discontent at the
portion allotted to them, Joshua told them that they might enlarge their possessions
if they could drive out the Canaanites. Joshua 17:12-18.” — Keil.
From Jordan by Jericho — Literally, Jordan of Jericho; that is, a part of the Jordan
directly opposite Jericho, and which might therefore be regarded as belonging
especially to Jericho.
The water of Jericho — This has been commonly understood of the fountain Es
Sultan, a mile northwest of Riha, and probably the scene of Elisha’s miracle. 2
Kings 2:19-22. As the border ran on the north side of Jericho, (Joshua 18:12,) and
on the east of the wilderness, (for so the Hebrew should here be rendered,) it seems
to have turned northward from the water of Jericho, and went up so far as to
include in Benjamin’s territory Zemaraim, the modern Es Sumra, about five miles
north of Jericho. Accordingly we understand this border between Ephraim and
Benjamin to have commenced at a point of the Jordan directly opposite Jericho,
perhaps at the mouth of Wady awaimeh, and, running westward, fetched a curve
near Jericho and its great fountain, thence, passing northward along the eastern
side of the wilderness that stretches east of Beth-el, it went up to Es Sumrah, and
then passed westward to Ophni, the modern Jifna, which was also assigned to
Benjamin. Joshua 18:24.]
The wilderness — The wild region of country that lies on the east of Beth-el, and is
called in Joshua 18:12, the wilderness of Beth-aven.
Mount Beth-el — The mountain range on which Beth-el was situated.
Verses 1-4
OUTLI E OF JOSEPH’S LOT, Joshua 16:1-4.
[Chapters 16 and 17 belong together, and describe the allotment made to the house
of Joseph, composed of the two powerful tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. “We are
so familiar,” says Stanley, “with the supremacy of the tribe of Judah, that we are
apt to forget that it was of comparatively recent date. For more than four hundred

years — a period equal in length to that which elapsed between the orman
Conquest and the Wars of the Roses — Ephraim, with its two dependent tribes of
Manasseh and Benjamin, exercised undisputed pre-eminence. Joshua, the first
conqueror; Gideon, the greatest of the judges, whose brothers were ‘as the children
of kings,’ and whose children all but established hereditary monarchy in their own
line; Saul, the first king, belonged to one or the other of these three tribes.
“It was not till the close of the first period of Jewish history that God ‘refused the
tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: but chose the tribe of
Judah, even the Mount Zion which he loved.’ Psalms 78:67. That haughty spirit
which could brook no equal or superior, which chafed against the rise even of the
kindred tribe of Manasseh, in the persons of Gideon and Jephthah, (Judges 8:1;
Judges 12:1,) and yet more against the growing dominion of Judah in David and
Solomon, till it threw off the yoke altogether and established an independent
kingdom, would naturally claim, and could not rightly be refused, the choicest
portion of the land. ‘Blessed of the Lord be his land; for the precious things of
heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, and for the precious
fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon,
and for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the
lasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth and the fulness thereof, and for
the good will of him that dwelt in the bush, let the blessing come upon the head of
Joseph.’ If Judah was the wild lion that guarded the south, and couched in the
fastness of Zion, so Ephraim was to be the more peaceful but not less powerful
buffalo, who was to rove the rich vales of Central Palestine, and defend the frontier
of the north. ‘His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the
horns of unicorns, (buffaloes;) with them shall he push the people together to the
ends of the earth, and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the
thousands of Manasseh.’” Deuteronomy 33:13-17.
PULPIT, "THE I HERITA CE OF EPHRAIM A D MA ASSEH.
Joshua 16:1
Fell. Literally came forth, i.e; out of the urn. The water of Jericho. "This is the
present fountain of es Sultan, half an hour to the west of Ribs, the only large
fountain in the neighbourhood of Jericho, whose waters spread over the plain and
form a small brook" (or small stream, according to Von Schubert)," which flows in
the rainy season through the Wady Kelt into the Jordan" (Keil and Delitzsch). This
spring, which rises amid the nebek trees and the wheat fields, "springs from the
earth at the eastern base of a little knoll; the water is sweet, clear, and agreeable,
neither cold nor warm" (Ritter). It flows, he adds, into a basin nine feet broad, in
which many fish may be seen playing. This border coincides with the northern
border of Benjamin (see Joshua 18:11-20). Ritter mentions another spring, nearer to
the Kuruntul or Quarantania range, and adds that, "under the wise management of
an efficient government, and with the security of the district from the depredations
of predatory savages, the oasis of Jericho might unquestionably resume the
paradisaical aspect it once bore." To the wilderness. Or, by or along the wilderness.

The Hebrew requires some preposition to be supplied. This wilderness is the same
as that spoken of as the wilderness of Bethaven in Joshua 18:12. Throughout Mount
Bethel. The Vulgate has, "to Mount Bethel." The LXX. renders, "unto the hill
country unto Bethel." The Hebrew may be rendered, "along the hill country unto
Bethel" (see Joshua 18:12). The Syriac renders, "up to the mountain which goeth
unto Bethel;" but we must understand this of a range of mountains, and then we
can identify the border with the double rocky ridge which stretches from the Mons
quarantania, of which we have already heard (Joshua 2:1-24), and from the pool of
Ain es Sultan, just mentioned, as far as Bethel.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY
THE I HERITA CE OF JOSEPH.
Joshua Chs. 16, 17.
EXT to Judah, the most important tribe was Joseph; that is, the double tribe to
which his two sons gave names, Ephraim and Manasseh. In perpetual
acknowledgment of the service rendered by Joseph to the family, by keeping them
alive in the famine, it was ordained by Jacob that his two sons should rank with
their uncles as founders of tribes (Genesis 48:5). It was also prophetically ordained
by Jacob that Ephraim, the younger son, should take rank before Manasseh
(Genesis 48:19). The privilege of the double portion, however, remained to
Manasseh as the elder son. Hence, in addition to his lot in Gilead and Bashan, he
had also a portion in Western Palestine. But Ephraim was otherwise the more
important tribe; and when the separation of the two kingdoms took place, Ephraim
often gave his name to the larger division. And in the beautiful prophetic vision of
Ezekiel, when the coming re-union of the nation is symbolized, it is on this wise:
"Son of man, take thou one stick and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children
of Israel his companions; then take another stick and write upon it. For Joseph, the
stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions, and join them for
thee one to another into one stick, that they may become one in thine hand" (Ezekiel
37:16-17). The superiority allotted to Ephraim was not followed by very happy
results; it raised an arrogant spirit in that tribe, of which we find some indications
in the present chapter, but more pronounced and mischievous manifestations
further on.
The delimitation of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is not easy to follow,
particularly in the Authorized Version, which not only does not translate very
accurately, but uses some English expressions of uncertain meaning. The Revised
Version is much more helpful, correcting both classes of defects in its predecessor.
Yet even the Revised Version sometimes leaves us at a loss. It has been supposed,
indeed, that some words have dropped out of the text. Moreover, it has not been
found possible to ascertain the position of all the places mentioned. Uncertainty as
to the precise boundaries cannot but prevail, and differences of opinion among
commentators. But the uncertainty applies only to the minuter features of the

