Josua 13:1 Kommentar

At this chapter begins the account of the dividing of the land of Canaan among the tribes of Israel by lot, a narrative not so entertaining and instructive as that of the conquest of it, and yet it is thought fit to be inserted in the sacred history, to illustrate the performance of the promise made to the fathers, that this land should be given to the seed of Jacob, to them and not to any other. The preserving of this distribution would be of great use to the Jewish nation, who were obliged by the law to keep up this first distribution, and not to transfer inheritances from tribe to tribe, Num 36:9. It is likewise of use to us for the explaining of other scriptures: the learned know how much light the geographical description of a country gives to the history of it. And therefore we are not to skip over these chapters of hard names as useless and not to be regarded; where God has a mouth to speak and a hand to write we should find an ear to hear an eye to read; and God give us a heart to profit! In this chapter, I. God informs Joshua what parts of the country that were intended in the grant to Israel yet remained unconquered, and not got in possession (Jos 13:1-6). II. He appoints him, notwithstanding, to make a distribution of what was conquered (Jos 13:7). III. To complete this account, here is a repetition of the distribution Moses had made of the land on the other side Jordan; in general (Jos 13:8-14), in particular, the lot of Reuben (Jos 13:15-23), of Gad (Jos 13:24-28), of the half tribe of Manasseh (Jos 13:29-33).

Here, I. God puts Joshua in mind of his old age, v. 1. 1. It is said that Joshua was old and stricken in years, and he and Caleb were at this time the only old men among the thousands of Israel, none except them of all those who were numbered at Mount Sinai being now alive. He had been a man of war from his youth (Exo 17:10); but now he yielded to the infirmities of age, with which it is in vain for the stoutest to think of contesting. It should seem Joshua had not the same strength and vigour in his old age that Moses had; all that come to old age do not find it alike good; generally, the days of old age are evil days, and such as there is no pleasure in, nor expectation of service from. 2. God takes notice of it to him: God said to him, Thou art old. Note, It is good for those who are old and stricken in years to be put in remembrance of their being so. Some have gray hairs here and there upon them, and perceive it not (Hos 7:9); they do not care to think of it, and therefore need to be told of it, that they may be quickened to do the work of life, and make preparation for death, which is coming towards them apace. But God mentions Joshua's age and growing infirmities, (1.) As a reason why he should now lay by the thoughts of pursuing the war; he cannot expect to see an end of it quickly, for there remained much land, more perhaps than he thought, to be possessed, in several parts remote from each other: and it was not fit that at his age he should be put upon the fatigue of renewing the war, and carrying it to such distant places; no, it was enough for him that he had reduced the body of the country. "Let him be gathered to rest with honour and the thanks of his people for the good services he had done them, and let the conquering of the skirts of the country be left for those that shall come after." As he had entered into the labours of Moses, so let others enter into his, and bring forth the top-stone, the doing of which was reserved for David long after. Observe, God considers the frame of his people, and would not have them burdened with work above their strength. It cannot be expected that old people should do as they have done for God and their country. (2.) As a reason why he should speedily apply himself to the dividing of that which he had conquered. That work must be done, and done quickly; it was necessary that he should preside in the doing of it, and therefore, he being old and stricken in years, and not likely to continue long, let him make this his concluding piece of service to God and Israel. All people, but especially old people, should set themselves to do that quickly which must be done before they die, lest death prevent them, Ecc 9:10. II. He gives him a particular account of the land that yet remained unconquered, which was intended for Israel, and which, in due time, they should be masters of if they did not put a bar in their own door. Divers places are here mentioned, some in the south, as the country of the Philistines, governed by five lords, and the land that lay towards Egypt (Jos 13:2, Jos 13:3), some westward, as that which lay towards the Sidonians (Jos 13:4), some eastward, as all Lebanon (Jos 13:5), some towards the north, as that in the entering in of Hamath, Jos 13:5. Joshua is told this, and he made the people acquainted with it, 1. That they might be the more affected with God's goodness to them in giving them this good land, and might thereby be engaged to love and serve him; for, if this which they had was too little, God would moreover give them such and such things, Sa2 12:8. 