Joshua 19 commentary

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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.)

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

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.’

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.
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:

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

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.
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

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.

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).
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.

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

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

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

the minds of the particular surveyors for numbering up to twelve.
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.

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

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

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:

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

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.
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,

Joshua 19 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Joshua 19 commentary

Similar to Joshua 19 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Joshua 19 commentary