description, it bears chiefly on the points at which one tribe adjoined another. The
portion of the land occupied by Ephraim and Manasseh is, on the whole, very
clearly known, just as their influence on the history of the country is very distinctly
marked.
In point of fact, the lot of Joseph in Western Palestine was, in many respects, the
most desirable of any. It was a fertile and beautiful district. It embraced the valley
of Shechem, the first place of Abraham's sojourn, and reckoned by travellers to be
one of the most beautiful spots, some say the most beautiful spot, in Palestine.
Samaria, at the head of another valley celebrated for its "glorious beauty," and for
its "fatness " or fertility (Isaiah 28:1), was at no great distance, Tirzah, a symbol of
beauty, in the Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 6:4) was another of its cities, as
was also Jezreel, "a lovely position for a capital city" (Tristram). On the other hand,
this portion of the country laboured under the disadvantage of not having been well
cleared of its original inhabitants. The men of Ephraim did not exert themselves as
much as the men of Judah. This is apparent from what is said in Joshua 16:10,
''They drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer "; and also from Joshua's
answer to the request of Ephraim for more land (Joshua 17:15-18).
As we have said already, we have no information regarding Joshua's conquest of
this part of the country. It seems to have been run over more superficially than the
north and the south. Consequently the ancient inhabitants were still very numerous,
and they were formidable likewise, because they had chariots of iron.
In the definition of boundaries we have first a notice applicable to Joseph as a
whole, then specifications applicable to Ephraim and Manasseh respectively. The
southern border is delineated twice with considerable minuteness, and its general
course, extending from near the Jordan at Jericho, past Bethel and Luz, and down
the pass of Bethhoron to the Mediterranean, is clear enough. The border between
Ephraim and Manasseh is not so clear, nor the northern border of Manasseh. It is
further to be remarked that, while we have an elaborate statement of boundaries,
we have no list of towns in Ephraim and Manasseh such as we have for the tribe of
Judah. This gives countenance to the supposition that part of the ancient record has
somehow dropped out. We find, however, another statement about towns which is of
no small significance. At Joshua 16:9 we find that several cities were appropriated
to Ephraim that were situated in the territory of Manasseh. And in like manner
several cities were given to Manasseh which were situated in the tribes of Issachar
and Ashen Of these last the names are given. They were Bethshean, Ibleam, Dor,
Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo. Some of them were famous in after history.
Bethshean was the city to whose wall the bodies of Saul and his sons were fixed after
the fatal battle of Gilboa; Ibleam was in the neighbourhood of aboth's vineyard (2
Kings 9:25; 2 Kings 9:27); Endor was the place of abode of the woman with a
familiar spirit whom Saul went to consult; Taanach was the battle-field of the kings
of Canaan whom Barak defeated, and of whom Deborah sung, -
"The kings came and fought; Then fought the kings of Canaan, In Taanach by the
waters of Megiddo: They took no gain of money " ( 5:19).

As for Megiddo, many a battle was fought in its plain. So early as the days of
Thotmes III. of Egypt (about 1600 B.C.) it was famous in battle, for in an inscription
on the temple of Karnak, containing a record of his conquests in Syria, Megiddo
flourishes as the scene of a great conflict. The saddest and most notable of its battles
was that between King Josiah and the Egyptians, in which that good young king was
killed. In fact, Megiddo obtained such notoriety as a battle-field that in the
Apocalypse (Revelation 16:16) Armageddon (Har-magedon, R.V.) is the symbol of
another kind of battle-ground - the meeting-place for ''the war of the great day of
God the Almighty."
We can only conjecture why these cities, most of which were in Issachar, were given
to Manasseh. They were strongholds in the great plain of Esdraelon, where most of
the great battles of Canaan were fought.
For the defence of the plain it seemed important that these places should be held by
a stronger tribe than Issachar. Hence they appear to have been given to Manasseh.
But, like Ephraim, Manasseh was not able to hold them at first. ''The children of
Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites
would dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were
waxen strong that they put the Canaanites to task-work, and did not utterly drive
them out" (R.V.). This last verse appears to have been inserted at a later date, and it
agrees with 1 Chronicles 7:29, where several of the same towns are enumerated, and
it is added, "In these dwelt the children of Joseph, the son of Israel."
Undoubtedly these sons of Joseph occupied a position which gave them unrivalled
opportunities of benefiting their country. But with the exception of the splendid
exploit of Gideon, a man of Manasseh, and his little band, we hear of little in the
history that redounded to the credit of Joseph's descendants. obility of character is
not hereditary. Sometimes nature appears to spend all her intellectual and moral
wealth on the father, and almost to impoverish the sons. And sometimes the sons live
on the virtues of their fathers, and cannot be roused to the exertion or the sacrifice
needed to continue their work and maintain their reputation. A humorous saying is
recorded of an eminent pastor of the Waldensian Church who found his people
much disposed to live on the reputation of their fathers, and tried in vain to get
them to do as their fathers did; he said that they were like the potato - the best part
of them was under the ground. If you say, ''We have Abraham for our father," take
care that you say "it in the proper sense. Be sure that you are following hard in his
footsteps, and using his example as a spur to move your languid energies, and not as
a screen to conceal your miserable defects. If you think of Abraham or of any
forefather or body of forefathers as a cover for your nakedness, or a compensation
for your defects, you are resorting to a device which has never proved successful in
past ages, and is not likely to change its character with you.
After the division, the vain, self-important spirit of Ephraim broke out in a
characteristic way. ''Why," said he to Joshua, ''hast thou given me but one lot and
one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as hitherto the

Lord hath blessed me?" A grumbling reference seems to be made here to his
brother Manasseh, who had received two lots, one on each side of the Jordan. At
first it appears that there was some reason in the complaint of Ephraim. The free
part of his lot seems to have been small, that is, the part not occupied by Canaanites.
But we cannot think that the whole inheritance of Ephraim was so small as we find
represented in the map of Major Conder, of the Palestine Exploration Fund, in his
"Handbook to the Bible," because it is said, both in the Authorized and in the
Revised Version, that his western boundary extended to the sea, while Major
Conder makes it cease much sooner. But, looking at the whole circumstances, it is
probable that Ephraim's complaint was dictated by jealousy of Manasseh, who
certainly had received the double inheritance.
Alas, how apt is the spirit of discontent still to crop up when we compare our lot
with that of others! Were we quite alone, or were there no case for comparison, we
might be content enough; it is when we think how much more our brother has than
we, that we are most liable to murmur. And, bad though murmuring and grieving at
the good of our brother may be, it is by no means certain that the evil spirit will stop
there. At the very dawn of history we find Cain the murderer of his brother because
the one had the favour of God and not the other. What an evil feeling it is that
grudges to our brother a larger share of God's blessing; if at the beginning it be not
kept under it may carry us on to deeds that may well make us shudder.
Joshua dealt very wisely and fearlessly with the complaint of Ephraim, though it
was his own tribe. You say you are a great people - be it so; but if you are a great
people, you must be capable of great deeds. Two great undertakings are before you
now. There are great woodlands in your lot that have not been cleared - direct your
energies to them, and they will afford you more room for settlements. Moreover, the
Canaanites are still in possession of a large portion of your lot; up and attack them
and drive them out, and you will be furnished with another area for possession.
Joshua accepted their estimate of their importance, but gave it a very different
practical turn. What they had wished him to do was to take away a portion from
some other tribe and give it as an extra allotment to them, so that it would be theirs
without labour or trouble. What Joshua did was to spur them to courageous and
self-denying exertion, in order that their object might be gained through the
instrumentality of their own labour. For the sickly sentiment that desires a mine of
gold to start into being and scatter its untold treasure at our feet, he substituted the
manly sentiment of the proverb, " o gains without pains." ''The soul of the
sluggard desireth and hath nothing; but the hand of the diligent maketh rich." If
they wished more land they must work for it; they must not take idleness for their
patron-saint.
We have all heard of the dying father who informed his sons that there was a
valuable treasure in a certain field, and counselled them to set to work to find it.
With great care they turned up every morsel of the soil; but no treasure appeared,
till, observing in autumn what a rich crop covered the field, they came to
understand that the fruit of persevering labour was the treasure which their father
meant. We have heard, too, of a physician who was consulted by a rich man

suffering cruelly from gout, and asked if he had any cure for it. ''Yes," said the
doctor, "live on sixpence a day, and work for it." The same principle underlay the
counsel of Joshua. Of course it gratifies a certain part of our nature to get a mass of
wealth without working for it. But this is not the best part of our nature. Probably
in no class has the great object of life been so much lost, and the habit of indolence
and selfindulgence become so predominant as in that of young men born to the
possession of a great fortune, and never requiring to turn a hand for anything they
desired. After all, the necessity of work is a great blessing. We speak of the curse of
toil, but except when the labour is excessive, or unhealthy in its conditions, or when
it has to be prosecuted in sickness or failing strength, it is not a curse but a blessing.
Instead of being ashamed of labour, we have cause rather to be proud of it. It
guards from numberless temptations; it promotes a healthy body and a healthy
mind; it increases the zest of life; it promotes cheerfulness and flowing spirits; it
makes rest and healthy recreation far sweeter when they come, and it gives us
affinity to the great Heavenly Worker, by whom, and through whom, and for whom
are all things.
This great principle of ordinary life has its place too in the spiritual economy. The
age is now past that had for its favourite notion, that seclusion from the world and
exemption from all secular employment was the most desirable condition for a
servant of God. The experiment of the hermits was tried, but it was a failure.
Seclusion from the world and the consecration of the whole being to private acts of
devotion and piety were no success. He who moves about among his fellows, and day
by day knows the strain of labour, is more likely to prosper spiritually than he who
shuts himself up in a cell, and looks on all secular work as pollution. It is not the
spiritual invalid who is for ever feeling his pulse and whom every whiff of wind
throws into a fever of alarm, that grows up to the full stature of the Christian; but
the man who, like Paul, has his hands and his heart for ever full, and whose every
spiritual fibre gains strength and vitality from his desires and labours for the good
of others. And it is with churches as with individuals. An idle church is a stagnant
church, prone to strife, and to all morbid experiences. A church that throws itself
into the work of faith and labour of love is far more in the way to be spiritually
healthy and strong. It was not for the good of the world merely, but of the church
herself likewise, that our Lord gave out that magnificent mot d'ordre - "Go ye into
all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."
Before we pass from the inheritance of the sons of Joseph, it is proper that we
should direct attention to an incident which may seem trifling to us, but which was
evidently regarded as of no little moment at the time. What we refer to is the
petition presented by the five daughters of Zelophehad, a member of the tribe of
Manasseh, for an inheritance in their tribe. Their father had no son, so that the
family was represented wholly by daughters. o fewer than four times the incident
is referred to, and the names of the five girls given in full ( umbers 26:33; umbers
27:1-11; umbers 36:11; Joshua 17:3). We know not if there be another case in
Scripture of such prominence given to names for no moral or spiritual quality, but
simply in connection with a law of property.