2. That they might not be tempted to make any league, or contract any dangerous familiarity with these their neighbours so as to learn their way, but might rather be jealous of them, as a people that kept them from their right and that they had just cause of quarrel with. 3. That they might keep themselves in a posture for war, and not think of putting off the harness so long as there remained any land to be possessed. Nor must we lay aside our spiritual armour, nor be off our watch, till our victory be completed in the kingdom of glory. III. He promises that he would make the Israelites masters of all those countries that were yet unsubdued, though Joshua was old and not able to do it, old and not likely to live to see it done. Whatever becomes of us, and however we may be laid aside as despised broken vessels, God will do his own work in his own time (Jos 13:6): I will drive them out. The original is emphatic: "It is I that will do it, I that can do it when thou are dead and gone, and will do it if Israel be not wanting to themselves." "I will do it by my Word," so the Chaldee here, as in many other places, "by the eternal Word, the captain of the hosts of the Lord." This promise that he would drive them out from before the children of Israel plainly supposes it as the condition of the promise that the children of Israel must themselves attempt their extirpation, must go up against them, else they could not be said to be driven out before them; if afterwards Israel, through sloth, or cowardice, or affection to these idolaters, sit still and let them alone, they must blame themselves, and not God, if they be not driven out. We must work out our salvation, and then God will work in us and work with us; we must resist our spiritual enemies, and then God will tread them under our feet; we must go forth to our Christian work and warfare, and then God will go forth before us.

INTRODUCTION TO JOSHUA 13 In this chapter Joshua is informed by the Lord, or put in mind, that part of the land of Canaan remained unconquered, and which it was; and is directed to divide the whole land among the nine tribes, and the half tribe of Manasseh, Jos 13:1; and since the two tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the other half tribe of Manasseh, had received their inheritance on the other side Jordan, Jos 13:8; that is described in general, Jos 13:9; and, then the particular portion of Reuben, Jos 13:15; and of Gad, Jos 13:24; and of the half tribe of Manasseh, Jos 13:29.

Now Joshua was old, and stricken in years,.... How old he was cannot be said precisely, but it is very probable he was now about an hundred years of age, for he lived to be an hundred ten; and the land of Canaan was seven years in dividing, as the Jews generally say, and it seems as if he did not live long after that: and the Lord said unto him: either spoke to him out of the tabernacle, or appeared to him in a dream or vision: thou art old, and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed: that is, very much of the land of Canaan, which God had promised to Abraham, yet remained unconquered by Joshua, and unpossessed by the children of Israel; and the old age of Joshua is observed, to intimate to him that through it, and the infirmities of it, he was unable to go out to war, and to finish this work, which must be left to be done by others hereafter; and that he should with all expedition set about another work he was capable of doing, before he died, which was the division of the land among the tribes of Israel.

Certain attentive persons even before us have observed in the Scriptures that presbyters or elders are not so called because they have lived to a great age, but they are honored by this title for their maturity of thought and venerable dignity of life, especially when there is added to presbyter this phrase that follows: “full of days.” For if any “presbyter” or “elder” seemed so named because of his great age, who would have been even more fitting to designate by this name than Adam, or surely Methuselah or Noah, who clearly are declared to have lived far more years in this world than the rest? Yet, we see that indeed not one of these is called “presbyter” or “elder” by Scripture. But Abraham, who lived a much shorter life, is the first to be called “presbyter” or “elder” in holy Scriptures. Also it is said by the Lord to Moses, “Choose presbyters for yourself from all the people, those whom you yourself know to be presbyters.” But see, O hearer, whether anywhere in all Scripture you are able to find the title “an elder, full of days” attributed to any sinner.

But since we have determined that the things that are said about Jesus [Joshua] also refer to our Lord and Savior, whom do we understand to be as much “the presbyter and elder, advanced of days” as the one who is “the beginning, the firstborn of every creature”? And for that reason, perhaps, he alone, before whom there is no one, is truly and properly called presbyter. Therefore, although there are those in the Scriptures who are called presbyters or elders or high priests, nevertheless, among the presbyters or elders the Lord Jesus must be reckoned chief of presbyters, and among bishops, chief of bishops, just as among high priests he is “chief of high priests.” and as among shepherds he is “chief of shepherds.” The Savior must be held first and chief in this and in every honorable title, because he is the “head” of all.

