The document provides commentary from multiple scholars on the biblical passage describing the allotment of land to the tribe of Simeon. Key details include: - Simeon's territory fell within the land of Judah because Judah's territory was initially larger than needed and the prophecy of Jacob that Simeon would be divided in Israel. - Simeon's cities were scattered within Judah's land, fulfilling Jacob's prophecy. This brought the two tribes into alliance and some Simeonites later joined Judah. - Eighteen cities are listed as being assigned to Simeon, some in the Negeb region and some elsewhere, indicating Simeon's territory was not a single contiguous area

1. JOSHUA 19 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Allotment for Simeon
1 The second lot came out for the tribe of Simeon
according to its clans. Their inheritance lay within
the territory of Judah.
BAR ES 1-9, "The inheritance of Simeon was taken out of the portion of Judah,
which proved on experience to be larger than the numbers of that tribe required. The
Simeonite territory is described by its towns, of which fourteen were in the Negeb, and
four others Jos_19:7 partly in the Negeb and partly in “the valley.” On the narrow
confines here assigned to Simeon, and its insignificant position altogether among the
Twelve tribes, see Deu_33:6 note.
CLARKE, "The second lot came forth to Simeon - In this appointment the
providence of God may be especially remarked. For the iniquitous conduct of Simeon
and Levi, in the massacre of the innocent Shechemites, Gen_34:25-31, Jacob, in the
spirit of prophecy, foretold that they should be divided in Jacob, and scattered in Israel,
Gen_49:7. And this was most literally fulfilled in the manner in which God disposed of
both these tribes afterwards. Levi was scattered through all Palestine, not having
received any inheritance, only cities to dwell in, in different parts of the land; and
Simeon was dispersed in Judah, with what could scarcely be said to be their own, or a
peculiar lot. See the note on Gen_49:7.
GILL, "And the second lot came forth to Simeon,.... That is, the second of the
seven lots, of which Benjamin's was the first; otherwise there were the two lots of Judah
and Joseph, which preceded both these:
even for the tribe of the children of Simeon, according to their families; for
though many of their cities had been given by lot to the tribe of Judah, yet it seems as if
there were others they had by a special lot cast for them, as many as were sufficient for
their families:

2. and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah;
which was done partly because this was but a small tribe, and particularly because the
lot put up, which fell to the tribe of Judah, was too large for it, more than they could
occupy, too much being put to this lot by the first measurers of the land; and partly to
fulfil the prophecy of Jacob, that the Simeonites should be scattered in Jacob, and
divided in Israel, Gen_49:7; and hence it is that the lots of these two tribes lying
together, and being so intermixed, that the tribe of Judah called upon that of Simeon to
join them in fighting against the Canaanites, and taking out of their hands the cities that
belonged to them, Jdg_1:3.
HE RY 1-9, "Simeon's lot was drawn after Judah's, Joseph's, and Benjamin's,
because Jacob had put that tribe under disgrace; yet it is put before the two younger
sons of Leah and the three sons of the handmaids. Not one person of note, neither judge
nor prophet, was of this tribe, that we know of.
I. The situation of their lot was within that of Judah (Jos_19:1) and was taken from it,
Jos_19:9. It seems, those that first surveyed the land thought it larger than it was, and
that it would have held out to give every tribe in proportion as large a share as they had
carved out for Judah; but, upon a more strict enquiry, it was found that it would not
reach (Jos_19:9): The part of the children of Judah was too much for them, more than
they needed, and more, as it proved, than fell to their share. Yet God did not by the lot
lessen it, but left it to their prudence and care afterwards to discover and rectify the
mistake, which when they did, 1. The men of Judah did not oppose the taking away of
the cities again, which by the first distribution fell within their border, when they were
convinced that they had more than their proportion. In all such cases errors must be
excepted and a review admitted if there be occasion. Though, in strictness, what fell to
their lot was their right against all the world, yet they would not insist upon it when it
appeared that another tribe would want what they had to spare. Note, We must look on
the things of others, and not on our own only. The abundance of some must supply the
wants of others, that there may be somewhat of an equality, for which there may be
equity where there is not law. 2. That which was thus taken off from Judah to be put into
a new lot Providence directed to the tribe of Simeon, that Jacob's prophecy concerning
this tribe might be fulfilled, I will divide them in Jacob. The cities of Simeon were
scattered in Judah, with which tribe they were surrounded, except on that side towards
the sea. This brought them into a confederacy with the tribe of Judah (Jdg_1:3), and
afterwards was a happy occasion of the adherence of many of this tribe to the house of
David, at the time of the revolt of the ten tribes to Jeroboam. 2Ch_15:9, out of Simeon
they fell to Asa in abundance. It is good being in a good neighbourhood.
II. The cities within their lot are here named. Beersheba, or Sheba, for these names
seem to refer to the same place, is put first. Ziklag, which we read of in David's story, is
one of them. What course they took to enlarge their borders and make room for
themselves we find 1Ch_4:39, etc.
JAMISO , "Jos_19:1-9. The lot of Simeon.
the second lot came forth to Simeon — The next lot that was drawn at Shiloh,
gave the tribe of Simeon his inheritance within the territory, which had been assigned to
that of Judah. The knowledge of Canaan possessed by the Israelites, when the division of
the land commenced, was but very general, being derived from the rapid sweep they had
made over it during the course of conquest; and it was on the ground of that rough

3. survey alone that the distribution proceeded, by which Judah received an inheritance.
Time showed that this territory was too large (Jos_19:9), either for their numbers,
however great, to occupy and their arms to defend, or too large in proportion to the
allotments of the other tribes. Justice therefore required (what kind and brotherly
feeling readily dictated) a modification of their possession; and a part of it was
appropriated to Simeon. By thus establishing it within the original domain of another
tribe, the prophecy of Jacob in regard to Simeon was fulfilled (Gen_49:7); for from its
boundaries being not traced, there is reason to conclude that its people were divided and
dispersed among those of Judah; and though one group of its cities named (Jos_19:2-6),
gives the idea of a compact district, as it is usually represented by map makers, the other
group (Jos_19:7, Jos_19:8) were situated, two in the south, and two elsewhere, with
tracts of the country around them.
K&D, "The Inheritance of Simeon fell within the inheritance of the children of Judah,
because the land allotted to them at Gilgal was larger than they required (Jos_19:9).
Thus the curse pronounced upon Simeon by Jacob of dispersion in Israel (Gen_49:7)
was fulfilled upon this tribe in a very peculiar manner, and in a different manner from
that pronounced upon Levi. The towns allotted to the tribe of Simeon are divided into
two groups, the first (Jos_19:2-6) consisting of thirteen or fourteen towns, all situated in
the Negeb (or south country); the second (Jos_19:7) of four towns, two of which were in
the Negeb and two in the shephelah. All these eighteen towns have already been
enumerated among the towns of Judah (Jos_15:26-32, Jos_15:42), and are mentioned
again in 1Ch_4:28-32, in just the same order, and with only slight differences in the
spelling of some of the names. If the classification of the names in two groups might
seem to indicate that Simeon received a connected portion of land in Judah, this idea is
overthrown at once by the circumstance that two of the four towns in the second group
were in the south land and two in the lowland, and, judging from Jos_15:32, Jos_15:42,
at a great distance from one another. At the same time, we cannot decide this point with
any certainty, as the situation of several of the towns is still unknown.
CALVI , "Verse 1
ext followed the lot of the tribe of Simeon, not as a mark of honor, but rather as a
mark of disgrace. Jacob had declared with regard to Simeon and Levi, “I will divide
them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.” (Genesis 49:7) The punishment of Levi,
indeed, was not only mitigated, but converted into an excellent dignity, inasmuch as
his posterity were placed on a kind of watch-towers to keep the people in the paths
of piety. In regard to Simeon, the dispersion of which Jacob prophesied, manifestly
took place when certain cities within the territory of Judah were assigned to his
posterity for their inheritance. For although they were not sent off to great
distances, yet they dwelt dispersed, and as strangers in a land properly belonging to
another. Therefore, on account of the slaughter which they had perpetrated with no
less perfidy than cruelty, they were placed separately in different abodes. In this
way the guilt of the father was visited upon his children, and the Lord ratified in
fact that sentence which he had dictated to his servant. The truth of the lot also was
clearly proven.
In the circumstance of a certain portion being withdrawn from the family of Judah,
we again perceive that though the dividers had carefully endeavored to observe
equity, they had fallen into error, which they were not ashamed to correct as soon as

4. it was discovered. And though they were guided by the Spirit, there is nothing
strange in their having been partially mistaken, because God sometimes leaves his
servants destitute of the spirit of judgment, and suffers them to act like men on
different occasions, that they may not plume themselves too much on their clear-
sightedness. We may add that the people were punished for their carelessness and
confident haste, because they ought at the outset to have ascertained more
accurately how much land could be properly assigned to each. This they neglected to
do. Through their unskillful procedure, the children of Judah had received a
disproportion accumulation of territory, and equity required that they should
relinquish a part. It would also have been better for themselves to have their limits
fixed with certainty at once than to be subjected to a galling spoliation afterwards.
Add that each tribe had indulged the vain hope that its members would dwell far
and wide, as if the land had been of unlimited extent.
BE SO , "Joshua 19:1. The second lot came forth to Simeon — God disposed it so
by an especial providence, Simeon being the eldest son of Jacob that was
unprovided for. Their inheritance was within the inheritance of Judah — This also
was ordered by God’s providence, partly to fulfil that threatening that he would
divide and scatter this tribe in Israel, (Genesis 49:7,) which was hereby done in part,
because they had no distinct lot, but were as inmates to Judah; partly because now,
upon the more exact survey of the land, it appeared that the part given to Judah did
far exceed the proportion which they needed, or which the other tribes could expect.
And this was the least of the tribes, ( umbers 26:14,) and therefore fittest to be put
within another tribe.
COFFMA , "Verse 1
This chapter details the territories assigned to the remaining six tribes. The first of
these remaining six was Simeon.
SIMEO , "And the second lot came out for Simeon, even for the tribe of the
children of Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance was in the
midst of the inheritance of the children of Judah. And they had for their inheritance
Beer-sheba, or Sheba, and Moladah, and Hazar-shual, and Balah, and Ezem, and
Eltolad, and Bethul, and Hormah, and Ziklag, and Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-
susah, and Beth-lebaoth, and Sharuhen; thirteen cities and their villages: Ain,
Rimmon, and Ether, and Ashan: and all the villages that were round about these
cities to Baalath-beer, Ramah of the South. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the
children of Simeon according to their families. Out of the part of the inheritance of
the children of Judah was this inheritance of Simeon; for the portion of the children
of Judah was too much for them: therefore the children of Simeon had inheritance
in the midst of their inheritance."
"And the second lot came out for Simeon ..." This was the second lot of this group of
the final seven. "Most of these towns are in the egeb; however, two of them, Ether
and Ashan, are in the Shephelah."[1] This was according to the prophecy in
Deuteronomy 33:6. otice that no boundaries at all are listed here, just these
seventeen cities. The general area in which this inheritance lay was described by

5. Dummelow: "It was in the egeb, or south country, that slopes away from the
Hebron range toward the desert, bounded on the west by the Mediterranean, and on
the east by the Dead Sea and the Valley of Edom.[2] The tribe of Simeon was a
diminishing factor in Israel, the same being, of course, a fulfillment of the
prophecies concerning Simeon.
COKE, "Ver. 1. And the second lot came forth to Simeon— Simeon was the eldest
son of Jacob, who still remained unportioned. The lot, directed by an especial
Providence, gave him a portion, which fully verified the divine promises and
threatenings. Animated by the spirit of God, Jacob, when dying, had declared to
Simeon and Levi, that they should be dispersed in Israel, for their cruelty against
the Shechemites. See Genesis 49:6-7 and Genesis 34. Levi was scattered through all
Palestine, and had no separate province: Simeon is, as it were, shut up in the tribe of
Judah: and thus was the prediction of the holy patriarch accomplished.
ELLICOTT, "I HERITA CE OF SIMEO (Joshua 19:1-9).
(1) Their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah.—The
southern part of the inheritance of Judah was given up to Simeon. (See Judges 1:3;
Judges 1:17.) In this fact a prophecy was fulfilled; for the effect of the allotment was
to separate Simeon from the tribes with whom he had been united in the journey
through the wilderness (viz., Reuben and Gad), who had cast off Simeon, and united
themselves with the half tribe of Manasseh instead. Being also separated from Levi,
Simeon was still further isolated: with the result that in the final separation of Israel
and Judah, after Solomon’s death, the tribe of Simeon, though adhering to the
kingdom of the ten tribes (for the children of Simeon were counted strangers in
Judah—2 Chronicles 15:9), was separated from the territory of that kingdom by the
whole breadth of the kingdom of Judah. Thus were Jacob’s words brought to pass,
which he spoke on his death-bed regarding Simeon and Levi: I will divide them in
Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.
(2) Beer-sheba.—Bir-es-seba. Sheba (Shema).
(7) Ain, Remmon.—Timm er-Rumâmîn.
The rest of the cities of Simeon are not identified in Conder’s Biblical Gazetteer,
with the exception of Sharuhen (Tell esh-Sherî’ah, north-west of Beer-sheba).
(9) The part of the children of Judah was too much for them.—In Judges 1 we read
that Judah invoked the assistance of Simeon to complete the conquest of his
inheritance, and also assisted Simeon to conquer his. This fact illustrates the
character of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, and shows that when his work was
done, something was still left for the individual tribes to do.
PETT, "Chapter 19 The Portions of the Remaining Six Tribes.
In this chapter an account is given of the lots of the six remaining tribes, and the

6. cities in them, of Simeon, whose cities were chiefly within the tribe of Judah (Joshua
19:1); of Zebulun, its border and cities (Joshua 19:10); of Issachar, its border and
cities (Joshua 19:17); of Asher, its border and cities (Joshua 19:24); of aphtali, its
border and cities (Joshua 19:32); of Dan, its border and cities (Joshua 19:40); and
lastly of a gift of inheritance to Joshua (Joshua 19:49).
Verse 1
Chapter 19 The Portions of the Remaining Six Tribes.
In this chapter an account is given of the lots of the six remaining tribes, and the
cities in them, of Simeon, whose cities were chiefly within the tribe of Judah (Joshua
19:1); of Zebulun, its border and cities (Joshua 19:10); of Issachar, its border and
cities (Joshua 19:17); of Asher, its border and cities (Joshua 19:24); of aphtali, its
border and cities (Joshua 19:32); of Dan, its border and cities (Joshua 19:40); and
lastly of a gift of inheritance to Joshua (Joshua 19:49).
Joshua 19:1
‘And the second lot came out for Simeon, for the tribe of the children of Simeon,
according to their families, and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the
children of Judah.’
The first lot was of course the children of Benjamin’s (Joshua 18:11). This is the
second of the seven. The patriarchal name is given without qualification only for
Simeon and Issachar. In the other cases only the tribal name ‘children of --’ is given.
There is no obvious reason for this unless it is connected with the fact that neither is
mentioned as directly spoken to in the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33 - Issachar
is included with Zebulun). This might suggest that Joshua or the writer took full
note of the blessing of Moses and wished to include Simeon and Issachar in it by
codicil.
Why the blessing of Moses excluded a direct reference to them is debatable. It was
very possibly because Moses wished deliberately to name only ten names. umbers
had a great significance in those days and ten would for example, parallel the ten
words of the covenant. It would also parallel the ten patriarchs in Genesis 5, 11.
Thus he deliberately included Issachar with Zebulun. The total omission of Simeon
may have been for some judicial reason (e.g. umbers 25:14) as an indication of
Moses’ displeasure, although he may have seen them as indirectly included with
their twin Levi as in Genesis 49:5. But the exclusion was not permanent. They were
elsewhere regularly mentioned with the twelve. And it may be that it is here seen as
partly remedied by Joshua. (If Moses wished to omit two names, sons of Leah were
obvious choices due to their preponderance. But the non-mention at all of Simeon
must be seen as having some significance even though we may not know what it
was).
After Judah had received their portion, with its cities, further consideration made
Joshua recognise that Judah had been allocated too much. This is an indication of
the genuineness of the narrative. He had to revise his allocations. Thus Simeon was

7. chosen by lot to receive cities in the midst of Judah. This would later bring about a
special relationship between the two tribes (Judges 1:3). But they remained separate
tribes although working in close unison and Simeon is regularly mentioned as such
in later history (1 Chronicles 4:42-43; 1 Chronicles 12:25; 2 Chronicles 15:9; 2
Chronicles 34:6).
PULPIT, "THE LOT OF THE REMAI I G TRIBES.
Joshua 19:1
And their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah. Literally,
in the midst of. ἀνὰ µέσον, LXX.; in medio, Vulgate (cf. Joshua 19:9). Simeon, at the
last census ( umbers 26:14), was the smallest of the tribes of Israel, a fulfilment of
the prophecy of Jacob, and possibly the result of the command given in umbers
25:5, since the Simeonites were the chief offenders on that occasion ( umbers 25:14;
see also 1 Chronicles 4:27). The distribution of territory was in accordance with this,
and it is possible that the lot only determined the priority of choice among the tribes.
The territory of Judah seems to have been recognised as too large, in spite of the
importance of the tribe. They therefore willingly gave up a portion of their territory
to the Simeonites.
PI K, ""And the second lot came forth to Simeon, for the tribe of the children of
Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance was within the inheritance
of the children of Judah" (Josh. 19:1). The portion which had been given to Judah
was more extensive than was required by that tribe. "It seems that, without
murmuring, Judah renounced his claim, at the instance of Joshua and those who
had been nominated to the work of dividing the land" (Scott). This is borne out by
what is stated in verse 9, "Out of the portion of the children of Judah was the
inheritance of the children of Simeon: for the part of the children of Judah was too
much for them: therefore the children of Simeon had their inheritance within the
inheritance of them"—there were more cities than they could fill, more land than
they could cultivate. It is worthy of note that this is the only recorded instance of
their portion being too large for any of them, and it is surely significant that it was
Judah’s which proved to be the exception, for it was the tribe from which according
to the flesh our Lord sprang. Thus we have here adumbrated that grand truth of the
fullness of Christ, that in Him there is an abundance of grace, inexhaustible riches
available for the saints to draw upon!
It is striking to note that this second lot fulfilled the prophecy of Jacob. He had
linked together Simeon and Levi in judgment, who earlier had been united in
wickedness (Gen. 34:25), saying, as God’s mouthpiece, "I will divide them in Jacob,
and scatter them in Israel" (Gen. 49:5-7). Because of his noble conduct
subsequently, the curse upon Levi was revoked and displaced by the blessing of the
Lord, and he who was originally joined to his brother in sin and cruelty was
eventually joined to the Lord in grace and honor, so that there was made with his
seed "the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God,

8. and made an atonement for the children of Israel" ( um. 25:6-13). evertheless, the
terms of the patriarch’s prediction were accomplished, for the Levites had as their
portion in Canaan forty-eight cities, which were scattered throughout the
inheritance of the other tribes ( um. 35:8; Joshua 14:4; 21:3). So too in the case of
Simeon: his descendants received not a separate territory in the promised land, but
had their portion within the allotment of Judah, and, as Joshua 19:2-8, shows, the
tribe of Simeon was widely "scattered," being dispersed among many different
cities.
CO STABLE, "The inheritance of Simeon19:1-9
Simeon"s lot fell within the southern portion of the inheritance of Judah because
Judah"s portion proved too large for that tribe ( Joshua 19:9). Simeon received
certain towns within Judah"s territory. In this way God fulfilled Jacob"s
prediction, at least initially, that Simeon would experience dispersion ( Genesis 49:5-
7).
The Simeonites received two groups of towns ( Joshua 19:2-8). The first group
consisted of13towns in the egev ( Joshua 19:2-6). The second included four towns,
two in the egev and two in the Shephelah ( Joshua 19:7). The names of all these
towns also occur in Judah"s list ( Joshua 15:26-32; Joshua 15:42).
BI 1-51, "The part of the children of Judah was too much for them: therefore the
children of Simeon had their inheritance within the inheritance of them.
A too extensive earthly portion
A fine lesson for such who, in the amplitude of their earthly portion, have more than
themselves or their families in conscience require, when numbers of their brethren,
high-born as themselves and heirs to the noblest hopes, have many of them not only a
scanty lot, but scarcely the common necessaries of life. If the one has too little, surely it
may be said, though few are likely to allow it, the other has too much. And why this
disparity in the condition of the brethren but for the trial of faith in the one and the
display of charity in the other? What an admonition in so impoverished a world as this,
where so many, comparatively speaking, yea, and in cases not a few, literally are
houseless and helpless, without means of daily sustenance, to contract their own borders
that room may be given to these destitute Simeonites. The first Christians did this to an
extent not now required: so powerfully did the love of Christ operate in their hearts, and
so little hold had earthly things of their affections when placed in competition with
spiritual and heavenly interests, that the multitude of them that believed were of one
heart and of one soul—and in this too, in practice as well as in sentiment (Act_4:34-35).
Without reducing to one common stock, that distribution which should be alike to all, a
state of things evidently adapted only to times of persecution, and that under no other
circumstances could answer the designs of Providence in a condition of trial common to
this life, who is there that thinks he has too much, and is so affected with the little which
others have of the same household of faith, that he is cheerfully ready to allow a part in
his portion? therein discovering that amiable feature of the Christian character which
the apostle has marked as strikingly beautiful, “willing to distribute.” (W. Seaton.)

9. An inheritance to Joshua,—
The leader disinterested
As in a shipwreck the captain is the last to leave the doomed vessel, so here the leader of
the nation was the last to receive a portion. With rare self-denial he waited till every one
else was provided for. Here we have a glimpse of his noble spirit. That there would be
much grumbling over the division of the country he no doubt counted inevitable, and
that the people would be disposed to come with their complaints to him followed as a
matter of course. See how he circumvents them! Whoever might be disposed to go to
him complaining of his lot knew the ready answer he would get—“You are not worse off
than I am, for as yet I have got none!” Joshua was content to see the fairest inheritance
disposed of to others, while as yet none had been allotted to him. He might have asked
for an inheritance in the fertile and beautiful vale of Shechem, consecrated by one of the
earliest promises to Abraham, near to Jacob’s well and his ancestor Joseph’s Comb, or
under shadow of the two mountains, Ebal and Gerizim, where so solemn a transaction
had taken place after his people entered the land. He asks for nothing of the kind, but for
a spot on one of the highland hills of Ephraim, a place so obscure that no trace of it
remains. It is described in Jdg_2:9 as “Timnath-heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, on
the north of the mountain of Gaash.” The north side of the mountain does not indicate a
spot remarkable either for amenity or fertility. In the days of Jerome his friend Paula is
said to have expressed surprise that the distributer of the whole country reserved so wild
and mountainous a district for himself. His choice of it was a splendid rebuke to the
grumbling of his tribe, to the pride and selfishness of the “great people” who would not
be content with a single lot, and wished an additional one to be assigned to them. “Up
with you to the mountain,” was Joshua’s spirited reply; “cut down the wood, and drive
out the Canaanites!” In any case, he set a splendid example of disinterested humility.
How nobly contrasted with men like Napoleon, who used his influence so greedily for
the enrichment and aggrandisement of every member of his family! Joshua came very
near to the spirit of our blessed Lord. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
Self the last to be considered
The servant, though honourable above all, and worthy a double portion, was as the last
and least among them, and gave rest to others before he took rest himself. In this he was
a striking type of that adorable Redeemer, the captain of the host of the Lord, who, till
He had obtained full conquest and possession for His people, sat not down at the right
hand of God, in the presence of His triumphant Church. Though Lord of all, yet He
became the servant of all, and as an example ever to be studied and copied by His
followers, said in expressive condescension and abasement, “Am not I among you as one
that serveth?” Oh! that this mind were more evidently in us which was in Christ Jesus,
who, in all He sacrificed, suffered, and forewent, ever looked on the things of others, and
in His self emptyings placed His own felicity and glory in the salvation of His people. The
lot assigned Joshua was his choice, and within the portion of his own tribe. There was
nothing of pre-eminence to distinguish it from the possession of others, except as
himself gave note to it, and being the residence of one so exalted in character, so great in
achievements. It does not appear the best of the land, yet it possessed one advantage,
beyond what it could have had in fertility and extent, being near to Shiloh, the habitation
of holiness and seat of mercy. Lot chose Sodom for the pleasantness and fertility of its
plain, but Joshua chose Timnath-serah for the holiness of its vicinity. How few in the
settlements of life, whose means afford the advantage of choice, are determined by

10. considerations of piety and the hope of rendering service to God and His people!
Generally a residence is sought which promises gratifications most congenial with their
earthly wishes, or where they may receive the greatest good to themselves, and not
where they may do the greatest good to others. (W. Seaton, M. A.).
2 It included:
Beersheba (or Sheba),[a] Moladah,
CLARKE, "Beer-sheba - The well of the oath. See the note on Gen_21:31.
GILL, "And they had in their inheritance Beersheba and Sheba,.... Or,
Beersheba, that is, Sheba; for so the particle "vau" is sometimes used (z), and must be so
used here; or otherwise, instead of thirteen, it will appear that there are fourteen cities,
contrary to the account of them, Jos_19:6; so Kimchi and Ben Melech make them one
city. And it may be observed, that in the enumeration of the cities of Simeon, 1Ch_4:28;
Sheba is left out, and only Beersheba is mentioned; which, was a well known place in, the
farthest border of the land of Israel southward, and the reason of its name is manifest,
Gen_21:31; See Gill on Jos_15:28,
and Moladah; another of the cities of Judah, Jos_15:26.
K&D, "Jos_19:2-6
Beersheba: see at Jos_15:28. Sheba is wanting in the Chronicles, but has no doubt
been omitted through a copyist's error, as Shema answers to it in Jos_15:26, where it
stands before Moladah just as Sheba does here. - On the names in Jos_19:3-6, see the
exposition of Jos_15:28-32. - The sum total given in Jos_19:6, viz., thirteen towns, does
not tally, as there are fourteen names. On these differences, see the remarks on Jos_
15:32.
PETT, "Verses 2-6
‘And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, that is Sheba, and Moladah, and
Hazar-shual, and Balah, and Ezem, and Eltolad, and Bethul, and Hormah, and
Ziklag, and Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susah, and Beth-lebaoth, and Sharuhen.
Thirteen cities with their villages.’

11. The cities in which Simeon would have a part are now listed. It would seem that
Beersheba, or a part of it, was regularly called Sheba (Genesis 26:33) and therefore
both names were given. Possibly one name was used by Judah and the other by
Simeon (in virtually the same listing in 1 Chronicles 4:28 Sheba is omitted,
presumably for this reason). Beersheba was the place where Abraham made a
covenant with the Philistine trading settlement and which he established as a sacred
place. It means ‘well of the seven’ referring to the seven ewes which sealed the
covenant (Genesis 21:32-33). It was later a favourite place of pilgrimage and thus
continued in Israelite eyes as a sacred place (Amos 5:5; Amos 8:14), and Sheba (see
Genesis 26:33) may have been a section of it populated by Simeon so that
‘Beersheba and Sheba’ are one ‘city’.
ote in respect of these cities named here the similar list in Joshua 15:26-32 in the
portion of Judah, where most are duplicated. They had been allocated to Judah but
were now reallocated to Simeon. There was possibly joint oversight. Judah and
Simeon were both sons of Leah, (as indeed were Issachar and Zebulun who also
developed closely together). City names not similar are Bethul (although possibly
the same as Chesil), Beth-marcaboth, Hazar-susah and Sharuhen (compare 1
Chronicles 4:30-31).
Beth-marcaboth (‘house of chariots’) is uncertain but its connection with Hormah
and Ziklag suggests it was probably a strong-point on the Judaean-Philistine
border. The name suggests that it might have been a Canaanite arsenal at this time.
Hazar-susah (‘horse encampment’) was probably nearby. Sharuhen is possibly Tell
el-Far‘a, twenty four kilometres (fifteen miles) south of Gaza or Tell el-Huweilfeh,
half a kilometre (less than half a mile) north of Khirbet Rammamein. A ‘Srhn’ is
referred to in Egyptian sources as a Hyksos fortress which resisted Ahmose for
three years around 1550 BC. Some of these may be alternative names to those
mentioned in Joshua 15:31-32.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:2
Beersheba. A locality well known in Scripture, from Genesis 21:31 onwards. And
Sheba. Some would translate here, or Sheba (see below). o doubt the city, of which
nothing further is known, derived its name from Beer-sheba, "the well of the oath,"
close by. It is true that some little difficulty is caused by the omission of this city in
Chronicles 4:28, by the identification of Shehah with Beer-sheba in Genesis 26:33,
and by the fact that in Genesis 26:6 we are told that there were thirteen cities in this
catalogue, whereas there are fourteen. On the other hand, Keil has remarked that in
Joshua 15:32 the number of names does not correspond to the whole number of
cities given; and we have a Shema, probably a mistake for Sheba, in Joshua 15:26,
mentioned before Moladah among the cities of Judah. And, lastly, we have very few
instances in Scripture of the disjunctive use of , ‫ו‬ though it seems impossible to deny
that it is used in this sense in 1 Kings 18:27

12. 3 Hazar Shual, Balah, Ezem,
CLARKE, "Hazar-shual - For this and several of the following places, see the notes
on Jos_15:32.
GILL, "And Hazarshual,.... See Gill on Jos_15:28,
and Balah, and Azem; of these places see Gill on Jos_15:29; for Balah is the same
with Baalah there, and with Bilhah 1Ch_4:29; and Azem with Ezem there.
4 Eltolad, Bethul, Hormah,
GILL, "And Eltolad, and Bethul, and Hormah. These were all cities of Judah,
Jos_15:30; Eltolad is the same with Tolad, and Bethul with Bethuel, 1Ch_4:29, and with
Chesil, Jos_15:30, mentioned there along with Hormah; See Gill on Jos_15:30.
5 Ziklag, Beth Markaboth, Hazar Susah,
CLARKE, "Beth-marcaboth - The house or city of chariots. Probably a place
where their war-chariots and cavalry were laid up.
GILL, "And Ziklag,.... Another of the cities of Judah; see Gill on Jos_15:31,
and Bethmarcaboth, and Hazarsusah; or Hazarsusim, as in 1Ch_4:31; the one
signifies a chariot house, and the other a court or stable for horses, which made Bochart
conjecture (a), that they were places where Solomon kept his chariots and horses; but it
should be observed that these were the names by which these places went in the times of
the old Canaanites; and seem to me rather where some of their kings had their horses
and chariots; or rather where there were temples dedicated to the horses and chariots of

13. the sun; see 2Ki_23:11.
6 Beth Lebaoth and Sharuhen—thirteen towns
and their villages;
BAR ES, "Jos_19:6
Thirteen - Fourteen names have been given. The error is probably due to the use of
letters for numbers, which has led to many similar mistakes in other places (see Jos_
15:32).
CLARKE, "Beth-lebaoth - The house or city of lionesses. Probably so called from
the numbers of those animals which bred there.
GILL, "And Bethlebaoth, and Sharuhen,.... Whether the first is the same with
Lebaoth, a city of Judah, Jos_15:32; and with the Bethleptepha of Josephus (b), and the
Betholene of Pliny (c), is not certain: in this place secret to have been an idol temple of
the Canaanites, dedicated to lions, as in Egypt there was a city called Leontopolis, from
whence was the Leontopolitan nome, the inhabitants of which worshipped lions (d); and
the Egyptians had temples dedicated to them, as Aelianus (e) relates. Both these places
are thought to be the same with Bethbirei and Shaaraim in 1Ch_4:31; of the latter of
which see Jos_15:36. Those who take Sheba, Jos_19:2, to be the same with Shema, Jos_
15:26, make but one city here, and take away the last, as the Greek version does, and
render the word "and their fields", and so the number still is as follows:
thirteen cities and their villages; the sum total of those enumerated above.
7 Ain, Rimmon, Ether and Ashan—four towns
and their villages—
GILL, "Ain, Remmon,.... Of the two first, which were cities of Judah; see Gill on Jos_
15:32,
and Ether, and Ashan; of the two last; see Gill on Jos_19:42,
four cities and their villages; Ain, Remmon, therefore, could not be one city, at this

14. time, as it seems to have been in the times of Nehemiah, Neh_11:29; or otherwise there
would have been but three cities.
K&D, "Jos_19:7
Ain and Rimmon were in the south land (Jos_15:32), Ether and Ashan in the lowlands
(Jos_15:42).
PETT, "Verse 7
‘Ain, Rimmon and Ether and Ashan. Four cities with their villages.’
For the first two see Joshua 15:32 and 1 Chronicles 4:32. Ether and Ashan were in
the Shephelah (Joshua 15:42).
LXX here combines Ain and Rimmon as one city and includes a further city Tochen
(1 Chronicles 4:32), but in 1 Chronicles 4:32 LXX keeps Ain and Rimmon as
separate ‘cities’. This suggests that the Hebrew text is correct.
8 and all the villages around these towns as far as
Baalath Beer (Ramah in the egev).
This was the inheritance of the tribe of the
Simeonites, according to its clans.
CLARKE, "Baalath-beer - The well of the mistresses. Probably so called from some
superstitious or impure worship set up there.
GILL, "And all the villages that were round about these cities,.... Not only the
suburbs adjoining to those cities which are mentioned before, but the several small
distinct towns and villages, scattered up and down in the country:
to Baalathbeer, Ramath of the south: this is the same with Baal in 1Ch_4:33; and
with Ramath of the south, or south Ramoth, as it is called 1Sa_30:27; all these are the
names of one and the same city:
this is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon,
according to their families; that is, the above named cities fell to the lot of the
inheritance of the Simeonites, and were divided among them according to the number of