The question decided by their case was the right of females to inherit property in
land when there were no heirs male in the family. We find that the young women
themselves had to be champions of their own cause. Evidently possessed of more
than ordinary spirit, they had already presented themselves before Moses, Eleazar
the priest, and the princes of the congregation, at the door of the tabernacle, and
formally made a claim to the inheritance that would have fallen to their father had
he been alive. The case was deemed of sufficient importance to be laid before the
Lord, because the decision on it would settle similar cases for the whole nation and
for all time. The decision was, that in such cases the women should inherit, but
under the condition that they should not marry out of their own tribe, so that the
property should not be transferred to another tribe. In point of fact, the five sisters
married their cousins, and thus kept the property in the tribe of Manasseh.
The incident is interesting, because it shows a larger regard to the rights of women
than was usually conceded at the time. Some have, indeed, found fault with the
decision as not going far enough. Why, they have asked, was the right of women to
inherit land limited to cases in which there were no men in the family? The decision
implied that if there had been one brother, he would have got all the land; the sisters
would have been entitled to nothing. The answer to this objection is, that had the
rights of women been recognised to this extent, it would have been too great an
advance on the public opinion of the time. It was not God's method to enjoin laws
absolutely perfect, but to enjoin what the conscience and public opinion of the time
might be fairly expected to recognise and support. It may be that under a perfect
system women ought to inherit property on equal terms with men. But the Jewish
nation was not sufficiently advanced for such a law. The benefit of the enactment
was that, when propounded, it met with general approval.
Certainly it was a considerable advance on the ordinary practice of the nations. It
established the principle that woman was not a mere chattel, an inferior creature,
subject to the control of the man, with no rights of her own. But it was far from
being the first time when this principle obtained recognition. The wives of the
patriarchs - Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel - were neither chattels, nor drudges, nor
concubines. They were ladies, exerting the influence and enjoying the respect due to
cultivated, companionable women. And though the law of succession did not give
the females of the family equal rights with the males, it recognised them in another
way. While the eldest son succeeded to the family home and a double portion of the
land, he was expected to make some provision for his widowed mother and
unmarried sisters. In most cases the sisters came to be provided for by marriage.
It is the circumstance that among us so many women remain unmarried that has
drawn so keen attention to their rights, and already caused so much to be done, as
no doubt more will be done speedily, for enlarging their sphere and protecting their
interests.
o doubt these spirited daughters of Zelophehad conferred a great benefit on their
sex in Israel. Their names are entitled to grateful remembrance, as the names of all
are who bring about beneficial arrangements that operate in many directions and to

all time. Yet one would be sorry to think that this was the only service which they
rendered in their day. One would like to think of them as shedding over their
households and friends the lustre of those gentle, womanly qualities which are the
glory of the sex. Advocacy of public rights may be a high duty, for the faithful
discharge of which the highest praise is due; but such a career emits little of the
fragrance which radiates from a female life of faithful love, domestic activity, and
sacred devotion. What blessed ideals of life Christianity furnishes for women even
of middling talent and ordinary education! It is beautiful to see distinguished
talents, high gifts, and persuasive elements directed to the advocacy of neglected
claims. ''And yet I show unto you a more excellent way."
BI 1-10, "The lot of . . . Joseph.
The inheritance of Joseph
Next to Judah, the most important tribe was Joseph; that is, the double tribe to which
his two sons gave names, Ephraim and Manasseh. In perpetual acknowledgment of the
service rendered by Joseph to the family, by keeping them alive in the famine, it was
ordained by Jacob that his two sons should rank with their uncles as founders of tribes
(Gen_48:5). It was also prophetically ordained by Jacob that Ephraim, the younger son,
should take rank before Manasseh (Gen_48:19). The privilege of the double portion,
however, remained to Manasseh as the elder son. Hence, in addition to his lot in Gilead
and Bashan, he had also a portion in Western Palestine. But Ephraim was otherwise the
more important tribe; and when the separation of the two kingdoms took place,
Ephraim often gave his name to the larger division. And in the beautiful prophetic vision
of Ezekiel, when the coming reunion of the nation is symbolised, it is on this wise (Eze_
37:16-17). The superiority allotted to Ephraim was not followed by very happy results; it
raised an arrogant spirit in that tribe. The delimitation of the tribes of Ephraim and
Manasseh is not easy to follow, particularly in the A.V., which not only does not translate
very accurately, but uses some English expressions of uncertain meaning. The R.V. is
much more helpful, correcting both classes of defects in its predecessor. Yet even the
R.V. sometimes leaves us at a loss. It has been supposed, indeed, that some words have
dropped out of the text. Moreover, it has not been found possible to ascertain the
position of all the places mentioned. The portion of the land occupied by Ephraim and
Manasseh is, however, on the whole, very clearly known, just as their influence on the
history of the country is very distinctly marked. In point of fact, the lot of Joseph in
Western Palestine was, in many respects, the most desirable of any. It was a fertile and
beautiful district. It embraced the valley of Shechem, the first place of Abraham’s
sojourn, and reckoned by travellers to be one of the most beautiful spots, some say the
most beautiful spot, in Palestine. Samaria, at the head of another valley celebrated for its
“glorious beauty,” and for its “fatness” or fertility (Isa_28:1), was at no great distance.
Tirzah, a symbol of beauty, in the Song of Solomon (Son_6:4) was another of its cities,
as was also Jezreel, “a lovely position for a capital city.” On the other hand, this portion
of the country laboured under the disadvantage of not having been well cleared of its
original inhabitants. The men of Ephraim did not exert themselves as much as the men
of Judah. This is apparent from what is said in verse 10, and also from Joshua’s answer
to the request of Ephraim for more land (Jos_17:15-18). In the definition of boundaries
we have first a notice applicable to Joshua as a whole, then specifications applicable to
Ephraim and Manasseh respectively. The southern border is delineated twice with
considerable minuteness, and its general course, extending from near the Jordan at
Jericho, past Bethel and Luz, and down the pass of Bethhoron to the Mediterranean, is