Joshua being old, the Lord informs him of the land yet remaining to be possessed, Jos 13:1. Of the unconquered land among the Philistines, Jos 13:2, Jos 13:3. Among the Canaanites, Sidonians, and Amorites, Jos 13:4, Jos 13:5. The inhabitants of the hill country and the Sidonians to be driven out, Jos 13:6. The land on the east side of Jordan, that was to be divided among the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, Jos 13:7-12. The Geshurites and the Maachathites not expelled, Jos 13:13. The tribe of Levi receive no inheritance, Jos 13:14. The possessions of Reuben described, Jos 13:15-23. The possessions of Gad, Jos 13:24-28. The possessions of the half tribe of Manasseh, Jos 13:29-31. Recapitulation of the subjects contained in this chapter, Jos 13:32, Jos 13:33.

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

BOUNDS OF THE LAND NOT YET CONQUERED. (Jos. 13:1-33) Now Joshua was old and stricken in years--He was probably above a hundred years old; for the conquest and survey of the land occupied about seven years, the partition one; and he died at the age of one hundred ten years (Jos 24:29). The distribution, as well as the conquest of the land, was included in the mission of Joshua; and his advanced age supplied a special reason for entering on the immediate discharge of that duty; namely, of allocating Canaan among the tribes of Israel--not only the parts already won, but those also which were still to be conquered.

II. Division of the Land of Canaan Among the Tribes of Israel - Joshua 13-24 The distribution of the conquered land among the Israelites is introduced by the command of the Lord to Joshua to enter upon this work, now that he was old, although different portions of land were still unconquered (Jos 13:1-7); and to this there is appended a description of the land on the east of the Jordan which had already been conquered and divided among the two tribes and a half (Josh 13:8-33). The distribution of the land on this side among the nine tribes and a half is related in its historical order; so that not only are the territories assigned by lot to the different tribes described according to their respective boundaries and towns, but the historical circumstances connected with the division and allotting of the land are also introduced into the description. These historical accounts are so closely connected with the geographical descriptions of the territory belonging to the different tribes, that the latter alone will explain the course pursued in the distribution of the land, and the various ways in which the different territories are described (see the remarks on Jos 14:1). For example, in the account of the inheritance which fell to the lot of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, not only are the boundaries most carefully traced, but the towns are also enumerated one by one (Josh 15 and Josh 18:11-28); whereas in the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and half Manasseh) the list of the towns is altogether wanting (Jos 16:1-10 and 17); and in the possessions of the other tribes, either towns alone are mentioned, as in the case of Simeon and Dan (Jos 19:1-9, Jos 19:40-48), or the boundaries and towns are mixed up together, but both of them given incompletely, as in the case of Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali (Jos 19:10-16, Jos 19:17-23, Jos 19:24-31, Jos 19:32-39). This incompleteness, particularly in the territories of the tribes mentioned last, may be explained from the fact, that in northern Canaan there were still very many tracts of land in the hands of the Canaanites, and the Israelites had not acquired a sufficiently exact or complete knowledge of the country, either through Joshua's campaign in the north, or through the men who were sent out to survey the northern land before it was divided (Jos 18:4-9), to enable them to prepare a complete account of the boundaries and towns at the very outset. In the same way, too, we may explain the absence of the list of towns in the case of the tribes of Ephraim and half Manasseh-namely, from the fact that a large portion of the territory assigned to the tribe of Joseph was still in the possession of the Canaanites (vid., Jos 17:14-18); whilst the omission of any account of the boundaries in the case of Simeon and Dan is attributable to the circumstance that the former received its inheritance within the tribe of Judah, and the latter between Judah and Ephraim, whilst the space left for the Danites was so small, that Ephraim and Judah had to gave up to them some of the town in their own territory. Thus the very inequality and incompleteness of the geographical accounts of the possessions of the different tribes decidedly favour the conclusion, that they are the very lists which were drawn up at the time when Joshua divided the land. There is nothing to preclude this supposition in the fact that several towns occur with different names, e.g., Beth-shemesh and Ir-shemesh (Jos 15:10; Jos 19:41; Jos 21:16), Madmannah and Beth-marcaboth, Sansanna