15. their respective families; at least, these were the chief and principal of them; for all that
they possessed are not mentioned, particularly one called Tochen, 1Ch_4:32; and
another, the name of which is Etam there, unless that is thought to be the same with
Ether here in Jos_19:7. Josephus says (f), this tribe took by lot that part of Idumea
which lay near to Egypt and Arabia.
K&D, "Jos_19:8-9
In addition to the towns mentioned, the Simeonites received all the villages round
about the towns to Baalath-beer, the Ramah of the south. This place, up to which the
territory of the Simeonites extended, though without its being actually assigned to the
Simeonites, is simply called Baal in 1Ch_4:33, and is probably the same as Bealoth in
Jos_15:24, though its situation has not yet been determined (see at Jos_15:24). It
cannot be identified, however, with Ramet el Khulil, an hour to the north of Hebron,
which Roediger supposes to be the Ramah of the south, since the territory of Simeon,
which was situated in the Negeb, and had only two towns in the shephelah, cannot
possibly have extended into the mountains to a point on the north of Hebron. So far as
the situation is concerned, V. de Velde would be more likely to be correct, when he
identifies Rama of the south with Tell Lekiyeh on the north of Beersheba, if this
conjecture only rested upon a better foundation than the untenable assumption, that
Baalath-beer is the same as the Baalath of Dan in Jos_19:44.
PETT, "Verse 8
‘And all the villages which were round about these cities to Baalath-beer, Ramah of
the egeb. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon according to
their families.’
An all inclusive statement taking in any villages not seen as already included as far
as Baalath-Beer, Ramah of the egeb. For the latter see 1 Samuel 30:27. The sites
have not been identified to date.
“This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their
families.” This is the official statement that followed each allocation. The fact that it
is not applied to Manasseh demonstrates that it was applied at that time. Later
writers would also have applied it to Manasseh.
9 The inheritance of the Simeonites was taken
from the share of Judah, because Judah’s portion
was more than they needed. So the Simeonites
received their inheritance within the territory of
Judah.
Allotment for Zebulun

16. GILL, "Out of the portion of the children of Judah was the inheritance of
the children of Simeon,.... Which is the reason why no description is given of the
border of their inheritance, because that is before given in the account of the lot of
Judah:
for the part of the children of Judah was too much for them: they had more
cities than they could fill with people, and more land than they could cultivate; they had
an hundred fourteen cities with their villages:
therefore the children of Simeon had their inheritance within the
inheritance of them; the one being a small tribe, and the other large, and for the
reasons given; See Gill on Jos_19:1.
CALVI , "9.Out of the portion of the children of Judah, etc The praise of
moderation is due to the tribe of Judah for not contending that the abstraction of
any part of the inheritance already assigned to them was unjust. They might easily
have obtruded the name of God, and asserted that it was only by his authority they
had obtained that settlement. But as it is decided by the common consent of all the
tribes that more has been given to them than they can possess without loss and
injury to the others, they immediately desist from all pretext for disputing the
matter. And it is certain that if they had alleged the authority of God, it would have
been falsely and wickedly, inasmuch as though their lot had been determined by
him in regard to its situation, an error had taken place with regard to its extent,
their limits having been fixed by human judgment wider than they ought.
Therefore, acknowledging that it would have been wrong to give them what would
occasion loss to others, they willingly resign it, and give a welcome reception to their
brethren, who must otherwise have remained without inheritance, nay, submit to go
shares with them in that which they supposed they had acquired beyond
controversy.
PETT, "Verse 9
‘Out of the part of the children of Judah was the inheritance of the children of
Simeon, for the portion of the children of Judah was too much for them. Therefore
the children of Simeon had inheritance in the midst of their inheritance.’
Coming after verse 8 this is probably the writer’s explanation added to the official
record. It confirms that because too much had been allocated to Judah, Simeon were
allotted part of their portion. In view of the fact that all was given by lot under
YHWH’s direction no one would later have dared suggest such an idea unless it had
been so.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:9

17. Therefore the children of Simeon had their inheritance. Of the later history of the
children of Simeon we find a little recorded in 1 Chronicles 4:39-42, and some
suppose that the event recorded there is a fulfilment of the prophecy in Obadiah
1:19. Dr. Pusey mentions a tribe still existing in the south, professing to be of the
sons of Israel, and holding no connection with the Arabs of the neighbourhood, and
supposes them to be the descendants of the five hundred Simeonites who took
possession of Mount Seir in the days of Hezekiah. o border seems to have been
given of Simeon.
10 The third lot came up for Zebulun according to
its clans:
The boundary of their inheritance went as far as
Sarid.
BAR ES, "Sarid, not yet identified, was evidently a leading topographical point on
the south frontier of Zebulun. The boundary passed westward until it touched the
Kishon, near “Tell Kaimon” (Jos_12:22 note), and thence, turned northward, leaving
Carmel, which belonged to Asher, on its west. The territory of Zebulun accordingly
would not anywhere reach to the Mediterranean, though its eastern side abutted on the
sea of Galilee, and gave the tribe those “outgoings” attributed to it in the Blessing of
Moses (Deu_33:18). Daberath (Jos_19:12) is probably “Deburieh.”
GILL, "And the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun,
according to their families,.... Who, though younger than Issachar, has his lot before
him, agreeably to the order in which his blessing is predicted, both by Jacob and Moses,
Gen_49:13;
and the border of their inheritance was unto Sarid; or "by Sarid", as Masius,
who takes this to be the southwest border of Zebulun, being near Carmel; in which he
seems to be right.
HE RY 10-16, "This is the lot of Zebulun, who, though born of Leah after Issachar,
yet was blessed by Jacob and Moses before him; and therefore it was so ordered that his
lot was drawn before that of Issachar, north of which it lay and south of Asher. 1. The lot
of this tribe was washed by the great sea on the west, and by the sea of Tiberias on the

18. east, answering Jacob's prophecy (Gen_49:13), Zebulun shall be a haven of ships,
trading ships on the great sea and fishing ships on the sea of Galilee. 2. Though there
were some places in this tribe which were made famous in the Old Testament, especially
Mount Carmel, on which the famous trial was between God and Baal in Elijah's time, yet
it was made much more illustrious in the New Testament; for within the lot of this tribe
was Nazareth, where our blessed Saviour spent so much of his time on earth, and from
which he was called Jesus of Nazareth, and Mount Tabor on which he was transfigured,
and that coast of the sea of Galilee on which Christ preached so many sermons and
wrought so many miracles.
JAMISO , "Jos_19:10-16. Of Zebulun.
the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun — The boundaries of the
possession assigned to them extended from the Lake of Chinnereth (Sea of Galilee) on
the east, to the Mediterranean on the west. Although they do not seem at first to have
touched on the western shore - a part of Manasseh running north into Asher (Jos_17:10)
- they afterwards did, according to the prediction of Moses (Deu_33:19). The extent
from north to south cannot be very exactly traced; the sites of many of the places
through which the boundary line is drawn being unknown. Some of the cities were of
note.
CALVI , "10.And the third lot came up, etc In the lot of Zebulun there is a clear
fulfillment of the prophecy of Jacob, which had foretold that they would dwell on
the sea-coast. An old man, an exile who could not set a foot on his own land, (168)
assigned a maritime district to the posterity of his son Zebulun. What could be more
extravagant? But now, when the lot assigns them a maritime region, no clearer
confirmation of his decision could be desired. It was just as if God were twice
thundering from heaven. The tribe of Zebulun, therefore, do not occupy the shore of
their own accord or by human suffrage, but a divine arrangement fixes their
habitation contiguous to the sea. Thus, although men erred, still the light was always
seen shining brightly in the darkness. Jacob goes farther, and makes a clear
distinction between Zebulun and Issachar. The former tribe will travel far and
wide, carrying on trade and commerce; the latter remaining in his tents, will
cultivate ease and a sedentary life. (Genesis 49:13) Hence it is probable that the sea-
coast where Zebulun settled, was provided with harbors and well adapted for the
various forms of commercial intercourse, (169) whereas the children of Issachar
were contented with their own produce, and consumed the fruits which they had
raised by their own labor and culture at home.
Those who are thought to be well acquainted with these countries, affirm that the
land of the tribe of Asher was fertile in corn. (170) This is in complete accordance
both with the letter and the spirit of Jacob’s prophecy. (Genesis 49:20) From the
fact that only a small number of cities are designated by name, we may infer that
there were then many ruined cities which were not taken into account, and from the
other fact that the people dwelt commodiously, we may also infer that they built
many cities, with which it is plain from other passages that the land was adorned.
And it is certainly apparent that only a summary of the division is briefly glanced
at, and that thus many things were omitted which no religious feeling forbids us to
investigate, provided we do not indulge in an excessive curiosity leading to no

19. beneficial result. There cannot be a doubt that those to whom twenty or even only
seventeen cities are attributed, had more extensive territories. Therefore, all we have
here is a compendious description of the division as it was taken from the general
and confused notes of the surveyors.
K&D, "The Inheritance of Zebulun fell above the plain of Jezreel, between this plain
and the mountains of Naphtali, so that it was bounded by Asher on the west and north-
west (Jos_19:27), by Naphtali on the north and north-east (Jos_19:34), and by Issachar
on the south-east and south, and touched neither the Mediterranean Sea nor the Jordan.
It embraced a very fertile country, however, with the fine broad plain of el Buttauf, the
µέγα πεδίον above Nazareth called Asochis in Joseph. vita, §41, 45 (see Rob. iii. p. 189,
Bibl. Res. pp. 105ff.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 742, 758-9).
Jos_19:10
“And the boundary (the territory) of their inheritance was (went) to Sarid.” This is no
doubt the centre of the southern boundary, from which it is traced in a westerly
direction in Jos_19:11, and in an easterly direction in Jos_19:12, in the same manner as
in Jos_16:6. Unfortunately, Sarid cannot be determined with certainty. Knobel's
opinion, is, that the name, which signifies “hole” or “incision,” after the analogy of ‫ד‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ‫,שׂ‬
perforavit, and ‫ט‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ‫,שׂ‬ incidit, does not refer to a town, but to some other locality, probably
the southern opening of the deep and narrow wady which comes down from the basin of
Nazareth, and is about an hour to the south-east of Nazareth, between two steep
mountains (Seetzen, ii. pp. 151-2; Rob. iii. p. 183). This locality appears suitable enough.
But it is also possible that Sarid may be found in one of the two heaps of ruins on the
south side of the Mons praecipitii upon V. de Velde's map (so called from Luk_4:29).
COFFMA , "Verse 10
ZEBULU
"And the third lot came out for the children of Zebulun according to their families.
And the border of their inheritance was unto Sarid; and their border went up
westward, even to Maralah, and reached to Dabbesheth; and it reached to the brook
that is before Jokneam; and it turned from Sarid eastward toward the sunrising
unto the border of Chisloth-tabor; and it went out to Daberath, and went up to
Japhia; and from thence it passed along eastward to Gath-hepher, to Eth-kazin; and
it went out at Rimmon which stretcheth unto eah; and the border turned about it
on the north to Hanna-thon; and the goings out thereof were at the valley of
Iphtahel; and Kattah, and ahalal, and Shimron, and Idalah, and Bethlehem:
twelve cities with their villages. This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun
according to their families, these cities with their villages."
"This inheritance lay west of azareth and east of Accho."[3] Unger's more
complete description is:
"This was the landlocked district in lower Galilee bordered by Asher on the west,
Manasseh on the south, Issachar on the southeast, and aphtali on the north and

20. northeast. Zebulun was traversed by "the way of the sea" (Isaiah 9:1), a widely
traveled road to the Mediterranean Sea."[4]
It is of interest that the birthplace of Jonah, Gath-hepher, lay within this territory.
The Bethlehem mentioned here, however, was named by the Zebulunites after the
one where Jesus was born.[5] The wisdom of the Lord has been pointed out in this
placement of the children of Leah to the north of the Rachel tribes in order to
procure a greater unity of the children of Israel. This objective "was accomplished
for centuries."[6]
PI K, ""And the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun according to their
families" (Josh. 19:10). The part played by Zebulun in the history of the nation was
not a prominent one, but though referred to rarely as a tribe, each time that
mention is made of them it is of a highly creditable nature. First, we read of them in
Judges 5 where Deborah celebrates in song the notable victory over Jabin and
Sisera, and recounts the parts played therein by the different tribes. In verse 18 we
read, "Zebulun and aphtali were a people that jeoparded their lives unto the death
in the high places of the field." In I Chronicles 12 where we have enumerated those
who "came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him," we are told,
"Of Zebulun, such as went forth to battle, expert in war, with all instruments of
war, fifty thousand, which could keep rank: they were not of double heart" (vv. 23,
33). So too they were among those who brought a rich supply of provisions for the
feast on that occasion. But that which mainly characterized it was the maritime
nature of this tribe.
Jacob foretold, "Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea; and he shall be for a
haven of ships; and his border shall be unto Zidon" (Gen. 49:13). Moses also, "And
of Zebulun he said, Rejoice, Zebulun, in thy going out; and Issachar, in thy tents.
They shall call the people unto the mountain; there they shall offer sacrifices of
righteousness: for they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of treasures hid
in the sand" (Deut. 33:18, 19). And so it came to pass, for Joshua 19 goes on to say of
the lot of Zebulun "and their border went up toward the sea"—a statement of
seemingly little importance and easily overlooked by the casual reader; yet one
which announced the literal fulfillment of prophecies made centuries before. The
expressions "thy going out" and "they shall suck of the abundance of the seas"
received their accomplishment in their ocean life and trading in foreign parts.
But that which is of interest to the Christian in connection with Zebulun’s portion is
the honorable place which it receives in the ew Testament, for if the character of
the people was praiseworthy, even more notable was the position they occupied in
Palestine. Matthew 4:15, 16, informs us that "the land of Zebulun and the land of
aphtali" (which adjoined it) was none other than "Galilee of the Gentiles,"
concerning which it is said, "The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and
to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up." azareth,
where the Savior spent so much of His time when He tabernacled here among men,
was in its borders, and it was also on the shores of its sea that He did so much of His
preaching and wrought so many miracles. Well might the voice of prophecy bid
Zebulun "rejoice" (Deut. 33:18). Therein also we may perceive the deeper and

21. spiritual allusion in the words "Rejoice in thy going out. . . . They shall call the
people unto the mountain," i.e. the kingdom of the Messiah (Isa. 2:2), which was
done by the preaching of Christ and His apostles—which means those who go out It
is remarkable that, with the lone exception of Judas, all of the twelve apostles were
men of Galilee! Zebulun was also "for a haven," and it was in its borders that
Joseph and Mary, with the Christ child, found a haven after their return from
Egypt, and it afforded Him shelter when the Jews sought to kill Him in Judea (John
7:1).
CO STABLE, "Verses 10-16
The inheritance of Zebulun19:10-16
Zebulun"s territory lay north of the plain of Jezreel that marked Manasseh"s
northern border and southwest of the hills of aphtali. On the northwest its
neighbor was Asher and on the southeast Issachar. Zebulun"s land was very fertile.
Zebulun received12towns, though the writer identified only five here ( Joshua
19:15).
ELLICOTT, "Verse 10
THE BORDER OF ZEBULU .
(10) The third lot . . . for the children of Zebulun . . . Sarid (Syriac, Asdod; LXX.,
Seddouk) should be apparently spelt with consonants s, D, D. It is identified as Tell
Shadûd (sheet 8). From this point a line is drawn westward (past M’alûl, sheet 5) to
Jokneam (Tell Keimûn, same sheet), a place at the south-east end of the Carmel
ridge. This is the south boundary. We may note that it does not touch the sea, but
leaves room for the territory of Asher to interpose (comp. Joshua 17:10-11).
Returning to Sarid, the boundary is next (Joshua 19:12) drawn eastward to
Chisloth-tabor (Iksâl, sheet 6), Daberath(Dabûrieh, sheet 6), Japhia (Yâfa, sheet 5),
Gittah-hepher (El-Mesh-hed, sheet 6).
PETT, "Verse 10-11
‘And the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun according to their families,
and the border of their inheritance was to Sarid. And their border went up
westward, even to Maralah, and reached to Dabbasheth, and it reached to the river
that is before Jokneam.’
The third lot fell for Zebulun. Their territory lay north of the Great Plain
(Esdraelon). It included the hills around azareth and the fertile, marshy plain
further north. The site of Sarid is unknown, although it has been postulated that it
is Sadud and thus Tell Shadud. but the southern border went from there east and
west. Westward it went to Maralah, Dabbasheth and the torrent-wadi ‘before (east
of?) Jokneam’. For Maralah and Dabbesheth Tell Thorah and Tell esh-Shammam
have been suggested. As Jokneam was in Zebulun (Joshua 21:34) this may have
been a wadi east of Jokneam which then ran round Jokneam. Jokneam was a
Canaanite city mentioned in the list of Tuthmosis III of Egypt, and is possibly Tel
Yoqneam, and the wadi possibly a tributary of the Kishon.

22. 11 Going west it ran to Maralah, touched
Dabbesheth, and extended to the ravine near
Jokneam.
GILL, "And their border went up toward the sea,.... Westward towards the
Mediterranean sea, which fulfilled the prophecies of Jacob and Moses, that Zebulun
should dwell by the sea, be an haven of ships, and take of the abundance of the seas, as
in the places before referred to; and so Josephus says, the Zebulunites took the land unto
the lake of Gennesaret, by or about Carmel and the sea:
and Maralah; which Jerom calls (g) the ascent of Zebulun; for from hence it went up
from the sea, and reached to Dabbasheth; which Jerom calls Dasbath; the word signifies
a hump that is on a camel's back, Isa_30:6; so called because when that is hurt by
burdens it is cured with honey (h); it seems to denote some place or city at a point of
land or promontory, that stood out towards the sea, as that of Carmel; or some city on
the back of Carmel, resembling a camel's hump:
and reached to the river that is before Jokneam; of Jokneam; see Gill on Jos_
12:22; and this river was either the river Kishon, or Belus, sometimes called Pagida;
from whence sand was taken to make glass of (k), and was near Carmel, as Jokneam was.
K&D, "Jos_19:11
From this point “the border went up westwards, namely to Mar'ala, and touched
Dabbasheth, and still farther to the brook of Jokneam.” If Jokneam of Carmel has been
preserved in the Tell Kaimûn (see at Jos_12:22), the brook before Jokneam is probably
the Wady el Milh, on the eastern side of which, near the point where it opens into the
plain, stands Kaimûn, and through which the road runs from Acca to Ramleh, as this
wady separates Carmel from the small round hills which run to the south-east (see Rob.
Bibl. Res. p. 114, and V. de Velde, i. p. 249). Here the boundaries of Zebulun and Asher
met (Jos_19:27). Mar'ala and Dabbasheth are to be sought for between Kaimûn and
Sarid. The Cod. Vat. has Μαγελδά instead of Μαριλά. Now, however, little importance we
can attach to the readings of the lxx on account of the senseless way in which its
renderings are made-as, for example, in this very passage, where ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫ע‬ְ‫ו‬ ‫יד׃‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫ד־שׂ‬ ַ‫ע‬ is rendered
ᅠσεδεκγώλα, - the name Magelda might suggest a Hebrew reading Magedlah or
Mageldah, and thus lead one to connect the place with the village of Mejeidil (Rob. Bibl.

23. Res. p. 114), or Mshedil (Seetzen, ii. p. 143), on the west of Mons praecipitii, though
neither of these travellers visited the place, or has given us any minute description of it.
Its situation upon a mountain would suit Mar'ala, to which the boundary went up from
Sarid. In the case of Dabbasheth, the name, which signifies “lump” (see Isa_30:6),
points to a mountain. Upon this Knobel has founded the conjecture that Gibeah or
Gibeath took the place of this uncommon word, and that this is connected with the
Gabathon of the Onom. (juxta campum Legionis), the present Jebâta between Mejeidil
and Kaimûn, upon an isolated height on the edge of the mountains which skirt the plain
of Jezreel, where there are signs of a remote antiquity (Rob. iii. p. 201, and Bibl. Res. p.
113; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. p. 700); although Tell Thureh (i.e., mountain) might be intended, a
village upon a low and isolated hill a little farther south (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 116, and
Ritter, ut sup.).
BE SO ,"Joshua 19:11. Toward the sea — The lot of this tribe was washed by the
midland sea on the west, and by the sea of Tiberias on the east, answering Jacob’s
prophecy, Zebulun shall be a haven of ships; trading ships on the great sea, and
fishing ships on the sea of Galilee. Before Jokneam — Supposed to be Kishon.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:11
Toward the sea. Rather, westward. The original is touched or skirted ( ‫פגע‬ ). River
that is before Jokneam. This, with the assistance of Joshua 12:22, which mentions
Jokneam as near to Mount Carmel, enables us to identify this river (or rather,
winter torrent), as "that ancient river, the river Kishon." Knobel, however, says
that if the Kishon had been meant it would have been called by its name, and that
we must therefore understand the Wady-el-Mil'h. But this is by no means a safe
conclusion.
12 It turned east from Sarid toward the sunrise to
the territory of Kisloth Tabor and went on to
Daberath and up to Japhia.
GILL, "And turned from Sarid eastward,.... This describes the southern border,
going on from west to east:
towards the sunrising, unto the border of Chislothtabor; this Jerom places in
the tribe of Issachar, it bordered on both tribes; and he says (l), that in his time there
was a little village called Chaselus, eight miles from Diocaesarea, at the foot of Mount
Tabor in the plains:

24. and then goeth out to Daberath; which also was a city in the tribe of Issachar, given
to the Levites, Jos_21:28. Jerom (m) speaks of a little village of the Jews by Mount
Tabor, of the country belonging to Diocaesarea, called Dabira; this place is still in being.
Mr. Maundrell says (n), at the bottom of Tabor westward stands Debarah, supposed by
some to take its name from Deborah, the famous judge and deliverer of Israel:
and goeth up to Japhia; this Jerom (o) says is the town called Sycamine, as you go
from Caesarea to Ptolemais, above the sea, because of Mount Carmel, called Epha,
thought by some to be the Jebba of Pliny (p). It seems, however, to be the Japha of
Josephus (q), which he speaks of as being a strong fortified place both by nature and art.
K&D, "Jos_19:12
“And from Sarid the boundary turned eastwards toward the sun-rising to the
territory of Chisloth-tabor, and went out to Dabrath, and went up to Japhia.” Chisloth-
tabor, i.e., according to Kimchi's explanation lumbi Taboris (French, les flancs), was at
any rate a place on the side of Tabor, possibly the same as Kesulloth in Jos_19:18, as
Masius and others suppose, and probably the same place as the Xaloth of Josephus
(Bell. Jud. iii. 3, 1), which was situated in the “great plain,” and the vicus Chasalus of the
Onom. (juxta montem Thabor in campestribus), i.e., the present village of Iksâl or Ksâl,
upon a rocky height on the west of Thabor, with many tombs in the rocks (Rob. iii. p.
182). Dabrath, a place in the tribe of Issachar that was given up to the Levites (Jos_
21:28; 1Ch_6:57), called Dabaritta in Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 21, 3) and Dabira in the
Onom. (villula in monte Thabor), the present Deburieh, an insignificant village which
stands in a very picturesque manner upon a stratum of rock at the western foot of Tabor
(Rob. iii. p. 210; V. de Velde, R. ii. p. 324). Japhia certainly cannot be the present Hepha
or Haifa (Khaifa) on the Mediterranean, and near to Carmel (Rel. Pal. p. 826, and Ges.
Thes. s. v.); but it is just as certain that it cannot be the present Jafa, a place half an hour
to the south-west of Nazareth, as Robinson (Pal. iii. p. 200) and Knobel suppose, since
the boundary was running eastwards, and cannot possibly have turned back again
towards the west, and run from Deburieh beyond Sarid. If the positions assigned to
Chisloth-tabor and Dabrath are correct, Japhia must be sought for on the east of
Deburieh.
Jos_19:13
PETT, "Verses 12-14
‘And turned from Sarid eastward, toward the east to the border of Chisloth-tabor,
and it went out to Daberath, and went up to Japhia. And from there it passed along
eastward to Gath-hepher, to Eth-kazin, and it went out at Rimmon which stretches
to (or ‘as it bends towards’) eah. And the border turned about it on the north to
Hannathon, and its goings out were at the valley of Iphtah-el.’
Chisloth-tabor (‘the flanks of Tabor’) is probably related to Chesulloth, an Issachar
border town in the plain west of Tabor (Joshua 19:18) and to modern Iksal.
Daberath, another Issachar border town (Joshua 21:8; 1 Chronicles 6:72), is usually
identified with the ruins near the modern village of Deburiyeh at the foot of Mount
Tabor. Japhia must lie in a northerly direction from Daberath and cannot therefore
be Yafa as suggested by some.
From Japhia the border went eastward to Gath-hepher (‘winepress of digging’) on

25. the border of aphtali, the birthplace of the prophet Jonah (2 Kings 14:25). It can
be identified with Khirbet ez-Zurra‘ and nearby el-Meshhed, five kilometres (three
miles) north east of azareth. Then it went on to Eth-kazin which is unknown.
Rimmon is possibly modern Rummaneh, ten kilometres (six miles) north north east
of azareth. eah is unknown.
The border now turned westward to Hannathon, which is possibly to be identified
with ‘Hinaton in the land of Canaan’ in the Amarna letters. Some identify it with
Tell el-Bedeiwiyeh. It finishes at the valley of Iphtah-el, possibly the Wadi el-Malik.
The westward border is not given although Zebulun was bordered by Asher. We do
not know whether it had access to the sea.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:12
Chisloth-Tabor. The loins or flanks of Tabor. Tabor (the name signifies either
quarry—see note on Shebarim, probably a kindred word, Joshua 7:5—or navel), is
one of the most conspicuous mountains of Palestine. Like Soracte, above the
Campagna of Rome, "the cone-shaped figure of Tabor can be seen on all sides,"
though it rises only 1,750 feet (French) above the level of the sea, 800 above the plain
at its northeastern base, and 600 above azareth on the north-west (Ritter, 2:311).
Chisloth-Tabor was on the northwest side of the base of Tabor. Tabor has been
supposed to have been the scene of the Transfiguration. But Ritter points out that
from the time of Antiochus the Great, 200 years before Christ, to the destruction of
Jerusalem, the summit of Tabor was a fortress. And he notices that while Jerome
and Cyril mention this tradition, Eusebius, who lived 100 years earlier, knows
nothing of it.
13 Then it continued eastward to Gath Hepher
and Eth Kazin; it came out at Rimmon and
turned toward eah.
BAR ES, "Gittah (or Gath)- hepher, the birthplace of the prophet Jonah 2Ki_14:25,
is probably the modern village of El-Meshhad, where the tomb of the prophet is still
shown, a short way from Nazareth, on the road to Tiberias.
Remmon-methoar to Neah - Read “and goeth out to Remmon, which reacheth to
Neah.” (See the margin.) Rimmon, a Levitical city Jos_21:35; 1Ch_6:77 is probably the

26. modern “Rummaneh,” in the plain of “El Buttauf,” about six miles north of Nazareth.
CLARKE, "Gittah-hepher - The same as Gath-hepher, the birth-place of the
prophet Jonah.
GILL, "And from thence passeth on along on the east to Gittahhepher,....
Which was the native place of Jonah the prophet, 2Ki_14:25; and where Jerom says (r)
his grave was shown, and was a small village in his time two miles from Sippore, then
called Diocaesarea:
to Ittahkazin; of this place we have no account elsewhere, but it was not far from the
former:
and goeth out to Remmonmethoar to Neah; where the eastern border ended.
Some versions make Remmonmethoar distinct places; but where either of them were
exactly is not known: some, as the Targum, Jarchi, and Kimchi, render the word
"Methoar which goes about"; that is, the border went about from Remmon to Neah,
which by Jerom is called Anna, and who observes (s), that there is another village called
Anna, ten miles from Neapolis, as you go to Aelia; and by whom also Methoar is
reckoned a distinct place, and called Amathar.
K&D, "Jos_19:13
“From thence it went over towards the east to the sun-rising to Gath-hepher, to Eth-
kazin, and went out to Rimmon, which is marked off to Neah.” Gath-hepher, the home
of the prophet Jonah (2Ki_14:25), was “haud grandis viculus Geth” in the time of
Jerome (see prol. ad Jon.). It was about two miles from Sephoris on the road to Tiberias,
and the tomb of the prophet was shown there. It is the present village of Meshed, a place
about an hour and a quarter to the north of Nazareth (Rob. iii. p. 209; V. de Velde, Mem.
p. 312). Eth-kazin is unknown. Rimmon, a Levitical town (Jos_21:35; 1Ch_6:62), has
probably been preserved in the village of Rummaneh, about two hours and a half to the
north of Nazareth (Rob. iii. p. 195). Ham-methoar is not a proper name, but the
participle of ‫ר‬ፍ ָ , with the article in the place of the relative pronoun, “bounded off,” or
pricked off. Neah is unknown; it is possibly the same place as Neiel in the tribe of Asher
(Jos_19:27), as Knobel supposes.
14 There the boundary went around on the north
to Hannathon and ended at the Valley of Iphtah
El.

27. BAR ES, "Hannathon, more properly Channathon, has been supposed by some to
be the Cana of Galilee of the New Testament, and Jiphthah-el is probably the present
“Jefat”; the “Jotapata” of Roman times, which was so long and valiantly defended by
Josephus against the legions of Vespasian. The “Valley” is the “Wady Abilin”; and
Bethlehem Jos_19:15 is the present miserable village of “Beit-Lahin.”
GILL, "And the border compasseth it from the north side to Hannathon,....
This is the northern border of the tribe, which took a circuit from the last place to this; of
which and the following place we have no account; Jerom only makes mention of them
as in the tribe of Zebulun:
and the outgoings thereof are in the valley of Jiphthahel; here the northern
border ended, which, Masius conjectures, was part of the valley of Carmel.
K&D, "Jos_19:14
“And the boundary turned round it (round Rimmon), on the north to Channathon,
and the outgoings thereof were the valley of Jiphtah-el.” Judging from the words ‫ב‬ ַ‫ס‬ָ‫נ‬
and ‫ּון‬‫פ‬ ָ ִ‫,מ‬ this verse apparently gives the north-west boundary, since the last definition
in Jos_19:13, “to Gath-hepher,” etc., points to the eastern boundary. Jiphtah-el answers
no doubt to the present Jefât, two hours and a half to the north of Sefurieh, and is the
Jotapata which was obstinately defended by Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 7, 9: see Rob. Bibl.
Res. pp. 104ff.). Consequently the valley of Jiphtah-el, at which Zebulun touched Asher
(Jos_19:27), is probably “no other than the large Wady Abilîn, which takes its rise in the
hills in the neighbourhood of Jefât” (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 107). And if this be correct,
Channathon (lxx ᅠνναθώθ) is probably Cana of Galilee, the home of Nathanael (Joh_2:1,
Joh_2:11; Joh_4:46; Joh_21:2), the present Kana el Jelil, between Rummaneh and
Yefât, on the northern edge of the plain of Buttauf, upon a Tell, from which you overlook
the plain, fully two hours and a half in a straight line from Nazareth, and directly north
of that place, where there are many ruins found (see Rob. iii. p. 204; Bibl. Res. p. 108).
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:14
Compasseth it. The verb ‫נסב‬ is here used transitively. The meaning is that the
border makes a curve round the city of eah. eah seems to have been the extreme
eastern border. Methoar is supposed to be the Pual participle, and has been freely
translated, "which is marked out," or, "which belongs to," eah. But the passage is
obscure. Knobel could alter the reading, in view of the grammatical difficulty. Yet
this, perhaps, is not insuperable in view of Joshua 3:14. Valley. ‫ֵי‬‫ג‬ . (see note on
Joshua 8:13; Joshua 15:8). So in verse 27.