clear enough. The border between Ephraim and Manasseh is not so clear, nor the
northern border of Manasseh. It is further to be remarked that, while we have an
elaborate statement of boundaries, we have no list of towns in Ephraim and Manasseh
such as we have for the tribe of Judah. This gives countenance to the supposition that
part of the ancient record has somehow dropped out. We find, however, another
statement about towns which is of no small significance. At verse 9 we find that several
cities were appropriated to Ephraim that were situated in the territory of Manasseh. And
in like manner several cities were given to Manasseh which were situated in the tribes of
Issachar and Asher. Of these last the names are given (Jos_17:11). They were Bethshean,
Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo. Some of them were famous in after-history.
Bethshean was the city to whose wail the body of Saul and his sons were fixed after the
fatal battle of Gilboa; Ibleam was in the neighbourhood of Naboth’s vineyard (2Ki_9:25;
2Ki_9:27); Endor was the place of abode of the woman with a familiar spirit whom Saul
went to consult; Taanach was the battlefield of the kings of Canaan whom Barak
defeated, and of whom Deborah sang (Jdg_5:19). As for Megiddo, many a battle was
fought in its plain. We can only conjecture why these cities, most of which were in
Issachar, were given to Manasseh. They were strongholds in the great plain of Esdraelon,
where most of the great battles of Canaan were fought. For the defence of the plain it
seemed important that these places should be held by a stronger tribe than Issachar.
Hence they appear to have been given to Manasseh. But, like Ephraim, Manasseh was
not able to hold them at first. Undoubtedly these sons of Joseph occupied a position
which gave them unrivalled opportunities of benefiting their country. But with the
exception of the splendid exploit of Gideon, a man of Manasseh, and his little band, we
hear of little in the history that redounded to the credit of Joseph’s descendants. Nobility
of character is not hereditary. Sometimes nature appears to spend all her intellectual and
moral wealth on the father and almost to impoverish the sons. And sometimes the sons
live on the virtues of their fathers, and cannot be roused to the exertion or the sacrifice
needed to continue their work and maintain their reputation. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.).
2 It went on from Bethel (that is, Luz),[a] crossed
over to the territory of the Arkites in Ataroth,
BAR ES, "Of Archi - (Read “of the Archite,” also a designation of David’s friend
Hushai (2Sa_15:32; 2Sa_16:16, etc.). The word is derived from Erech Gen_10:10. But
whether there was in the neighborhood of Bethel a place bearing this Babylonian name,
or whether a colony from the East had settled in this spot and brought the name with
them, is unknown.
Ataroth - Called Jos_16:5; Jos_18:13 Ataroth-adar (= “crowns of fame or greatness”)
perhaps to distinguish it from two other places bearing the same name but, situated on
the other side of Jordan, in the territory of Gad Num_32:34. It is identified with Atara,
near the road from Jerusalem to Nablous.

CLARKE,"From Bethel to Luz - From Gen_28:19 (note) it appears that the place
which Jacob called Beth-el was formerly called Luz; see the note there: but here they
seem to be two distinct places. It is very likely that the place where Jacob had the vision
was not in Luz, but in some place within a small distance of that city or village, (see the
note on Gen_28:12), and that sometimes the whole place was called Beth-el, at other
times Luz, and sometimes, as in the case above, the two places were distinguished. As we
find the term London comprises, not only London, but also the city of Westminster and
the borough of Southwark; though at other times all three are distinctly mentioned.
Archi to Ataroth - Archi was the country of Hushai, the friend of David, 2Sa_15:32,
who is called Hushai the Archite. Ataroth, called Ataroth-addar, Ataroth the illustrious,
Jos_16:5, and simply Ataroth, Jos_16:7, is supposed to have been about fifteen miles
from Jerusalem.
GILL, "And goeth out from Bethel to Luz,.... For though these two places in time
became one, yet they were originally distinct. Bethel, at which Jacob stopped, and who
gave it its name, was a field adjacent to the city of Luz, Gen_38:11; and therefore with
propriety may be, as they here are, distinguished:
and passeth along unto the borders Archi to Ataroth; or to Archiataroth; these
two words being the name of one and the same place, and to be joined as they are, in the
Greek version, and others; and is the same with Atarothaddar, Jos_16:5. Ataroth was its
proper name, but it had these additional epithets to distinguish it from another Ataroth;
see Jos_16:7; Jerom (b) makes mention of Atharoth by Ramma, in the tribe of Joseph,
and of another in the tribe of Ephraim, now a village at the north of Sebaste, or Samaria,
four miles from it, called Atharus; the former is here meant.
K&D, "Jos_16:2
“And it went out from Bethel to Luz.” Bethel is distinguished from Luz in this passage,
because the reference is not to the town of Bethel, which was called Luz by the
Canaanites (vid., Gen_28:19), but to the southern range of mountains belonging to
Bethel, from which the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which
stood upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos_18:22). From this
point the boundary went over “to the territory of the Arkite to Ataroth,” We know
nothing further about the Arkite than that David's friend Hushai belonged to that family
(2Sa_15:32; 2Sa_16:16; 1Ch_27:33). Ataroth, called Ataroth-Adar in Jos_18:13, was not
the present village of Atâra, an hour and a half to the south of Jiljilia (Rob. iii. p. 80), as
I once supposed, but the ruins of Atâra, three-quarters of an hour to the south of Bireh
(Beeroth, Rob. ii. p. 314), with which the expression “descended” in Jos_18:13 perfectly
harmonizes. Consequently the boundary was first of all drawn in a south-westerly
direction from Beitin to Bireh (Jos_18:25), and then southwards to Atârah.
BE SO , "Joshua 16:2. From Bethel to Luz — Dupin translates this Bethel-Luz,
and Dr. Waterland, Bethel, which is Luz; for we sometimes find them mentioned as
one and the same place, as Joshua 18:13; 1:23; and it is probable that in a length of

time they were united, and the inhabitants of the former went to the latter. The
borders of Archi to Ataroth — Or rather, the borders of Archi-Ataroth, as both the
Seventy and the Vulgate render it, and as the words are in the Hebrew, this being
the same city which is afterward called Ataroth, Joshua 16:7.
TRAPP, "Joshua 16:2 And goeth out from Bethel to Luz, and passeth along unto the
borders of Archi to Ataroth,
Ver. 2. Unto the borders of Archi.] Hushai’s country, [2 Samuel 16:16] ennobled by
his name, as Co was to Hippocrates, and little Hippo by great Augustine.
PETT, "Verse 2
‘And it went out from Bethel to Luz, and passed along to the border of the Archites
to Ataroth.’
Here Bethel, the sacred place, is distinguished from the city Luz as in Genesis 28:19.
Elsewhere the two are identified (Joshua 8:13; Genesis 35:6; Judges 1:23). At this
point Luz is not yet named Bethel, a further indication of the age of the sources, and
the sacred place is identified separately by the name Bethel. As in Joshua 13:11 the
borders of a people are called into play to define the boundary, ‘the border of the
Archites’. The Archites were presumably a Canaanite ‘family group’, mentioned
again in connection with Hushai the Archite, David’s friend (2 Samuel 15:32-37).
‘To Ataroth.’ There is no preposition in the Hebrew but it must be assumed. It is
possibly the same as Ataroth-addar (Joshua 16:5, see also Joshua 18:13).
COKE,"Ver. 2. And goeth out from Beth-el to Luz— If now and then Luz and Beth-
el are mentioned as one and the same place, as ch. Joshua 18:13. Judges 1:23 it is,
perhaps, because in a length of time they were united, and the inhabitants of the
former went to the latter. There are numerous examples in history of these unions of
two cities into one. See Huet. Demonst. Evang. Prop. 4. We should apprehend,
therefore, with Dupin, that the whole verse might be rendered thus: And goeth out
from Beth-el Luzah, to Archi-ataroth. See his Prolegomena, l. i. c. iii. sect. 2.
WHEDO , "2. From Beth-el to Luz — Beth-el and Luz were the same city. See note
on Joshua 7:2. The Beth-el of the text is to be understood of the Mount Bethel
named in the preceding verse.
Borders of Archi — Or, of the Archite. o trace of this name is found in the vicinity
of Beth-el. Perhaps in this name we have the last faint trace of one of the original
Canaanitish tribes. Ataroth is supposed by Dr. Robinson to be identical with a large
village called Atara, on the summit of a hill about six miles northwest of Beth-el;
[but this verse and Joshua 18:13 seem rather to place it between Beth-el and Beth-
horon, so that we may rather identify it with the Atara which lies some three miles
south of Beth-el. Here Robinson noticed considerable ruins of an ancient town. At
Ataroth the border turned westward toward Beth-horon.]
PULPIT, "Joshua 16:2