and Hazar-susa (Jos 15:31; Jos 19:5), Shilchim and Sharuchen (Jos 15:32; Jos 19:6), Remeth and Jarmuth (Jos 19:21; Jos 21:29), or in other smaller differences. For variations of this kind may be sufficiently explained from the fact that such places were known by two different names, which could be used promiscuously; whilst in other cases the difference in the name amounts to nothing more than a different mode of writing or pronouncing it: e.g., Kattah and Kartah (Jos 19:15; Jos 21:34), Eshtemoh and Eshtemoa (Jos 15:50; Jos 21:14), Baalah and Balah (Jos 15:29; Jos 19:3); or simply in the contraction of a composite name, such as Ramoth in Gilead for Ramoth-mizpeh (Jos 21:36; Jos 13:26); Bealoth and Baalath-beer (Jos 15:24; Jos 19:8), Lebaoth and Beth-lebaoth (Jos 15:32; Jos 19:6), Hammath and Hammoth-dor (Jos 19:35; Jos 21:32). If the author, on the other hand, had drawn from later sources, or had simply given the results of later surveys, as Knobel supposes, there can be no doubt that much greater uniformity would be found in the different lists. (Note: The arguments employed by Knobel in support of his assertion, consist on the one had of inconclusive and incorrect assertions, and are founded on the other hand upon arbitrary assumptions. In the first place, for example, he asserts that "a large number of towns are omitted from the lists, which were within the boundaries mentioned and were in existence in the very earliest times, viz., in the south, Tamar (Gen 14:7), Arad (Num 21:1), Atbach, Rachal, Aroer, and Siphamoth (Sa1 30:28.), Gerar (Gen. 20:26); in the Shephelah, Gaza, Askalon, Gath, Ashdod, Jabne, and Joppa (see Jos 15:45.); in Benjamin, Michmash and Nob (Sa1 13:2., Jos 22:19); in the north, Aphek, Lassaron, Madon, Shimron-meron, and Merom (Jos 11:5; Jos 12:18-20), as well as Meroz and Ajjalon (Jdg 5:23; Jdg 12:12); and these with other places would assuredly not be wanting here, if Joshua and his associates had distributed the towns as well as the land, and furnished our author with the lists." But it would be difficult to bring forward the proofs of this, since Knobel himself acknowledges that there are gaps in the lists which have come down to us, some of which can be proved to be the fault of the copyists, - such, for example, as the want of a whole section after Jos 15:19 and Jos 21:35. Moreover, the Philistine towns of Ashdod and Gaza are really mentioned in Jos 15:46, and the others at all events hinted at; whereas Knobel first of all arbitrarily rejects Jos 15:45-47 from the text, in order that he may afterwards be able to speak of it as omitted. Again, with many of the places mentioned as omissions, such as Atbach, Rachal, Siphamoth, etc., it is very questionable whether they were towns at all in Joshua's time, or, at all events, such towns as we should expect to find mentioned. And lastly, not only are no catalogues of towns given at all in the case of Ephraim and Manasseh, but we have only imperfect catalogues in the case of Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali; and, as we have already observed, this incompleteness and these gaps can be satisfactorily explained from the historical circumstances under which the allotment of the land took place. Secondly, Knobel also maintains, that "Joshua's conquests did not extend to the Lebanon (Jos 13:4-5), and yet the author mentions towns of the Asherites there (Jos 19:28, Jos 19:30): Bethel was not taken till after the time of Joshua (Jdg 1:22.), and this was also the case with Jerusalem (Jdg 1:8), and in the earliest times of the judges they had no Hebrew inhabitants (Jdg 19:12), yet the author speaks of both places as towns of the Benjamites (Jos 18:22, Jos 18:28); Jericho and Ai were lying in ruins in Joshua's time (Jos 6:24; Jos 8:28), yet they are spoken of here as towns of Benjamin that had been rebuilt (Jos 18:21, Jos 18:23); it is just the same with Hazor in Naphtali (Jos 11:13; Jos 19:36); and according to Jdg 1:1, Jdg 1:10., Hebron and Debir also were not conquered till after Joshua's time." But all this rests (1) upon the false assumption, that the only towns which Joshua distributed by lot among the tribes of Israel were those which he permanently conquered, whereas, according to the command of God, he divided the whole land among the Israelites, whether it was conquered or not; (2) upon the erroneous opinion, that the towns which had been destroyed, such as Jericho, Ai, and Hazor, were allotted to the Israelites as "rebuilt," whereas there is not a word about this in the text. It is just the same with the arguments used by Knobel in proof of the composition of Josh 13-21 from three different documents. The material discrepancies have been forced upon the text, as we shall see when we come to an explanation of the passages in question; and the verbal differences prove nothing more than that the geographical account of the boundaries and towns contains no allusion to the priesthood, to sacrifice, or to certain other things which no one would think of looking for here.)