28. 15 Included were Kattath, ahalal, Shimron,
Idalah and Bethlehem. There were twelve towns
and their villages.
BAR ES, "Twelve cities - Only five have been mentioned, and the names in the
verses preceding are apparently not names of Zebulonite cities, but merely of points in
or near the boundary line. It would therefore appear that seven names have disappeared
from the text, and perhaps also the definition of the western frontier.
CLARKE, "Shimron - See on Jos_12:20 (note).
Beth-lehem - The house of bread; a different place from that in which our Lord was
born.
GILL, "And Kattath, and Nahallal,.... Of the two first of these we read nowhere else,
but in Jos_21:34,
and Shimron was a royal city, the king of which Joshua took and hanged, Jos_11:1,
and Idalah is a place Bochart conjectures (t) where the goddess Venus was
worshipped, Idalia being one of her names:
and Bethlehem is a different place from that which was the birthplace of our Lord,
called Bethlehem of Judah, to distinguish it from this:
twelve cities with their villages; more are named, but some of them belonged to
other tribes, and only lay on the borders of this; and others might not be properly cities,
but small towns.
K&D, "Jos_19:15-16
The towns of Zebulun were the following. Kattath, probably the same as Kitron, which
is mentioned in Jdg_1:30 in connection with Nahalol, but which is still unknown.
Nehalal, or Nahalol (Jdg_1:30), is supposed by V. de Velde (Mem. p. 335), who follows
Rabbi Schwartz, to be the present village of Maalul, a place with ruins on the south-west
of Nazareth (see Seetzen, ii. p. 143; Rob. iii. App.; and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. p. 700). Simron
is supposed by Knobel to be the village of Semunieh (see at Jos_11:1). But neither of
these is very probable. Idalah is supposed by V. de Velde to be the village of Jeda or
Jeida, on the west of Semunieh, where are a few relics of antiquity, though Robinson
(Bibl. Res. p. 113) states the very opposite. Bethlehem (of Zebulun), which many regard
as the home of the judge Ibzan (Jdg_12:8), has been preserved under the old name in a

29. miserable village on the north of Jeida and Semunieh (see Seetzen, ii. p. 139; Rob. Bibl.
Res. p. 113). The number of the towns is given as twelve, though only five are mentioned
by name. It is true that some commentators have found the missing names in the border
places mentioned in Jos_19:11-14, as, after deducting Chisloth-tabor and Dabrath, which
belonged to Issachar, the names Sarid, Maralah, Dabbasheth, Japhia, Gittah-hepher,
Eth-kazin, and Channathon give just seven towns. Nevertheless there is very little
probability in this conjecture. For, in the first place, not only would it be a surprising
thing to find the places mentioned as boundaries included among the towns of the
territory belonging to the tribe, especially as some of the places so mentioned did not
belong to Zebulun at all; but the copula vav, with which the enumeration of the towns
commences, is equally surprising, since this is introduced in other cases with ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ፎ ֶ‫ה‬ ‫יוּ‬ ָ‫ה‬ְ‫ו‬
(‫יוּ‬ ְ‫ה‬ ַ‫,)ו‬ e.g., Jos_18:21; Jos_15:21. And, in the second place, it is not a probable thing in
itself, that, with the exception of the five towns mentioned in Jos_19:15, the other towns
of Zebulun should all be situated upon the border. And lastly, the towns of Kartah and
Dimnah, which Zebulun gave up to the Levites (Jos_21:34), are actually wanting. Under
these circumstances, it is a natural conclusion that there is a gap in the text here, just as
in Jos_15:59 and Jos_21:36.
BE SO ,"Joshua 19:15. Beth-lehem — ot that where Christ was born, which was
in Judah, but another. Twelve cities — They are more numerous here, but the rest
either were not cities, properly so called, or were not within this tribe, but only
bordering upon it, and belonging to other tribes.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 15
(15) ahallal.—(‘Ain Mahil, sheet 6).
Shimron.—(Simûmieh, west of azareth, sheet 5).
Idalah.—(El Huwârah, a ruin just south of Bethlehem, sheet 5).
Beth-lehem.—(Beit-Lahm, sheet v.). It seems right to refer Ibzan of Bethlehem
(Judges 12:8; Judges 12:10) to this town. The other Bethlehem is called in Judges
and Ruth, Bethlehem-Judah; and in Micah, Bethlehem-Ephratah (Judges 17:7;
Judges 19:1; Ruth 1:1; Micah 5:2). Bethlehem-Judah is designated Bethlehem only
when it is impossible to mistake it for Bethlehem of Zebulun (e.g., Ruth 1:19, and 1
Samuel 16:4).
Twelve cities.—Ittah-kazin, eah, Dabbasheth, and Kattath have not been
identified, and they may not all be names of towns.
PETT, "Verse 15
‘And Kattath, and ahalal, and Shimron, and Idalah, and Bethlehem. Twelve cities
with their villages.’
These five cities are in addition to those previously mentioned. The twelve
presumably included those of the latter which were seen as in Zebulun’s borders.
Kattath is unidentified. ahalal (Joshua 21:35; Judges 1:30) was probably not far

30. from modern ahalal, nine kilometres (six miles) west of azareth. Some identify it
with Tell el-Beida. Shimron was allied with Hazor (see Joshua 11:1) and defeated by
Joshua. Some have suggested Tell es-Semuniyeh about five kilometres south south
east of the Bethlehem mentioned here. Idalah has been connected with Tell
Hawwareth through its being identified in the Talmud as Hiriyeh, two kilometres
(one mile) south of Bethlehem. Bethlehem ( a different one from Bethlehem-judah)
is now Bet-lahm, eleven kilometres (seven miles) north west of azareth.
16 These towns and their villages were the
inheritance of Zebulun, according to its clans.
GILL, "This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun, according to their
families,.... Which was allotted to it and divided, according to the number of its
families:
these cities with their villages; before enumerated, excepting such as only bordered
on them; though indeed there were other cities which belonged to them, or might be
after given them, not here mentioned, as Kartah and Dimnah, Jos_21:34.
COKE, "Ver. 16. This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun— It is easy to
conceive, that twelve cities would not have been sufficient to lodge and support the
inhabitants of a tribe which exceeded sixty thousand; umbers 26:27. The historian
then has named here only the chief cities, those which were upon the borders of the
other tribes; or perhaps those which the commissioners, on surveying the country,
had set down in the maps and minutes which they presented to Joshua. Two other
cities of Zebulun, viz. Kartah and Dimnah, are afterwards spoken of; ch. Joshua
21:34-35. According to Jacob's prophesy, Genesis 49:13, the coasts of Zebulun were
havens for ships, lying on the Mediterranean sea west, and the sea of Tiberias east.
In this tribe lay azareth, where Jesus dwelt; Tabor, where he was transfigured;
and the coasts of the sea of Galilee, the chief scene of his ministry and miracles, were
all in this tribe: it produced also one judge, Tola, and one king of Israel, Baasha.
PETT, "Verse 16
‘This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun, according to their families, these
cities with their villages.’
Again we have the final seal on the allotment to a tribe in due form. Each received
according to their size, ‘according to their families’. o mention has been made of
Kartah and Dimnah (Joshua 21:34). Thus there may have been a special reason in

31. the minds of the particular surveyors for numbering up to twelve.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:16
The inheritance of the children of Zebulun. It is strange that the beautiful and
fertile land occupied by the tribe of Zebulun does not appear to have brought
prosperity with it. Possibly the fact that the "lines" of this tribe had "fallen in
pleasant places," had tended to induce sloth. Certain it is that we hear but little of
this tribe in the after history of Israel. They were not, like Reuben, absent from the
great battle of Tabor, for there we read that, like Issachar, they "jeoparded their
lives unto the death" for their homes and liberties. Yet though they seem
thenceforth to have slackened in their zeal, theirs was a fair portion. It bordered on
the slopes of Tabor, and seems (though the fact is not mentioned here) to have
extended to the Sea of Galilee, as we may gather from Isaiah 9:1.
Allotment for Issachar
17 The fourth lot came out for Issachar according
to its clans.
CLARKE, "The fourth lot came out to Issachar - It is remarkable, that though
Issachar was the eldest brother, yet the lot of Zebulun was drawn before his lot; and this
is the order in which Jacob himself mentions them, Gen_49:13, Gen_49:14, though no
reason appears, either here or in the place above, why this preference should be given to
the younger; but that the apparently fortuitous lot should have distinguished them just
as the prophetic Jacob did, is peculiarly remarkable. Known unto God are all his works
from the beginning: he has reasons for his conduct, which in many cases are too great
for any of his creatures to comprehend, but he works all things after the counsel of his
own will, which is ever right and good; and in this case his influence may be as easily
seen in the decision by the lot, as on the mind of the patriarch Jacob, when he predicted
what should befall his children in the latter days, and his providence continued to ripen,
and bring forward what his judgment had deemed right to be done.
GILL, "And the fourth lot came out to Issachar,.... The fourth of the seven drawn
at Shiloh:
for the children of Issachar, according to their families: among whom the
inheritance that came to them by the lot was divided, according to the number of them.

32. HE RY 17-23, "The lot of Issachar ran from Jordan in the east to the great sea in the
west, Manasseh on the south, and Zebulun on the north. A numerous tribe, Num_26:25.
Tola, one of the judges, was of this tribe, Jdg_10:1. So was Baasha, one of the kings of
Israel, 1Ki_15:27. The most considerable places in this tribe were, 1. Jezreel, in which
was Ahab's palace, and near it Naboth's vineyard. 2. Shunem, where lived that good
Shunamite that entertained Elisha. 3. The river Kishon, on the banks of which, in this
tribe, Sisera was beaten by Deborah and Barak. 4. The mountains of Gilboa, on which
Saul and Jonathan were slain, which were not far from Endor, where Saul consulted the
witch. 5. The valley of Megiddo, where Josiah was slain near Hadad-rimmon, 2Ki_
23:29; Zec_12:11.
JAMISO , "Jos_19:17-23. Of Issachar.
the fourth lot came out to Issachar — Instead of describing the boundaries of
this tribe, the inspired historian gives a list of its principal cities. These cities are all in
the eastern part of the plain of Esdraelon.
K&D, The Inheritance of Issachar. - In this instance only towns are given, and the
boundaries are not delineated, with the exception of the eastern portion of the northern
boundary and the boundary line; at the same time, they may easily be traced from the
boundaries of the surrounding tribes. Issachar received for the most part the large and
very fertile plain of Jezreel (see at Jos_17:16, and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 689ff.), and was
bounded on the south by Manasseh, on the west by Manasseh and Asher, on the north
by Zebulun, and farther east by Naphtali also, and on the east by the Jordan.
COFFMA , "Verse 17
ISSACHAR
"The fourth lot came out for Issachar, even for the children of Issachar according to
their families. And their border was unto Jezreel, and Chesulloth, and Shunem, and
Hapharaim, and Shion, and Anaharath, and Rabbith, and Kishion, and Ebez, and
Remeth, and En-gannim, and En-haddah, and Beth-pazzez, and the border reached
to Tabor, and Shahazumah, and Beth-shemesh; and the goings out of their border
were at the Jordan: sixteen cities and their villages. This is the inheritance of the
tribe of the children of Issachar according to their families, the cities and their
villages."
"The lot of Isaachar comprised the plain of Esdraelon",[7] which was part of the
richest land in Palestine, and, as Plummer noted, it is surprising that nothing very
outstanding is afterward attributed to this tribe, with the one exception of the battle
of Tabor. "Possibly the fact that the `lines of this tribe' had fallen in `pleasant
places' tended to induce sloth."[8] Plummer also believed that the property of
Issachar extended to a portion of the coast of the Sea of Galilee, basing his view
upon Isaiah 9:1.
CO STABLE, "Verses 17-23
The inheritance of Issachar19:17-23

33. The writer did not give the boundaries of Issachar in as much detail as the
preceding tribes. The Jordan River on the east, the borders of Manasseh on its south
and southwest, Zebulun on its northwest, and aphtali on its north prescribed its
territory. Issachar received16 towns ( Joshua 19:18-22).
ELLICOTT, "(17) The fourth lot . . . to Issachar.—These two tribes were located
next to the house of Joseph on the north. It should be remembered that Issachar and
Zebulun had been associated with Judah to form the same camp and division of the
army in the wilderness. This association, lasting forty years, must have created
many ties between these two tribes and their leader Judah. It was no ordinary
wisdom that placed the descendants of Rachel (Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh)
between Judah on the south and Judah’s two associates on the north—to cement the
union of all Israel, and as far as possible to prevent discord.
With regard to Judah and Zebulun, it is noticeable that we find their union
reproduced in the earthly history of our Lord. Mary, who was of the house of David,
and Joseph of the same lineage, are found dwelling in azareth, in the tribe of
Zebulun. Thus the north and the south alike had “part in David,” and inheritance
in David’s Son. There is a Bethlehem (Joshua 19:15) in Zebulun as well as in Judah.
The name is not found in any other tribe.
PETT, "Verse 17
‘For Issachar came out the fourth lot, for the children of Issachar according to their
families.’
See note on Simeon (Joshua 19:1) with respect to the direct mention of the
patriarchal name. Issachar is regularly tied in with Zebulun, and in the Blessing of
Moses is mentioned co-jointly with them as a junior partner (Deuteronomy 33:18).
This co-unity no doubt increased with having their inheritances next to each other
and as a result of the circumstances in which they found themselves, surviving in the
countryside and forests among strong Canaanite cities. They are probably to be seen
as included in Zebulun in Judges 1:30; Judges 4:6; Judges 5:18, although mentioned
separately in Judges 5:15 as performing valiantly, which demonstrates that they
played a full part in the battle. Like their patriarchal ancestor they probably
enjoyed their pleasures and lacked initiative (Genesis 49:14-15). But there is no
evidence that suggests that they ever became a slave nation, although no doubt
harassed by the Canaanites in their area until they became strong enough with
others to drive them out.
PI K, ""And the fourth lot came out to Issachar" (Josh. 19:17). Since this tribe was
united with Zebulun in blessing (Deut. 33:18, 19), there is the less need for us to
offer separate remarks thereon. The "in their tents" was in apposition to the
"ships": they would be a pastoral people rather than a sea-going one cultivating the
land. Their inheritance was the fertile plain of Jezreel, with its surrounding hills
and valleys, afterwards known as lower Galilee—it extended from Carmel to the
Jordan, and in breadth to mount Tabor. Shunem (1 Kings 4:8, etc.) was one of its

34. cities, and aboth’s vineyard was within its lot. Matthew Henry pointed out how
that we may see both the sovereignty and the wisdom of Divine providence in
appointing not only the bounds of men’s habitations, "but their several
employments for the good of the public · as each member of the body is situated and
qualified for the service of the whole. Some are disposed to live in cities, some in the
countryside, others in sea-ports. The genius of some leads them to the pen, some to
trading, others to mechanics. ‘If the whole body were an eye, where were the
hearing?’" (1 Cor. 12:17).
18 Their territory included:
Jezreel, Kesulloth, Shunem,
BAR ES, "Jezreel and its famous and fertile plain are the choicest part of the
inheritance of Issachar Jos_17:16.
Shunem - Here the Philistines pitched before the battle of Gilboa 1Sa_28:4. The
place is also known as the home of Abishag 1Ki_1:3, and in connection with Elisha 2Ki_
4:8; 2Ki_8:1. It is identified with “Solam” (or, Sulem), a small and poor village on the
slope of Little Hermon.
CLARKE, "Jezreel - This city, according to Calmet, was situated in an open
country, having the town of Legion on the west, Bethshan on the east, on the south the
mountains of Gilboa, and on the north those of Hermon.
Shunem - This city was rendered famous by being the occasional abode of the
prophet Elisha, and the place where he restored the son of a pious woman to life. 2Ki_
4:8. It was the place where the Philistines were encamped on that ruinous day in which
the Israelites were totally routed at Gilboa, and Saul and his sons Jonathan, Abinadab,
and Malchi-shua, killed. 1Sa_28:4; 1Sa_31:1, etc.
GILL, "And their border was towards Jezreel,.... Which was a royal seat in the
time of Ahab, 1Ki_21:1; and according to Jerom was near to Maximianopolis; See Gill on
Hos_1:5; and the same writer (u) says in his day a large village of this name was shown
in the great plain between Scythopolis and Legion (he means the plain of Jezreel), and it
was the border of Issachar:
and Chesulloth was different from the Chislothtabor, Jos_19:12; that, as Masius
observes, was to the north, this to the south of Mount Tabor:

35. and Shunem is a place well known for being the dwelling place of a certain woman in
the times of Elisha, whose son the prophet raised from the dead, 2Ki_4:8; Jerom calls it
Sonam, where was the Shunammite woman; but this city here seems to be what he calls
Salem, in the tribe of Issachar; and he adds, that there was shown in his day a village by
this name, five miles from Mount Tabor to the south (w): according to Bunting (x), it
was forty eight miles from Jerusalem to the north, not far from Nain.
K&D, "Jos_19:18
“And their boundary was towards Jezreel,” i.e., their territory extended beyond
Jezreel. Jezreel, the summer residence of Ahab and his house (1Ki_18:45-46, etc.), was
situated upon a mountain, with an extensive and splendid prospect over the large plain
that was called by its name. It was afterwards called Esdraela, a place described in the
Onom. (s. v. Jezreel) as standing between Scythopolis and Legio; it is the present Zerîn,
on the north-west of the mountains of Gilboa (see Seetzen, ii. pp. 155-6; Rob. iii. pp.
161ff.; Van de Velde, R. ii. pp. 320ff.). Chesulloth, possibly the same as Chisloth-tabor
(see at Jos_19:12). Sunem, the home of Abishag (1Ki_1:3-15, etc.), also mentioned in
1Sa_28:4 and 2Ki_4:8, was situated, according to the Onom., five Roman miles (two
hours) to the south of Tabor; it is the present Solam or Sulem, at the south-western foot
of the Duhy or Little Hermon, an hour and a half to the north of Jezreel (see Rob. iii. pp.
170ff.; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 323).
BE SO , "Joshua 19:18. Jezreel — The royal city, 1 Kings 21:1. This tribe,
because it lay between Benjamin on the south and Zebulun on the north, is not here
described by its borders, which were the same with theirs, but by some of its cities.
PETT, "Verses 18-21
‘And their border was to Jezreel, and Chesulloth, and Shunem, and Hapharaim,
and Shion, and Anaharath, and Rabbith, and Kishion, and Ebez, and Remeth, and
En-gannim, and En-haddah and Beth-pazzez.’
Issachar’s borders appear to have been fluid and its area mainly delineated by
cities. This ties in with their close relationship with Zebulun and the fact that some
of their area was allocated to Manasseh (Joshua 17:11). Their area was to the south
east of Zebulun and the south of aphtali, in the south east of the Great Plain of
Jezreel/Esdraelon. Esdraelon is the Greek for Jezreel and the latter name is often
applied to the whole of the Great Plain, but they are also often seen as two sections
of the Plain. Manasseh were to the south. Possibly the writer saw Issachar’s borders
as sufficiently delineated elsewhere. Settling in the plains was made difficult by the
prevalence of Canaanite cities and Issachar would therefore first settle in cleared
forest land and the mountains. Whether some gave themselves up to forced labour
in return for the comforts of Canaanite civilisation, like their ancestor (see Genesis
49:14-15), we do not know.
Jezreel (Hebrew Yizra’el - ‘God sows’) was at the east end of the Jezreel Plain
ninety kilometres north of Jerusalem, and is identified with Zer’in. It was not a
fortified site until the time of Ahab, when it was his chariot centre. Parts of Israelite
buildings have been found. It was by its spring that Israel gathered before engaging
the Philistines at Gilboa where Saul and Jonathan died (1 Samuel 29:1; 1 Samuel
31:1). Chesulloth was in the Plain, west of Tabor. Whether it was different from

36. Chisloth-tabor (Joshua 19:12) is open to question. If the same it was clearly a joint
city on the border. Shunem is possibly modern Solem, five to six kilometres (three
and a half miles) north of Jezreel. It was where the Philistines camped before they
moved on to Aphek prior to the battle of Gilboa (1 Samuel 28:4), and where Elisha
often found shelter (2 Kings 4:8) and raised a dead child (2 Kings 4:34-35). It was
possibly the place named in the Egyptian lists of Thothmes III (about 1550 BC) and
of Shishak (about 950 BC) as Shanema.
“And Hapharaim, and Shion, and Anaharath, and Rabbith, and Kishion, and
Ebez.” Hapharaim is also found in Shishak’s list as Hapurama. Khirbet Farriyeh,
nine kilometres (five to six miles) north west of el-Lejjun has been suggested. Shion
is perhaps ‘Ayun esh-Sha‘in, five kilometres (three miles) north west of Tabor.
Anaharith is possibly the ’Anuhertu of Thothmes list. ‘Arraneh, four kilometres
(two and a half miles) north east of modern Jenin has been suggested as a possible
site. Rabbith could be Raba, eleven kilometres (seven miles) south east of Janin (En-
gannim? - Joshua 19:21). Kishion (see Joshua 21:28) and Ebez are unknown.
“And Remeth, and En-gannim, and En-haddah and Beth-pazzez.” Remeth (rmth) is
possibly the Jarmuth (yrmth) of Joshua 21:29 and the Ramoth (rmth) of 1
Chronicles 6:73. The Egyptians called the area ‘the hills of Yarmuta’, the elevated
region north west of Beth-shean. A stele of Seti I (about 1300 BC) stated that various
‘Apiru tribes were settled there and had been subjected to Egypt. But these were not
necessarily Israel (compare the ‘Apiru at Shechem - Joshua 8:30). En-gannim
(‘spring of gardens’) is possibly modern Jenin where there is still a plentiful spring.
See for it Joshua 21:29 and 1 Chronicles 6:73 where it is abbreviated as Anem.
(Other possible identifications are Olam or Khirbet Beit Jann). En-haddah and
Beth-pazzez are unidentified but probably close by. The whole area was very
fruitful.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:18
Jezreel. The valley ( ‫ֶק‬‫מ‬ֵ‫ע‬ ) of Jezreel, known in later Greek as the plain of Esdrsela
or Esdraclon (Judith 1:8; 7:2; 2Mal 12:49) was "the perennial battlefield of
Palestine from that time to the present". Lieut. Conder, however, takes exception to
this statement. "The great battles of Joshua," he says, "were fought far to the
south." We presume he would make an exception on behalf of the action by the
waters of Merom, and that he does not wish us to forget that the majority of
Joshua's other "battles" were sieges. "David's wars were fought with the
Philistines,'' he continues, "while the invasions of the Syrians were directed to the
neighbourhood of Samaria." But here, again, he would seem to have forgotten 1
Samuel 29:1, 1 Kings 20:26, 2 Kings 13:17, 2 Kings 13:25, while he expressly admits
that the great battles of Gilboa and Megiddo, in which Saul and Josiah were
defeated and met their deaths, were fought here. And we have already seen that
twice did the Egyptians invade Syria by this plain. One of these invasions took place
while Moses was in Egypt, under Thothmes III. The other was the famous
expedition of Rameses II. against Syria, about the time of Deborah and Barak. If we
add to these the victory of Gideon over the Midianites and the overthrow of Sisera,

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

38. Jehoram commanded, bearing witness to the accuracy of the historian. So in 1 Kings
4:12, the mention of Taanach, Megiddo, and the region of Beth-shean, as beneath
( ְ‫ל‬‫ַת‬‫ח‬ַּ‫ח‬ִ‫מ‬ ). Jezreel is another instance of topographical detail which marks the
correctness of the record. Another point is that we read in the narrative above
mentioned of "chariots." Wilson ('Lands of the Bible,' 2:303) was surprised, on
leaving the rugged heights of the hill country, to find how easily, if the civilisation of
Palestine permitted, excellent roads might be made throughout this region; and
Canon Tristram has remarked on the desolate appearance now presented by that
fertile region, the result of the insecurity for life and property which is so commonly
remarked by all who have travelled in the East. Here, where under a better rule
would be the abode of peace and plenty, no cultivator of the land dare venture to
pass the night, exposed to the depredations of the wild tribes that infest the country.
Only a mountain fastness, hard to climb and comparatively easy to defend, affords a
secure retreat for those who would live peaceably in that once favoured land.
Shunem. ow Sulem: the place of the encampment of the Philistines before they
"pitched in Aphek" (1 Samuel 28:4; 1 Samuel 29:1). It was "five Roman miles south
of Mount Tabor" (Vandevelde) and an hour and a half (i.e. about six miles) north of
Jezreel (Keil and Delitzsch). Here Abishag the Shunammite lived (1 Kings 1:3; 1
Kings 2:17, 1 Kings 2:21), and here Elisha lodged, and afterwards restored the son
of his entertainers to life (2 Kings 4:1-44; 2 Kings 8:1-29).
19 Hapharaim, Shion, Anaharath,
GILL, "And Hapharaim,.... The first of these is by Jerom (y) called Aphraim, a city of
the tribe of Issachar; and adds, there is at this day a village called Affarea, six miles from
Legion to the north:
and Shion; of Seon or Soen, the same with Shion here, he says (z), there was a village of
this name shown in his time near Mount Tabor:
and Anaharath, of which we have no account elsewhere.
K&D, "Jos_19:19
Haphraim, according to the Onom. (s. v. Aphraim) villa Affaraea, six Roman miles to
the north of Legio, is identified by Knobel with the village of Afuleh, on the west of
Sulem, and more than two hours to the north-east of Legun (Rob. iii. pp. 163, 181). Sion,
according to the Onom. villa juxta montem Thabor, has not yet been discovered.
Anaharath is supposed by Knobel to be Na'urah, on the eastern side of the Little
Hermon (Bibl. Res. p. 337); but he regards the text as corrupt, and following the Cod. Al.
of the lxx, which has ሤενάθ and ᅒሜምανέθ, maintains that the reading should be

39. Archanath, to which Arâneh on the north of Jenin in the plain corresponds (Seetzen, ii.
p. 156; Rob. iii. p. 157). But the circumstance that the Cod. Al. has two names instead of
one makes its reading very suspicious.
20 Rabbith, Kishion, Ebez,
GILL, "And Rabbith,.... The first of these Jerom calls (a) Rabboth in the tribe of
Issachar:
and Kishion, as Masius notes, seems to given name to the river Kishon near it; some
take it to be the same with Kedesh, 1Ch_6:72,
and Abez, of which no mention is made elsewhere.
K&D, "Jos_19:20
Harabbit is supposed by Knobel to be Araboneh, on the north-east of Arâneh, at the
southern foot of Gilboa (Rob. iii. p. 157). Kishion, which was given up to the Levites
(Jos_21:28) and is erroneously written Kedesh in 1Ch_6:57, is unknown. This also
applies to Abez or Ebez, which is never mentioned again.
21 Remeth, En Gannim, En Haddah and Beth
Pazzez.
BAR ES, "En-gannim - i. e. “fountain of gardens;” also a Levitical city Jos_21:29,
and called Ahem 1Ch_6:73, the modern “Jenin,” a place on the main road from
Jerusalem to Nazareth, just where it enters the plain of Jezreel. Many of the places
enumerated in these verses are not known. Tabor Jos_19:22 is perhaps not the famous
mountain, but the town on it of the same name 1Ch_6:77, given up to the Levites. Beth-
shemesh (perhaps “Bessum”) is not the same as Beth-shemesh of Judah Jos_15:10, nor
of Naphtali Jos_19:38.
GILL, "And Remeth,.... Remeth seems to be the same with Jarmuth, Jos_21:29; and

40. with Ramoth, 1Ch_6:73,
and Engannim seems to be the same with Anem in 1Ch_6:73, there were several of
this name, which seem to have been places full of gardens, and well watered; for the
word signifies a fountain of gardens. Engannim is now called Jenine, distant from Tabor
twenty two miles, a place of gardens, of water, and of pleasure, as a traveller (b) of ours
tells us; who also declares (c), that, in his whole journey from Damascus to Jerusalem,
he saw not more fruitful ground, and so much together, than he did in twenty two miles
of riding between Mount Tabor and Engannim. This seems to be the same place Mr.
Maundrell (d) calls Jeneen, a large old town on the outskirts of Esdraelon. Dr. Lightfoot
(e) is inclined to believe, that Nain, where the widow's son was raised to life, Luk_7:11, is
the same with Engannim, for which he gives various reasons:
and Enhaddah; Jerom says, in his time (f) there was a village called Enadda, ten miles
from Eleutheropolis, as you go from thence to Aelia; but seems not to be the same with
Enhaddah here:
and Bethpazzez; of Bethpazzez no mention is made elsewhere. "Beth" signifies a
"house", and "Pazzez" in the Arabic tongue signifies "silver"; so this with the old
Canaanites might be a treasure city, like those in Egypt, Exo_1:11. But where a word
begins with "Beth", as the name of a place, I always suspect there was an idol temple
there; now as the word in Hebrew signifies the same as "Peor", opening, here might be a
temple to that deity, or to one that was similar to the god of the Moabites, and design a
Priapus, among the Canaanites like that; or as the word in the Syriac and Chaldee
languages signifies to redeem, deliver, and save, this temple might be dedicated to some
idol as their deliverer and saviour.
K&D, "Jos_19:21
Remeth, for which Jarmuth stands in the list of Levitical towns in Jos_21:29, and
Ramoth in 1Ch_6:58, is also unknown.
(Note: Knobel imagines Remeth, whose name signifies height, to be the village of
Wezar, on one of the western peaks of Gilboa (Seetzen, ii. p. 156; Rob. iii. p. 166, and
Bibl. Res. p. 339), as the name also signifies “a lofty, inaccessible mountain, or a
castle situated upon a mountain.” This is certainly not impossible, but it is
improbable. For this Mahometan village evidently derived its name from the fact
that it has the appearance of a fortification when seen from a distance (see Ritter,
Erdk. xv. p. 422). The name has nothing in common therefore with the Hebrew
Remeth, and the travellers quoted by him say nothing at all about the ruins which he
mentions in connection with Wezar (Wusar).)
En-gannim, which was also allotted to the Levites (Jos_21:29; also 1Ch_6:73, where it is
called Anem), has been associated by Robinson (iii. p. 155) with the Γιναία of Josephus,
the present Jenin. The name En-gannim signifies fountain of gardens, and Jenin stands
at the southern side of the plain of Jezreel in the midst of gardens and orchards, which
are watered by a copious spring (see Seetzen, ii. pp. 156ff.); “unless perhaps the place
referred to is the heap of ruins called Um el Ghanim, on the south-east of Tabor,
mentioned by Berggren, ii. p. 240, and Van de Velde, Mem. p. 142” (Knobel). En-chadda
and Beth-pazzez are only mentioned here, and have not yet been discovered. According
to Knobel, the former of the two may possibly be either the place by Gilboa called
Judeideh, with a fountain named Ain Judeideh (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 337), or else Beit-kad

41. or Kadd near Gilboa, mentioned by Seetzen (ii. p. 159) and Robinson (iii. p. 157).
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:21
En-gannim. Supposed to be the same as the "garden house" (the Bethgan of the
LXX) mentioned in 2 Kings 9:27) where Ahaziah, king of Judah, met with the
wound of which he afterwards died at Megiddo. It was one of the Levitical cities of
Issachar (Joshua 21:29). Robinson, Vandevelde, and others identify it with the
modern Jenin, the Ginaea of Josephus. The meaning of the name is "fountain of the
gardens" and the present Jenin is situated, so Robinson tells us, in the midst of
gardens.
22 The boundary touched Tabor, Shahazumah
and Beth Shemesh, and ended at the Jordan.
There were sixteen towns and their villages.
CLARKE, "Beth-shemesh - The house or temple of the sun; there were several
cities or towns of this name in Palestine; an ample proof that the worship of this celestial
luminary had generally prevailed in that idolatrous country.
GILL, "And the coast reacheth to Tabor,.... Tabor was the name of a mountain in
those parts; it is generally supposed to be the mountain on which our Lord was
transfigured, though it is not sufficiently evident; See Gill on Jer_46:18. There was a city
of this name near it, 1Ch_6:77, and which is meant here, and which either gave unto or
received name from the mount. The Greeks call it Itabyrium, and it is described by
Polybius (g) as situated on a hill rising in the form of a pap or breast, and has an ascent
of more than fifteen furlongs, and he calls it a city:
and Shahazimah is not mentioned any where else:
and Bethshemesh; there seem to have been several cities, at least more than one, of
the name of Bethshemesh; one in the tribe of Judah, Jos_21:16; and another in the tribe
of Naphtali, Jos_19:38; which perhaps may be the same with this, it lying on the borders
of both tribes. In this, and so in others of the same name, was a temple dedicated to the
sun by the Heathens, as there was one of the same name in Egypt for the same reason,
Jer_43:13,
and the outgoings of their border were at Jordan; here it ended: so Josephus
says, that the border of this tribe in the length of it were Mount Carmel (at one end), and

42. the river (i.e. Jordan, at the other); and at the breadth of it the mountain Itabyrium, or
Mount Tabor: it had Jordan on the east, the sea on the west, Zebulun on the north, and
Manasseh on the south:
sixteen cities with their villages; which was the sum total of them.
K&D 22-23, "Jos_19:22-23
“And the boundary touched Tabor, Sahazim, and Beth-shemesh.” Tabor is not the
mountain of that name, but a town upon the mountain, which was given to the Levites,
though not by Issachar but by Zebulun (1Ch_6:62), and was fortified afresh in the
Jewish wars (Josephus, Bell. Jud. iv. 1, 8). In this passage, however, it appears to be
reckoned as belonging to Issachar, since otherwise there are not sixteen cities named. At
the same time, as there are several discrepancies between the numbers given and the
names actually mentioned, it is quite possible that in this instance also the number
sixteen is incorrect. In any case, Tabor was upon the border of Zebulun (Jos_19:12), so
that it might have been allotted to this tribe. There are still the remains of old walls and
ruins or arches, houses, and other buildings to be seen upon Mount Tabor; and round
the summit there are the foundations of a thick wall built of large and to a great extent
fluted stones (see Rob. iii. pp. 453ff.; Seetzen, ii. p. 148; Buckingham, Syr. i. pp. 83ff.).
The places which follow are to be sought for on the east of Tabor towards the Jordan, as
the boundary terminated at the Jordan. Sachazim (Shahazimah) Knobel connects with
el Hazetheh, as the name, which signifies heights, points to a town situated upon hills;
and el Hezetheh stands upon the range of hills, bounding the low-lying land of Ard el
Hamma, which belonged to Naphtali. The reason is a weak one, though the situation
would suit. There is more probability in the conjecture that Beth-shemesh, which
remained in the hands of the Canaanites (Jdg_1:33), has been preserved in the ruined
village of Bessum (Rob. iii. p. 237), and that this new name is only a corruption of the old
one, like Beth-shean and Beisan. It is probable that the eastern portion of the northern
boundary of Issachar, towards Naphtali, ran in a north-easterly direction from Tabor
through the plain to Kefr Sabt, and thence to the Jordan along the Wady Bessum. It is
not stated how far the territory of Issachar ran down the valley of the Jordan (see the
remarks on Jos_17:11).
PETT, "Verse 22
‘And the border reached to Tabor, and Shahazumah, and Bethshemesh, and the
goings out of their border were at Jordan. Sixteen cities with their villages.’
Tabor is clearly a town connected with Mount Tabor on the Zebulun border and
shared with Zebulun (see Judges 4:6; Judges 4:14; Judges 8:18; 1 Chronicles 6:77).
Shahazumah is unknown. Beth-shemesh (‘house of the sun (or of Shemesh)’) was a
popular name for towns related to sun worship. This one may have been shared
with aphtali being on the Issachar- aphtali border (Joshua 19:38). These sixteen
cities with their villages delineate the inheritance of Issachar.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:22
The coast reacheth. Literally, the border skirteth, as in Joshua 19:11. Tabor.
Perhaps the same as Chisloth-Tabor in Joshua 19:12 (cf. 1 Chronicles 6:77). It

43. would therefore be, as Mount Tabor certainly was, on the boundary between the
tribes of Issachar and Zebulun. Beth-shemesh. ot the well known town in the tribe
of Judah (Joshua 15:10). The repetition of this name is a proof of the extent to which
sun worship prevailed in Palestine before the Israelite invasion.
23 These towns and their villages were the
inheritance of the tribe of Issachar, according to
its clans.
GILL, "This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Issachar,....
Which fell to them by lot, as before described:
according to their families; was divided among them, according to the number of
them:
the cities and their villages; the cities before enumerated, and the villages adjacent
to them.
COKE, "Ver. 23. This is the inheritance, &c.— Issachar's lot consisted of sixteen
cities with their villages. It was a numerous tribe, bordering on the sea westward,
having Jordan on the east, Manasseh on the south, and Zebulun on the north.
Jezreel, Ahab's royal city of Shunem, wherein dwelt the kind hostess of Elijah,
Kishon famed for Deborah's victory, Gilboa where Saul fell, and the valley of
Megiddo where Josiah was slain, lay in this tribe.
PETT, "Verse 23
‘This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Issachar, according to their
families the cities with their villages.’
This is the usual formula for sealing the inheritance of a tribe, a sign that this is
included in an official record.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:23
This is the inheritance of the tribe of Issachar. Jacob, whose dying eye pierced far
into the future, discerned beforehand the situation of the tribe of Issachar, and its
results upon its conduct. Situated in the midst of this fertile plain, accessible alike to
Egypt by the way of the Shephelah, and to the east by way of the fords of the
Jordan, the tribe of Issachar became in the end the prey of the various nationalities,
who made the plain of Esdraelon their battlefield, and it was the first to "bow his

44. shoulder to bear" and to "become a servant unto tribute" (Genesis 49:15). It seems
to have been to the east of Manasseh (see Joshua 17:10), and may have extended
much further south than is usually supposed. Since but small mention of the Jordan
is made in the boundary of Joseph, it may have extended as far or farther south
than the Jabbok (see also note, Joshua 17:10). The general belief of explorers at
present is that the inheritance of Issachar extended from Jezreel to the Jordan, and
from the Sea of Tiberias southward as far as the border of Manasseh, above
mentioned.
Allotment for Asher
24 The fifth lot came out for the tribe of Asher
according to its clans.
GILL, "And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher,....
Which entitled them to an inheritance next described:
according to their families; which was sufficient for them, and divided to them
according to their num
HE RY 24-31, "The lot of Asher lay upon the coast of the great sea. We read not of
any famous person of this tribe but Anna the prophetess, who was a constant resident in
the temple at the time of our Saviour's birth, Luk_2:36. Nor were there many famous
places in this tribe. Aphek (mentioned Jos_19:30) was the place near which Benhadad
was beaten by Ahad, 1Ki_20:30. But close adjoining to this tribe were the celebrated sea-
port towns of Tyre and Sidon, which we read so much of. Tyre is called here that strong
city (Jos_19:29), but Bishop Patrick thinks it was not the same Tyre that we read of
afterwards, for that was built on an island; this old strong city was on the continent. And
it is conjectured by some that into these two strong-holds, Sidon and Tzor, or Tyre,
many of the people of Canaan fled and took shelter when Joshua invaded them.
JAMISO , "Jos_19:24-31. Of Asher.
the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher — The western
boundary is traced from north to south through the cities mentioned; the site of them,
however, is unknown.