From Bethel to Luz. Like Jerusalem and AElia Capitolina, or old and new
Carthage, the new city did not coincide precisely in its site with the old one (see
Joshua 18:13; also Genesis 28:19; Genesis 35:6; 1:23). Bethel was probably built, as
far as could be ascertained, on the spot near the Canaanitish city where the
wanderer Jacob spent the night in which the famous vision appeared to him (see
Genesis 28:11). Knobel, however, renders literally, Bethel-Luzah, as though the
older and later names had been here conjoined. The borders of Archi. Rather, the
borders of the Archite (cf. 2 Samuel 15:32; 2 Samuel 16:16; 1 Chronicles 27:33).
This is the only clue we have to the residence or tribe of Hushai.
3 descended westward to the territory of the
Japhletites as far as the region of Lower Beth
Horon and on to Gezer, ending at the
Mediterranean Sea.
BAR ES, "Of Japhleti - Rather “of the Japhletite.” All history of the name is lost.
CLARKE,"Beth-horon the nether - This city was about twelve miles from
Jerusalem, on the side of Nicopolis, formerly Emmaus. - Calmet. See the note on Jos_
10:10.
GILL, "And goeth down westward to the coast of Japhleti,.... This place is now
unknown, though no doubt well known to the sons of Joseph, when this lot fell to them,
and its border was described:
unto the coast of Bethhoron the nether: so called to distinguish it from Bethhoron
the upper, Jos_16:5; this was about twelve miles from Jerusalem; See Gill on Jos_10:10;
and to Gezer: which was about a day's journey from Bethhoron, as appears from the
passages in the Apocrypha:"39 So Nicanor went out of Jerusalem, and pitched his tents
in Bethhoron, where an host out of Syria met him. 40 But Judas pitched in Adasa with
three thousand men, and there he prayed, saying, ... 45 Then they pursued after them a
day's journey, from Adasa unto Gazera, sounding an alarm after them with their
trumpets.'' (1 Maccabees 7)Jerom (c) says in his time it was a village called Gazara, four
miles from Nicopolis, or Emmaus. It is the same with Gadara, as it is sometimes called

by Josephus, who says (d), the tribe of Ephraim took in the land from the river Jordan to
Gadara; this was a royal city; see Jos_10:33,
and the outgoings thereof are at the sea: the Mediterranean sea.
K&D, "Jos_16:3
From this point “it went down westward to the territory of the Japhletites to the
territory of lower Beth-horon,” or, according to Jos_18:13, “to the mountain (or range)
which is on the south by lower Beth-horon.” The Japhletite is altogether unknown as the
Asherite of this name cannot possibly be thought of (1Ch_7:32-33). Lower Beth-horon is
the present Beit-Ur Tachta, a village upon a low ridge. It is separated from Upper Beth-
horon, which lies farther east, by a deep wady (see at Jos_10:10, and Rob. iii. p. 59).
“And to Gezer,” which was probably situated near the village of el Kubab (see at Jos_
10:33). “And the goings out thereof are at the sea” (the Mediterranean), probably
running towards the north-west, and following the Wady Muzeireh to the north of
Japho, which was assigned to the Danites, according to Jos_19:46.
TRAPP, "Joshua 16:3 And goeth down westward to the coast of Japhleti, unto the
coast of Bethhoron the nether, and to Gezer: and the goings out thereof are at the
sea.
Ver. 3. And to Gezer.] Where the Canaanites held them till Solomon’s days; but
were then slain by Pharaoh, king of Egypt, in favour of his daughter, Solomon’s
wife. [1 Kings 9:16]
PETT, "Verse 3
‘And it went down westward to the border of the Japhletites, to the border of Beth-
horon the Lower, even to Gezer. And its goings out were at the sea.’
The Japhletites were another Canaanite family group prominent enough for their
border to act as a border marker. The border then went on to lower Beth-horon (see
Joshua 10:10-11), and then to Gezer, which is fifteen kilometres (nine miles) further
west, and on to the Great Sea where the border inevitably changed course (‘its
goings out’ - see on Joshua 15:7).
4 So Manasseh and Ephraim, the descendants of
Joseph, received their inheritance.

GILL, "So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their
inheritance. As it fell to them by the lot; by Manasseh is meant the half tribe of
Manasseh, one half of that tribe having been settled by Moses on the other side Jordan;
and next follows an account of the borders of the inheritance of Ephraim in particular, as
that of the half tribe of Manasseh is given in Jos_17:1.
HE RY, "
JAMISO ,"
BE SO , "Joshua 16:4. Manasseh — That is, half Manasseh. Their inheritance —
Their several portions, which here follow. It is said, they took their inheritance,
which also Judah had done before them, because the tribes of Judah and Joseph
took possession of their inheritances before the rest; and it was fit they should do so,
for the security of the main camp, and the body of the people, which were at Gilgal,
Joshua 18:5.
TRAPP, "Joshua 16:4 So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their
inheritance.
Ver. 4. Manasseh and Ephraim took their inheritance.] And it was a happiness to
both that they lay together: but a shameful thing that afterwards it should be said,
"Manasseh against Ephraim, and Ephraim against Manasseh; and they together
against Judah." [Isaiah 9:21]
PETT, "Verse 4
‘And the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance.’
Having outlined the southern border of their inheritance we are told that the
combined tribe ‘took their inheritance’. We are probably to understand by this
their acceptance of their lot. First Judah received their lot, and now Joseph.
Progress in dividing the land is now being made. ote that it is a joint inheritance
which will now be expanded in detail. Manasseh is unusually named first, here
specifically as the firstborn (Joshua 17:1; Genesis 48:1; Genesis 48:13-14), stressing
the inheritance aspect. But the thought may include that they began to take
possession of what they could.
K&D, "Jos_16:4
The territory commencing at the boundary lines mentioned was allotted to Ephraim
and Manasseh as their inheritance.
5 This was the territory of Ephraim, according to

its clans:
The boundary of their inheritance went from
Ataroth Addar in the east to Upper Beth Horon
BAR ES 5-8, "From the abrupt manner in which the statements are introduced, as
well as from their imperfect character, there is probability in the conjecture that some
words have, in these verses, fallen out of the text. Few of the places are known for
certain.
CLARKE,"Ataroth-addar - See the note on Jos_16:2.
Beth-horon the upper - The situation of this town is little known. It was eastward
of Beth-horon the nether, and consequently not far from it.
GILL, "And the border of the children of Ephraim, according to their
families, was thus,.... Or what follows is the description of it:
even the border of their inheritance on the east side was Atarothaddar, unto
Bethhoron the upper; the first was on the south of the inheritance, and the latter on
the north, as Masius has placed them: who has given us a type of this description, by
which it appears that this lot is here described in its breadth from south to north.
HE RY 5-10, "Here, 1. The border of the lot of Ephraim is set down, by which it was
divided on the south from Benjamin and Dan, who lay between it and Judah, and on the
north from Manasseh; for east and west it reached from Jordan to the great sea. The
learned, who aim to be exact in drawing the line according to the directions here, find
themselves very much at a loss, the description being short and intricate. The report of
those who in these latter ages have travelled those countries will not serve to clear the
difficulties, so vastly unlike is it now to what it was then; not only cities have been so
destroyed as that no mark nor footstep of them remains, but brooks are dried up, rivers
alter their courses, and even the mountain falling cometh to nought, and the rock is
removed out of his place, Job_14:18. Unless I could hope to solve the doubts that arise
upon this draught of the border of Ephraim, it is to no purpose to mention them: no
doubt it was then perfectly understood, so as that the first intention of recording it was
effectually answered, which was to notify the ancient landmarks, which posterity must
by no means remove. 2. Some separate cities are spoken of, that lay not within these
borders, at least not if the line was drawn direct, but lay within the lot of Manasseh
(Jos_16:9), which might better be read, and there were separate cities for the children
of Ephraim among the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, because it proved that
Manasseh could spare them, and Ephraim had need of them, and it might be hoped that
no inconvenience would arise from this mixture of these two tribes together, who were