Introduction to the Division of the Land. - Jos 13:1-7. Command of the Lord to Joshua to distribute the land of Canaan by lot among the nine tribes and a half. Jos 13:1 contains only the commencement of the divine command; the conclusion follows in Jos 13:7. Jos 13:2-6 form a parenthesis of several clauses, defining the last clause of Jos 13:1 more fully. When Joshua had grown old, the Lord commanded him, as he was advanced in years, and there was still much land to be taken, to divide "this land," i.e., the whole of the land of Canaan, for an inheritance to the nine tribes and a half, and promised him at the same time that He would drive out the Canaanites from those portions of the land that were not yet conquered (Jos 13:6). The words "grown old and come into years" (vid., Gen 24:1; Gen 18:11, etc.) denote advanced age in its different stages up to the near approach of death (as, for example, in Jos 23:1). Joshua might be ninety or a hundred years old at this time. The allusion to Joshua's great age serves simply to explain the reason for the command of God. As he was already old, and there still remained much land to be taken, he was to proceed to the division of Canaan, that he might accomplish this work to which he was also called before his death; whereas he might very possibly suppose that, under existing circumstances, the time for allotting the land had not yet arrived. - In Jos 13:2-6 the districts that were not yet conquered are enumerated separately. Jos 13:2-4 All the circles of the Philistines (geliloth, circles of well-defined districts lying round the chief city). The reference is to the five towns of the Philistines, whose princes are mentioned in Jos 13:3. "And all Geshuri:" not the district of Geshur in Peraea (Jos 13:11, Jos 13:13, Jos 12:5; Deu 3:14), but the territory of the Geshurites, a small tribe in the south of Philistia, on the edge of the north-western portion of the Arabian desert which borders on Egypt; it is only mentioned again in Sa1 27:8. The land of the Philistines and Geshurites extended from the Sichor of Egypt (on the south) to the territory of Ekron (on the north). Sichor (Sihor), lit. the black river, is not the Nile, because this is always called היאר (the river) in simple prose (Gen 41:1, Gen 41:3; Exo 1:22), and was not "before Egypt," i.e., to the east of it, but flowed through the middle of the land. The "Sichor before Egypt" was the brook (Nachal) of Egypt, the Ῥινοκοροῦρα, the modern Wady el Arish, which is mentioned in Jos 15:4, Jos 15:47, etc., as the southern border of Canaan towards Egypt (see at Num 34:5). Ekron (Ἀρρακών, lxx), the most northerly of the five chief cities of the Philistines, was first of all allotted to the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:11, Jos 15:45), then on the further distribution it was given to Dan (Jos 19:43); after Joshua's death it was conquered by Judah (Jdg 1:18), though it was not permanently occupied. It is the present Akr, a considerable village in the plain, two hours to the south-west of Ramlah, and on the east of Jamnia, without ruins of any antiquity, with the exception of two old wells walled round, which probably belong to the times of the Crusaders (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 23). "To the Canaanites is reckoned (the territory of the) five lords of the Philistines," i.e., it was reckoned as belonging to the land of Canaan, and allotted to the Israelites like all the rest. This remark was necessary because the Philistines were not descendants of Canaan (see at Gen 10:14), but yet were to be driven out like the Canaanites themselves as being invaders of Canaanitish territory (cf. Deu 2:23). סרני, from סרן, the standing title of the princes of the Philistines (vid., Jdg 3:3; Jdg 16:5.; Sa1 5:8), does not mean kings, but princes, and is interchangeable with שׂרים (cf. Sa1 29:6 with Sa1 29:4, Sa1 29:9). At any rate, it was the native or Philistian title of the Philistine princes, though it is not derived from the same root as Sar, but is connected with seren, axis rotae, in the tropical sense of princeps, for which the Arabic furnishes several analogies (see Ges. Thes. p. 972). The capitals of these five princes were the following. Azzah (Gaza, i.e., the strong): this was allotted to the tribe of Judah and taken by the Judaeans (Jos 15:47; Jdg 1:18), but was not held long. It is at the present time a considerable town of about 15,000 inhabitants, with the old name of Ghazzeh, about an hour from the sea, and with a seaport called Majuma; it is the farthest town of Palestine towards the south-west (see Rob. Pal. ii. pp. 374ff.