45. K&D, "The Inheritance of Asher. - Asher received its territory along the
Mediterranean Sea from Carmel to the northern boundary of Canaan itself. The
description commences with the central portion, viz., the neighbourhood of Acco (Jos_
19:25), going first of all towards the south (Jos_19:26, Jos_19:27), and then to the north
(Jos_19:28, Jos_19:30).
COFFMA , "Verse 24
ASHER
"And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher according to their
families. And their border was Helkath, and Hali, and Beten, and Achshaph, and
Allammelech, and Amad, and Mishal; and it reached to Carmel westward, and to
Shihor-libnah; and it turned toward the sunrising to Beth-dagon, and reached to
Zebulun, and to the valley of Iphtahel northward to Beth-emek and eiel; and it
went out to Cabul on the left hand, and Ebron, and Rehob, and Hammon, and
Kanah, even unto great Sidon; and the border turned to Ramah, and to the fortified
city of Tyre; and the border turned to Hosah; and the goings out thereof were at the
sea by the region of Achzib; Ummah also, and Aphek, and Rehob: twenty and two
cities with their villages. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Asher
according to their families, these cities with their villages."
As noted repeatedly in Judah's inheritance, we have two cities with the same name,
Rehob (Joshua 19:28,30). As Philbeck said, "The tribes of Asher, Zebulun, and
Issachar all joined Manasseh on the south. Asher was the westernmost of these and
claimed the seacoast from Mount Carmel to Tyre; but the tribe's control of all that
area was always tenuous at best."[9] Woudstra pointed out that the summary here
mentions 22 cities, but that if Tyre and Sidon are counted, there are actually 24.[10]
CO STABLE, "Verses 24-31
The inheritance of Asher19:24-31
Asher"s territory stretched along the Mediterranean coastline from where the
Carmel range of mountains meets the Plain of Sharon northward to the northern
border of Canaan. The Phoenicians lived north of Asher on this coast. Asher"s
neighbor on the southeast was Zebulun, and on the east it was aphtali. The writer
mentioned22towns but recorded the names of only a few ( Joshua 19:30).
ELLICOTT, "(24) The fifth lot . . . for . . . Asher . . . (and Joshua 19:32) the sixth . . .
for . . . aphtali.—Asher and aphtali had been associated with Dan in the exodus,
and with him had encamped on the north side of the tabernacle, and had brought
up the rear. These two, each dissociated from his own brother (viz., Asher from Gad
and aphtali from Dan), are paired together in their inheritance in Palestine (comp.
aphtali and Manasseh in Revelation 7, and see ames on the Gates of Pearl, pp.
199, 200). The tribe of Asher was more akin to the house of Judah, for Zilpah, the
mother of Asher, was Leah’s handmaid; and the tribe of to the house of Joseph, for
Bilhah, aphtali’s mother, was Rachel’s handmaid. But in all cases the lot of the
inheritance of the tribe seems to have fallen in such a way as to favour the

46. construction of a united Israel—a Dodecaphulon, to use St. Paul’s word—an
organised body of twelve tribes.
PETT, "Verse 24
‘And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher, according to their
families.’
Once again we are reminded that the portions were given by lot in the presence of
YHWH. This was not just a method of selection, it was a solemn seeking of God for
His will at the Tabernacle by The Priest using God provided methods.
Egyptian inscriptions of 14th and 13th century BC mention a state called isr
occupying Western Galilee but not too much must be made of this for it is
philologically difficult to relate it to Asher and Asher is itself attested under another
form as the name of a female servant in an Egyptian papyrus list. Thus the two are
distinct.
PI K, ""And the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher" (Josh.
19:24). It was pointed out in the opening paragraph that the order in which the
tribes are here mentioned is not that of seniority: rather is it a spiritual one,
according to the meaning of their names as given in Genesis. Benjamin signifies "the
son of the right hand" (Gen. 35:18), Simeon "hearing" (Gen. 29:33), Zebulun
"dwelling" (Gen. 30:20), Issachar "hire" or "reward" (Gen. 30:18), Asher "happy"
(Gen. 30:23), aphtali "wrestling" (Gen. 30:8), Dan "judging" (Gen. 30:16).
Combined we get: The son of the right hand (the place of honor and power) is the
hearing one (the new birth precedes believing!), dwelling (no longer tossed about
like the restless sea) in Christ; great is his reward, for he is happy or blessed. Such a
one is marked by wrestling against (instead of submitting to) the powers of evil, and
by unsparingly judging himself. And of what does the happiness of the spiritual
Asher consist? The meanings (taken from Young’s concordance) of the towns
mentioned in Joshua 19:25, 26 (omitting the second, "Hall," which is unknown),
are: portion, height, dedicated, the king’s oak (strength and durability), a station,
depression (mourning for sin), fruitful place, glass river (Rev. 22:1).
25 Their territory included:
Helkath, Hali, Beten, Akshaph,
BAR ES, "Helkath, a Levitical town Jos_21:31, is probably Yerka, a village about

47. seven or eight miles north-west of Acre, in a Wady of the same name. Alammelech was in
the “Wady Melik,” which joins the Kishon from the northeast, not far from the sea.
Shihor-libnath - i. e. “black-white.” The two words are now generally admitted to be
the name of a river, probably the modern “Nahr Zerka,” or Blue River, which reaches the
sea about 8 miles south of Dor, and whose name has a correspondence both to black and
white. Possibly we have in the occurrence of the term Shihor here a trace of the contact,
which was close and continuous in ancient times, between Phoenicia and Egypt Jos_
13:3. Cabul Jos_19:27 still retains its ancient name; it lies between four and five miles
west of Jotapata and about ten miles southeast of Acre.
GILL, "And their border was Helkath,.... Helkath seems to be the same with
Hukok, 1Ch_6:75; and according to Masius it lay ten or twelve miles above Ptolemais:
and Hali, of which we read nowhere else.
and Beten is by Jerom (h) called Bathne, and was in his time a village by the name of
Bethebem, eight miles from Ptolemais to the east. Reland (i) seems to think it might be
the Ecbatana of Pliny (k), which he speaks of as near Mount Carmel, and not far from
Ptolemais:
and Achshaph was a royal city, whose king was taken by Joshua; see Gill on Jos_11:1.
K&D, "Jos_19:25
The territory of the Asherites was as follows. Helkath, which was given up to the
Levites (Jos_21:31, and 1Ch_6:75, where Hukok is an old copyist's error), is the present
Jelka, three hours to the east of Acco (Akka: Scholz, Reise, p. 257), or Jerka, a Druse
village situated upon an eminence, and judging from the remains, an ancient place (Van
de Velde, R. i. p. 214; Rob. iii. App.). Hali, according to Knobel possibly Julis, between
Jerka and Akka, in which case the present name arose from the form Halit, and t was
changed into s. Beten, according to the Onom. (s. v. Βατναι%: Bathne) as vicus
Bethbeten, eight Roman miles to the east of Ptolemais, has not yet been found.
Achshaph is also unknown (see at Jos_11:1). The Onom. (s. v. Achsaph) says nothing
more about its situation than that it was in tribu Aser, whilst the statement made s. v.
Acsaph (ᅒκσάφ), that it was villula Chasalus (κώµη ᅠξάδους), eight Roman miles from
Diocaesarea ad radicem montis Thabor, leads into the territory of Zebulun.
ELLICOTT, "Verses 25-29
(25) Their border.—The border of Asher on the west is the Mediterranean. On the
east of Asher lies the tribe of aphtali, but most of the towns named in these verses
lie well within the territory of Asher. The northern end of the territory of this tribe
lies beyond the limits of the Ordnance Survey, for it reaches “unto great Zidon”
(Joshua 19:28). The southern boundary is said to be Carmel (Joshua 19:26), but no
town is identified south of Cabul (Kabûl, south-east of Akkah, sheet 5).
The towns identified are as follows:—

48. (25) El B’aneh, EL-Yasif or Kefr Yasif (sheet 3).
(26) Khurbet-el-Amûd, and M’aîsleh (? Kh.-Muslih) (sheet 3).
Shihor-libnath (river of glass), the river Belus (sheet 5).
(27) Beth-dagon (Tell-’ Daûk), near the mouth of the Belus.
eiel.—(Y’Arûn, sheet 5).
Cabul.—(Kabûl, south-east of Akkah, sheet 5).
(28) Hebron.—(Abdon, Kh.-Abdeh, sheet 3). Hammon (El Hama, sheet 3).
Kanah (south-east of Tyre, sheet 1).
(29) Tyre.—(es-Sûr, sheet 1). Hosah (‘Ozziyeh, sheet 1). Achzib (es-Zib, sheet 3, on
the coast). (See Joshua 15:44 for another place of same name.) Ummah (Kh.-Almah,
north of Achzib).
PETT, "Verse 25-26
‘And their border was Helkath, and Hali, and Beten, and Achshaph, and
Allammelech, and Amad, and Mishal, and it reached to Carmel westward, and to
Shihor-libnath.’
These surveyors mainly depicted the border in terms of cities contained within the
border. It is interesting to note the different approaches taken by the different
surveyors. But all used the same technical terms.
Helkath (see also Joshua 21:31) was probably located in the Kishon valley. It was
also known as Hukok (1 Chronicles 6:75). One possibility is Tell el-Harbaj ten
kilometres (six miles) south east of Haifa, another is Tell el-Qasis, eight kilometres
(five miles) south south east of Tell el-Harbaj. It is probably the hrkt in the lists of
Tuthmosis III. Hali is unknown. Beten may be modern Abtun, east of Mount
Carmel.
Achshaph was an important Canaanite city near Acco (Joshua 11:1; Joshua 12:20)
mentioned in Egyptian lists and in Papyrus Anastasi I. Possibly Tell Keisan or Tell
Regev (Khirbet Harbaj). Allamelech may be the rtmrk of the Tuthmosis list. It may
connect with the Wadi el-Melek, a tributary of the Kishon, which it joins six
kilometres (four miles) from the coast. Amad is unknown. Mishal is possibly the
msir of the Tuthmosis list and Tell Kisan has been suggested as a possible site. It is
also mentioned in the execration texts (inscriptions on small figurines in the form of
prisoners - 19th century BC) and an Egyptian grain and beer ration list (along with
Achshaph).
“And it reached to (or touched) Carmel westward, and to Shihor-libnath.” Carmel
was clearly the border at this point. Shihor-libnath may be at the mouth of the

49. Kishon and the harbour town Tell Abu Huwam has been suggested as the site. This
was also the northern border of Manasseh (Joshua 17:11).
26 Allammelek, Amad and Mishal. On the west
the boundary touched Carmel and Shihor
Libnath.
CLARKE, "Carmel - The vineyard of God; a place greatly celebrated in Scripture,
and especially for the miracles of Elijah; see 1 Kings 18:19-40. The mountain of Carmel
was so very fruitful as to pass into a proverb. There was another Carmel in the tribe of
Judah, (see Jos_15:55), but this, in the tribe of Asher, was situated about one hundred
and twenty furlongs south from Ptolemais, on the edge of the Mediterranean Sea. Calmet
observes that there was, in the time of Vespasian, a temple on this mountain, dedicated
to a god of the same name. There was a convent, and a religious order known by the
name of Carmelites, established on this mountain in honor of Elijah: the time of the
foundation of this order is greatly disputed. Some pretend that it was established by
Elijah himself; while others, with more probability, fix it in a.d. 1180 or 1181, under the
pontificate of Pope Alexander III.
GILL, "And Alammelech, and Amad,.... Of the two first of these there is no
mention elsewhere:
and Misheal is the same with Mashal, 1Ch_6:74; and is by Jerom (l) called Masan, and
said to be near Carmel to the sea:
and reacheth to Carmel westward; or, "to the sea", as Carmel is called "Carmel by
the sea"; see Gill on Jer_46:18, it is hereby distinguished from Carmel in the tribe of
Judah, Jos_15:55; (Pliny (m) calls it a promontory):
and to Shihorlibnath; the Vulgate Latin and Septuagint versions make two places of
it: but the sum of the cities after given will not admit of it: more rightly Junius renders it
Sihor by Libhath, and takes Sihor to be the river Belus, or Pagidus; so called either
because of its likeness to the Nile, one of whose names is Sihor, Jer_2:18; or because its
waters might be black and muddy; it was the river out of which sand was fetched to
make glass of: and Libnath, which has its name from whiteness, the same writer thinks
may be the Album Promontorium, or white promontory of Pliny (n), which he places
near Ptolemais, between Ecdippa and Tyre, and is very probable.
JAMISO , "to Carmel ... and to Shihor-libnath — that is, the “black” or

50. “muddy river”; probably the Nahr Belka, below Dor (Tantoura); for that town belonged
to Asher (Jos_17:10). Thence the boundary line turned eastward to Beth-dagon, a town
at the junction of Zebulun and Naphtali, and ran northwards as far as Cabul, with other
towns, among which is mentioned (Jos_19:28) “great Zidon,” so called on account of its
being even then the flourishing metropolis of the Phoenicians. Though included in the
inheritance of Asher, this town was never possessed by them (Jdg_1:31).
K&D, "Jos_19:26
Alammalech has been preserved, so far as the name is concerned, in the Wady Malek
or Malik (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 110), which runs into the Kishon, since in all probability the
wady was named after a place either near it or within it. Amad is supposed by Knobel to
be the present Haifa, about three hours to the south of Acre, on the sea, and this he
identifies with the sycamore city mentioned by Strabo (xvi. 758), Ptolemy (v. 15, 5), and
Pliny (h. n. v. 17), which was called Epha in the time of the Fathers (see Ritter, Erdk. xvi.
pp. 722ff.). In support of this he adduces the fact that the Hebrew name resembles the
Arabic noun for sycamore-an argument the weakness of which does not need to be
pointed out. Misheal was assigned to the Levites (Jos_21:30, and 1Ch_6:74, where it is
called Mashal). According to the Onom. (s. v. Masan) it was on the sea-coast near to
Carmel, which is in harmony with the next clause, “and reacheth to Carmel westwards,
and to Shihor-libnath.” Carmel (i.e., fruit-field), which has acquired celebrity from the
history of Elijah (1Ki_18:17.), is a wooded mountain ridge which stretches in a north-
westerly direction on the southern side of the Kishon, and projects as a promontory into
the sea. Its name, “fruit-field,” is well chosen; for whilst the lower part is covered with
laurels and olive trees, the upper abounds in figs and oaks, and the whole mountain is
full of the most beautiful flowers. There are also many caves about it (vid., v. Raumer,
Pal. pp. 43ff.; and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 705-6). The Shihor-libnath is not the Belus, or
glass-river, in the neighbourhood of Acre, but is to be sought for on the south of Carmel,
where Asher was bounded by Manasseh (Jos_17:10), i.e., to the south of Dor, which the
Manassites received in the territory of Asher (Jos_17:11); it is therefore in all probability
the Nahr Zerka, possibly the crocodile river of Pliny (Reland, Pal. p. 730), which is three
hours to the south of Dor, and whose name (blue) might answer both to shihor (black)
and libnath (white).
BE SO ,"Joshua 19:26. Carmel westward — Or, Carmel by the sea, to distinguish
it from Carmel in the tribe of Judah. This was a place of eminent fruitfulness,
agreeably to the prophecy concerning Asher, Genesis 49:20.
COKE, "Ver. 26. Alammelech,—Amad,—Misheal, &c.— These are cities unknown,
but situate near mount Carmel, famous for the miracles of Elijah, and very different
from that which went by the same name in the tribe of Judah, 2 Kings 18; Joshua
15:55. The Carmel of Asher was near the sea; and, according to Josephus, at one
hundred and twenty furlongs from Ptolemais on the south. Hist. Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c.
9. The ancients boasted of it on account of its height, and called it the holy mountain
of Jupiter. There was said to be a temple and a god of the same name with the
mountain; and Jamblichus mentions, that Pythagoras often went thither to study.
Several ages since, Carmel was variously honoured by the Christians, on account of
the cave, where, as it is thought, Elijah remained some time before he was carried

51. up to heaven. Hence sprung the order of the Carmelites, founded in the wilderness
of Syria, in 1180, by Almerick, Bishop of Antioch. Their old convent is destroyed;
that which they now inhabit is lower down, and can scarcely maintain three monks.
Efforts have been made to re-establish it on the top of the mountain, but in vain, an
Emir of the Arabs having made it his residence.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:26
Reacheth. Literally, toucheth, i.e. skirteth, as in Joshua 19:11 and Joshua 19:22. So
in the next verse, with regard to Zebulun. The term appears to be the invariable one
when a district, not a particular place, is spoken of. To Carmel westward. The
Carmel range appears to have been included in the tribe of Asher. For we read
(Joshua 17:10, Joshua 17:11) that Asher met Manasseh on the north, whence we
conclude that it must have cut off Issachar from the sea, and that as Dor was among
the towns which Manasseh held within the territory of Issachar and Asher, it must
therefore have been within the boundaries of the latter. Shihor-libnath. For Shihor
see Joshua 13:3. Libnath, which signifies white or shining, has been supposed by
some to mean the glassy river, from its calm, unbroken flow, though this appears
improbable, since Shihor means turbid. It is far more probable that the current was
rendered turbid by a quantity of chalk or limestone which it carried along in its
course, and hence the name "muddy white." Keil thinks it to be the ahr-el-Zerka,
or crocodile river, of Pliny, in which Beland, Von Raumer, Knobel, and
Rosenmuller agree with him. But when he proceeds to argue that this river, being
blue, "might answer both to shihor, black, and libnath, white," he takes a flight in
which it is impossible to follow him. Gesenius, from the glazed appearance of burnt
brick or tiles (l'banah), conjectures,that it may be the Belus, or "glass river," so
called, however, in ancient times because the fine sand on its banks enabled the
manufacture of glass to be carried on here. But this, emptying itself into the sea near
Acre, has been thought to be too far north. Vandevelde, however, one of the latest
authorities, as well as Mr. Conder, is inclined to agree with Gesenius. The difficulty
of this identification consists in the fact that Carmel and Dor (Joshua 17:11) are said
to have been in Asher (see note on Joshua 17:10). The ahr-el-Zerka has not been
found by recent explorers to contain crocodiles, but it has been thought possible that
they have hitherto eluded observation. Kenrick, however, thinks that as crocodilus
originally meant a lizard, the lacertus iloticus is meant, the river being, in his
opinion, too shallow in summa to be the haunt of the crocodile proper. The Zerkais
described in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Paper, January, 1874, as "a
torpid stream flowing through fetid marshes, in which reeds, canes, and the stunted
papyrus grow." When it is added, "and where alone in Palestine the crocodile is
found," no evidence is given in favour of the statement. It empties itself into the sea
between Dor and Caesarea, a few miles north of the latter.
27 It then turned east toward Beth Dagon,

52. touched Zebulun and the Valley of Iphtah El, and
went north to Beth Emek and eiel, passing
Kabul on the left.
CLARKE, "Cabul on the left hand - That is, to the north of Cabul, for so the left
hand, when referring to place, is understood among the Hebrews. We must not
confound this town or Cabul with the twenty cities given by Solomon to Hiram, with
which he was displeased, and which in contempt he called the land of Cabul, the dirty or
paltry land, 1Ki_9:11-13 : there was evidently a town of this name, widely different from
the land so called, long before the time of Solomon, and therefore this cannot be
adduced as an argument that the book of Joshua was written after the days of David. The
town in question is supposed to be the same which Josephus in his Life calls Χωβουλω
Choboulo, and which he says was situated by the sea-side, and nigh to Ptolemais. De Bell.
Jud., lib. iii., c. 4.
GILL, "And turneth towards the sunrising,.... Or eastward:
to Bethdagon; there was a city of this name in the tribe of Judah; see Gill on Jos_
15:41. Dagon, being a god of the Phoenicians, had temples built for him in various places
in Canaan:
and reacheth to Zebulun; not the tribe of Zebulun, but a city so called, the same
Josephus (o) calls a strong city of Galilee, which had the name of Men, perhaps from the
populousness of it, and separated Ptolemais from Judea:
and to the valley of Jiphthahel; see Jos_19:14,
toward the north side of Bethemek; of Bethemek no mention is made elsewhere:
perhaps here was an idol temple before dedicated to the god of the valleys; see 1Ki_
20:28,
and Neiel; which the Greek version calls Inael, of which Jerom says (p), it is a certain
village called Betoaenea, fifteen miles from Caesarea, situated on a mountain to the east,
on which are said to be wholesome baths:
and goeth out to Cabul on the left hand; not the land of Cabul, 1Ki_9:13; but a city,
which Josephus (q) calls a village on the borders of Ptolemais. The Jews (r) speak of a
city of this name, destroyed because of contentions in it.
K&D, "Jos_19:27

53. From this point the boundary “turned towards the east,” probably following the river
Libnath for a short distance upwards, “to Beth-dagon,” which has not yet been
discovered, and must not be identified with Beit Dejan between Yafa and Ludd
(Diospolis), “and touched Zebulun and the valley of Jiphtah-el on the north of Beth-
emek, and Nehiël, and went out on the left of Cabul,” i.e., on the northern side of it. The
north-west boundary went from Zebulun into the valley of Jiphtah-el, i.e., the upper part
of the Wady Abilîn (Jos_19:14). Here therefore the eastern boundary of Asher, which
ran northwards from Wady Zerka past the western side of Issachar and Zebulun,
touched the north-west corner of Zebulun. The two places, Beth-emek and Nehiël (the
latter possibly the same as Neah in Jos_19:13), which were situated at the south of the
valley of Jiphtah-el, have not been discovered; they may, however, have been upon the
border of Zebulun and yet have belonged to Ashwer. Cabul, the κώµη Χαβωλώ of
Josephus (Vit. §43), in the district of Ptolemais, has been preserved in the village of
Kabul, four hours to the south-east of Acre (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 88, and Van de Velde, R. i.
p. 218).
BE SO , "Joshua 19:27. Cabul — A city so called. Left hand — That is, on the
north, which, when men look toward the east, as is usual, is on their left hand.
COKE,"Ver. 27. And goeth out to Cabul on the left hand— That is, to the north of
this city, according to the custom of the Hebrews in the designation of the four
cardinal points. Some learned men have concluded from this passage, that the Book
of Joshua could not have been written before Solomon's time, because, say they, the
land of Cabul received its name from Hiram, king of Tyre, who called it so in
contempt, 1 Kings 9:11-13.; but this is a manifest mistake: the question here is not
about the land of Cabul and its twenty cities, but about the town of Cabul, near
Ptolemais. Josephus plainly makes a distinction between them, who, in his life, and
Hist. Jud. Bell. lib. 3: cap. 4 speaks of the city of Chabul or Chabolo. See Huet.
Demonst. Evang. prop. 4:
PETT, "Verse 27-28
‘And it turned towards the sunrising (the east) to Beth-dagon, and reached to
Zebulun and to the valley of Iphtah-el northward, to Bethemek and eiel, and it
went out to Cabul on the left hand, and Ebron and Rehob, and Hammon, and
Kanah, even to Great Zidon.’
The eastern boundary is now given. Beth-dagon was a name given to a number of
cities, signifying ‘house of Dagon’. They were probably sanctuaries of the god
Dagon. ‘Reached to Zebulun’ suggests that the boundary was not clearly identified
in view of the relationship between the two tribes (although Zebulun may have been
the name of a city, but see Joshua 19:34). Then follows the northern boundary. The
valley of Iphtah-el is possibly the Wadi el-Malik (see Joshua 19:14). Bethemek and
eiel would be near or in the valley.
“It went out to Cabul on the left hand.” The left hand may signify north (compare
its use in Genesis 14:15, and Joshua 17:7 where ‘the right hand’ probably means
south). Cabul is probably Horvat Rosh Zayit, one to two kilometres (one mile) from
modern Kabul which is today the name of a village north west of the Sahl el-Battof,

54. and thirteen kilometres (eight miles) south east of Acco. Excavations have
discovered Iron Age II buildings and a later fortress marking the border between
Phoenicia and Israel. It was a frontier village between the two exchanged by
Solomon’s treaty with Hiram of Tyre (1 Kings 9:13) to rectify the border.
Ebron (Abdon in some Hebrew MSS) is probably Abdon (Joshua 21:30), probably
Khirbet ‘Abdeh six kilometres (nearly four miles) in from Achzib (Joshua 19:29),
ten miles north north east of Acco, and commanding a way into the hills (In Hebrew
writing d and r are almost indistinguishable except in the most careful writing).
Rehob - ‘broad place’ - (Joshua 21:31; 1 Chronicles 6:75) is possibly Tell Bir el-
Gharbi, south east of Acco. It was one of the cities from which the Canaanites were
not driven out (Judges 1:31), although there may have been two Rehob’s (Joshua
19:30). A Rehob (rhb) is mentioned in the Thutmose III lists. Hammon (‘glowing’)
has been suggested as Umm el-‘Awamid where ruins still exist. A Phoenician
inscription from nearby Ma‘sub refers to ‘the citizens of Hammon’ and ‘the deity of
Hammon’. Kanah is probably Qana in the Lebanon foothills, ten kilometres (six
miles) south east of Tyre.
“Even to Great Zidon.” That is, to the borders of the territory belonging to Zidon.
The use of Great Zidon rather than Tyre indicates the age of the narrative. Later
Tyre became more prominent.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:27
Beth-dagon. We learn that Dagon, the fish-god, was worshipped here as well as in
the south of Palestine (see Joshua 15:41). The Valley of Jiphthah-el. This valley, or
gai, is mentioned above, Joshua 19:14, as the extreme northern border of Zebulun.
Cabul. We read of a Cabul in 1 Kings 9:11-13, but it can hardly be this place,
though clearly not far off. For we read that the name given to that territory was
given then by Hiram. There is a κωµὴ χαβωλώ πτολεµαίδος µεθόριον οὗσα
mentioned by Josephus. There is a village four hours northeast of Acre, which still
bears this name.
28 It went to Abdon,[b] Rehob, Hammon and
Kanah, as far as Greater Sidon.
BAR ES 28-30, "These verses refer to the northern portion of the territory of Asher,
on the Phoenician frontier. Some names may have dropped out of the text, the number

55. Jos_19:30 not tallying with the catalogue. Ramah still retains its ancient name, and lies
about twelve miles southeast of Tyre. Achzib is the modern “Zib,” on the coast, eight or
nine miles north of Acre.
CLARKE, "Unto great Zidon - The city of Sidon and the Sidonians are celebrated
from the remotest antiquity. They are frequently mentioned by Homer. See the note on
Jos_11:8.
GILL, "And Hebron,.... Hebron seems to be the same with Abdon, Jos_21:30; ‫ר‬ and ‫ד‬
being changed, of which there are other instances; and hereby this is distinguished from
another Hebron in the tribe of Judah, more commonly known, Jos_15:54,
and Rehob; in the time of Jerom (s), there was a village called Rooba, four miles from
Scythopolis, and which he says was a city separated to the Levites, as this was, or one of
the same name in this tribe; for there was another, Jos_19:30; see Jos_21:31; but
whether either of them is the same with this is not certain:
and Hammon; of this city we read nowhere else:
and Kanah; this Kanah is generally thought to be the same where Christ wrought his
first miracle, Joh_2:1. Jerom expressly says (u), there was a Cana in the tribe of Asher,
where our Lord and Saviour turned water into wine, Joh_2:1, and from whence was
Nathanael, Joh_21:2; and it is at this day, adds he, a town in Galilee of the Gentiles.
Phocas (w) places Cana between Sippori and Nazareth, which is now shown six Roman
miles from Sippori to the west, a little inclining to the north; and there is also in the
same tract Cephar Cana, four miles from Nazareth to the north, inclining to the east; and
it is disputed which of these two is Cana of Galilee the New Testament: with this account
agrees pretty much what our countryman Mr. Maundrell (x) gives of his travels in those
parts:"taking leave of Nazareth, (he says,) and going at first northward, we crossed the
hills that encompassed the vale of Nazareth at that side; after which we turned to the
westward, and passed in view of Cana of Galilee, the place signalized with the beginning
of Christ's miracles, Joh_2:11; in an hour and a half more we came to Sepharia;''
or Sippori:
even unto great Zidon; of great Zidon, and why so called; see Gill on Jos_11:8.
K&D, "Jos_19:28-30
In Jos_19:28-30 the towns and boundaries in the northern part of the territory of
Asher, on the Phoenician frontier, are given, and the Phoenician cities Sidon, Tyre, and
Achzib are mentioned as marking the boundary. First of all we have four towns in Jos_
19:28, reaching as far as Sidon, no doubt in the northern district of Asher. Ebron has not
yet been traced. As Abdon occurs among the towns which Asher gave up to the Levites
(Jos_21:30; 1Ch_6:59), and in this verse also twenty MSS have the reading Abdon,
many writers, like Reland (Pal. p. 514), regard Ebron as a copyist's error for Abdon. This
is possible enough, but it is by no means certain. As the towns of Asher are not all given
in this list, since Acco, Achlab, and Helba (Jdg_1:31) are wanting, Abdon may also have