both the sons of Joseph, and should love as brethren. And by this it appears that though,
when the tribes were numbered in the plains of Moab, Manasseh had got the start of
Ephraim in number, for Manasseh was then 52,000, and Ephraim but 32,000 (Num_
26:34, Num_26:37), yet by the time they were well settled in Canaan the hands were
crossed again, and the blessing of Moses was verified, Deu_33:17, They are the ten
thousands of Ephraim and they are the thousands of Manasseh. Families and kingdoms
are diminished and increased, increased and diminished again, as God pleases. 3. A
brand is put upon the Ephraimites, that they did not drive out the Canaanites from
Gezer (Jos_16:10), either through carelessness or cowardice, either for want of faith in
the promise of God, that he would give them success if they would make a vigorous
effort, or for want of zeal for the command of God, which obliged them utterly to drive
out the Canaanites, and to make no peace with them. And, though they hoped to satisfy
the law by putting them under tribute, yet (as Calvin thinks) this made the matter worse,
for it shows that they spared them out of covetousness, that they might be profited by
their labours, and by dealing with them for their tribute they were in danger of being
infected with their idolatry; yet some think that, when they brought them under tribute,
they obliged them to renounce their idols, and to observe the seven precepts of the sons
of Noah; and I should think so, but that we find in the sequel of the story that the
Israelites were so far from restraining idolatry in others that they soon fell into it
themselves. Many famous places were within this lot of the tribe of Ephraim, though not
mentioned here. In it were Ramah, Samuel's city (called in the New Testament
Arimathea, of which Joseph was, that took care of our Saviour's burial), and Shiloh,
where the tabernacle was first set up. Tirzah also, the royal city of Jeroboam and his
successors, and Deborah's palm-tree, under which she judged Israel, were in this tribe.
Samaria, built by Omri after the burning of the royal palace of Tirzah, was in this tribe,
and was long the royal city of the kingdom of the ten tribes; not far from it were
Shechem, and the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, and Sychar, near which was Jacob's
well, where Christ talked with the woman of Samaria. We read much of Mount Ephraim
in the story of the Judges, and of a city called Ephraim, it is probable in this tribe, to
which Christ retired, Joh_11:54. The whole kingdom of the ten tribes is often, in the
prophets, especially in Hosea, called Ephraim.
JAMISO 5-9, "Jos_16:5-9. The borders of the inheritance of Ephraim.
the border of their inheritance ... was Ataroth-addar — Ataroth-addar (now
Atara), four miles south of Jetta [Robinson], is fixed on as a center, through which a line
is drawn from Upper Beth-horon to Michmethah, showing the western limit of their
actual possessions. The tract beyond that to the sea was still unconquered.
K&D 5-6, "Territory of the tribe of Ephraim, according to its families. - Jos_16:5.
“The border of their inheritance was from the east Atroth-addar and (along the line) to
Upper Beth-horon,” - a brief description of the southern boundary, which is more
minutely described in Jos_16:1-3. Upper Beth-horon is mentioned here instead of Lower
Beth-horon (Jos_16:3). This makes no difference, however, as the two places stood quite
close to one another (see at Jos_10:10). In Jos_16:6-8 the northern boundary of
Ephraim is given, namely, from the middle, or from “a central point near the watershed”
(Knobel), first towards the east (Jos_16:6 and Jos_16:7), and then towards the west
(Jos_16:8). The eastern half of the northern boundary went ‫ה‬ ָ ָ‫,י‬ i.e., when regarded
from the west, or looked at towards the west, to the north side of Michmethah.

According to Jos_17:7, this place was before Shechem, and therefore in any case it was
not far from it, though it has not been discovered yet. Knobel supposes it to have been on
the site of the present Kabate (Seetzen, ii. p. 166), Kubatiyeh, an hour and a half to the
south of Jenin (Rob. iii. 154), assuming that Michmethah might also have been
pronounced Chemathah, and that ‫ב‬ may have been substituted for ‫.מ‬ But Kabate is six
hours to the north of Shechem, and therefore was certainly not “before Shechem” (Jos_
17:7). It then turned “eastward to Taanath-shiloh” (Τηαν̀θ Σηλώ, lxx), according to the
Onom. (s. v. Thenath) ten Roman miles from Neapolis (Sichem), on the way to the
Jordan, most probably the Thena of Ptol. (v. 16, 5), the present Tana, Ain Tana, a heap
of ruins on the south-east of Nabulus, where there are large cisterns to be found (see
Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 295; Ritter, Erdk. xv. p. 471). And “then went by on the east to
Janoah” (i.e., Jano in Acrabittena regione, twelve Roman miles from Neapolis: Onom.),
the present ruins of Janûn, a miserable village, with extensive ruins of great antiquity,
about three hours to the south-east of Nabulus, three-quarters of an hour to the north-
east of Akrabeh (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 297; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 268).
BE SO ,"Joshua 16:5. East side — That is, the north-east side. It is no wonder if some
of these descriptions are dark to us at this distance of time; there having been so many
alterations made in places, and so many circumstances being now altogether
undiscoverable. But this is certain, that all the descriptions here mentioned were then
evident to the Israelites, because these were the foundation of all the possessions which
then they took, and peaceably possessed in succeeding ages.
TRAPP, "Joshua 16:5 And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their
families was [thus]: even the border of their inheritance on the east side was
Atarothaddar, unto Bethhoron the upper;
Ver. 5. Was Atarothaddar unto Bethhoron the upper.] As there were two Bethhorons, so
Eusebius telleth us that there were two Ataroths: one near Rama; the other, four miles
distant from Samaria.
PETT, "Verses 5-7
‘And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus; even the
border of their inheritance, eastward was Attaroth-addar to Upper Beth-horon, and the
border went out to the sea. Michmethath on the north, and the border turned about
eastward to Taanath-shiloh, and passed along it on the east of Janoah. And it went down
from Janoah to Ataroth, and to Naarah, and reached to Jericho, and went out at Jordan.’
This first summarises briefly the southern border as previously depicted, Ataroth to Beth-
horon (this time Upper Beth-horon) to the sea. The slight change may indicate a different
surveyor. Then the northern border is given. Michmethath indicates the northern border.
Michmethath is ‘before Shechem’ (Joshua 17:7) and therefore east of Shechem. Khirbet
Makhneh el-Foqa has been tentatively suggested as the site. Then eastward and
southward to Taanath-shiloh (Khirbet Ta‘na el-Foqa), Janoa (Khirbet el-Yanum),
Ataroth, Naarah (Tell el-Jisr beside ‘Ain Duq), Jericho and Jordan. ‘Went down -- to
Ataroth’ suggests a town near or in the Jordan valley and therefore a different one from
that in Joshua 16:2; Joshua 16:5. ‘Went out at Jordan.’ Once Jordan was reached it was

the eastern border.
COFFMAN, "Verse 5
"And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus: the
border of their inheritance eastward was Ataroth-addar, unto Beth-horon the upper; and
the border went out westward at Michmethath on the north; and the border turned about
eastward unto Taanath-shiloh, and passed along it on the east of Janoah; and it went down
from Janoah to Ataroth, and to Naarah, and reached unto Jericho, and went out at the
Jordan. From Tappuah the border went along westward to the brook of Kanah; and the
goings out thereof were at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of
Ephraim according to their families; together with the cities which were set apart for the
children of Ephraim in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the
cities with their villages. And they drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but
the Canaanites dwelt in the midst of Ephraim unto this day, and are become servants to
do taskwork."
Some have expressed wonder at the short treatment of these directions for the inheritance
of the children of Joseph in central Palestine. Henry thought that, "As Joshua himself was
of the tribe of Joseph,"[12] perhaps he intended to parcel out all the cities later. However,
we cannot resist the conclusion that the burden of Joshua is principally concerned with
that tribe, Judah, through whom Christ would be born. We saw something of this same
phenomenon in Numbers where the whole history of that condemned generation of Israel
occupies only a handful of pages covering a period of almost forty years! Why? Having
already rebelled against God, anything they might have done, or not done lost all eternal
significance. Here, in this very chapter we see the rebellion of Ephraim, his arrogance,
and his leadership of the ten tribes, already being suggested by events unfolded here. It
was through Ephraim that the defection of Northern Israel from the Lord occurred, and
through Ephraim the southern kingdom itself was also finally corrupted. In these facts one
must read the reason for the slight treatment of their inheritance.
Notice that Ephraim's territory was expanded by the assignment of some of the cities that
belonged to Manasseh. Cook stated that, "The reason for this can only be
conjectured."[13] With all that we learn of Ephraim from the prophecy of Hosea, we do
not hesitate to assign as the reason for this enlargement the arrogance and ambition of
Ephraim and that domination which he finally exercised over the whole ten northern
tribes. Ephraim, even before that enlargement, "had the rich district north and south of
Shechem ... and the whole fertile plain of the Esdraelon."[14] Also, we learn from Joshua
17:14 that their unwillingness to clear out the Canaanites caused their complaint. "Joshua,
in effect, told them that if they were the great people they claimed to be, they could
extend their territory by clearance and conquest."[15]
Before concluding this study of Joshua 16, we wish to take a close look at the final verse,
which states that, "The Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim unto this day, and are
become servants to do taskwork." The critics maintain that "this has a bearing on the date
when Joshua was written."[16] This is a popular assertion and is echoed by a number of
scholars. Morton enhanced this declaration by adding that: "Here it says they have
become slaves to do taskwork, a situation that arrived under Solomon in the tenth century