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 35ff.; Stark, Gaza, etc., pp. 45ff.). Ashdod (Ἄζωτος, Azotus): this was also allotted to the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:46-47), the seat of Dagon-worship, to which the Philistines carried the ark (Sa1 5:1.). It was conquered by Uzziah (Ch2 26:6), was afterwards taken by Tartan, the general of Sargon (Isa 20:1), and was besieged by Psammetichus for twenty-nine years (Herod. ii. 157). It is the present Esdud, a Mahometan village with about a hundred or a hundred and fifty miserable huts, upon a low, round, wooded height on the road from Jamnia to Gaza, two miles to the south of Jamnia, about half an hour from the sea (vid., Rob. i. p. 368). Ashkalon: this was conquered by the Judaeans after the death of Joshua (Jdg 1:8-9); but shortly afterwards recovered its independence (vid., Jdg 14:19; Sa1 6:17). It is the present Askuln on the sea-shore between Gaza and Ashdod, five hours to the north of Gaza, with considerable and widespread ruins (see v. Raum. pp. 173-4; Ritter, xvi. pp. 69ff.). Gath (Γέθ): this was for a long time the seat of the Rephaites, and was the home of Goliath (Jos 11:22; Sa1 17:4, Sa1 17:23; Sa2 21:19.; Ch1 20:5.); it was thither that the Philistines of Ashdod removed the ark, which was taken thence to Ekron (Sa1 5:7-10). David was the first to wrest it from the Philistines (Ch1 18:1). In the time of Solomon it was a royal city of the Philistines, though no doubt under Israelitish supremacy (Kg1 2:39; Kg1 5:1). It was fortified by Rehoboam (Ch2 11:8), was taken by the Syrians in the time of Joash (Kg2 12:18), and was conquered again by Uzziah (Ch2 26:6; Amo 6:2); but no further mention is made of it, and no traces have yet been discovered (Note: According to the Onom. (s. v. Geth), it was a place five Roman miles from Eleutheropolis towards Diospolis, whereas Jerome (on Mic 1) says: "Gath was near the border of Judaea, and on the road from Eleutheropolis to Gaza; it is still a very large village;" whilst in the commentary on Jer 25 he says: "Gath was near to and conterminous with Azotus," from which it is obvious enough that the situation of the Philistine city of Gath was altogether unknown to the Fathers. Hitzig and Knobel suppose the Βαιτογάβρα of Ptolemy (5:16, 6), Betogabri in Tab. Peuting. ix. e. (the Eleutheropolis of the Fathers, and the present Beit Jibrin, a very considerable ruin), to be the ancient Gath, but this opinion is only founded upon very questionable etymological combinations; whereas Thenius looks for it on the site of the present Deir Dubban, though without any tenable ground.) (see Rob. ii. p. 420, and v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 191-2). "And the Avvites (Avvaeans) towards the south." Judging from Deu 2:23, the Avvim appear to have belonged to those tribes of the land who were already found there by the Canaanites, and whom the Philistines subdued and destroyed when they entered the country. They are not mentioned in Gen 10:15-19 among the Canaanitish tribes. At the same time, there is not sufficient ground for identifying them with the Geshurites as Ewald does, or with the Anakites, as Bertheau has done. Moreover, it cannot be decided whether they were descendants of Ham or Shem (see Stark. Gaza, pp. 32ff.). מתּימן (from, or on, the south) at the commencement of Jos 13:4 should be attached to Jos 13:3, as it is in the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, and joined to העוּים (the Avvites). The Avvaeans dwelt to the south of the Philistines, on the south-west of Gaza. It gives no sense to connect with the what follows, so as to read "towards the south all the land of the Canaanites;" for whatever land to the south of Gaza, or of the territory of the Philistines, was still inhabited by Canaanites, could not possibly be called "all the land of the Canaanites." If, however, we were disposed to adopt the opinion held by Masius