56. been omitted. But we cannot attach any importance to the reading of the twenty MSS, as
it may easily have arisen from Jos_21:30; and in addition to the Masoretic text, it has
against it the authority of all the ancient versions, in which the reading Ebron is
adopted. But even Abdon cannot be traced with certainty. On the supposition that
Abdon is to be read for Ebron, Knobel connects it with the present Abbadiyeh, on the
east of Beirut (Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, Erdk. xvii. pp. 477 and 710), or with Abidat, on the
east (not the north) of Jobail (Byblus), mentioned by Burckhardt (Syr. p. 296) and
Robinson (iii. App.); though he cannot adduce any other argument in support of the
identity of Abdon with these two places, which are only known by name at present,
except the resemblance in their names. On the supposition, however, that Abdon is not
the same as Ebron, Van de Velde's conjecture is a much more natural one; namely, that
it is to be found in the ruins of Abdeh, on the Wady Kurn, to the north of Acca. Rehob
cannot be traced. The name occurs again in Jos_19:30, from which it is evident that
there were two towns of this name in the territory of Asher (see at Jos_19:30). Schultz
and Van de Velde connect it with the village of Hamûl by the wady of that name,
between Ras el Abyad and Ras en Nakura; but this is too far south to be included in the
district which reached to great Sidon. Knobel's suggestion would be a more probable
one, namely, that it is connected with the village of Hammana, on the east of Beirut, in
the district of el Metn, on the heights of Lebanon, where there is now a Maronite
monastery (vid., Seetzen, i. p. 260; Rob. iii. App.; and Ritter, xvii. pp. 676 and 710), if it
could only be shown that the territory of Asher reached as far to the east as this. Kanah
cannot be the village of Kâna, not far from Tyre (Rob. iii. p. 384), but must have been
farther north, and near to Sidon, though it has not yet been discovered. For the
supposition that it is connected with the existing place called Ain Kanieh (Rob. iii. App.;
Ritter, xvii. pp. 94 and 703), on the north of Jezzin, is overthrown by the fact that that
place is too far to the east to be thought of in this connection; and neither Robinson nor
Ritter makes any allusion to “Ain Kana, in the neighbourhood of Jurjera, six hours to
the south-east of Sidon,” which Knobel mentions without quoting his authority, so that
the existence of such a place is very questionable. On Sidon, now Saida, see at Jos_11:8.
BE SO ,"Joshua 19:28. Kanah — amely, Kanah the greater, in the Upper
Galilee; not Kanah the less, which was in the Lower Galilee. Zidon — Called great
for its antiquity, and riches, and glory. The city either was not given to the Israelites,
or at least was never possessed by them; not without a singular providence of God,
that they might not by the opportunity of so good a port be engaged in much
commerce with other nations; from which, together with wealth, that great
corrupter of mankind, they might contract their errors and vices.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:28
Hebron. Rather, Ebron. It is not the same word as the Hebron in Judah, but is spelt
with Ain instead of Hheth. In Joshua 21:30, 1 Chronicles 6:59, Abdon is the name of
the city assigned to the Levites in Asher. Twenty MSS; says Keil, have the same
reading here. But the LXX. has ἐβρων here and αβδων in Joshua 21:30. The
Hebrew ‫ד‬ and ‫ר‬are so much alike that there is no doubt that the mistake has arisen
earlier than the time when that translation was made. It is true that the lists of
Levitical cities in Joshua 21:1-45. and 1 Chronicles 6:1-81. do not entirely
correspond. But the resemblance here between the names is too striking to allow of
the supposition that two different cities are meant. Great Zidon. This city, as well as

57. Tyre, remained unsubdued, although assigned by Joshua to Asher. The boundary of
Asher appears to have been traced first towards the west, then eastward, from a
middle point on the southern border (see note on verse 11), then to have been
carried northward from the same point (the left hand usually means the north; see
note on Teman, Joshua 15:1), on the east side till it reached Cabul. Then the
northern border is traced westward to Sidon. Then the border turned southward
along the sea, which is not mentioned, because it would seem to be sufficiently
defined by the mention of Ramah and Tyre. Between Hosah and Achzib there would
seem to have been a greater paucity of cities, and therefore the sea is mentioned.
29 The boundary then turned back toward
Ramah and went to the fortified city of Tyre,
turned toward Hosah and came out at the
Mediterranean Sea in the region of Akzib,
CLARKE, "The strong city Tyre - I suspect this to be an improper translation.
Perhaps the words of the original should be retained: And the coast turneth to Ramah
and to the city, ‫צר‬ ‫מבצר‬ mibtsar tsor. Our translators have here left the Hebrew, and
followed the Septuagint and Vulgate, a fault of which they are sometimes guilty. The
former render the place ᅛως πολεως οχυρωµατος των Τυριων, unto the fortified city of the
Tyrians. The Vulgate is nearly the same: ad civitatem munitissimam Tyrum, to the well-
fortified city Tyre; but this must be incorrect for the famous city of Tyre was not known
till about A.M. 2760, about two hundred years after the days of Joshua. Homer, who
frequently mentions Sidon and the Sidonians, never mentions Tyre; a proof that this
afterwards very eminent city was not then known. Homer is allowed by some to have
flourished in the time of Joshua, though others make him contemporary with the
Israelitish judges. The word ‫צר‬ Tsor or Tsar, which we translate or change into Tyre,
signifies a rock or strong place; and as there were many rocks in the land of Judea, that
with a little art were formed into strong places of defense, hence several places might
have the name of Tsar or Tyre. The ancient and celebrated Tyre, so much spoken of both
in sacred and profane history, was a rock or small island in the sea, about six or seven
hundred paces from the main land. In order to reduce this city, Alexander the Great was
obliged to fill up the channel between it and the main land, and after all took it with
much difficulty. It is generally supposed that a town on the main land, opposite to this
fortified rock, went by the same name; one being called old Tyre, the other, new Tyre: it
was out of the ruins of the old Tyre, or that which was situated on the main land, that

58. Alexander is said to have filled up the channel between it and the new city. Of this city
Isaiah, Isaiah 23:1-18, and Ezekiel, Ezekiel 27:1-28:26, have given a very grand
description, and also predicted its irreparable ruin which prophecies have been most
literally fulfilled. See more on the above places.
Achzib - Called afterwards Ecdippe, and now called Zib; it is about nine miles’
distance from Ptolemais, towards Tyre.
GILL, "And then the coast turneth to Ramah,.... Which was a city in the tribe of
Naphtali, Jos_19:36; and on the borders of Asher; though Jerom (y) distinguishes them,
and speaks of a Ramah in Asher, and another in Naphtali, as different cities of the same
name; as there were several of this name, so called from their being built on an
eminence. Masius conjectures it is the same with Sarepta, Luk_4:26; famous for its
wine; and Bacchus, as the poet says, loves the hills:
and to the strong city Tyre; it is thought this is not to be understood of the famous
city, so much spoken of in other parts of Scripture, and in profane history; since, as it is
observed, that is not mentioned in Scripture until the times of David; and though Homer
makes frequent mention of Sidon, yet never of Tyre. The words signify the strong
fortress of a rock, or a fortress on a high rock; so Kimchi and Ben Melech; and it might
be a fortified city, which being built on a rock, might have the name of Zor or Tyre, and
not be the famous city of that name. Jerom (z) renders it the fortified city of the
Assyrians:
and the coast turneth to Hosah; of which we nowhere else read:
and the outgoings thereof are at the sea; the Mediterranean sea; where the coast
ended this way:
from the coast to Achzib; this Jerom (a) says is Ecdippa, nine miles from Ptolemais,
as you go to Tyre; and this is confirmed by a learned traveller of our own nation (b); it is
now called Zib; See Gill on Mic_1:14.
JAMISO , "and then the coast turneth to Ramah — now El-Hamra, which
stood where the Leontes (Litany) ends its southern course and flows westward.
and to the strong city Tyre — The original city appears to have stood on the
mainland, and was well-fortified. From Tyre the boundary ran to Hosah, an inland town;
and then, passing the unconquered district of Achzib (Jdg_1:31), terminated at the
seacoast.
K&D, "Jos_19:29-31
“And the boundary turned (probably from the territory of Sidon) to Ramah, to the
fortified town of Zor.” Robinson supposes that Rama is to be found in the village of
Rameh, on the south-east of Tyre, where several ancient sarcophagi are to be seen (Bibl.
Res. p. 63). “The fortified town of Zor,” i.e., Tyre, is not the insular Tyre, but the town of
Tyre, which was on the mainland, the present Sur, which is situated by the sea-coast, in
a beautiful and fertile plain (see Ritter, Erdk. xvii. p. 320, and Movers, Phönizier, ii. 1,

59. pp. 118ff.). “And the boundary turned to Hosah, and the outgoings thereof were at the
sea, by the side of the district of Achzib.” Hosah is unknown, as the situation of Kausah,
near to the Rameh already mentioned (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 61), does not suit in this
connection. ‫ל‬ ֶ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ח‬ ֵ‫,מ‬ lit. from the district, i.e., by the side of it. Achzib, where the Asherites
dwelt with the Canaanites (Jdg_1:31-32), is the Ekdippa of the Greeks and Romans,
according to the Onom. (s. v. Achziph) nine Roman miles, or according to the Itiner.
Hieros. p. 584, twelve miles to the north of Acco by the sea, the present Zib, a very large
village, three good hours to the north of Acre, - a place on the sea-coast, with
considerable ruins of antiquity (see Ges. Thes. p. 674; Seetzen, ii. p. 109; Ritter, xvi. pp.
811-12). - In Jos_19:30 three separate towns are mentioned, which were probably
situated in the eastern part of the northern district of Asher, whereas the border towns
mentioned in Jos_19:28 and Jos_19:29 describe this district in its western half. Ummah
(lxx ᅒµµά) may perhaps have been preserved in Kefr Ammeih, upon the Lebanon, to the
south of Hammana, in the district of Jurd (Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, xvii. p. 710). Aphek is
the present Afka (see at Jos_13:4). Rehob cannot be traced with certainty. If it is Hub, as
Knobel supposes, and the name Hub, which is borne by a Maronite monastery upon
Lebanon, in the diocese of el-Jebail (to the north-east of Jebail), is a corruption of
Rehob, this would be the northernmost town of Asher (see Seetzen, i. pp. 187ff., and
Ritter, xvii. p. 791). The number “twenty-two towns and their villages” does not tally, as
there are twenty-three towns mentioned in Jos_19:26-30, if we include Sidon, Tyre, and
Achzib, according to Jdg_1:31-32. The only way in which the numbers can be made to
agree is to reckon Nehiel (Jos_19:27) as identical with Neah (Jos_19:13). But this point
cannot be determined with certainty, as the Asherites received other towns, such as Acco
and Aclaph, which are wanting in this list, and may possibly have simply fallen out.
BE SO , "Verse 29-30
Joshua 19:29-30. To Ramah — From the north southward. To the strong city of
Tyre — This translation is questionable; for we never read one word of the city of
Tyre (unless it be here) until the days of David; though we often read of Sidon in the
books of Moses; even in the prophecy of Jacob. It is highly probable some other
place is meant by Tzor, as the word is in the Hebrew. And the out-goings thereof,
&c. — That is, it ended at the country which belonged to Achzib; for so hebel, which
we here translate coast, signifies. Twenty-two cities — Here are more named, but
some of them were not within this tribe, but only bordering places.
COKE, "Ver. 29. Then the coast turneth to Ramah, &c.— There were several cities
of this name in Palestine. Masius supposes the present to be the same as was
afterwards called Zarepta. Ramah signifies high, elevated; and such, it seems, was
the situation of Zarepta, celebrated for its vineyards, which evidently suppose an
elevated situation.
And to the strong city Tyre— So the LXX and Vulgate, followed by a variety of
interpreters, translate the clause. Sidon is much spoken of in the Books of Moses,
and even in Jacob's prophesies: the famous city of Tyre was not in being till the time
of David. Homer, who makes frequent mention of Sidon, and the Sidonians,
nowhere takes notice of the Tyrians. The sacred writer in this place, therefore, must
have intended to point out some other city of the same name; there were four
different places in Phoenicia called Tyre. Perhaps the historian here had in view

60. Palaetyrus or Ancient Tyre, which was built on the main land, whereas the other
Tyre was erected over against it, in an island. This is the opinion of Perizonius,
Grotius, Calmet, Le Clerc, &c. For an ingenious account of the origin of Tyre, &c.
we refer the reader to the learned chronology of M. Vignoles, lib. 4: cap. 1, &c.
And the coast turneth to Hosah—and—to Achzib— From the neighbourhood of
Tyre, the western border of Asher came round towards Hosah, (a place now
unknown,) and abutted on the territory or neighbouring quarter of the sea, in the
next adjacent district of Achzib, which, according to St. Jerome, is the same city as
Pliny calls Ecdippa. Maundrell, in his voyage to Aleppo, p. 53 gives the following
account of it; "Having travelled about an hour in the plain of Acra, we passed by an
old town called Zib, situate on an ascent, close by the sea side. This may probably be
the old Achzib, mentioned, Joshua 19:29 and Judges 1:31 called afterwards
Ecdippa; for St. Jerome places Achzib nine miles distant from Ptolemais, towards
Tyre, to which account we found the situation of Zib exactly agreeing."
PETT, "Verse 29
‘And the border turned to Ramah, and to the city of Mibzar Zor (or ‘the fortress of
Tyre’), and the border turned to Hosah, and its goings out were at the sea by the
region of Achzib.’
Ramah is unidentified, although Ramiyeh, twenty one kilometres (thirteen miles)
south east of Tyre, has been suggested. (But the name is too common for certainty).
For Mibzar Zor see 2 Samuel 24:7. This may be Tyre itself (Zor) or a strong fortress
connected with Tyre, possibly the island city. Tyre consisted of an island and a
mainland port, the latter probably called Ussu in Assyrian inscriptions and Usu in
Egyptian. Hosah may be a reflex of this. Tyre would later supersede Zidon. The site
is Tell Rashidiyeh. These cities were boundary indicators only and would include
their surrounding territory. The description could be seen as excluding them from
the territory of Asher for the boundary reached the sea at Achzib.
“Its goings out were at the sea by the region of Achzib.” Achzib was a Canaanite
harbour town, probably to be identified with modern ez-Zib fourteen kilometres
north of Acco (Acre) The Canaanites were never driven out from it (Judges 1:31).
An alternative translation is ‘from Hebel to Achzib’.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:29
The strong city Tyre. Rather, the fortified city. The general impression among
commentators appears to be that the island city of Tyre, afterwards so famous, had
not as yet come into existence. And the word here used, ‫ַר‬‫צ‬ְ‫ב‬ִ‫מ‬ seems to be more in
accordance with the idea of a land fortress than of one so exceptionally protected.as
an island fortress would be. This expression, like "great Zidon" above, implies the
comparative antiquity of the Book of Joshua. The island city of Tyre, so famous in
later history, was not yet founded. The city on the mainland (called Ancient Tyre by
the historians) was "the chief seat of the population till the wars of the Assyrian
monarchs against Phoenicia". He adds, "The situation of Palae-Tyrus was one of

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

62. 30 Ummah, Aphek and Rehob. There were
twenty-two towns and their villages.
CLARKE, "Twenty and two cities - There are nearly thirty cities in the above
enumeration instead of twenty-two, but probably several are mentioned that were but
frontier towns, and that did not belong to this tribe, their border only passing by such
cities; and on this account, though they are named, yet they do not enter into the
enumeration in this place. Perhaps some of the villages are named as well as the cities.
GILL, "Ummah also,.... Ummah is not mentioned any where else:
and Aphek; of which; see Gill on Jos_12:18,
and Rehob; of which; see Gill on Jos_19:28,
twenty and two cities with their villages: there are more set down in the account,
but some of them did not belong to the tribe, only were on the border of it.
PETT, "Verse 30-31
‘Ummah also, and Aphek, and Rehob. Twenty two cities with their villages. This is
the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Asher according to their families, these
cities with their villages.’
Having completed the border description the writer now included these three cities,
making twenty two in all. The count does not include those which were only border
indicators. Ummah is unknown. Aphek (‘fortress’) is a common name but here may
be modern Tell Kurdaneh at the source of the River a’amein which flows into the
Bay of Haifa. For Rehob see on Joshua 19:28.
Again the allotment is concluded with the familiar formula, ‘this is the inheritance
of --’.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:30

63. Aphek (see Joshua 13:4). Twenty and two cities with their villages. The difficulty of
tracing the boundary of Asher seems to be that it was traced, not by a line plainly
marking out the territory, but less accurately, by a reference to the relative position
of its principal cities.
31 These towns and their villages were the
inheritance of the tribe of Asher, according to its
clans.
GILL, "This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Asher,.... As
before described, a goodly heritage; it was, according to the prediction of Jacob and
Moses, Gen_49:20; a very fruitful country. Josephus (c) says, the country from Carmel
called the valley, because it was such, even all over against Sidon, fell to the Asherites,
Asher had Mount Libanus on the north, Naphtali on the east, Zebulun on the south and
southeast, the sea on the west:
according to their families; the number of them, so their lot was divided to them:
these cities with their villages; before named.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:31
This is the inheritance of the tribe of Asher. Asher appears to have been allotted a
long but narrow strip of territory between aphtali and the sea. The natural
advantages of the territory must have been great. ot only was it described
prophetically by Jacob (Genesis 49:20) and by Moses (Deuteronomy 33:24,
Deuteronomy 33:25), but the prosperity of the two great maritime cities of Tyro and
Sidon was due to the immense commercial advantages the neighbourhood afforded.
St. Jean d'Acre, within the territory once assigned to Asher, has inherited the
prosperity, so far as anything under the Turkish rule can be prosperous, once
enjoyed by her two predecessors. Maundrell, the acute English chaplain at Aleppo,
who visited Palestine in 1696, describes the plain of Acre in his day as about six
hours' journey from north to south, and two from west to east; as being well
watered, and possessing "everything else that might render it both pleasant and
fruitful. But," he adds, "this delicious plain is now almost desolate, being suffered,
for want of culture, to run up to rank weeds, as high as our horses' backs." Asher,
however, never employed the advantages its situation offered. They never subdued
the Canaanites around them, but, unquestionably at a very early date (see 5:17)
preferred a life of compromise and ignoble ease to the national welfare. But it would

64. be incorrect to suppose that because the tribe is omitted in the list of rulers given in
1 Chronicles 27:1-34; it had ceased to be a power in Israel. For Gad is also omitted
in that list, while among the warriors who came to greet David when he became
undisputed king of Israel, Asher sent 40,000 trained warriors, a number exceeding
the men of Ephraim, and those of Simeon, of Dan, and of the half tribe of Manasseh
(see 1 Chronicles 12:1-40), and far exceeding the numbers of Benjamin, which had
never recovered the war of almost extermination waged against it, in consequence of
the atrocity at Gibeah ( 20:1-48). Possibly the reason why so few are mentioned of
the tribe of Judah on that occasion is because so many were already with David.
There seems no ground for the idea of Dean Stanley, that the allusion to Asher in
5:17 is any more contemptuous than the allusion to any other tribe.
Allotment for aphtali
32 The sixth lot came out for aphtali according
to its clans:
GILL, "The sixth lot came out to the children of Naphtali,.... The tribe of
Naphtali, and directed what should be the inheritance of this tribe:
even for the children of Naphtali, according to their families; which was to be
divided among them, according to the number of their, families.
HE RY 32-39, "Naphtali lay furthest north of all the tribes, bordering on Mount
Libanus. The city of Leshem, or Liash, lay on the utmost edge of it to the north, and
therefore when the Danites had made themselves masters of it, and called it Dan, the
length of Canaan from north to south was reckoned from Dan to Beersheba. It had
Zebulun on the south, Asher on the west, and Judah upon Jordan, probably a city of that
name, and so distinguished from the tribe of Judah on the east. It was in the lot of this
tribe, near the waters of Merom, that Joshua fought and routed Jabin, Jos_11:1. etc. In
this tribe stood Capernaum and Bethsaida, on the north end of the sea of Tiberias, in
which Christ did so many mighty works; and the mountain (as is supposed) on which
Christ preached, Mat_5:1.
JAMISO , "Jos_19:32-39. Of Naphtali.
the sixth lot came out to the children of Naphtali — Although the cities
mentioned have not been discovered, it is evident, from Zaanannim, which is by Kedesh,
that is, on the northwest of Lake Merom (Jdg_4:11), that the boundary described (Jos_

65. 19:34) ran from the southwest towards the northeast, up to the sources of the Jordan.
K&D,"The Inheritance of Naphtali. - This fell between Asher and the upper Jordan. It
reached northwards to the northern boundary of Canaan, and touched Zebulun and
Issachar on the south. In Jos_19:33 and Jos_19:34 the boundary lines are given: viz., in
Jos_19:33 the western boundary towards Asher, with the northern and eastern
boundaries: in Jos_19:34 the southern boundary; but with the uncertainty which exists
as to several of the places named, it cannot be traced with certainty.
CALVI , "Verse 32
The next lot mentioned is that of aphtali, and it seems to correspond with the
disposition and manners of that tribe. For Jacob had testified, aphtali is a hind let
loose; he gave goodly words. For this reason they seem to have been contiguous on
one side to the children of Judah, and to have been surrounded on other sides by the
enclosures of their brethren. (171) Indeed, in its being said that the tribe of Dan took
Lesen, there seems to be a tacit comparison, because the children of aphtali did not
employ arms to force their way into their inheritance, but kept themselves quietly in
a subdued territory, and thus enjoyed safety and tranquillity under the faith, and,
as it were, protection of Judah and the other tribes. The capture of Lesen by the
children of Dan, in accordance with the divine grant which they had received of it,
did not take place till after the death of Joshua. But the fact which is more fully
detailed in the book of Judges is here mentioned in passing, because praise was due
to them for their boldness and activity in thus embracing the right which God had
bestowed upon them, and so trusting in him as to go down bravely and defeat the
enemy.
BE SO , "Verse 32-33
Joshua 19:32-33. The sixth lot came out, &c. — Here the younger son of Bilhah, the
hand-maid of Rachel, is preferred before the elder, who was Dan, (Genesis 30:6;
Genesis 30:8,) as Zebulun was before Issachar. Such was the method of Divine
Providence in that nation, to convince them that they ought not to value themselves
too highly, as they were apt to do, upon their external privileges. Their coast —
Their northern border, drawn from west to east, as appears; because, when the
coast is described and brought to its end, it is said to turn from the east westward,
Joshua 19:34. The out- goings — The end of that coast.
COFFMA , "Verse 32
APHTALI
"The sixth lot came out for the children of aphtali according to their families. And
their border was from Heleph, from the oak in Zaannim, and Adami-nekeb, and
Jabneel, unto Lakkum; and the goings out thereof were at the Jordan; and the
border thereof turned westward to Aznoth-tabor, and went out from thence to
Hukkok; and it reached to Zebulun on the south, and reached to Asher on the west,
and to Judah at the Jordan toward the sunrising. And the fortified cities were
Ziddim, Zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth, and Adamah, and Ramah,

66. and Hazor, and Kedesh, and Edrei, and En-hazor, and Iron, and Migdael, Horem,
and Beth-anath, and Beth-shemesh; nineteen cities with their villages. This is the
inheritance of the tribe of the children of aphtali according to their families, the
cities with their villages."
" aphtali's border joined that of of Isaachar from Mount Tabor to the Jordan. The
eastern border ran along the shore of the Sea of Galilee and north again with the
eastern border of Asher, aphtali held most of the northern and eastern half of the
southern Galilean highlands."[11] Rea described this same area as "Eastern Upper
and Lower Galilee."[12]
CO STABLE, "Verses 32-39
The inheritance of aphtali19:32-39
The Sea of Chinnereth (Galilee) and the Jordan River north of that sea formed
aphtali"s eastern border. It extended north to Phoenician territory. aphtali
shared borders on the west with Asher, on the southwest with Zebulun, and on the
south with Issachar. ineteen fortified cities belonged to this tribe ( Joshua 19:35-
38).
PETT, "Verse 32
‘For the children of aphtali came out the sixth lot, for the children of aphtali,
according to their families.’
ote the slight differences in the opening formulae - Joshua 18:11; Joshua 19:1;
Joshua 19:10; Joshua 19:17; Joshua 19:24; Joshua 19:32; Joshua 19:40. These are
clearly deliberate variations to prevent exact repetition and monotony. Benjamin,
Simeon, Asher, and Dan (as was Judah (Joshua 15:1) and Reuben (Joshua 13:15))
are called ‘the tribe (matteh) of the children of --’. Zebulun, Issachar and aphtali
only ‘the children of --’ (as was Joseph (Joshua 16:1) and Gad (Joshua 13:24),
although the latter was first called in context ‘the tribe (matteh) of Gad’). Levi was
called ‘the tribe (shebet) of Levi’ (Joshua 13:14; Joshua 13:33) and ‘the Levites’
(Joshua 14:3-4). But as Benjamin is also called ‘the children of --’ (Joshua 18:28)
and Issachar and aphtali ‘the tribe of the children of --’ (Joshua 19:23; Joshua
19:39) and there are changes in the order of words it seems simply to be a matter of
scribal variation.
Simeon and Issachar also have the patriarch’s name by itself. aphtali alone has
‘the children of --’ repeated, but there is no obvious reason for it. ote also that the
lot ‘came up’ for Benjamin and Zebulun, and ‘came out’ for the remainder. This
would suggest that they were drawn from a container.
PI K, ""And the sixth lot came out to the children of aphtali" (Josh. 19:32). This
is also of most interest to us because of its ew Testament connections. Its territory
adjoined that of Zebulun (Matthew 4:13), yet each had its own distinct interest.
Jacob likened aphtali to "a hind let loose" and foretold, "he giveth goodly words"
(Gen. 49:21): while Moses spoke of him as "full with the blessing of the Lord"
(Deut. 33:23). In the title to Psalm 22 our Lord is likened to "the hind of the

67. morning," because of His swiftness to do His Father’s will and work. The cities of
Capernaum and Bethsaida were in the borders of aphtali. which were indeed filled
with the blessing of the Lord, for it was there that Christ and His apostles did most
of their preaching and gave forth "goodly words."
33 Their boundary went from Heleph and the
large tree in Zaanannim, passing Adami ekeb
and Jabneel to Lakkum and ending at the Jordan.
BAR ES, "From Allon to Zaanannim - Render “from the oak forest at
Zaanannim.” From Jdg_4:11 it appears that this oak or oak-forest was near Kedesh.
Adami, Nekeb - Render “Adami of the Pass.” Possibly the ancient “Deir el Ahmar”
(“red cloister”), which derives its name from the color of the soil in the neighborhood, as
perhaps Adami did. The spot lies about 8 miles northwest of Baalbek.
GILL, "And their coast was from Heleph,.... That is, their northern coast, reaching
from west to east, as appears by the ending of it at Jordan; the Alexandrian copy of the
Greek version calls it Mlepeh, the Targum, Meheleph, and Jerom, Mealeb, which he calls
the border of Naphtali; which, though to the north, cannot be expressly said what and
where it was:
from Allon to Zaanannim; or rather from the oak, or from the plain in Zaanannim
(d); for it seems to be the same with the plain of Zanaaim, Jdg_4:11.
and Adami, Nekeb; some make these to be but one city, and the latter only an epithet
of the former; but the Talmudists (e) make them two, as we do, and call the first Damin,
and the latter Ziadetha; but what and where either of them were exactly is not known;
for Adami cannot be the same with Adam, Jos_3:16; as some think; for that was in
Peraea, on the other side Jordan; See Gill on Jos_3:16,
and Jabneel; Jabneel is different from that which was on the borders of Judah, Jos_
15:11; and is called by the Jews (f) since Cepherjamah:
unto Lakum; of which we nowhere else read:
and the outgoings thereof were at Jordan; here the coast ended this way.

68. K&D, "Jos_19:33
“Its boundary was (its territory reached) from Heleph, from the oak-forest at
Zaanannim, and Adami Nekeb and Jabneel to Lakkum; and its outgoings were the
Jordan.” Heleph is unknown, though in all probability it was to the south of Zaanannim,
and not very far distant. According to Jdg_4:11, the oak-forest (allon: see the remarks
on Gen_12:6) at Zaanannim was near Kedesh, on the north-west of Lake Huleh. There
are still many oaks in that neighbourhood (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 386); and on the south of
Bint Jebail Robinson crossed a low mountain-range which was covered with small oak
trees (Pal. iii. p. 372). Adami hannekeb, i.e., Adami of the pass (Nekeb, judging from the
analogy of the Arabic, signifying foramen, via inter montes), is supposed by Knobel to
be Deir-el-ahmar, i.e., red cloister, a place which is still inhabited, three hours to the
north-west of Baalbek, on the pass from the cedars to Baalbek (Seetzen, i. pp. 181, 185;
Burckhardt, Syr. p. 60; and Ritter, Erdk. xvii. p. 150), so called from the reddish colour
of the soil in the neighbourhood, which would explain the name Adami. Knobel also
connects Jabneel with the lake Jemun, Jemuni, or Jammune, some hours to the north-
west of Baalbek, on the eastern side of the western Lebanon range (Rob. Bibl. Res. p.
548; Ritter, xvii. pp. 304ff.), where there are still considerable ruins of a very early date
to be found, especially the ruins of an ancient temple and a celebrated place of
pilgrimage, with which the name “god's building” agrees. And lastly, he associates
Lakkum with the mountains of Lokham, as the northern part of Lebanon on the Syrian
mountains, from the latitude of Laodicea to that of Antioch on the western side of the
Orontes, is called by the Arabian geographers Isztachri, Abulfeda, and others. So far as
the names are concerned, these combinations seem appropriate enough, but they are
hardly tenable. The resemblance between the names Lakkum and Lokham is only in
appearance, as the Hebrew name is written with ‫ק‬ and the Arabic with ‫.כ‬ Moreover, the
mountains of Lokham are much too far north for the name to be adduced as an
explanation of Lakkum. The interpretation of Adami Nekeb and Jabneel is also
irreconcilable with the circumstance that the lake Jamun was two hours to the west of
the red convent, so that the boundary, which starts from the west, and is drawn first of
all towards the north, and then to the north-east and east, must have run last of all from
the red convent, and not from the Jamun lake to the Jordan. As Jabneel is mentioned
after Adami Nekeb, it must be sought for to the east of Adami Nekeb, whereas the
Jamun lake lies in the very opposite direction, namely, directly to the west of the red
convent. The three places mentioned, therefore, cannot be precisely determined at
present. The Jordan, where the boundary of Asher terminated, was no doubt the upper
Jordan, or rather the Nahr Hasbany, one of the sources of the Jordan, which formed,
together with the Huleh lake and the Jordan itself, between Lake Huleh and the Sea of
Tiberias, and down to the point where it issues from the latter, the eastern boundary of
Asher.
ELLICOTT, "(33) And their coast was . . .—This verse is thus translated by
Conder, “Their coast was from Heleph and the Plain of Bitzanannim and Adami,
ekeb, and Jabneel,unto Lakum,and the outgoings were at Jordan.”
The east border of the tribe is Jordan, including the waters of Merom and the Sea of
Galilee. The tribe of Issachar on the south, and the tribes of Zebulun and Asher on
the west, are conterminous with aphtali.
The places mentioned are identified as follows:—

69. Heleph.—(Beit Lif, sheet 4). The plain of Bitzanannim (Kh.-Bessum, sheet 6). Adami
(Kh.-Admah, sheet 9): this is the southernmost of all the towns named. ekeb (Kh.-
Seiyâdeh, sheet 6). Jabneel (Yemma, sheet 5). All the above places, except Heleph, lie
near the Sea of Galilee, on the south-west side.
PETT, "Verse 33
‘And their border was from Heleph, from the oak in Zaanannim, and Adami-nekeb,
and Jabneel to Lakkum, and its goings out were at Jordan.’
In view of the fact that ‘the oak in Zaanannim (or ‘of Bezaanannim’)’ is in each case
identified by a place name (Heleph here, compare Judges 4:11 where it is Kedesh(-
naphtali?)), this may be a description of a certain type of sacred oak rather than the
same tree. Thus the border begins from the sacred tree at Heleph (possibly Khirbet
‘Irbadeh at the foot of Mount Tabor). However some have placed Zaanannim at
Khan et-Tuggar four kilometres north east of Tabor.
Adami-nekeb (‘the pass Adami’) has been identified with modern Khirbet ed-
Damiyeh eight kilometres (five miles) south west of Hammath on the sea of Galilee
(near the later Tiberias). For Jabneel modern Khirbet Yamma (or Tell en- a’am),
eleven kilometres (seven miles) south west of Hammath has been suggested. For
Lakkum Khirbet el-Mansurah has been posited. The border then finished at the
Jordan. This seems to be describing the south east border of aphtali.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:33
From Allon to Zaanannim. Or, the oak which is at Zaanannim (cf. Allon-bachuth,
the oak of weeping, Genesis 35:8). Zaanannim is the same as the Zaanaim
mentioned in 4:11. For (1) the Keri is Zaanannim there, and the word here rightly
translated "oak" is rendered there "plain," as in Genesis 12:6 and elsewhere. It has
been supposed to lie northwest of Lake Huleh, the ancient Merom, whence we find
that the scene of that famous battle was assigned to the tribe of aphtali. The
border of aphtali is more lightly traced than any previous one, and is regarded as
being sufficiently defined, save toward the north, by the boundaries of the other
tribes.
34 The boundary ran west through Aznoth Tabor
and came out at Hukkok. It touched Zebulun on
the south, Asher on the west and the Jordan[c] on
the east.