B.C. (1 Kings 9:15-22)."[17] Are these allegations true? Let's take a look at the passage
Morton cited as proof:
"Pharaoh the king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain
the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for portion unto his daughter, Solomon's
wife. And Solomon built Gezer, etc. (1 Kings 9:15-16)."
When Solomon came to power, there were no longer any Canaanites in Gezer; they had
already been killed by the king of Egypt (Joshua 16:15). It is true that Solomon, after this
transfer of Gezer to his domain by Pharaoh rounded up the remnant of all the Canaanites
in Israel and made forced-laborers, or servants out of them but nowhere do we find that
any inhabitants of Gezer were included in that Solomonic levy. Thus, it is clear that once
again, the overwilling critics to find evidence of a LATE DATE of Joshua are totally in
error. The Ephraimites, not Solomon, are here said to have reduced the Gezerites to
slavery, and, on that grounds, we must reject the assumption of Woudstra that Gezer
maintained its independence. How could that be true with its citizens serving as slaves of
Israel? We have already determined that the expression, "unto this day," has no bearing
whatever on dates but is merely an idiom affirming the truth of the narrative.
An appropriate conclusion for this sixteenth chapter:
"Many famous places were within this lot of the tribe of Ephraim, although not
mentioned here: (1) Samuel's city Ramah (Arimathea in the N.T.), from whom another
Joseph requested of Pilate the body of Jesus; (2) Shiloh where the tabernacle was first set
up; (3) Tizrah, the capital of Jeroboam and his successors; (4) Samaria, built by Omri,
and the capital of the Northern Kingdom in its final years; (5) Shechem, the city where
Jacob lived; (6) Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where the children of Israel pledged
themselves to observe the whole Law of Moses; (7) Sychar, where, "Jesus sat thus by the
well!" and (8) Ephraim, the city to which Jesus retired during his last week on earth were
all a part of the territory of Ephraim."[18]
When this ambitious and arrogant tribe rebelled against the house of David and took
away the northern ten tribes, they usurped the name "Israel" as pertaining to themselves,
but the prophets consistently referred to the Northen "Israel" as Ephraim, that name being
applied no less than 37 times in the prophecy of Hosea alone!
COKE, "Ver. 5. And the border of the children of Ephraim, &c.— After marking out the
south, east, and west boundaries of the tribe of Ephraim, and the half-tribe of Manasseh,
referring to ch. Joshua 17:7 the description of its northern limits, the author proceeds to a
more exact designation of the extent of the territories of Ephraim; and first he sets out at
large the breadth from south to north, or the north-east borders at the broadest part: All
we can say respecting which is, that Ataroth-addar was on the south, and Upper Beth-
horon on the north-east of that tribe. We are not to expect any satisfactory account
respecting this article: the Sacred History is too concise to be extended now, when every
thing in the Holy Land is transposed. We can scarcely meet with the ruins of any of some
cities which formerly figured there, nor discover the least traces of others. The floods
which watered some places are now exhausted and dry; its rivers have taken another
course: in a word, it is no longer the same country; and where the descriptions of Sacred

Writ are not circumstantiated in the clearest manner, we can only supply them by
conjectures more or less probable. Here, for instance, commentators rather guess than
conjecture; and therefore we prefer being silent, to following so vague a method.
CONSTABLE, "Verses 5-10
He traced the borders of Ephraim"s allotment next. Ephraim lay north of the area later
given to Dan and Benjamin, and south of western Manasseh. The Ephraimites failed to
drive out the inhabitants of Gezer ( Joshua 16:10).
ELLICOTT, "Verses 5-8
(5-8) The border (of Ephraim’s inheritance) on the east side.—The words “on the east
side” are not easy to understand. If Ataroth-addar is rightly identified as Ed-Dârieh, and
Mickmethah as the plain of Mukhnah, then the line from Ataroth-addar and Beth-horon to
Michmethah is a line running due north, and separating the territory of Ephraim on the
east from that of Dan on the west. The line from Michmethah to Taanath-shiloh (Tana,
sheet 12) and Janohah (Yânûn, south of T’ana, sheet 15), and so to Jordan, is a line
running from north-west to south-east. The brook Kanah is (roughly) continuous with this
line, but in a westerly direction, and leads us towards the sea. We thus obtain for the
territory of Ephraim four boundary-lines—viz.: (a) the plain of Jordan on the east; (b) the
line of hills bordering the Shephelah on the west; (c) the brook Kanah, and the line
passing through Taanath-shiloh and Janohah to Jordan on the north; and (d) the north
border of Benjamin (Joshua 16:1-3, and Joshua 18:12-14) on the south.
WHEDON, "EPHRAIM’S BORDERS, Joshua 16:5-10.
[This outline of Ephraim’s borders has evidences of being merely a fragment, and much
corrupted at that. All scholars have acknowledged the difficulty of reconciling its
different statements, and all attempts at emendation are at best conjectural.
5. The border… on the east side was Ataroth-addar — We understand Ataroth-addar to be
identical with the Ataroth of Joshua 16:2; Joshua 16:7. At this point the border between
Ephraim and Benjamin went northward towards Bethel, and westward towards Beth-
horon, so that it was regarded as a prominent point in Ephraim’s eastern border, where it
joined the western border of Benjamin.
Unto Beth-horon the upper — Before these words something seems to have fallen out of
the text. The words themselves evidently belong to the southern border, for the upper
Beth-horon was about five miles directly west of Ataroth.
PULPIT, "Joshua 16:5
The border of the children of Ephraim. The Hebrew word is translated indifferently by
coast and border in our translation. The border of Joseph is very slightly traced out by the
historian. It is difficult to give a reason for this fact, when we remember that Joseph,
consisting as it did of the preponderating tribe of Ephraim, together with half the tribe of
Manasseh, constituted by far the most important portion of Jewish territory. See,
however, Introduction for the bearing of this fact on the authorship of the book. It is by no

means easy to define the boundaries of the tribes; but, with the utmost deference to the
authority of one so long engaged in the actual survey of the Holy Land as Mr. Conder, I
feel unable to accept the maps he has given us in his 'Handbook' as an accurate account of
them. Sometimes, perhaps, an eager attempt at the identification of certain places may
lead astray those who are most familiar with their subject. But there are certain plain
statements of the Book of Joshua which cannot be lightly set aside. Thus the extremity
( ‫ֹת‬‫ְא‬‫צ‬ֹ ‫ת‬ ) of the border of Ephraim is distinctly stated in verse 8 to be the sea. To translate
"westward" would rob the expression ‫ֹת‬‫ֹצא‬ ‫ת‬ of all meaning, even if ‫ימה‬ had not the article.
Thus Dan can only have approached towards Joppa, but cannot have reached it. And it
will be observed in Joshua 19:46, in accordance with this view, that the outgoings of the
Danite border are not said to have been the sea. Next, it would seem that the Ataroth of
Joshua 19:2 (not of Joshua 19:7) and Ataroth-addar are either the same place or close
together, and that the present verse gives a small portion of the southeastern boundary as
far as Beth-horon. Why the boundary is not traced out further ("the author only gives the
western part of the southern border, and leaves out the eastern," Knobel) we cannot tell,
but the natural translation of Joshua 19:6 is, "and the western border ran to Michmethah
on the north" (so Knobel). There was so small a portion of Ephraim on the sea that the
line of the Wady Kanah in a northeasterly direction to Michmethah, near Shechem, might
be called a western, as it certainly was a northwestern, border. Then the border deflected
( ‫ַב‬‫ס‬ָ‫נ‬ ) and ran in a southwesterly direction to Jericho. Manasseh seems to have been
bounded by Asher on the north and Issachar on the east, from the borders of Asher to
Michmethah, and its western boundary the sea from the Wady Kanah to the
neighbourhood of Dor. It seems impossible, with the distinct statement that Dor was in
Asher (Joshua 17:11)—it could hardly have been in Issachar—and that Carmel was part
of its western border (Joshua 19:26), to thrust a wedge of Zehulun between Manasseh and
Asher, as Mr. Conder has done. The invention of an Asherham-Michmethah must not be
allowed to set aside the plain statement (Joshua 17:10) that Manasseh impinged ( ‫פגע‬ )
upon Asher in a northerly direction—that is, was bounded on the north by that tribe.
Then, as Asher was the northern, so it would seem from the passage just cited that
Issachar was, as has been suggested, the eastern boundary, and that Issachar was bounded
by the Jordan eastward, Manasseh westward, and by Ephraim to the southwest, and some
distance further south than is usually supposed. Yet Joshua 17:11 must not he forgotten in
fixing the boundary of Issachar (see note on Joshua 19:17-23). Its northern border,
comprehending Jezreel, and bounded by Tabor, was thrust in between Zebulun and
Naphtali. Tabor was evidently the border of these three tribes. It is with much diffidence
that I venture to offer these suggestions, hut they appear to have the sanction of the plain
statements of the sacred writer. It would seem as though the comparative smallness of the
territory assigned to Joseph led to the cession of some of the towns northward of the
Wady Kanah by Manasseh to Ephraim, Manasseh receiving compensation by receiving
Beth-shean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo from Issachar and Asher. The
possession of Beth-shean by Manasseh may be due to the fact that the boundary of
Manasseh ran along the chain of mountains bordering the great plain of Esdraelon, until it
almost reached the Jordan. Additional reasons for entertaining these opinions will be
given in the following notes. On the east side was Ataroth-addar. It is hardly possible to
avoid the conclusion that a passage has been omitted here by the transcriber. If so, it must
have been at a very early period, since the LXX. shows no sign of it, save that some
copies add "and Gezer." But this is probably added from verse 3, and is in no sense an