and Rosenmller, and understand these words as relating to the southern boundaries of Canaan, "the possessions of the king of Arad and the neighbouring petty kings who ruled in the southern extremity of Judaea down to the desert of Paran, Zin, Kadesh," etc., the fact that Arad and the adjoining districts are always reckoned as belonging to the Negeb would at once be decisive against it (compare Jos 15:21. with Jos 10:40; Jos 11:16, also Num 21:1). Moreover, according to Jos 10:40, Jos 10:21, and Jos 11:16-17, Joshua had smitten the whole of the south of Canaan from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza and taken it; so that nothing remained unconquered there, which could possibly have been mentioned in this passage as not yet taken by the Israelites. For the fact that the districts, which Joshua traversed so victoriously and took possession of, were not all permanently held by the Israelites, does not come into consideration here at all. If the author had thought of enumerating all these places, he would have had to include many other districts as well. Beside the territory of the Philistines on the south-west, there still remained to be taken (Jos 13:4, Jos 13:5) in the north, "all the land of the Canaanites," i.e., of the Phoenicians dwelling on the coast, and "the caves which belonged to the Sidonians unto Aphek." Mearah (the cave) is the present Mugr Jezzin, i.e., cave of Jezzin, on the east of Sidon, in a steep rocky wall of Lebanon, a hiding-place of the Druses at the present time (see at Num 34:8; also F. v. Richter, Wallfahrten in Morgenland, p. 133). Aphek, or Aphik, was allotted to the tribe of Asher (Jos 19:30; Jdg 1:31); it was called Ἄφακα by the Greeks; there was a temple of Venus there, which Constantine ordered to be destroyed, on account of the licentious nature of the worship (Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 55). It is the present Afka, a small village, but a place of rare beauty, upon a terrace of Lebanon, near the chief source of the river Adonis (Nahr Ibrahim), with ruins of an ancient temple in the neighbourhood, surrounded by groves of the most splendid walnut trees on the north-east of Beirut (see O. F. v. Richter, pp. 106-7; Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 663; and V. de Velde, Reise. ii. p. 398). "To the territory of the Amorites:" this is obscure. We cannot imagine the reference to be to the territory of Og of Bashan, which was formerly inhabited by Amorites, as that did not extend so far north; and the explanation given by Knobel, that farther north there were not Canaanites, but Amorites, who were of Semitic origin, rests upon hypotheses which cannot be historically sustained. Jos 13:5-7 There still remained to be taken (2) "the land of the Giblites," i.e., the territory of the population of Gebal (Kg1 5:18; Eze 27:9), the Byblos of the classics, on the Mediterranean Sea, to the north of Beirut, called Jebail by the Arabs, and according to Edrisi (ed. Jaubert, i. p. 356), "a pretty town on the sea-shore, enclosed in good walls, and surrounded by vineyards and extensive grounds planted with fruit trees" (see also Abulfed. Tab. Syr. p. 94). It is still a town with an old wall, some portions of which apparently belong to the time of the Crusades (see Burckhardt, Syr. p. 296, and Ritter, Erdk. xvii. pp. 60ff.). (Note: The evidence adduced by Movers (Phnizier, ii. 1, p. 103), that the Giblites did not belong to the Canaanites, has more plausibility than truth.) "And all Lebanon toward the sunrising:" i.e., not Antilibanus (Knobel), but the Lebanon which is to the east of the territory of Gebal, "from Baal-gad under Mount Hermon," i.e., Paneas Banjas at the foot of Hermon (see at Jos 11:17), "unto the entering in to Hamath," i.e., as far up as the territory of the kingdom of Hamath, with the capital of the same name on the Orontes (see at Num 34:8). Lastly, there still remained (3) "all the inhabitants of the mountains, from Lebanon to Misrephothmaim," i.e., the promontory of Nakura (see at Jos 11:8), namely "all the Sidonians," i.e., all the Phoenicians who dwelt from Lebanon southwards, from the boundary of the territory of Hamath down to the promontory of Nakura. According to ancient usage, the Sidonians stand for the Phoenicians