70. BAR ES, "Aznoth-tabor - This place (“ears of Tabor”) was no doubt in the
neighborhood of Mount Tabor - probably on the eastern slope; and Hukkok on the
western slope.
To Judah upon Jordan - i. e. to the “Havoth-jair” Num_32:41, which were on the
opposite side of Jordan. Jair, from whom these towns or villages were named, traced his
ancestry in the male line through Hezron to Judah Num_27:1; and it is likely that he was
assisted by large numbers of his kinsmen of that tribe in his rapid conquest of Bashan.
Hence, the Havoth-jair were, in all likelihood, largely colonised by Judahites, especially
perhaps that portion of them nearest the Jordan. Thus, that part of the river and its
valley adjacent to these settlements was spoken of as “Judah upon Jordan,” or more
literally “Judah of the Jordan” (compare Num_22:1).
CLARKE, "And to Judah upon Jordan - It is certain that the tribe of Naphtali
did not border on the east upon Judah, for there were several tribes betwixt them. Some
think that as these two tribes were bounded by Jordan on the east, they might be
considered as in some sort conjoined, because of the easy passage to each other by
means of the river; but this might be said of several other tribes as well as of these. There
is considerable difficulty in the text as it now stands; but if, with the Septuagint, we omit
Judah, the difficulty vanishes, and the passage is plain: but this omission is supported by
no MS. hitherto discovered. It is however very probable that some change has taken
place in the words of the text, ‫הירדן‬ ‫וביהודה‬ ubihudah haiyarden, “and by Judah upon
Jordan.” Houbigant, who terms them verba sine re ac sententia, “words without sense
or meaning,” proposes, instead of them, to read ‫הירדן‬ ‫ובגדות‬ ubigdoth haiyarden, “and by
the banks of Jordan;” a word which is used Jos_3:15, and which here makes a very good
sense.
GILL, "And then the coast turneth westward to Aznothtabor,.... This was the
southern border, reaching from east to west; it began at Aznothtabor, which Jerom (g)
says was a village in his time belonging to the country of Diocaesarea, in the plains; there
is another place called Chislothtabor, on the borders of Zebulun, Jos_19:12,
and goeth out from thence to Hukkok: there the southern border ended, which
was in the border of Asher, and is the same with Helkath, Jos_19:25; with which
compare 1Ch_6:75,
and reacheth to Zebulun on the south side, and reacheth to Asher on the
west side and to Judah upon Jordan towards the sunrising; so that as it was
bounded by Lebanon, on the north, near to which some of the cities were, mentioned in
Jos_19:33, it had Zebulun on the south, Asher on the west, and Jordan to the east; for by
Judah is not meant the tribe of Judah, from which Naphtali was at a great distance, but a
city so called, as Fuller (h) seems rightly to conjecture.
JAMISO , "Aznoth-tabor — on the east of Tabor towards the Jordan, for the

71. border ran thence to Hukkok, touching upon that of Zebulun; and as the territory of
Zebulun did not extend as far as the Jordan, Aznoth-tabor and Hukkok must have been
border towns on the line which separated Naphtali from Issachar.
to Judah upon Jordan toward the sunrising — The sixty cities, Havoth-jair,
which were on the eastern side of the Jordan, opposite Naphtali, were reckoned as
belonging to Judah, because Jair, their possessor, was a descendant of Judah (1Ch_2:4-
22) [Keil].
K&D, "Jos_19:34
From the Jordan below the Lake of Tiberias, or speaking more exactly, from the point
at which the Wady Bessum enters the Jordan, “the boundary (of Asher) turned
westwards to Asnoth-tabor, and went thence out to Hukkok.” This boundary, i.e., the
southern boundary of Asher, probably followed the course of the Wady Bessum from the
Jordan, which wady was the boundary of Issachar on the north-east, and then ran most
likely from Kefr Sabt (see at Jos_19:22) to Asnoth-tabor, i.e., according to the Onom. (s.
v. Azanoth), a vicus ad regionem Diocaesareae pertinens in campestribus, probably on
the south-east of Diocaesarea, i.e., Sepphoris, not far from Tabor, to which the
boundary of Issachar extended (Jos_19:22). Hukkok has not yet been traced. Robinson
(Bibl. Res. p. 82) and Van de Velde (Mem. p. 322) are inclined to follow Rabbi Parchi of
the fourteenth century, and identify this place with the village of Yakûk, on the north-
west of the Lake of Gennesareth; but this village is too far to the north-east to have
formed the terminal point of the southern boundary of Naphtali, as it ran westwards
from the Jordan. After this Naphtali touched “Zebulun on the south, Asher on the west,
and Judah by the Jordan toward the sun-rising or east.” “The Jordan” is in apposition
to “Judah,” in the sense of “Judah of the Jordan,” like “Jordan of Jericho” in Num_22:1;
Num_26:3, etc. The Masoretic pointing, which separates these two words, was founded
upon some false notion respecting this definition of the boundary, and caused the
commentators great perplexity, until C. v. Raumer succeeded in removing the difficulty,
by showing that the district of the sixty towns of Jair, which was upon the eastern side of
the Jordan, is called Judah here, or reckoned as belonging to Judah, because Jair, the
possessor of these towns, was a descendant of Judah on the father's side through Hezron
(1Ch_2:5, 1Ch_2:21-22); whereas in Jos_13:30, and Num_32:41, he is reckoned contra
morem, i.e., against the rule laid down in Num_36:7, as a descendant of Manasseh, on
account of his descent from Machir the Manassite, on his mother's side.
(Note: See C. v. Raumer's article on “Judaea on the east of Jordan,” in Tholuck's
litt. Anz. 1834, Nos. 1 and 2, and his Palästina, pp. 233ff. ed. 4; and for the arbitrary
attempts that had been made to explain the passage by alterations of the text and in
other ways, see Rosenmüller's Bibl. Alterthk. ii. 1, pp. 301-2; and Keil's Comm. on
Joshua, pp. 438-9.)
BE SO , "Verse 34-35
Joshua 19:34-35. And to Judah upon Jordan — It was not near Judah, there being
several tribes between them. Therefore the meaning is, this tribe had a
communication with that of Judah, by means of the river Jordan. So the word upon,
in our translation, ought to be interpreted. This river afforded them the convenience
of carrying merchandises to Judah, or bringing them from thence. And thus, some
think, the prophecy of Moses was accomplished, (Deuteronomy 33:23.) Possess thou
the west and the south; which doth not signify that they had any land in the south;

72. but that they trafficked with that country by the means of Jordan. Chinnereth —
Whence the lake of Cinnereth, or Genesareth, received its name. Geneser signifies
the gardens of princes; and here were fine gardens, and a kind of paradise. The
Jews say the name Cinnereth was taken from its fruits, which were as sweet to the
taste as the cinnor, or harp, to the ear.
COKE, "Ver. 34. And—the coast—reacheth to Zebulun on the south side, and—to
Asher on the west side, and to Judah upon Jordan toward the sun-rising— Here it
may be asked, how could the tribe of aphtali border on that of Judah on the east,
when there were several tribes between them? In answer, we may observe, that
aphtali adjoined to Judah by the Jordan, which united the two tribes, by
supplying each with a free passage to the other. And thus, as some interpreters
think, the prophesy of Moses, Deuteronomy 33:23 possess thou the west and the
south, was fulfilled; not that this tribe had any lands in the south of Canaan; but
because, through its situation, it could easily carry on a trade thither by means of
the Jordan. This reply, however, may not be thought sufficiently full; and it may
possibly be urged, why should the tribe of aphtali meet the tribe of Judah at the
Jordan, any more than the tribes of Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh, who could
much more easily trade with Judah by means of that river? and besides, it is well
known, that the eastern limits of the tribe of Judah began rather at the point of the
Dead Sea, than at the Jordan. To this, some return for answer, that the sacred
writer thus expresses himself, to signify that the tribe of aphtali, though the most
northerly of all those which lay toward the river, yet communicated itself with the
most southern tribes, even that of Judah. Others are of opinion, that at that time
there was a city upon the Jordan, to the east of aphtali, which went by the name of
Judah. For another solution see the Miscellan. Duisburg de M. Gerdes, tom. 1: p.
683.
PETT, "Verse 34
‘And the border turned westward to Aznoth-tabor, and went out from there to
Hukkok, and it reached to Zebulun on the south, and reached to Asher on the west,
and to Judah at Jordan towards the sunrising (eastwards).’
Aznoth-tabor is probably Khirbet el-Jabeil at the foot of Mount Tabor. Hukkok is
generally identified with Yakuk, eight kilometres (five miles) west of where
Capernaum is thought to have been. Another suggestion is Khirbet el-Jemeijmeh.
Zebulun may here be a city (compare Joshua 19:27) or may refer to the Zebulun
border. Similar applies to Asher. Yehutha-hayarden (Judah at Jordan) must refer
to some recognised place on the Jordan, site unknown. Thus Asher were to the west,
Zebulun (and Issachar) to the south, Jordan to the east and the northern border was
indeterminate.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:34
And then the coast turneth westward. Here the words are literally translated
without any confusion between the west and the sea, nor any misapprehension of the
meaning of the word ‫נסב‬ . Reacheth. This is the same word translated skirteth above,

73. Joshua 19:11, note. We have it here clearly stated that aphtali was bordered on the
south by Zebulun, on the west by Asher, and on the east by "Judah upon Jordan."
To Judah. These words have caused great trouble to translators and expositors for
2,000 years. The LXX. omits them altogether, rendering, "and the Jordan to the
eastward." The Masorites, by inserting a disjunctive accent between them and the
words that follow, would have us render, "and to Judah: Jordan towards the sun
rising," or, "is towards the sunrising," a rendering which gives no reasonable sense.
They unquestionably form part of the text, since no version but the LXX. omits
them. A suggestion of Von Raumer's has found favour that the cities called Havoth
Jair, which were on the eastern side of Jordan, opposite the inheritance of aphtali,
are meant. Jair was a descendant of Judah by the father's side, through Hezron. So
Ritter, 4:338 (see 1 Chronicles 2:21-23). It would seem that the principle of female
inheritance, having once been admitted in the tribe of Manasseh, was found capable
of further extension. But to the majority of the Israelites this settlement would no
doubt be regarded as an offshoot of the tribe of Judah.
35 The fortified towns were Ziddim, Zer,
Hammath, Rakkath, Kinnereth,
BAR ES 35-38, "The number of the fortified cities of Naphtali is remarkable, though
it does not tally with the catalogue. It was no doubt good policy to protect the northern
frontier by a belt of fortresses, as the south was protected by the fenced cities of Judah.
Hammath, a Levitical city (compare Jos_21:32; 1Ch_6:76), is not to be confounded with
the Hamath on the northeastern frontier of the land Num_13:21. The name (from a root
signifying “to be warm”) probably indicates that hot springs existed here; and is perhaps
rightly traced in Ammaus, near Tiberias. Rakkath was, according to the rabbis, rebuilt by
Herod and called Tiberias. The name (“bank, shore”) suits the site of Tiberias very well.
Migdal-el, perhaps the Magdala of Mat_15:39, is now the miserable village of “El
Mejdel.”
GILL, "And the fenced cities are Ziddim,.... The later name of Ziddim, according
to the Talmud (i), was Cepharchitiya, or the village of wheat, perhaps from the large
quantity or goodness of wheat there:
Zer is called by Jerom (k) Sor, and interpreted Tyre, the metropolis of Phoenicia, very
wrongly, and, in the tribe of Naphtali:
and Hammath probably was built by the youngest son of Canaan, Gen_10:18; or had
its name in memory of him; it lay to the north of the land of Israel; see Num_34:8,

74. Rakkath, and Chinnereth; Rakkath according to the Jewish writers (l) is the same
with Tiberias, as Chinnereth with Gennesaret, from whence the lake or sea of Tiberias,
and the country and lake of Gennesaret, had their names, often mentioned in the New
Testament. Gennesaret was a most delicious and fruitful spot, and fulfilled the prophecy
of Moses, Deu_33:23; concerning Naphtali.
K&D, "Jos_19:35
The fortified towns of Naphtali were the following. Ziddim: unknown, though Knobel
suggests that “it may possibly be preserved in Chirbet es Saudeh, to the west of the
southern extremity of the Lake of Tiberias (Rob. iii. App.);” but this place is to the west
of the Wady Bessum, i.e., in the territory of Issachar. Zer is also unknown. As the lxx and
Syriac give the name as Zor, Knobel connects it with Kerak, which signifies fortress as
well as Zor (= ‫ּור‬‫צ‬ ָ‫,)מ‬ a heap of ruins at the southern end of the lake (Rob. iii. p. 263), the
place which Josephus calls Taricheae (see Reland, p. 1026), - a very doubtful
combination! Hammath (i.e., thermae), a Levitical town called Hammaoth-dor in Jos_
21:32, and Hammon in 1Ch_6:61, was situated, according to statements in the Talmud,
somewhere near the later city of Tiberias, on the western shore of the Lake of
Gennesareth, and was no doubt identical with the κώµεε Αµµαούς in the neighbourhood
of Tiberias, a place with warm baths (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2, 3; Bell. Judg. iv. 1, 3). There are
warm springs still to be found half an hour to the south of Tabaria, which are used as
baths (Burckhardt, Syr. pp. 573-4; Rob. iii. pp. 258ff.). Rakkath (according to the Talm.
and Rabb. ripa littus) was situated, according to rabbinical accounts, in the immediate
neighbourhood of Hammath, and was the same place as Tiberias; but the account given
by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 2, 3; cf. Bell. Judg. ii. 9, 1) respecting the founding of Tiberias by
Herod the tetrarch is at variance with this; so that the rabbinical statements appear to
have no other foundation than the etymology of the name Rakkath. Chinnereth is given
in the Targums as ‫ר‬ ַ‫יס‬ֵ‫נ‬ְ‫,ג‬ ‫ר‬ ַ‫ּוס‬‫נ‬‫י‬ִ‫,ג‬ ‫ר‬ ַ‫ּוס‬ ִ, i.e., Γεννησάρ. According to Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii.
10, 8), this name was given to a strip of land on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, which was
distinguished for its natural beauty, its climate, and its fertility, namely the long plain,
about twenty minutes broad and an hour long, which stretches along the western shore
of this lake, from el-Mejdel on the south to Khan Minyeh on the north (Burckhardt, Syr.
pp. 558-9; Rob. iii. pp. 279, 290). It must have been in this plain that the town of
Chinnereth stood, from which the plain and lake together derived the name of
Chinnereth (Deu_3:17) or Chinneroth (Jos_11:2), and the lake alone the name of “Sea of
Chinnereth,” or “Sea of Chinneroth” (Jos_12:3; Jos_13:27; Num_34:11).
COKE, "Ver. 35. And the fenced cities are Ziddim, &c.— The two first of these
cities are unknown. Respecting Hammath, see on umbers 13:21; umbers 34:8. It
was the most northern of all the cities assigned to the Israelites. Probably, it was
built by the youngest son of Canaan, as the eldest had built Sidon; Genesis 10:18. It
continued famous till the time of David, when its king made peace with that
monarch. Rakkath, by some rabbis, is thought to be the same as Tiberias; and they
say, that it was at first named Zipporia; afterwards Rakkath, from its situation on
the bank of the river; next Moesia, and lastly Tiberias. Cinnereth was on the lake of
Tiberias; in which there were fine gardens, and a kind of paradise or park: hence its
name Geneser, signifying the gardens of princes. Its name Cinnereth, say the Jews,

75. was taken from its fruits, which are as sweet to the taste, as the sound of the cinnor,
or harp, to the ear. See Hottingeri ot. Cip. Judai. p. 36.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 35
(35) The fenced cities.—Observe the protection of the northern border by fortresses.
Ziddim (Hattin), Hammath (Hammâm Tabarîya), Rakkath (Tiberias), and
Chinnereth (not identified, but giving a name to the Sea of Galilee, and therefore
evidently close by), are all in sheet 6, near the lake.
(36,37) Adamah (Ed-Dâmeh,?Daimah, sheet 6), Ramah (Râmeh), Hazor (Hadîreh),
Kedesh (Kades), Edrei (Y’ater), En-hazor (Hazireh), and Iron (Y’arum), are all in
sheet 4, north of the above. The town of Hazor has been variously identified by
previous writers, but Conder expresses no doubt as to its being Hadîreh, which
certainly occupies a commanding position above a stream that flows into Lake
Merom.
PETT, "Verses 35-38
‘And the fenced cities were Ziddim, Zer and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth,
and Adamah, and Ramah, and Hazor, and Kedesh, and Edrei, and En-hazor, and
Iron, and Migdal-el, Horem and Ben-anath, and Beth-shemesh. ineteen cities with
their villages.’
These cities number sixteen, thus we must also probably include Aznoth-tabor,
Hukkok and Yehutha-hayarden which would leave Zebulun and Asher as tribal
borders. (Alternately they could be cities not counted to aphtali).
Ziddim is unknown. A Zer in Bashan is mentioned in the Egyptian execration texts
which was a town of a similar name. Hammath (‘hot springs’) was just on the lower
part of the western shore of the Sea of Galilee (Chinnereth) as it begins to narrow,
possibly the Hammoth-dor of Joshua 21:32. They were probably the hot springs to
the south of the later city of Tiberias.
The western shore of the Sea was pitted with small fertile valleys. Rakkath was
nearby to the north leading up to the town of Chinnereth, the latter probably being
Khirbet el-Oreimah, which was in the plain on the north west side of the lake.
Adamah has been posited as Qarn Hattin, possibly the smsitm (shemesh-adam) of
the Thutmose III list, built on top of the extinct volcano ‘the horns of Hattin’ at the
eastern end of the valley of Tur’an, apart from Mount Tabor the most distinct
landmark in Lower Galilee. Ramah was in the valley of es-Shaghur, the
northernmost of the four major valleys that cross Lower Galilee from east to west.
“Hazor, and Kedesh, and Edrei.” Hazor was one of the most important cities in
Canaan. See Joshua 11:1-13. Sacked by Joshua it was slowly re-established and was
head of a confederacy of cities, later extending its control more heavily over the area
(Judges 5:6-7) until again defeated by Barak and Deborah (Judges 4-5). Kedesh is
the modern Tell Kudeish, north west of Lake Huleh, which was occupied during the
early and late bronze ages. It was on the route south from Hamath and the north

76. and thus a target for any invaders from the north. Edrei is probably the itr in the
list of Thutmose III, near the town of Abel-beth-Maacah (2 Kings 15:29; 2 Samuel
20:14-15 - modern Abil el-Qamh), even further north than Kedesh and almost
directly east of Tyre.
“And En-hazor, and Iron, and Migdal-el, Horem and Ben-anath, and Beth-
shemesh.” En-hazor, ‘the spring of Hazor’, was not directly connected with Hazor
above. The name Hazor was common in Galilee. It was possibly the ‘ny of Thutmose
III’s list. Its identification is uncertain. It has been linked with Khirbet Hasireh, ten
miles west of Kedesh, or with ‘Ain-itha nine kilometres (five to six miles) west north
west of Kedesh. Iron is probably Yarun, eleven kilometres (seven miles) south west
of Kedesh, mentioned in the inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser III as Irruna(?). Migdal-
el means ‘the tower of El’ and is possibly Mejdel Islim, thirteen kilometres (eight
miles) north west of Kedesh. Horem is unknown. Beth-anath means ‘the house of
Anath’, possibly a sanctuary for the goddess Anath. It is perhaps Safed el-Battikh
and probably the bt‘nt listed by Seti I and Raamses II. Beth-shemesh, another
‘house of the sun’ (compare Joshua 19:22 and Joshua 15:10 (in Judah) of which
there were a number. Its site is unknown.
“ ineteen cities with their villages.” See above.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:35
And the fenced cities. The remark is made in the 'Speaker's Commentary' that the
number of fenced cities in the north were no doubt owing to a determination to
protect the northern boundary of Israel by a chain of fortresses. The word fenced is
the same that is rendered strong in Joshua 19:29, "the strong city Tyre."
Chinnereth (see Joshua 11:2).
36 Adamah, Ramah, Hazor,
GILL, "And Adamah,.... Adamah is different from Adami, Jos_19:33; and may seem
to confirm the notion of some, that Nekeb there is an epithet of it, and so distinguishes it
from Adamah here:
and Ramah; of Ramah, as there were several places of this name; see Gill on Jos_
19:29,
and Hazor was a royal city, of which; see Gill on Jos_11:1.

77. K&D, "Jos_19:36
Adamah is unknown. Knobel is of opinion, that as Adamah signifies red, the place
referred to may possibly be Ras el Ahmar, i.e., red-head, on the north of Safed (Rob. iii.
p. 370; Bibl. Res. p. 69). Ramah is the present Rameh (Ramea), a large well-built
village, inhabited by Christians and Druses, surrounded by extensive olive plantations,
and provided with an excellent well. It stands upon the slope of a mountain, in a
beautiful plain on the south-west of Safed, but without any relics of antiquity (see
Seetzen, ii. p. 129; Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 78-9). Hazor has not yet been traced with certainty
(see at Jos_11:1).
37 Kedesh, Edrei, En Hazor,
GILL, "And Kedesh,.... This is Kedesh in Galilee, in Mount Naphtali, to distinguish it
from others of the same name; it was one of the cities of refuge, Jos_20:7. Jerom says
(m) in his day it was called Cidissus, and was twenty miles from Tyre by Paneas; See Gill
on Jos_12:22.
and Edrei is a different place from one of that name in the kingdom of Og, Num_21:33,
and Enhazor, of which we read nowhere else.
K&D, "Jos_19:37
Kedesh (see at Jos_12:2). Edrei, a different place from the town of the same name in
Bashan (Jos_1:2, Jos_1:4), is still unknown. En-hazor is probably to be sought for in
Bell Hazur and Ain Hazur, which is not very far distant, on the south-west of Rameh,
though the ruins upon Tell Hazur are merely the ruins of an ordinary village, with one
single cistern that has fallen to pieces (Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 80, 81).
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:37
Kedesh (see Joshua 12:22). It was the residence of Barak ( 4:6). Known to Josephus
(Bell. Jud; 4. 2 3) as Cydoessa, to Eusebius and Jerome as Cydissus; it is now Kedes
(see Robinson, 'Later Biblical Researches'). Edrei. ot the Edrei of Og, which was
beyond Jordan.
38 Iron, Migdal El, Horem, Beth Anath and Beth

78. Shemesh. There were nineteen towns and their
villages.
CLARKE, "Nineteen cities - But if these cities be separately enumerated they
amount to twenty-three; this is probably occasioned by reckoning frontier cities
belonging to other tribes, which are only mentioned here as the boundaries of the tribe.
See on Jos_19:30 (note).
GILL, "And Iron,.... Of Iron no mention is made elsewhere:
and Migdalel, which Jerom calls Magdiel, he says (m) was shown a small village, five
miles from Dara, as you go to Ptolemais:
and Horem is not mentioned anywhere elsewhere;
and Bethanath; Jerom also relates (n), that Bathana, in the tribe of Naphtali, was a
village that went by the name of Betbanes, fifteen miles from Caesarea:
and Bethshemesh was another city, in which was a temple dedicated to the sun, when
inhabited by the Canaanites; see Jos_19:22; and so in Bethanath there might be a temple
dedicated to some deity, though now uncertain what:
nineteen cities with their villages; there are more mentioned, but some of them
might be only boundaries, and so belonged to another tribe.
K&D 38-39, "Jos_19:38-39
Jireon (Iron) is probably the present village of Jarûn, an hour to the south-east of
Bint-Jebeil, with the ruins of an ancient Christian church (Seetzen, ii. pp. 123-4; Van de
Velde, R. i. p. 133). Migdal-el, so far as the name is concerned, might be Magdala (Mat_
15:39), on the western shore of the Lake of Gennesareth, between Capernaum and
Tiberias (Rob. iii. pp. 279ff.); the only difficulty is, that the towns upon this lake have
already been mentioned in Jos_19:35. Knobel connects Migdal-el with Chorem, so as to
form one name, and finds Migdal el Chorem in the present Mejdel Kerum, on the west of
Rameh (Seetzen, ii. p. 130; Van de Velde, i. p. 215), a common Mahometan village. But
there is nothing to favour this combination, except the similarity in sound between the
two names; whereas it has against it not only the situation of the village, which was so
far to the west, being not more than three hours from Acca, that the territory of Naphtali
can hardly have reached so far, but also the very small resemblance between Chorem
and Kerum, not to mention the fact that the accents separate Chorem from Migdal-el,
whilst the omission of the copula (vav) before Chorem cannot have any weight, as the
copula is also wanting before Zer and Rakkath. Chorem and Beth-anath have not yet

79. been discovered. From the latter place Naphtali was unable to expel the Canaanites
(Jdg_1:33). Beth-shemesh, a different place from the town of the same name in Issachar
(Jos_19:22), is also still unknown. The total number of towns is given as nineteen,
whereas only sixteen are mentioned by name. It is hardly correct to seek for the missing
places among the border towns mentioned in Jos_19:33 and Jos_19:34, as the
enumeration of the towns themselves is introduced by ‫ר‬ ָ‫צ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ָ‫ע‬ְ‫ו‬ in Jos_19:35, and in this
way the list of towns is separated from the description of the boundaries. To this we may
add, that the town of Karthan or Kirjathaim, which Naphtali gave up to the Levites (Jos_
21:32; 1Ch_6:61), does not occur either among the border towns or in the list of towns,
from which we may see that the list of towns is an imperfect one.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:38
Migdal-el. The Magdala of the ew Testament. It lay on the lake of Gennesareth.
Beth-shemesh. A common name, derived from the worship of the sun. This is
neither Beth-shemesh of Judah nor of Issachar (see Joshua 19:22).
39 These towns and their villages were the
inheritance of the tribe of aphtali, according to
its clans.
GILL, "This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Naphtali,....
Which Josephus (o) thus describes;"the country to the east, as far as Damascus the city,
and upper Galilee, the Naphtalites took, unto Mount Lebanon, and the fountains of
Jordan, which flow out of the mount, reaching the northern border of the city Arce:"
according to their families; which was divided among them, according to the
number of their families:
the cities and their villages; before enumerated.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:39
The inheritance of the tribe of the children of aphtali. Of aphtali, Beyond the not
too heroic leader Barak, we hear nothing in the after history of Israel, until the
fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah 9:1, Isaiah 9:2. Galilee, the scene of the greater
part of our Lord's teaching and miracles, was divided between Issachar, Asher,
Zebulon, and aphtali. The majority of the places mentioned in the Gospels were
Within the borders of Zebulon. But as we learn that our Lord penetrated as far as

80. "the coasts of Caesarea Philippi," in the extreme north of Palestine, He must have
preached also in the cities of aphtali. aphtali sent a goodly number of warriors to
welcome David as "king over all Israel" (1 Chronicles 12:34). The inheritance of
aphtali was in the main fertile, but there was a large mountain district, known as
the mountain region of aphtali (Joshua 20:7). Some of the mountains rose to the
height of more than 3,000 feet.
Allotment for Dan
40 The seventh lot came out for the tribe of Dan
according to its clans.
GILL, "And the seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan,....
Which was the last lot drawn, and which appointed an inheritance to this tribe:
according to their families; the number of them.
HE RY 40-48, "Dan, though commander of one of the four squadrons of the camp of
Israel, in the wilderness, that which brought up the rear, yet was last provided for in
Canaan, and his lot fell in the southern part of Canaan, between Judah on the east and
the land of the Philistines on the west, Ephraim on the north and Simeon on the south.
Providence ordered this numerous and powerful tribe into a post of danger, as best able
to deal with those vexatious neighbours the Philistines, and so it was found in Samson.
Here is an account, 1. Of what fell to this tribe by lot, Zorah, and Eshtaol, and the camp
of Dan thereabouts, of which we read in the story of Samson. And near there was the
valley of Eshcol, whence the spies brought the famous bunch of grapes. Japho, or Joppa
was in this lot. 2. Of what they got by their own industry and valour, which is mentioned
here (Jos_19:47), but related at large, Jdg_18:7, etc.
JAMISO , "Jos_19:40-48. Of Dan.
the seventh lot came out for the tribe ... Dan — It lay on the west of Benjamin
and consisted of portions surrendered by Judah and Ephraim. Its boundaries are not
stated, as they were easily distinguishable from the relative position of Dan to the three
adjoining tribes.
K&D, "The Inheritance of the Tribe of Dan. - This fell to the west of Benjamin,

81. between Judah and Ephraim, and was formed by Judah giving up some of its northern
towns, and Ephraim some of its southern towns, to the Danites, so as to furnish them
with a territory proportionate to their number. It was situated for the most part in the
lowland (shephelah), including, however, the hill country between the Mediterranean
and the mountains, and extended over a portion of the plain of Sharon, so that it
belonged to one of the most fruitful portions of Palestine. The boundaries are not given,
because they could be traced from those of the adjoining territories.
ELLICOTT, "(40) The seventh lot . . . of the children of Dan.—Dan was the most
numerous tribe, next to Judah, in each census taken during the exodus. (See
umbers 1, 26) This tribe had also had a post of honour in being commander of the
rear-guard during the march. A similar post is here assigned to Dan in Palestine,
viz., next to Judah, on the side of the Philistine territory. The Philistines were the
most powerful and warlike of the unconquered nations of Palestine. The wisdom of
guarding Israel on their frontier by the two strongest of the tribes is manifest. It was
Samson, a Danite, who began to deliver Israel from them, and David completed the
work. Though there were Philistine wars in the time of the later kings, they never
had dominion over Israel after David’s time.
PETT, "Verse 40
‘The seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan, according to their
families.’
The other six lots having been taken, the seventh remained. This was the allotment
to the children of Dan. o strict borders are given but a list of towns. This may be
because Dan’s borders were not closely defined, or simply because of the surveyor’s
methods. Or the writer may have been satisfied that the borders were made clear by
the borders of Benjamin on the east, Ephraim on the north and Judah on the south.
They were the only ones whose towns were not numbered, possibly because of
disapproval over the removal of a large part of the tribe to Laish.
The land allotted to them was good and fertile land, but it was hotly contested. Thus
the Danites found the opposition of the Amorites severe and were driven back into
the hills (Judges 1:34). We must not therefore think of all these places as having
been actually occupied by Dan. They revealed the area in which Dan was to operate.
Some they took. Others they infiltrated. Even others they could do nothing about.
Once the Philistines arrived their position became even more precarious, as is
depicted in the days of Samson. Thus a large part of the tribe decided to leave the
place allotted to them by God and find the cosier and easier spot at Laish. But it led
to gross sin and the setting up of a rival sanctuary (Judges 17-18).
PI K, ""And the seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan" (Josh.
19:40). Genesis 30:1-6, records his lowly origin. As this tribe brought up the rear of
the congregation when they were on the march, so they were the last to receive their
inheritance. Jacob likened Dan to a serpent, Moses to a "lion’s whelp." Samson was
of this tribe, and in him both characters were combined. Dan was the first tribe to
fall into idolatry (Judg. 18:30), and apparently remained in that awful condition for
centuries, for we find the apostate king Jeroboam setting up his golden calves in

82. Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12:28, 29, and cf. 2 Kings 10:29).
"When they had made an end of dividing the land for inheritance by their coasts,
the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of un among them:
according to the word of the Lord they gave him the city which he asked, Timnath-
serah in mount Ephraim; and he built the city, and dwelt therein" (Josh. 19:49, 50).
Blessed is it to see that, though the greatest and boldest among them, the one who
had led Israel to the conquest of Canaan, instead of seeking first his own portion, he
waited till all had received theirs. Thus did he put the public good before his private
interests, seeking theirs and not his own. "Our Lord Jesus thus came and dwelt
among us, not in pomp, but in poverty, providing rest for us, yet Himself not having
where to lay His head" (Matthew Henry). or did Joshua seize his portion as a
right, but, like his grand Antitype, "asked" for it (Ps. 2:8). And as Christ built the
Church and indwells it, so Joshua built his city.
COFFMA , "Verse 40
DA
"The seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan according to their
families. And the border of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and
Irshemesh, and Shaalabbin, and Aijalon, and Ithlah, and Elon, and Timneh, and
Ekron, and Eltekeh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath, and Jehud, and Bene-berak, and
Gath-rimmon, and Mejarkon, and Rakkon, with the border over against Joppa.
And the border of the children of Dan went out beyond them; for the children of
Dan went up and fought against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of
the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after their
name of Dan their father. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Dan
according to their families, these cities and their villages."
The mention here of Dan's fighting against Leshem is a reference to a later apostasy
of that tribe (Judges 17-18). Dan proved to be unable to wrest the coastal cities away
from the Philistines. "This inheritance assigned to Dan was extremely small, but it
was also extremely fertile."[13] This area was described as "too small for Dan," but,
in reality, Dan simply preferred to live somewhere else. A full description of Dan's
northward migration is found in Judges 18. This tribe did not figure significantly in
the subsequent history of Israel. They had only one hero, Samson; and his exploits
seem to have been limited to a small area and to his own tribe alone.
CO STABLE, "Verses 40-48
The inheritance of Daniel 19:40-48
Dan received territory primarily in the Shephelah and Coastal Plain west of
Benjamin, between Judah and Ephraim. Its land was extremely fruitful.
"The Amorites, who settled portions of the Philistine plain ( Judges 1:34), drove the
Danites out of the plains and into the hills. This led to a migration of part of the
tribe of Dan northward to Leshem near the northern part of aphtali (cf. Judges

83. 17-18)." [ ote: Davis and Whitcomb, p83.]
Dan possessed19 towns ( Joshua 19:41-47). The record of the conquest of Leshem (
Joshua 19:47, also called Laish and later Dan) is in Judges 18. [ ote: See John C. H.
Laughlin, " Daniel ," Biblical Illustrator9:4 (Summer1983):40-46.]
41 The territory of their inheritance included:
Zorah, Eshtaol, Ir Shemesh,
CLARKE, "Zorah, and Eshtaol - See the note on Jos_15:33.
Ir-shemesh - The city of sun; another proof of the idolatry of the Canaanites. Some
think this was the same as Beth-shemesh.
GILL, "And the coast of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol,.... The tribe
of Dan is not described by places the boundaries of it, as other tribes, but by its cities,
which were chiefly, at least several of them, taken out of the tribe of Judah, as the two
first of these most manifestly were; See Gill on Jos_15:33,
and Irshemesh signifies the city of the sun, as the Targum interprets it, and was so
called very probably from a temple in it, dedicated to the idolatrous worship of the sun,
but a different place from Bethshemesh in other tribes; though those of that name, as
this, had it for the like reason; and so Heliopolis, in Egypt, which signifies the same,
where was a temple of the same kind; as there was another city of this name, between
the mountains of Libanus and Antilibanus, now called Balbec (p), where the ruins of the
temple are yet to be seen: but this was a different place, the Septuagint version calls it
Sammaus, and it was, according to Jerom (q), the same with Emmaus, afterwards called
Nicopolis; which, if the same Emmaus with that in Luk_24:13; though some doubt it,
was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, or seven miles and a half.
K&D, "Jos_19:41-42
From Judah the families of Dan received Zorea and Eshtaol (see at Jos_15:33), and
Ir-shemesh, also called Beth-shemesh (1Ki_4:9), on the border of Judah (see Jos_15:10);
but of these the Danites did not take possession, as they were given up by Judah to the
Levites (Jos_21:16 : see at Jos_15:10). Saalabbin, or Saalbim, which remained in the
hands of the Canaanites (Jdg_1:35), is frequently mentioned in the history of David and
Solomon (2Sa_23:32; 1Ch_11:33; 1Ki_4:9). It may possibly be the present Selbît (Rob.