eastern border.
6 and continued to the Mediterranean Sea. From
Mikmethath on the north it curved eastward to
Taanath Shiloh, passing by it to Janoah on the
east.
GILL, "And the border went out towards the sea,.... The Mediterranean sea:
to Michmethah on the north side; of the border, the same on which Bethhoron was,
from whence the border proceeded on to this place, of which we have no other account
but in Jos_17:7; by which it appears to have been near Shechem, and in sight of it:
and the border went about eastward unto Taanathshiloh; this seems to be the
same Jerom (e) calls Thenath in the tribe of Joseph; and who observes there was in his
day a village of this name ten miles from Neapolis (or Shechem) to the east, as you go
down to Jordan:
and passed by it on the east to Janohah: which the above writer (f) wrongly calls
Janon, and says, that in his time a village of this name was shown in the country of
Acrabatena, twelve miles to the east from Neapolis or Shechem; the border passed by
Taanath on the east of it, and went on this place.
JAMISO 6-7,"Michmethah on the north side — The northern boundary is
traced from this point eastward to the Jordan.
BE SO , "Verse 6-7
Joshua 16:6-7. Toward the sea — The midland sea, toward the west. To Jericho —
ot to the city of Jericho, which belonged to Benjamin’s lot, (Joshua 18:21,) but to
its territory.
TRAPP, "Joshua 16:6 And the border went out toward the sea to Michmethah on
the north side; and the border went about eastward unto Taanathshiloh, and passed

by it on the east to Janohah;
Ver. 6. Toward the sea.] Or, Westward by Michmethah, and then eastward by
several towns here mentioned. These are ancient things, and to us hard to be
understood.
COKE,"Verse 6
Ver. 6. And the border went out toward the sea, &c.— The whole verse is very
obscure: all that we can observe upon it is, that the portion of Ephraim was inclosed
on the north by a line, which went from Upper Beth-horon, among others, to
Michmethah, in the way to the Mediterranean, but on the north of that city drew
near a little on the east towards Taanah-shiloh, and went on to Janohah. From ch.
Joshua 17:7 it appears, that Michmethah was opposite Sichem. Taanah-shiloh is
probably the same as Taanach, ch. Joshua 17:11 which Eusebius places ten miles
from Sichem, in the way to the Jordan. As to Janohah, Eusebius sets down a place of
that name at ten miles from Sichem, and also in the way to the Jordan.
WHEDO , "6. And the border went out toward the sea — The Mediterranean.
Here the sentence should end, for to Michmethah evidently belongs to the northern
boundary, and to another sentence. Toward the sea, then, completes the account of
the boundary in the southwest. We would commence a new sentence with the word
Michmethah, and render, Michmethah was on the north side. Or perhaps it would
be better to emend the reading by means of the parallel in Joshua 17:7, and read,
The border was from Asher to Michmethah on the north. Michmethah is there said
to lie before Shechem, but that is indefinite. It is generally supposed to have been
northeast of Shechem, but the exact site is unknown.
Went about — That is, fetched a circuit, or slightly turned its course, eastward unto
Taanath-shiloh. This is not improbably identical with Ain Tana, about eight miles
southeast of Shechem. Janohah is still preserved in the village of Yanun, about two
miles south of Ain Tana. Van de Velde says that “entire houses and walls of the
ancient city are still existing, but covered with immense heaps of earth and
rubbish.”
PULPIT, "And the border went out towards the sea. Or, "and the western border."
On the north side. Or, "northward." Apparently a line is drawn from the sea, which
(Joshua 16:3) is given as the termination of the southern boundary to Michmethah,
near Shechem (Joshua 17:7). Knobel thinks that Michmethah (the signification of
which is perhaps hiding place) was upon the watershed, and thus served as a
dividing point. Went about. Rather, deflected. The border ran m a northeasterly
direction to Michmethah. It then bent back and ran in a southeasterly direction to
Jericho.

7 Then it went down from Janoah to Ataroth and
aarah, touched Jericho and came out at the
Jordan.
GILL, "And it went down from Johanan to Ataroth,.... This is different from
Ataroth before mentioned, Jos_16:2; there were several places of this name, as before
observed; this seems to be that which Jerom places four miles from Sebaste or Samaria;
see Gill on Jos_16:2,
and to Naarath; Jerom (g) says, that Naarath was in his time called Naorath, a village
of the Jews, five miles from Jericho; and is the village Josephus (h) calls Neara, where
was a water, half of which Archelaus turned, and led to the field planted with palm trees,
near Jericho; and, according to the Jewish writers (i): there was a place called Noaran
near to Jericho, which seems to be this:
and came to Jericho, and went out at Jordan; where it ended this way, which was
eastward.
K&D, "From Janoah the boundary went down “to Ataroth and Naarath,” Ataroth, a
different place from the Ataroth or Atroth-addar mentioned in Jos_16:3 and Jos_16:5, is
apparently to be sought for on the eastern slope of the mountains by the side of the
Ghor, judging from the expression “went down;” but it has not yet been discovered.
Naarath, probably the same as Naaran, in eastern Ephraim (1Ch_7:28), is described in
the Onom. (s. v. Naaratha) as viculus Judaeorum Naorath, five Roman miles (i.e., two
hours) from Jericho, probably on the north-east. The boundary line then touched
Jericho, i.e., the district of Jericho, namely on the north side of the district, as Jericho
was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos_18:21). At this point it also coincided with the
southern boundary of the tribe of Joseph (Jos_16:1) and the northern boundary of
Benjamin (Jos_18:12).
TRAPP, "Joshua 16:7 And it went down from Janohah to Ataroth, and to aarath,
and came to Jericho, and went out at Jordan.
Ver. 7. And came to Jericho,] i.e., To the territories, but not to the town itself, for
that was part of Benjamin’s lot. [Joshua 18:21]
WHEDO ,"7. From Janohah to Ataroth — In this verse we have a confusion of the
northern and southern borders, resulting doubtless from some transposition in the
text. We propose to read, and it went down from Janohah, and went out at Jordan,
and regard the words to Ataroth and to aarath, and came to Jericho, as a
fragment transposed from its proper place in the text, and its immediate connexion
lost.

8 From Tappuah the border went west to the
Kanah Ravine and ended at the Mediterranean
Sea. This was the inheritance of the tribe of the
Ephraimites, according to its clans.
CLARKE,"Tappuah - This was a city in the tribe of Manasseh, and gave name to a
certain district called the land of Tappuah. See Jos_17:8.
The sea - The Mediterranean, as before.
GILL, "The border went out from Tappuah westward,.... Which was different
from the Tappuah in the tribe of Judah, Jos_15:34; this was in the tribe of Ephraim on
the border of Manasseh, Jos_17:8,
unto the river Kanah; supposed by some to be the brook Cherith, by which Elijah hid
himself, 1Ki_17:3; though objected to by others; it seems to have had its name from the
reeds which grew in it, or on the banks of it:
and the goings out thereof were at the sea; if the river Kanah was the brook
Cherith, this must be the dead or salt sea: but that is never called "the sea", rather the
Mediterranean sea is meant, and consequently Kanah could not be Cherith, which was at
too great a distance from this sea:
this is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim by their
families; that is, this is the description of the border of it; for the cities within are not
mentioned, and the descriptions in general are very obscure.
JAMISO ,"from Tappuah westward unto the river Kanah — It is retraced
from east to west, to describe the prospective and intended boundary, which was to
reach to the sea. Kanah (“reedy”) flows into the Mediterranean.
K&D, "The western half of the northern boundary went from Tappuah westwards to
the Cane-brook, and terminated at the sea. Tappuah, called En-tappuah in Jos_17:7, as
the southern boundary of Manasseh, which is there described, and which ran from

Joshua 16 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Joshua 16 commentary

Similar to Joshua 16 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Joshua 16 commentary