generally, as in Homer, on account of Sidon being the oldest capital of Phoenicia (see Ges. on Isa. i. pp. 724ff.). All these the Lord would root out before Israel, and therefore Joshua was to divide the whole of northern Canaan, which was inhabited by Phoenicians, among the Israelites. "only divide thou it by lot for an inheritance," etc. רק, only, i.e., although thou hast not yet taken it. הפּיל, to cause it to fall, here used with reference to the lot, i.e., to divide by lot. "Fulfil thy duty in the distribution of the land, not even excepting what is still in the firm grasp of the enemy; for I will take care to perform what I have promised. From this we may learn to rely so perfectly upon the word of God, when undertaking any duty, as not to be deterred by doubts of fears" (Calvin). Jos 13:8-10 To the command of God to divide the land on this side the Jordan among the nine tribes and a half (Jos 13:7), the historian appends the remark, that the other two tribes and a half had already received their inheritance from Moses on the other side (Jos 13:8). This he proceeds to describe in its full extent (Jos 13:9-13), and then observes that the tribe of Levi alone received no landed inheritance, according to the word of the Lord (Jos 13:14). After this he gives a description in vv. 15-33 of the land assigned by Moses to each of the two tribes and a half. (Note: Knobel's remark, that Jos 13:8-14 anticipate the following section (vv. 15-33) in an unsuitable manner, rests upon a thorough misunderstanding of the whole; for the account of the division of the land to the east of the Jordan among the two tribes and a half (vv. 15-33) could not be introduced in a more appropriate manner than by a description of the circumference of the land and of its principal parts (Jos 13:9-13).) The remark in Jos 13:8 is so closely connected with what precedes by the expression "with whom" (lit., with it), that this expression must be taken as somewhat indefinite: "with whom," viz., with half Manasseh, really signifying with the other half of Manasseh, with which the Reubenites and Gadites had received their inheritance (see Num 32 and Deu 3:8-17). The last words of Jos 13:8, "as Moses the servant of Jehovah gave them," are not a tautological repetition of the clause "which Moses gave them," but simply affirm that these tribes received the land given them by Moses, in the manner commanded by Moses, without any alteration in his arrangements. The boundaries of the land given in Jos 13:9-13 really agree with those given in Jos 12:2-5 and Deu 3:8, although the expression varies in some respects. The words of Jos 13:9, "the city that is in the midst of the river," i.e., the city in the valley, viz., Ar, are more distinct than those of Jos 12:2, "and from the middle of the river." "All the plain" is the Amoritish table-land, a tract of land for the most part destitute of trees, stretching from the Arnon to Heshbon, and towards the north-east to Rabbath-Ammn (see at Deu 3:10), which is called in Num 21:20 the field of Moab Medeba, now called Medaba (see at Num 21:30). Dibon, now a ruin called Dibn, to the north of Arnon (see at Num 21:20). - Jos 13:10, as in Jos 12:2. Jos 13:11-13 Gilead is the whole country of that name on both sides of the Jabbok (see at Jos 12:2 and Deu 3:10), the present Belka and Jebel Ajlun, for the description of which see the remarks at Num 32:1. "The territory of the Geshurites and Maachathites" is referred to in Jos 12:5 as the boundary of the kingdom of Og, and in Deu 3:14 as the boundary of the land which was taken by Jair the Manassite; here it is included in the inheritance of the tribes on the other side of the Jordan, but it was never really taken possession of by the Israelites, and (according to Jos 13:13) it had probably never been really subject to king Og. The other notices in Jos 13:11 and Jos 13:12 are the same as in Jos 12:4-5. Jos 13:14 The tribe of Levi was to receive no land, but the firings of Jehovah, i.e., the offerings, including the tithes and first-fruits (Lev 27:30-32, compared with Num 18:21-32), were to be its inheritance; so that the God of Israel himself is called the inheritance of Levi in Jos 13:33 as in Num 18:20, to which the words "as He said unto them" refer (see the commentary on Num 18:20).