84. iii. App.; Bibl. Res. p. 144), some distance to the north of the three places mentioned
(Knobel). Ajalon, which was also not taken from the Canaanites (Jdg_1:35), was
assigned to the Levites (Jos_21:24; 1Ch_6:54). It is mentioned in the wars with the
Philistines (1Sa_14:31; 1Ch_8:13), was fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch_11:10), and was
taken by the Philistines from King Ahaz (2Ch_28:18). It has been preserved in the
village of Yalo (see at Jos_10:12). Jethlah is only mentioned here, and has not yet been
discovered. So far as the name is concerned, it may possibly be preserved in the Wady
Atallah, on the west of Yalo (Bibl. Res. pp. 143-4).
ELLICOTT, "(41) And the coast . . .—Zorah and Eshtaol, in the tribe of Dan, had
been originally assigned to Judah (Joshua 15:33); so also Ekron. But it is not clear
whether they are mentioned here as marking the border of Dan and Judah, or
actually in the territory of the former. However, Dan is wedged in, as it were,
between the powerful tribes of Judah and Ephraim, the unconquered Philistines,
and the sea. It is not surprising that their coast “went out from them” (Joshua
19:47) when it was partly unconquered, partly taken from other tribes in the first
instance. Conder says it was carved out of the country of Ephraim.
Verses 41-46
(41-46) All the towns mentioned here are identified by Conder.
Zorah—Sur’ah
Eshtaol—Eshû’a
Ir-shemesh—Ain Sheme Shaalabbin—Selbît
Ajalon—Yâlo
Jethlah—(Ruin) Beit Tul
}
Are all in sheet 17
Elon—Beit Ello
Thimnathah—(Ruin) Tibneh
}
Sheet 14
Ekron-(akir, sheet 16)
{

85. Gibbethon-(Kibbiah, sheet 14)
Baalath—(Belaîn, sheet 14)
Jehud—El-Yehudîyeh
Bene-berak—Ibn Ibrak
}
Sheet 13
For Gath-rimmon, Conder suggests Gath; but this he identifies with Tell-es-Safi,
which is well within the territory of Judah (to the south of sheet 16).
Me-jarkon, “the yellow water,” is thought to be the river ’Aujeh (sheet 13), and
Rakkon, Tell-er-Rakkeit, to the north of the mouth of it. Japho is Jaffa, on the same
sheet.
PETT, "Verses 41-46
‘And the border of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Ir-shemesh, and
Shaalabbin, and Aijalon, and Ithlah, and Elon, and Thimnathah, and Ekron, and
Eltekeh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath, and Jehud, and Bene-berak, and Gath-
rimmon, and Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, with the border over against Japho.’
Zorah and Eshtaol were on the Danite border (compare Joshua 15:33; see also
Judges 13:25; Judges 18:2; Judges 18:8; Judges 18:11). Judah and Dan shared them
and their related lands, Dan the land to the north, Judah the land to the south, or it
may be that after receiving their lot Judah passed the cities on to Dan as having too
much. But the probability is that they were settled by both, some looking to Dan and
some to Judah. Zorah was mentioned in the Amarna letters as Zarkha and is
probably Sar‘a, a Canaanite city twenty five kilometres (fifteen miles) west of
Jerusalem, on the north side of the Wadi al-Sarar (the valley of Sorek), with Eshtaol
close by. Both places overlook the broad basin of the Wadi, near its entrance into
the Judaean highlands.
“Ir-shemesh, and Shaalabbin, and Aijalon.” Ir-shemesh means ‘city of Shemesh (of
the sun)’. Some Hebrew MSS have En-shemesh (‘spring of Shemesh’). ames
compounded with the god Shemesh were common so its direct connection with Beth-
shemesh (on the Danite/Judah border, see Joshua 15:10) is uncertain, but they were
certainly near neighbours. Shaalabbin, a non-Semitic name, probably the Shaalbim
(which may mean ‘haunt of foxes’) in Judges 1:35; 1 Kings 4:9 compare 2 Samuel
23:32 near Mount Heres, (an ancient word for sun). It has been connected with
Salbit, five kilometres (three miles) north west of Yalo, although the names do not
agree phonetically. Inhabited by the Amorites in the valley of Aijalon it withstood
Danite pressure but eventually became tributary to Joseph (Ephraim and
Manasseh). The same was true of Aijalon. Aijalon (modern Yalo) was on a hill and
commanded from the south the entrance to the valley of Aijalon about eleven

86. kilometres (six or seven miles) from Gezer. It later guarded the north west approach
to Jerusalem.
“And Ithlah, and Elon, and Thimnathah, and Ekron.” Ithlah is unknown.Elon is
possibly Khirbet Wadi ‘Alin, two kilometres east of Bethshemesh. Compare 1 Kings
4:9. The name means ‘terebinth’ or ‘oak’. Thimnathah is probably Timnah
(Timnath, Thimnathah) which was where Samson sought a Philistine wife. This may
be the Tamna later mentioned in the annals of Sennacherib (c. 701 BC). It is
probably Tell Batashi, nine kilometres (six miles) south of Gezer, although its name
is preserved by Khirbet Tibneh. It was a border town of Judah (Joshua 15:10).
Whether shared or merely a border marker we do not know. Ekron (see on Joshua
15:45) was one of the five major Philistine cities on the border of both Judah and
Dan. It may have been occupied by Judah as a small village on a mound before the
Philistines arrived, but from then on it was built up by the Philistines as a Philistine
enclave.
“And Eltekeh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath, and Jehud, and Bene-berak.” Eltekeh
(see Joshua 21:23) is named by Sennacherib (Altaku) together with Timna among
his conquests in his annals for 701/700BC. It may be Tell-esh-Shalaf, sixteen
kilometres (ten miles) north east of Ashdod (Khirbet el-Muqanna‘ is now thought to
be Ekron). Gibbethon (see Joshua 21:23) is probably Tell el-Mellat, west of Gezer. It
was in Philistine hands for some time and was the scene of battles between them and
Israel (1 Kings 15:27). Baalath is possibly el-Mughar. It was fortified by Solomon (1
Kings 9:18). Jehud has been thought to be el-Yehudiyeh on the plain between Joppa
and the hills. Bene-berak is identified with modern el-Kheiriyeh (Ibn Ibraq), six
kilometres (four miles) east of Joppa. According to Sennacherib it was one of the
cities belonging to Ashkelon besieged and taken by him (Benebarka). Thus it was
then in Philistine hands.
“And Gath-rimmon, and Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, with the border over against
Japho (Joppa).” Gath-rimmon (‘winepress of Rimmon’) is possibly Tell Jarisheh on
the River Yarkon. Me-yarkon and Rakkon are unknown, but the former also
connected with the Yarkon. The final city on the border is Joppa. Joppa was the
only major harbour between Acco and the Egyptian border, and controlled by the
Philistines. Excavation shows occupation from 17th century BC, and a pre-Philistine
temple of the 13th Century BC witnesses to the existence of a lion cult. The temple
has wooden columns on stone bases to support the ceiling (compare Judges 16:25-
27). ‘Over against’ may indicate that Joppa was a border marker and not actually
part of their territory.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:41
Zorah and Eshtaol. On the border between Judah and Dan, but abandoned by the
tribe of Judah to the Danites (see 13:2, 13:25). "The wild and impassable wadies, the
steep, hard, rocky hills, their wildernesses of mastic, clear springs, and frequent
caves and precipices, are the fastnesses in which Samson was born, and from which
he descended into the plain to harry the Philistines. Robinson identifies Zorah with

87. Surat. Ir-shemesh. Another sign of sun-worship. Ir-shemaesh is "the city of the
sun."
42 Shaalabbin, Aijalon, Ithlah,
CLARKE, "Shaalabbin - The foxes. Of this city the Amorites kept constant
possession. See Jdg_1:35.
Ajalon - There was a place of this name about two miles from Nicopolis or Emmaus,
on the road to Jerusalem. - Calmet.
GILL, "And Shaalabbin,.... The first of these is the same with Shaalbim, Jdg_1:35;
and which Jerom (r) calls Selab, in the tribe of Dan; and which he says was in his day
shown a large village on the borders of Sebaste, by the name of Selaba.
and Ajalon is famous for the standing still of the moon in its valley while Joshua
pursued his enemies; see Gill on Jos_10:12,
and Jethlah, of which we read nowhere else.
43 Elon, Timnah, Ekron,
CLARKE, "Thimnathah - Probably the same as Timnah. See on Jos_15:57 (note).
Ekron - A well-known city of the Philistines and the metropolis of one of their five
dynasties.
GILL, "And Elon,.... Of Elon no mention is made elsewhere:
and Thimnathah is a different place from Timnah in the tribe of Judah, Jos_15:10.
Jerom (s) speaks of the Thamnitic country, so called from the village Thamna, which

88. seems to be this:
and Ekron was one of the five principalities of the Philistines, and never possessed by
the Israelites; it first fell by lot to the tribe of Judah, and afterwards given to the tribe of
Dan, Jos_15:45.
K&D,"Jos_19:43
Elon, which is mentioned again in 1Ki_4:9, with the addition of Beth-hanan, has not
yet been traced; according to Knobel, it “may possibly be Ellin, near Timnath and Beth-
shemesh, mentioned by Robinson in his Pal. vol. iii. App.” Thimna (Thimnathah) and
Ekron, on the boundary of Judah (see at Jos_15:10-11).
COKE, "Ver. 43. Elon,—Thimnathah,—Ekron— Elon is thought to be the same
with Holon, mentioned ch. Joshua 15:51. Thimnathah, seems to be a different place
from Timnath, spoken of in the same chap. ver. 10 and 57. For, as we read in Judges
14:5 that Samson went down to this city, which shews it to have been in a valley; so
in Genesis 11:13 we read that Judah went up to Timnath to shear his sheep, which
shews that city to have been upon a hill. Ekron, the capital of the Philistines, was at
first given to the tribe of Judah. See ch. Joshua 15:45.
44 Eltekeh, Gibbethon, Baalath,
GILL, "And Eltekeh,.... Eltekeh was a city given to the Levites, Jos_21:23; and
supposed by some to be the same with Eltekon in the tribe of Judah given to the Danites,
Jos_15:59,
and Gibbethon was in the hands of the Philistines in the reign of Asa, 1Ki_15:21; and
in the same place Jerom (t) calls Gabatha a city of the strangers, or Philistines; and
which lie places near Bethlehem in the tribe of Judah:
and Baalath is not the same with Baalah, Jos_15:29; but the Baalath rebuilt by
Solomon, 1Ki_9:18; called by Josephus (u) Baleth, and spoken of by him as near to
Gazara in the land of the Philistines; of these two last cities, the Talmudists (w) say that
their houses belonged to Judah, and their fields to Dan.
K&D, "Jos_19:44
Eltekeh and Gibbethon, which were allotted to the Levites (Jos_21:23), have not yet
been discovered. Under the earliest kings of Israel, Gibbethon was in the hands of the
Philistines (1Ki_15:27; 1Ki_16:15, 1Ki_16:17). Baalath was fortified by Solomon (1Ki_

89. 9:18). According to Josephus (Ant. 8:6, 1), it was “Baleth in the neighbourhood of
Geser;” probably the same place as Baalah, on the border of Judah (Jos_15:11).
45 Jehud, Bene Berak, Gath Rimmon,
CLARKE, "Jehud, and Bene-berak - Or Jehud of the children of Berak.
GILL, "And Jehud,.... Of Jehud no mention is made elsewhere:
and Beneberak signifies sons of lightning; see Mar_3:17. Jerom (x) speaks of tills as
the name of two places, Bane in the tribe of Dan, and Barach in the same tribe, and
which was in his day near Azotus. This place was famous in later times among the Jews
for being a place where one of their noted Rabbins, R. Akiba, abode and taught for some
time (y):
and Gathrimmon was in Jerom's (z) time a very large village, twelve miles from
Diospolis, or Lydda, as you go from Eleutheropolis to it; it was a city given to the Levites,
Jos_21:24.
K&D, "Jos_19:45
Jehud has probably been preserved in the village of Jehudieh (Hudieh), two hours to
the north of Ludd (Diospolis), in a splendidly cultivated plain (Berggren, R. iii. p. 162;
Rob. iii. p. 45, and App.). Bene-berak, the present Ibn Abrak, an hour from Jehud
(Scholz, R. p. 256). Gath-rimmon, which was given to the Levites (Jos_21:24; 1Ch_
6:54), is described in the Onom. (s. v.) as villa praegrandis in duodecimo milliario
Diospoleos pergentibus Eleutheropolin, - a statement which points to the
neighbourhood of Thimnah, though it has not yet been discovered.
46 Me Jarkon and Rakkon, with the area facing
Joppa.

90. BAR ES, "Japho (the modern Jaffa, or Yafa), elsewhere (see the margin) called
Joppa, is often mentioned in the history of the Maccabees and was, as it still is, the
leading port of access to Jerusalem both for pilgrims and for merchandise. It is a very
ancient town.
CLARKE, "Japho - The place since called Joppa, lying on the Mediterranean, and
the chief sea-port, in the possession of the twelve tribes.
GILL, "And Mejarkon, and Rakkon,.... Of the two first of these we read no where
else.
with the border before Japho; Japho is the same with Joppa, now called at this day
Jaffa, a port in the Mediterranean sea, famous for being the place where Jonah took
shipping; see Gill on Jon_1:3; and where the Apostle Peter resided some time; see Gill
on Act_9:36; and See Gill on Act_9:38. It is not certain whether Joppa itself was in the
tribe of Dan, or only on the borders of it; the coast of Dan reached "over against" it, as it
may be rendered, and included the villages and little cities that were near it; for such
there were, as Josephus (b) testifies.
K&D,"Jos_19:46
Me-jarkon, i.e., aquae flavedinis, and Rakkon, are unknown; but from the clause
which follows, “with the territory before Japho,” it must have been in the
neighbourhood of Joppa (Jaffa). “The territory before Japho” includes the places in the
environs of Joppa. Consequently Joppa itself does not appear to have belonged to the
territory of Dan, although, according to Jdg_5:17, the Danites must have had possession
of this town. Japho, the well-known port of Palestine (2Ch_2:15; Ezr_3:7; Jon_1:3),
which the Greeks called ᅾόππη (Joppa), the present Jaffa (see v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 204-5,
and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 574ff.).
COKE, "Ver. 46. Me-jarkon,—Rakkon,—Japho— Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, that is
Jarkon-Japho. Hiller. Onomast. 915. The two first are unknown; but were probably
situated near Japho. This city, known afterwards by the name of Joppa, was the
principal sea-port town in all Judeaea, and mentioned as such by Pomponius Mela,
Strabo, and Pliny; indeed, it continues to be so to this day, being now called Jaffa, a
name which in the Hebrew signifies fair or beautiful. The author does not (as
Eusebius seems to have understood him) say positively, that Japho was given to the
Danites; he only says, that their portion extended to the lands which lay opposite
those which belonged to this city.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:46
Before. Or opposite. Japho. The Joppa of the ew Testament, and the modern
Jaffa. It is called Joppa in 2 Chronicles 2:16, in Ezra 3:7, and in the book of Jonah
(Jonah 1:3), in an which places it is mentioned as a famous seaport, a position it still
maintains, being still, as it was of old, the port of Jerusalem. The LXX. and Vulgate
have Joppa here, and it is unfortunate that our translators, in this instance only,

91. should have adhered to the Hebrew form. Joppa appears to have been an important
city in the time of the Maccabees (see 1 Macc 10:75, 76; and 2 Macc 4:21). Its
mention in the ew Testament as the place where St. Peter's vision occurred will be
known to all. The name signifies "beauty," though Joppa does not seem to be
distinguished above all other places in Palestine by the beauty of its situation. But
according to Hovers, Japho signifies in Phoenician, "high place." It is certainly built
on a range of terraces above the sea, but the term "high place" would seem
unsuitable. The soil is very productive, and it is "the only harbour in Central
Palestine" (Ritter).
47 (When the territory of the Danites was lost to
them, they went up and attacked Leshem, took it,
put it to the sword and occupied it. They settled in
Leshem and named it Dan after their ancestor.)
BAR ES, "The words “too little” are an insertion of the King James Version Render
rather, “the border of the children of Dan was extended.” The Hebrew appears to mean
“the children of Dan enlarged their border because they had not room enough.”
The reason of this was that the Danites, a numerous tribe (Num_26:5 note), found
themselves Jdg_1:34-35 cooped up among the hills by the powerful and warlike
Amorites. Hence, the Danite expedition (see the marginal reference), which surprised
the Sidonion inhabitants of Leshem, an unwarlike and peaceable race, exterminated
them, and annexed their city and territory to the portion of Dan.
CLARKE, "Went out too little for them - This is certainly the meaning of the
passage; but our translators have been obliged to add the words too little to make this
sense apparent. Houbigant contends that an ancient copyist, meeting frequently with the
words ‫ויצאהגבול‬ vaiyetse haggebul, in the preceding history, became so familiarized to
them that he wrote them here instead of ‫הגבול‬ ‫ויאץ‬ vaiyaats haggebul, and the border of the
children of Dan was Strait for them. It was on this account that they were obliged to go
and fight against Leshem, and take and possess it, their former inheritance being too
strait for their increasing population.
And called Leshem, Dan - This city was situated near the origin of Jordan, at the
utmost northern extremity of the promised land, as Beer-sheba was at that of the south;
and as after its capture by the Danites it was called Dan, hence arose the expression from
Dan even to Beer-sheba, which always signified the whole extent of the promised land.

92. Some suppose that Leshem was the same with Caesarea Philippi, but others with reason
reject this opinion. It must be granted that the whole account given in this verse refers
indisputably to a fact which did not take place till after the death of Joshua. It is another
of the marginal or explicative notes which were added by some later hand. The whole
account of this expedition of the Danites against Leshem is circumstantially given in the
book of Judges, chapter 18, and to that chapter the reader is referred.
GILL, "And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them,....
Being a very numerous tribe, the cities allotted them were not sufficient for them; or
rather, leaving out the supplement "too little", the words will run, it "went out from
them"; they lost part of it, being driven out of the valley into the mountain by the
Amorites, Jdg_1:34; which obliged them to seek out elsewhere for habitations:
therefore the children of Dan went out to fight against Leshem; called Laish,
Jdg_18:1, where the whole story is related of their lighting against this place and taking
it; which, though some time after the death of Joshua, is here recorded to give at once an
account of the inheritance of Dan; and which is no argument against Joshua's being the
writer of this book, as is urged; since it might be inserted by another hand, Ezra, or some
other inspired man, for the reason before given:
and took and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it,
and dwelt therein; being a Canaanitish city, they put all in it to the sword, as the Lord
had commanded, and took possession of it for an habitation:
and called Leshem Dan, after the name of Dan their father; this is the place
which is always meant, where the phrase is used "from Dan to Beersheba", Jdg_20:1,
this being at the utmost northern border of the land of Canaan, as Beersheba was at the
further part of the southern coast of it. It was, according to Jerom (c), situated near
Paneas, out of which the river Jordan flowed; and Kimchi on the text observes, their
Rabbins (d) say, that Leshem is Pamias (i.e. Paneas), and that Jordan flows from the
cave of Pamias, and had its name ‫מדן‬ ‫שיודד‬ because it descended from Dan; and so
Josephus (e) says, that Panium is a cave under a mountain, from whence rise the springs
of Jordan, and is the fountain of it; and Pliny also says (f), the river Jordan rises out of
the fountain Paneas. This city was enlarged and beautified by Philip Herod, and he called
it by the name of Caesarea Philippi, both in honour of Tiberius Caesar (g) and after his
own name, by which name it goes in Mat_16:13; and is called in the Jerusalem Targum
on Gen_14:14, Dan of Caesarea.
JAMISO , "the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem — The
Danites, finding their inheritance too small, decided to enlarge its boundaries by the
sword; and, having conquered Leshem (Laish), they planted a colony there, calling the
new settlement by the name of Dan (see on Jdg_18:7).
K&D, "Jos_19:47-48
Besides this inheritance, the Danites of Zorea and Eshtaol went, after Joshua's death,
and conquered the town of Leshem or Laish, on the northern boundary of Canaan, and

93. gave it the name of Dan, as the territory which was allotted to them under Joshua was
too small for them, on account of their inability to drive out the Amorites from several of
their towns (Jdg_1:34-35; Jdg_18:2). For further particulars concerning this conquest,
see Judg 18. Leshem or Laish (Jdg_18:7, Jdg_18:27), i.e., Dan, which the Onom.
describes as viculus quarto a Paneade milliario euntibus Tyrum, was the present Tell el
Kadi, or el Leddan, the central source of the Jordan, to the west of Banjas, a place with
ancient ruins (see Rob. iii. p. 351; Bibl. Res. pp. 390, 393). It was there that Jeroboam
set up the golden calves (1Ki_12:29-30, etc.); and it is frequently mentioned as the
northernmost city of the Israelites, in contrast with Beersheba, which was in the extreme
south of the land (Jdg_20:1; 1Sa_3:20; 2Sa_3:10 : see also Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 207ff.).
BE SO , "Verse 47
Joshua 19:47. The coast of Dan went out too little — The words too little are not in
the Hebrew, where there is nothing that corresponds with them. The passage runs
thus: The coast of the children of Dan went out from them; that is, they were
dispossessed of it in some parts, or kept out of them by the former inhabitants; and
we find, by 1:34, that the Amorites forced them into the mountains, and would not
suffer them to dwell in the valley. This reduced them to such straits, that they were
constrained to enlarge their border some other way; which they did as follows. They
went up to fight against Leshem — A city not far from Jordan, called Laish in the
book of Judges, before it was taken by the Danites. And called Leshem, Dan, after
the name of Dan their father — It was customary for conquerors to change the
names of those places they subdued. This was done with respect to Leshem, after the
death of Joshua; and is related more largely in the book of Judges, chap. 18., where
the whole expedition is recorded. From whence some have argued that this book was
not written by Joshua; whereas no more can fairly be inferred, than that, in after
times, Ezra, or some other, thought good to insert this verse here, in order to
complete the account of the Danites’ possessions.
COKE, "Ver. 47. And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them:
therefore, &c.— The words too little, are neither in the Hebrew, the LXX, nor the
Vulgate. The text literally is, And the country of the children of Dan went cut from
them. ow the phrase, went out from them, is naturally explained here by the
manner in which it is used, Leviticus 25:28-33.; where, speaking of the year of
jubilee, Moses says, that the estates went out from those who had acquired them,
because they then passed into other hands; namely, of the proprietors who had
alienated them to that period. In this place, therefore, in like manner, to say that the
coast of the Danites went out from them, is saying that it passed partly into other
hands than their own, or, in a word, was taken from them. In fact, their formidable
neighbours, the Amorites, forced the Danites into the mountains, and would not
suffer them to come down to the valley. See Judges 1:34. The city of Leshem (called
in Judges 18:29. Laish,) was not far from Jordan. The Danites gave it their name
after they had conquered it. In after-times, when it fell into the hands of the
Romans, they called it Paneas, and made it the metropolis of Iturea and Trachonitis.
Philip, the son of Herod the Great, afterwards repaired it, and, in compliment to
Tiberius Caesar, gave it the name of Cesarea Philippi. This expedition against

94. Leshem was made after the death of Joshua. For more respecting it, see on Judeges
18.; where there is an account of the whole expedition. From this, as some insist, it
appears, that this book was not written by Joshua; whereas no more can be inferred
from it, than that in after-times this passage might be here inserted by Samuel or
Ezra, or some other inspired writer, in order to complete the account of the Danites'
possessions. It is very evident, that the present verse is not by the same pen with the
rest of the book. But as the learned Bishop Huet observes, were the whole verse
taken away, all that is said of this tribe would be perfectly coherent, and leave no
breach at all in the context.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 47
(47) And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them.—The words
“too
little” are not in the original; and it seems better to translate literally: And the coast
of the children of Dan went out from them—i.e., their territory was partly re-
conquered by the Philistines. Something similar seems to have occurred in several
districts of the country. The Israelites not taking advantage of the impression
produced by Joshua’s great victories to occupy the territory assigned to them, the
nations of Canaan re-possessed themselves of their former abodes. and held them
against Israel. The Philistines are expressly said to have been left to prove Israel.
Joshua was not permitted to exterminate them. And although Dan and Judah,
numerically the two strongest of all the tribes (both in the census in the plains of
Moab and at Sinai), were placed next to the Philistines, and had the task of
conquering that nation assigned to them, still it was not effected. We read in Judges
1, “The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountains, for they would not
suffer them to come down into the valley.”
Hence the Danites, instead of attacking the Philistines and Amorites in their
inheritance, preferred to form a new settlement in the north, and put to the sword
“a people quiet and secure,” who “had no deliverer,” rather than “run with patience
the race set before them.” They were not minded to resist unto blood, striving
against their foes. (See the narrative in Judges 18, especially Joshua 19:27-28.)
PETT, "Verse 47
‘And the border of the children of Dan went out from them. And the children of
Dan went up and fought against Leshem, and took it and smote it with the edge of
the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt in it. And they called Leshem, Dan, after the
name of Dan their father.’
This note was not a part of the original surveyor’s report, being added as a
comment by the writer. ‘Went out from them’ may signify that they were unable to
expand to their borders, and were prevented from doing so. That is how LXX sees it
(see below). The great constraint they were under comes out in their subsequent
action. Many of them forsook the land God had given them and sought a better
land, although some remained. This invasion of Laish (Leshem) is described more
fully in Judges 17-18, and resulted in the setting up of the sanctuary of Dan. The
whole disreputable story is recounted with obvious disapproval by the writer of

95. Judges.
Laish was at the foot of Mount Hermon by the source of the Jordan to the north of
the promised land, probably modern Tell el-Qadi (‘the judges’ mound’). It had been
settled since about 5000 BC and had been a wealthy city covering thirty acres,
named in the Egyptian execration texts as rws, and in the Mari texts as Lasi. It was
captured by Thutmose III. But it had allowed itself to become isolated and although
it was reasonably strongly fortified with an earthen rampart, Dan ‘took it and smote
it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt in it’, renaming it Dan.
LXX places Joshua 19:48 immediately after verse 46 and then incorporates here
material from Judges 1:34-35. It says ‘and the children of Dan did not drive out the
Amorite who afflicted them in the mountain, and the Amorite would not allow them
to come down into the valley, but they forcibly took from them the border of their
portion. And the sons of Dan went and fought against Lachis, and took it, and smote
it with the edge of the sword; and they dwelt in it, and called the name of it
Lasendan. and the Amorite continued to dwell in Edom and in Salamin: and the
hand of Ephraim prevailed against them, and they became tributaries to them.’
This whole incident brings home how difficult the Israelites were finding it when
they sought to settle the valleys and plains where the Canaanites dwelt in
comparatively large numbers. Joshua’s victories had weakened Canaanite
resistance but it had not destroyed it, and the delay in taking advantage of them had
enabled Canaanite resistance to harden.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:47
Went out too little for them. The Hebrew is, went out from them; i.e; either went out
beyond their own borders, or went out too small a distance to be sufficient for them.
The first is the explanation of Masius ("extra se migrasse"), the second of Jarchi.
Houbigant suggests for ‫ֵא‬‫צ‬ֵ‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ "and it went out" ‫ָאָץ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ "and it was narrow." But the
LXX, has the same reading as ourselves, and the explanation given above is quite
consistent with the fact. The border of Dan did "go out" far beyond the borders
originally assigned to the tribe, in fact to the extreme northern limit of Palestine.
The account of the taking of Laish, or Leshem, is given more fully in 18:1-31. The
inheritance assigned to Dan was extremely small, but it was also extremely fertile.
48 These towns and their villages were the
inheritance of the tribe of Dan, according to its
clans.

96. GILL, "This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Dan,.... Before
described by its cities, which were in it. This tribe was bounded by Ephraim on the
north, by Judah on the east, by Simeon on the south, and by the Mediterranean sea on
the west. Josephus (h) says, the Danites enjoyed the vale which lies to the setting sun,
bounded by Azotus and Doris, and all Jamnia and Getta, from Accaron (or Ekron) to the
mountain from whence the tribe of Judah begins:
according to their families; which inheritance was distributed according to the
number of their families:
their cities with their villages; before named.
COKE, "Ver. 48. This is the inheritance of—Dan, &c.— The Danites mustered
64,400 men of war in the numbering which was made of the tribes in the plains of
Moab; umbers 26:43. The tribe of Judah only exceeded them. They found
themselves, however, placed in a country which seemed very narrow, in comparison
of that which was occupied by less numerous tribes; but, not to mention that the
Danites could not take the whole territory which had been given them, Judges 18:1
and that the Philistines on the one hand, and the Amorites on the other, stood their
ground, we are to consider that their country was very fruitful, and so conveniently
situated within reach of the sea, as to afford them the advantages of commerce; of
which we learn from Judges 5:7 they failed not to make a proper use. Samson, the
scourge of the Philistines, was of this tribe.
PETT, "Verse 48
‘This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Dan, according to their
families, these cities with their villages.’
Here we have the official seal on the allotment to Dan, as found after the inheritance
of each tribe has been delineated. This was their inheritance, and it was a
prosperous one, but they failed through weakness and lack of faith to take
possession of it.
Allotment for Joshua
49 When they had finished dividing the land into
its allotted portions, the Israelites gave Joshua son
of un an inheritance among them,

97. GILL, "And when they made an end of dividing the land for inheritance by
their coasts,.... That is, Eleazar, Joshua, and the ten men appointed for this, purpose;
when all the lots were drawn, and the several inheritances which came up to them were
divided among the families of the respective tribes, this work being finished:
the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of Nun among
them; most interpreters observe the modesty of Joshua, that though the oldest and the
greatest man in the nation, the chief governor, yet had his inheritance last of all; nor did
he take any part to himself, it was given to him by the people, who had the whole land
divided among them; in which he was a type of Christ; see 2Co_8:9 Phi_2:6.
HE RY 49-51, "Before this account of the dividing of the land is solemnly closed up,
in the last verse, which intimates that the thing was done to the satisfaction of all, here is
an account of the particular inheritance assigned to Joshua. 1. He was last served,
though the eldest and greatest man of all Israel, and who, having commanded in the
conquest of Canaan, might have demanded the first settlement in it for himself and his
family. But he would make it to appear that in all he did he sought the good of his
country, and not any private interest of his own. He was content to be unfixed till he saw
them all settled; and herein is a great example to all in public places to prefer the
common welfare before their particular satisfaction. Let the public be first served. 2. He
had his lot according to the word of the Lord. It is probable that, when God by Moses
told Caleb what inheritance he should have (Jos_14:9), he gave the like promise to
Joshua, which he had an eye to in making his election: this made his portion doubly
pleasant, that he had it, not as the rest by common providence, but by special promise. 3.
He chose it in Mount Ephraim, which belonged to his own tribe, with which he thereby
put himself in common, when he might by prerogative have chosen his inheritance in
some other tribe, as suppose that of Judah, and thereby have distinguished himself from
them. Let no man's preferment or honour make him ashamed of his family or country,
or estrange him from it. The tabernacle was set up in the lot of Ephraim, and Joshua
would forecast not to be far from that. 4. The children of Israel are said to give it to him
(Jos_19:49), which bespeaks his humility, that he would not take it to himself without
the people's consent and approbation, as if he would thereby own himself, though major
singulis - greater than any one, yet minor universis - less than the whole assemblage,
and would hold even the estate of his family, under God, by the grant of the people. 5. It
was a city that must be built before it was fit to be dwelt in. While others dwelt in houses
which they built not, Joshua must erect for himself (that he might be a pattern of
industry and contentment with mean things) such buildings as he could hastily run up,
without curiosity or magnificence. Our Lord Jesus thus came and dwelt among us, not in
pomp but poverty, providing rest for us, yet himself not having where to lay his head.
Even Christ pleased not himself.
JAMISO , "Jos_19:49-51. The children of Israel give an inheritance to Joshua.
K&D, "Conclusion of the Distribution of the Land. - Jos_19:49, Jos_19:50. When the
land was distributed among the tribes according to its territories, the Israelites gave

98. Joshua an inheritance in the midst of them, according to the command of Jehovah,
namely the town of Timnath-serah, upon the mountains of Ephraim, for which he asked,
and which he finished building; and there he dwelt until the time of his death (Jos_
24:30; Jdg_2:9). “According to the word of the Lord” (lit. “at the mouth of Jehovah”)
does not refer to a divine oracle communicated through the high priest, but to a promise
which Joshua had probably received from God at the same time as Caleb, viz., in Kadesh,
but which, like the promise given to Caleb, is not mentioned in the Pentateuch (see at
Jos_15:13; Jos_14:9). Timnath-serah, called Timnath-heres in Jdg_2:9, must not be
confounded with Timnah in the tribe of Dan (Jos_19:43; Jos_15:10), as is the case in the
Onom. It has been preserved in the present ruins and foundation walls of a place called
Tibneh, which was once a large town, about seven hours to the north of Jerusalem, and
two hours to the west of Jiljilia, standing upon two mountains, with many caverns that
have been used as graves (see Eli Smith in Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 562ff., and Rob. Bibl.
Res. p. 141).
CALVI , "49.When they had made an end of dividing, etc We have here, at length,
an account of the gratitude of the people towards Joshua. For although the partition
of the land of Canaan, among the posterity of Abraham, behooved to be equitable,
yet Joshua, by his excellent virtues, deserved some honorary reward. or could any
complain that a single individual was enriched at their expense. For, first, in the
delay there was a striking proof of the moderation of this holy servant of God. He
does not give any heed to his own interest till the commonweal has been secured.
How seldom do we find any who, after they have given one or two specimens of
valor, do not forthwith make haste to the prey? ot so Joshua, who thinks not of
himself till the land has been divided. In the reward itself also the same temperance
and frugality are conspicuous. The city he asks to be given to himself and his family
was a mere heap of stones, either because it had been demolished and converted into
a heap of ruins, or because no city had yet been built upon it.
It is conjectured with probability, that with the view of making the grant as little
invidious as possible, the city he requested was of no great value. If any one thinks it
strange that he did not give his labor gratuitously, let him reflect that Joshua
liberally obeyed the divine call, and had no mercenary feelings in undergoing so
many labors, dangers, and troubles; but having spontaneously performed his duty,
he behooved not to repudiate a memorial of the favor of God, unless he wished by
perverse contempt to suppress his glory. For the grant voted to him was nothing else
than a simple testimonial of the divine power, which had been manifested through
his hand. Truly no ambition can be detected here, inasmuch as he desires nothing
for himself, and does not rashly act from a feeling of covetousness, but seeks in the
popular consent a confirmation of the honor which God had already bestowed upon
him. To have been silent in such a case, would have been more indicative of
heartlessness than of modesty. The statement in the concluding verse of the chapter,
that Joshua and Eleazar made an end of dividing the land, points to the perpetuity
of the boundaries, which had been fixed, and warns the children of Israel against
moving in any way to unsettle an inviolable decree.
BE SO , "Verse 49

99. Joshua 19:49. When they had made an end of dividing the land — That is, after
every tribe had had their respective portion assigned to them. The children of Israel
gave an inheritance to Joshua — We cannot but admire the wonderful modesty of
this great man, who received his portion last of all, and then, not by lot, but by their
gift, who were already possessed of the whole land.
COFFMA , "Verse 49
JOSHUA
"So they made an end for inheritance by the borders thereof, and the children of
Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of un in the midst of them according
to the commandment of Jehovah they gave him the city which he asked, even
Timnath-serah in the hill-country of Ephraim; and he built the city, and dwelt
therein."
How noble it was on Joshua's part to wait until all the tribes had received their
inheritances before he came forward to ask for his own. The exact location of this
estate of Joshua is not known.
COKE, "Ver. 49. The children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua— How
admirable is Joshua's moderation! every tribe had shared in the division; each had,
as it were, its reward; and he alone seemed to be overlooked in the distribution of
the conquered country: last of all, he receives a private settlement; not by lot, but
from the tribes, as the gift of the people. Many things might be said upon this head,
and many lessons of disinterestedness given to persons, who, elevated to the highest
offices, are thereby become depositaries of the public good.
CO STABLE, "Verse 49-50
The inheritance of Joshua 19:49-50
Like Caleb, Joshua received a city, Timnath-serah (called Timnath-heres in Judges
2:9), within his tribal allotment of Ephraim, for being faithful to God.
"Caleb and Joshua were the two faithful spies who believed God was able to give
Israel the land ( umbers 14:6-9; umbers 14:30). The receiving of their
inheritances frames the story of the dividing of the land among the nine and a half
tribes, with Caleb"s at the beginning [ Joshua 14:6-15] and Joshua"s at the end.
Caleb and Joshua are living examples of God"s faithfulness in fulfilling his
promises made more than forty years earlier." [ ote: Madvig, p324.]
ELLICOTT, "(49, 50) When they had made an end . . . gave an inheritance to
Joshua . . . according to the word of the Lord they gave him the city which he asked,
even Timnath-serah in mount Ephraim (Kefr Hâris, sheet 14).—Historically and
typically the fact is noticeable. (a) Historically. Joshua waited for his own
inheritance until the last. He sought not his own interest, but that of the people. He
asked no kingdom for himself or his family, only a city, which he built, and dwelt
therein. (6) Typically. “They gave him the city which he asked, according to the

100. word of the Lord.” What does this mean in the case of the true Joshua? “Ask of me,
and I shall give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the
earth for thy possession.” He must reign till God hath put all enemies under His
feet. Then, and not till then, will He take His own personal inheritance, and be
subject to Him that put all things under Him. Timnath-serah means an abundant
portion, a portion of abundance. Though small, it was enough for Joshua. It will be
enough for his Antitype, when “He shall see of the travail of His soul, and be
satisfied.” It is afterwards called Timnath-heres, the portion of the Sun. “His going
forth is from the end of heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it, and there is
nothing hid from the heat thereof.”
PARKER, ""Handfuls of Purpose"
For All Gleaners
"... the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of un among
them."— Joshua 19:49
Joshua had rights of his own, and could have claimed such rights; but beyond rights
which a man may claim are still more precious rights which are accorded to him by
the conscience and generosity of the community.—This is the very law of divine
providence.—The fact that we are born into the world is a fact which brings with it
certain natural rights, in the absence of which we should hardly be men at all. But
this is not the limit of the divine bounty. Beyond all that is merely legal and
necessary there is a region of grace, of large and happy dowry, showing not only the
bare justice, but the sweet mercy of the rule under which we live.—In a social sense
it is true that we might get more if we claimed less.—Joshua lived a noble life
amongst his people, and carried out his function of leadership with obvious justice
and disinterestedness, and it is beautiful to observe how the people seem to have
recognised this by their willing concession to him of an inheritance by their
coasts.—This should be true in all family life. Obedience is due to parents by an
unwritten law, as well as by formal decree; but beyond obedience there lies the
whole region of voluntary testimony and service. Blessed is he who gives his parent
an inheritance in that wide region!—The same thing should be true in commercial
relations: there should be something more than a bond: where the bond is carried
out loyally on both sides Duty will gracefully take upon itself any crown which
Gratitude may be disposed to place upon its head.—This should be also true
ecclesiastically: men who have laboured in season and out of season for the good of
others ought not to be forgotten in the time of audit and general winding up of life
and service, but should have accorded to them all possible honour in view of a life
unstained by sin, and crowded with acts of beneficence and sacrifice.—The charm
of some possessions lies in the spirit which dictated their ownership.—It is a poor
thing to have only those possessions which are bought and sold, and on which
merely commercial lines are inscribed; such things, of course, every man must have;
but the things which are written all over with love and thankfulness are infinitely
more precious, and in an obvious sense are even more enduring.— o man
begrudged Joshua his city in mount Ephraim: every one felt that the city was due to

101. the brave captain and obedient saint.—It is well when our honours are doubled by
the recognition of their desert by those who know us best.—The Well-done of the
Master constitutes the best part of heaven.—To go into heaven even as a mere act of
justice is to deprive the holy city of its most fascinating charm. It is because the city
is given with the Well-done of its King that residence in it becomes the final and
eternal joy of the soul.
PETT, "Verse 49-50
‘So they made an end of distributing the land for inheritance by their borders, and
the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of un among them.
According to the commandment of YHWH they gave him the city which he asked,
even Timnath-serah in the hill country of Ephraim, and he built the city and dwelt
in it.’
The land having been distributed by lot for the Israelite tribes to proceed with
settling it, Joshua then received his own portion in Ephraim. ‘The commandment of
YHWH’ may suggest that this too was by lot or by Urim and Thummim (but see
Joshua 14:6; Joshua 14:9).
For Timnath-serah see also Joshua 24:30, but Judges 2:9 has Timnath-heres. It may
be that the consonants were switched around in Joshua to avoid the reference to
Heres (sun) because the writer did not want Joshua’s name connected with sun
worship. It is possibly Khirbet Tibneh, twenty seven kilometres (seventeen miles)
south west of Shechem, which lies on the south side of a deep ravine (see Joshua
24:30). ‘Built the city’ probably means that he fortified it. o one was more aware
than he of the difficulties that lay ahead.
The painstaking work of dividing up the land had now been accomplished, with the
different tribes each allotted the portion which it was their responsibility to
conquer, and settle, and from which they were to drive out the inhabitants. It was
not a task that would be accomplished easily. The hill country had been made safe
but the valleys and plains would take longer. They were infested with Canaanite
cities, and the arrival of the Philistines in force would make it even more difficult. It
would slowly proceed by taking and settling in weaker cities, settling in cleared
forest land, and gradually expanding and taking advantage of every opportunity as
it arose. But they were intended to ever keep before their eyes their responsibility to
drive out the Canaanites, although it would not be accomplished all at once (Exodus
23:28-30. See also Exodus 33:2; Exodus 33:5; Exodus 34:11-13; umbers 33:52-56).
Joshua had done the work of ‘softening up’ but possession would take longer. They
were no longer one great, victorious army, but a people seeking to permanently
establish themselves in the land in smaller groups. Without that they could not
possess the whole land. But what they had not to do was fraternise with the people
of the land, for Canaanite society and religion was debased.
To begin with they went about the task faithfully (Judges 2:6-7), but it would not be
long before they began to compromise, neglect their unity in the covenant with
YHWH, settle among the Canaanites, fraternise with them, and forget their main
responsibility, the clearing from the land of those very Canaanites.

102. PULPIT, "Joshua 19:49
When they had made an end. The LXX; both here and in Joshua 19:51, reads ‫ְכוּ‬‫ל‬ֵ‫י‬
they went. The last thing Joshua thought of was himself. It was only when his work
was done, and Israel had received her allotted territory, that Joshua thought it right
to take his own inheritance. Calvin remarks that it was "a striking proof of the
moderation of this servant of God" that he "thought not of his own interest until
that of the community was secured."
PULPIT, "HOMILIES BY R. GLOVER
Joshua 19:49
Joshua's portion.
"When they had made an end of dividing the land," Joshua gets his share. ot first,
as kings usually do, but last. When all are helped, then comes his turn. Though he
waits longest, yet it does come to him. And when it does come it is all the more
welcome from being well earned. Observe two or three things that are thus brought
before us.
I. A TRAIT OF HO OUR. Honour is the bloom of uprightness; the finer instinctive
working of it in matters too delicate to be touched by law. It is not so common as it
ought to be; for our natures are often coarse, and honour is always costly. We prefer
going in for cheaper virtues, especially for such of them as are loud and obvious, as
well as cheap. Even those who attend to the "honest and just and true" of Paul's
precept, sometimes overlook "the pure and the lovely and that which is of good
report." Here Joshua comes out, as we would expect him, as a man of honour. Such
faith as he had never existed in a selfish heart; such courage as marked him,
naturally had emotions of similar nobility to keep it company. Doubtless, some
foolish and flattering friends urged him to accept his lot first; and pleaded, perhaps,
his first right to it, both as faithful spy and successful leader. Something before
Shakespeare had whispered—
"Love thyself last: let all the ends thou aim'st at
Be thy country's, God's, and Truth's."
And the still small voice of sacred honour within him did not speak in vain. Like as
in a sinking ship, a brave captain is the last to leave her and seek for safety, so
Joshua elects to be the last served. All the best bits of the country others eagerly go
in for. Joshua sees it disposed of by lot, but is not moved by the sight of its going to
envy others, nor does he catch any greed from the contagion of their example. Quite
calm, feeling rich in enriching others, at rest in giving others rest, he has rewards
above any freehold, and joys above any wealth. There is here an example all ought
to follow. The insistance on our rights is sometimes a duty. In the interest of others
we may be obliged to resist and dispute injustice. But such insistance ought always

103. to be practised with regret, and avoided wherever possible. The precept requiring us
to give the cloak to him who covets the coat certainly inculcates the surrender of
rights wherever any moral advantage can accrue from it. For our own sake, to keep
the soul in proper and worthy mood, we ought to cultivate this honourableness that
thinks of something sublimer than its private rights. And for the sake of others also,
for honour is one of the subtlest, but the strongest, forces of good anywhere existent.
It allures men to a better way, charms them to integrity, is a root of brotherliness
and peace. Especially should all leaders of their fellows cultivate this honour. It is
not too common amongst either sovereigns or statesmen. Men are apt to forget that
selfishness is vulgar, whether it seeks to get a throne, in ambition, or to keep its
halfpence in sordid avarice. All selfishness is mean; and in the great it is greatly
mischievous. It breeds civil wars; it corrupts the patriotism of a people; it prevents
the rise of that confidence in the justice and the patriotism and the wisdom of the
rulers which gives the nations rest. In leaders in smaller circles—boroughs,
churches—there is the same scope for this high principle. Israel was blessed in this,
that its most unselfish man was its leader. And he who was highest in place was
highest in honour. Secondly observe—
II. HO OUR HAS ITS REWARD AT LAST. He had had abundant reward all
through. Rivalries and competitions which, under a selfish ruler, would have broken
out, and perhaps flamed up into strife and tumult, are repressed by the silent,
dignified example of one whose thoughts were above the vulgar delights of wealth.
And this reward of being able to compose the conflicting claims of a great multitude
was the grandest reward he could have. To win victory over his nation's foes, and
keep contentment and peace in her own borders, was reward indeed. But he does
not go without even the material reward. All Israel come and give him Timnath-
serah. We cannot identify it now with any definiteness. But it was doubtless worthy
of the nation that gave it—of the man that received it. Honour often seems, to the
coarse hearted, to go without reward. But that is only because the reward is of a sort
too subtle for coarse vision to detect. It has always a grand reward in the influence
with which it crowns the head of him who practises it. It has, besides, even common
outward rewards. The race is not always to the swift, nor the gold to the greedy. We
make our own world, and teach men how to deal with us. The world is froward to
the froward; it is honourable to the honourable. The fairest treatment men ever give
is given to those who treat them fairly. The best masters get the best service. The
truest friends form richest friendships. Honourable men rarely meet with
dishonourable treatment. And without any clamour or fighting they get a better
Timnath-serah than in any other way they could have gained. "Trust in the Lord
and do good: so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed." Lastly
observe—
III. THE I HERITA CE GOT BY DESERT, A D HELD WITHOUT BEI G
E VIED, IS THE PERFECTIO OF A LOT. ot all riches comfort us. Ill-gotten
riches curse us. Riches gotten by others and passed on to us are insipid. Wealth
gathered by penury is a burden. But the lot that comes as the reward of diligence,
consecration, honour, has a special sweetness, and the man who gets it has a special
power of enjoying it. Especially when it is ungrudged; no neighbour coveting it; no

104. peasant thinking that by right it should be his; all men glad to see it in such worthy
hands. We shall do well to resolve that we will have no fortune and no inheritance
which ages not in its way resemble TIM ATH-SERAH.—G.
HOMILIES BY W.F. ADE EY
Joshua 19:49, Joshua 19:50
Joshua's inheritance.
I. JOSHUA RECEIVED A I HERITA CE AMO G HIS BRETHRE . After
labour and battle come rest and recompense. Though Joshua was a man of war he
was not to spend all his days in fighting. It is sometimes well that the active should
have a quiet time of retirement in old age. For all God's servants there is an
inheritance of rest when this world's work is done (Hebrews 4:9).
II. JOSHUA'S I HERITA CE WAS GIVE ACCORDI G TO A DIVI E
PROMISE. True devotion is founded on unselfish motives. Yet the prospect of
reward is added by God's grace as an encouragement. Christ looked forward to His
reward (Hebrews 12:2). We are only guilty of acting from low motives when the idea
of personal profit is allowed to conflict with duty, or when it is the chief motive
leading us to perform any duty.
III. JOSHUA'S I HERITA CE WAS SIMILAR TO THAT OF HIS BRETHRE .
He was the ruler of the people, yet he took no regal honours. He had led them to
victory, yet he received no exceptional reward. Like Cincinnatus, he quietly retired
to private life when he had completed his great task. This is a grand example of
unselfishness, simplicity, and humility. It is noble to covet high service rather than
rich rewards. Ambition is a sin of low selfishness cloaked with a false semblance of
magnificence. The Christian is called to fulfil the highest service with the lowliest
humility (Luke 22:26). Christians are all brethren under one Master (Matthew
23:8). Joshua is a type of Christ in his great work and unselfish humility (John
13:15-16).
IV. JOSHUA RECEIVED HIS I HERITA CE FROM THE HA DS OF THE
PEOPLE. He was not forward to take it for himself. He submitted to the choice and
will of the people. It is a mark of true magnanimity to refuse to use influence and
power to gain personal advantages. Joshua is a noble example of a man who
exercised authority over others without developing a spirit of despotism which
would fetter the popular choice. It is a great thing to have a strong, united
government ruling over a free people.
V. JOSHUA DID OT RECEIVE HIS I HERITA CE TILL AFTER ALL THE
OTHER PEOPLE HAD RECEIVED THEIR POSSESSIO S. He was first in
service, last in reward. The true Christian spirit will put self last. He who is rightly
devoted to duty will not seek for his reward before his task is completed. The world
is too often tardy in recognising these who have rendered it most valuable service.—
W.F.A.

105. 50 as the Lord had commanded. They gave him
the town he asked for—Timnath Serah[d] in the
hill country of Ephraim. And he built up the town
and settled there.
BAR ES, "Nothing is said of any express command of God respecting the
inheritance of Joshua. But as such special portion appears to have been promised to
Caleb at the time when he and Joshua alone out of the twelve spies remained faithful
Jos_14:6-9, it is probable that a like promise was made to Joshua. The name of the place
is also written Timnath-heres Jdg_2:9, by a transposition of the letters. The rabbinical
explanation that the name Timnath-heres (i. e. “portion of the sun”) was given because a
representation of the sun was affixed to the tomb in memory of Joshua’s command to
the sun to stand still, appears to be an afterthought. The name Timnath-serah (“portion
that remains”) was perhaps conferred on the spot in consequence of its being allotted to
Joshua, the last allotment made in the whole distribution of his conquests. The site has
been conjectured to be “Tibneh,” a village about five miles north-west of Lydda (or, by
Conder, Kerr Hares, nine miles south of Nablous).
CLARKE, "Timnath-serah - Called Timnath-heres in Jdg_2:9, where we find that
the mountain on which it was built was called Gaash. It is generally allowed to have been
a barren spot in a barren country.
GILL, "According to the word of the Lord,.... Or mouth of the Lord; either
according to the oracle of Urim and Thummim, which Eleazar consulted on this
occasion; or according to what the Lord had said to Moses, at the same time that Hebron
was ordered to Caleb, Jos_14:6; and
they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnathserah in Mount
Ephraim; he chose a place in his own tribe, for he was of the tribe of Ephraim; and it
seems that what he chose was none of the best of places; for Paula, as Jerom (i) relates,
when she travelled into those parts, wondered that the distributor of the possessions of
the children of Israel should choose such a rough and mountainous place for himself; of
its situation, see Jos_24:30,
and he built the city, and dwelt therein; he rebuilt it, and fitted it for his own

106. habitation, and for those that belonged to him. (Timnathserah means "an abundant
portion" or "a place in the sun". Joshua great reward was in seeing the promises of God
fulfilled before his very eyes Jos_21:45 and the children of Israel serving the Lord's
during his lifetime Jos_24:31. Joshua may have received but a small inheritance in the
promised land but this was just an earnest of his future glorious inheritance in eternity.
The saints of God have the best portion saved for the last Joh_2:10 whereas the
worldling has his best portion now; his worst is yet to come. Editor.)
JAMISO , "According to the word of the Lord they gave him the city
which he asked — It was most proper that the great leader should receive an
inheritance suited to his dignity, and as a reward for his public services. But the gift was
not left to the spontaneous feelings of a grateful people. It was conferred “according to
the word of the Lord” - probably an unrecorded promise, similar to what had been made
to Caleb (Jos_14:9).
Timnath-serah — or Heres, on Mount Gaash (Jdg_2:9). Joshua founded it, and was
afterwards buried there (Jos_24:30).
BE SO , "Verse 50
Joshua 19:50. According to the word of the Lord, they gave him the city which he
asked — God indeed had ordered that he should have a portion, and that he himself
should choose it; but he was content to stay for it till every one else was amply
provided for. We do not expressly read of this command; but many particulars were
said and done which are not recorded. And Joshua being as faithful and upright as
Caleb, and chosen besides to be the captain of God’s people, we cannot but think,
that when God ordered what Caleb should have, he gave the same direction with
respect to Joshua: see Joshua 16:6. Even Timnath-serah in mount Ephraim —
Joshua did not choose the best place in all the country, but a convenient one in his
own tribe; which was seated on the north side of a hill called Gaash, as we read in
the latter end of this book. And he built the city and dwelt therein — Repaired it, we
suppose, (for in all probability there was a city in that situation before,) and made a
convenient habitation for his family and relations. But we read nothing of them
afterward; for as he did not affect to make himself king of Canaan, so he contented
himself with a moderate allotment, and made no large provision for his posterity.
COKE, "Ver. 50. According to the word of the Lord, they gave him the city which
he asked— The commands of God, upon this occasion, which probably were
signified by the mouth of Eleazar, the high-priest, or at the time when provision was
made for Caleb, ch. Joshua 14:6 had authorised Joshua to choose whatever district
should please him in the land of Canaan, to be possessed by him as his own
property: this great general, however, postponed his claim till every one was settled;
and then what is his choice? Timnath-serah in mount Ephraim: too modest to think
of appropriating to himself the best part of the country, he not only shuts himself up
in his own tribe, but chooses precisely the roughest, most uncultivated, and, at first,
most difficult spot thereabout. See ch. Joshua 17:18. Timnath-serah seems to have
been an old cattle or village, standing north of the mountain called Gaash, chap.

107. Joshua 24:30.
He built the city, and dwelt therein— He fitted up the ruins, built a new city, and, as
we may suppose, by cutting down the forests which covered the mountain every
where about, made the place both strong, and respectable for its height; and by that
means, in other respects, a very agreeable station, according to the taste of the
ancients, who were fond of building upon high places. See Dionys. Halicarn. lib. i. c.
12. Here it was that Joshua settled with his family, concerning which we have no
further information from the history: so true it is, that this great man neither
thought of taking upon him the dignity of a sovereign, nor of aggrandizing his own
house! The Scripture, as Pelican observes, says nothing of Joshua's sons or
daughters, because he considered all the Israelites as his children.
ote; Joshua's dwelling-place was near the tabernacle: and in the choice of our
dwelling, to be near a gospel-ministry should be the first recommendation.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:50
The city which he asked. He asked for a city, certainly. But the law of the
inheritance was not to be set aside for him any more than for the meanest in Israel.
Timnath-serah was in his own tribe. Timnath-serah. Called Thamna by Josephus
and the LXX; and Timnath-heres, or Tinmath of the sun by a transposition of the
letters, in 2:9. Rabbi Solomon Jarchi gives a singular reason for the latter name. It
came to be so called because there was a representation of the sun upon the tomb of
him who caused the sun to stand still. Timnath-serah must not be confounded with
Timnah, or Timnathah, in the tribe of Dan (verse 48). For a long time its site was
unknown, but within the last 40 years it has been identified with Tibneh, seven
hours north of Jerusalem, among the mountains of Ephraim. Dr. Eli Smith was the
first to suggest this, and though it was doubted by Robinson, it has since been
accepted by Vandevelde and other high authorities. Tibneh seems to have anciently
been a considerable town. It is described in Ritter's 'Geography of Palestine' as a
gentle hill, crowned with extensive ruins. Opposite these, on the slope of a much
higher eminence, are excavations like what are called the Tombs of the Kings at
Jerusalem. Jewish tradition, however, points to Kefr Haris, some distance south of
Shechem, as the site of Joshua's tomb, and several able writers have advocated its
claims in the papers of the Palestine Exploration Fund, on the ground that on such a
point Jewish tradition was not likely to be mistaken.
51 These are the territories that Eleazar the
priest, Joshua son of un and the heads of the
tribal clans of Israel assigned by lot at Shiloh in

108. the presence of the Lord at the entrance to the
tent of meeting. And so they finished dividing the
land.
CLARKE, "At the door of the tabernacle - All the inheritances were determined
by lot, and this was cast before the Lord - every thing was done in his immediate
presence, as under his eye; hence there was no murmuring, each having received his
inheritance as from the hand of God himself, though some of them thought they must
have additional territory, because of the great increase of their families.
GILL, "These are the inheritances which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the
son of Nun,.... The one the high priest, and the other the chief governor of the nation:
and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel; the princes
appointed for this service, whose names are given Num_34:18; the inheritances before
described in the preceding chapters by their boundaries and cities, these the said
persons
divided for an inheritance by lot in Shiloh; and so has particular reference to the
seven lots drawn there for seven of the tribes, by which their inheritances were assigned
to them: and this was done
before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation; see Jos_
18:1,
so they made an end of dividing the country; though it was not as yet wholly
subdued.
JAMISO , "These are the inheritances — This verse is the formal close of the
section which narrates the history of the land distribution; and to stamp it with due
importance, the names of the commissioners are repeated, as well as the spot where so
memorable a transaction took place.
K&D, "Closing formula to the account of the distribution of the land, which refers
primarily to Jos_18:1., as the expression “in Shiloh” shows, but which also includes Josh
14-17.
BE SO , "Verse 51
Joshua 19:51. These are the inheritances, &c. — Upon the whole of this division of

109. the land, it deserves our remarking, that the lot fell to the several tribes just as
Jacob and Moses had foretold. And this division served to keep up the distinction of
tribes, which was to continue till the coming of the Messiah. And we may observe
further, that God had expressly named, some years before, as we find by umbers
34:17-29, the very persons who should divide the land unto the children of Israel,
and expressly described the bounds how far every way the land reached which was
to be divided by them.
COFFMA , "Verse 51
"These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of un,
and the heads of the fathers houses of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed
for inheritance by lot in Shiloh before Jehovah, at the door of the tent of meeting. So
they made an end of dividing the land."
The division of Canaan among the tribes was conducted in all fairness and in such a
manner as absolutely to preclude any charges of partiality or deceit.
The High Priest who presided over the religion of Israel, the military leader of the
nation, and the heads of the fathers' houses (the princes of Israel) were all present to
oversee and conduct the casting of lots, which in all probability was done by Joshua.
Many wonderful lessons should be drawn from this.
The very details and the perfect agreement of all these assignments with each other
and with the larger record of the total boundaries assures the authenticity of the
narrative. The forging of such a record as this would be an absolute impossibility.
That the offices of holy religion were honored and respected in this important task
is most evident in the presence of Eleazar. Today, it may be feared that our nation
has forgotten God. His name is not even invoked in the public schools of the people,
and even wars are declared and conducted apart from any consultation regarding
"What is the will of God?" We wish to close this chapter by citing a quotation from
Plummer:
"However much the Israelites may have quarreled among themselves, there is not a
hint of dissatisfaction with the final distribution."[14]
From this it is most evident that all Israel accepted the distribution as the gift of
God and consented to receive their various portions as having been received from
God Himself. This is the most powerful evidence of the truth and integrity of the
entire Biblical narrative.
COKE, "Ver. 51. So they made an end of dividing the country— otwithstanding
all the particulars of this division recorded in the present and foregoing chapters, it
is impossible at this time to draw out a perfectly exact map of the land of Canaan,
and the limits of each tribe. The country has undergone too many revolutions, and
passed through too many hands, to allow us the gratification of describing the
position of most of the places of which Joshua chiefly has preserved any account.
The territories of the ten tribes, especially, cannot but be unknown in many
respects; for, on the return of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin from Babylon,

110. they who came back found themselves hardly sufficient for re-peopling the single
country of Judea; and it even required consideration how to afford Jerusalem a
sufficient number of inhabitants: ehemiah 11. Thus it was the furthest from their
thoughts to take any account of the provinces which the other ten tribes had been
obliged to quit; and, the country being seized on by foreign nations, it became every
day more difficult to mark out the precise limits of the land which had been
possessed by each tribe. See Walton's Prolegom. and Shuckford's Connection, vol.
3: p. 417.
CO STABLE, "Verse 51
The conclusion of the allotment19:51
Israel"s leaders completed this division of the land at Shiloh, the new location of the
tabernacle.
"The gift of the land brought blessings not only to the nation as a whole and to the
individual tribes. It also brought blessing to the faithful leader. God commanded
Israel to reward the individual for his faithfulness. Thus the Deuteronomic
understanding of blessing and curse is expressed not only on the corporate, but also
on the individual level. This, too, stands as a source of encouragement to Israel
through the years as many of her people become dispersed from the main body of
the people of God." [ ote: Butler, p208.]
Readers of this section of the text (chs14-19) notice that the writer gave much more
space to the first tribes he described and progressively less attention to the
remaining tribes. There seem to be several reasons for this. First, he gave the tribes
of Judah and Joseph special attention because Judah and Joseph received Jacob"s
blessing and birthright respectively. This made them the preeminent tribes among
the others. Second, Judah and Joseph therefore became more significant in the
history of Israel as the nation matured, so the historical importance of their
territories was greater than that of less influential tribes. Benjamin likewise became
quite important, and this is probably a reason the writer gave this territory some
attention. Third, the writer clearly did not intend that the listing of tribal
boundaries and towns should be complete. His record of the allotment that each
tribe received, considering all the tribes together, seems intended more to stress the
faithfulness of God in giving Israel what He had promised. This purpose is
especially clear in the listing of Simeon"s towns. Similarly, Moses chose only
selected laws to record in Exodus through Deuteronomy to make certain
impressions on the reader, not that these were the only laws that God gave His
people.
PULPIT, "Joshua 19:51
At the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. The lots were drawn under Divine
sanction. The ruler of the State and the ruler of the Church combined in this sacred
act, hallowed by all the rites of religion, and confirmed by the presence and
approbation of the heads or representatives of all the tribes. Accordingly, as has

111. been said above, we hear of no murmurings or disputings afterwards. However
much the Israelites may have quarrelled among themselves, there is not a hint of
dissatisfaction with the final distribution of territory. Three points may be noticed
here—
1. The authenticity of the narrative is confirmed by these evidences of the internal
agreement of its parts.
2. We learn the value of mutual consultation, of open and fair dealing, from this
narrative. The parcelling out of the inheritance of Israel under God's command was
carried out in such a manner as to preclude the slightest suspicion of partiality.
3. The duty of hallowing all important actions with the sanctions of religion, of
uniting prayer and a public recognition of God's authority with every event of
moment, whether in the life of the individual or of the body politic, finds an
illustration here. An age which, like the present, is disposed to relegate to the closet
all recognition of God's authority, which rushes into wars without God's blessing,
celebrates national or local ceremonials without acknowledging Him, contracts
matrimony without publicly seeking His blessing, receives children from Him
without caring to dedicate them formally to His service, can hardly plead that it is
acting in the spirit of the Divine Scriptures. A well known writer in our age declares
that we have "forgotten God." Though the external and formal recognition of Him
may be consistent with much forgetfulness in the heart, yet the absence of such
recognition is not likely to make us remember Him, nor can it be pleaded as proof
that we do so.
PETT, "Verse 51
‘These are the inheritances which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of un,
and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for
inheritance by lot in Shiloh before YHWH, at the door of the Tent of Meeting. So
they made an end of dividing the land.’
This summarises Joshua 18:1 to Joshua 19:51 (see Joshua 14:1; Joshua 18:1).
Eleazar was ‘the Priest’ at the central sanctuary, here called the Tent of Meeting,
who was responsible for the use of Urim and Thummim and for casting lots before
YHWH. Joshua was the Servant of Yahweh, successor to the great Moses. The
heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel were princes from each
tribe appointed for this service, whose names are given in umbers 34:18-29. It was
their responsibility to arrange the distribution of the inheritances of the tribes.
This distribution took place before YHWH by lot at the door of the Tent of Meeting
(the Tabernacle), beyond which the princes could not go, and which was now sited
at Shiloh, see Joshua 18:1. Previously it had been at Gilgal (Joshua 14:2 with Joshua
14:6).