Giosuè 19:40 Commento

In the description of the lots of Judah and Benjamin we have an account both of the borders that surrounded them and of the cities contained in them. In that of Ephraim and Manasseh we have the borders, but not the cities; in this chapter Simeon and Dan are described by their cities only, and not their borders, because they lay very much within Judah, especially the former; the rest have both their borders described and their cities names, especially frontiers. Here is, I. The lot of Simeon (Jos 19:1-9). II. Of Zebulun (Jos 19:10-16). III. Of Issachar (Jos 19:17-23). IV. Of Asher (Jos 19:24-31). V. Of Naphtali (Jos 19:32-39). VI. Of Dan (Jos 19:40-48). Lastly, The inheritance assigned to Joshua himself and his own family (Jos 19:49-51).

Dan, though commander of one of the four squadrons of the camp of Israel, in the wilderness, that which brought up the rear, yet was last provided for in Canaan, and his lot fell in the southern part of Canaan, between Judah on the east and the land of the Philistines on the west, Ephraim on the north and Simeon on the south. Providence ordered this numerous and powerful tribe into a post of danger, as best able to deal with those vexatious neighbours the Philistines, and so it was found in Samson. Here is an account, 1. Of what fell to this tribe by lot, Zorah, and Eshtaol, and the camp of Dan thereabouts, of which we read in the story of Samson. And near there was the valley of Eshcol, whence the spies brought the famous bunch of grapes. Japho, or Joppa was in this lot. 2. Of what they got by their own industry and valour, which is mentioned here (Jos 19:47), but related at large, Jdg 18:7, etc.

INTRODUCTION TO JOSHUA 19 In this chapter an account is given of the lots of the six remaining tribes, and the cities in them, as of Simeon, whose cities were chiefly within the tribe of Judah, Jos 19:1; of Zebulun, its border and cities, Jos 19:10; of Issachar, its border and cities, Jos 19:17; of Asher, its border and cities, Jos 19:24; of Naphtali, its border and cities, Jos 19:32; of Dan, its border and titles, Jos 19:40; and lastly of a gift of inheritance to Joshua, Jos 19:49.

And the coast of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol,.... The tribe of Dan is not described by places the boundaries of it, as other tribes, but by its cities, which were chiefly, at least several of them, taken out of the tribe of Judah, as the two first of these most manifestly were; See Gill on Jos 15:33, and Irshemesh signifies the city of the sun, as the Targum interprets it, and was so called very probably from a temple in it, dedicated to the idolatrous worship of the sun, but a different place from Bethshemesh in other tribes; though those of that name, as this, had it for the like reason; and so Heliopolis, in Egypt, which signifies the same, where was a temple of the same kind; as there was another city of this name, between the mountains of Libanus and Antilibanus, now called Balbec (p), where the ruins of the temple are yet to be seen: but this was a different place, the Septuagint version calls it Sammaus, and it was, according to Jerom (q), the same with Emmaus, afterwards called Nicopolis; which, if the same Emmaus with that in Luk 24:13; though some doubt it, was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, or seven miles and a half. (p) See Maundrell's Journey from Aleppo, &c. p. 120, 138. (q) Comment. in Ezek. xlviii. fol. 263. A.

The lot of Simeon, Jos 19:1-9. Of Zebulun, Jos 19:10-16. Of Issachar, Jos 19:17-23. Of Asher, Jos 19:24-31. Of Naphtali, Jos 19:32-39. Of Dan, Jos 19:40-48. Joshua's portion, Jos 19:49, Jos 19:50. The conclusion of the division of the land, Jos 19:51.

THE LOT OF SIMEON. (Jos 19:1-9) 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 19:7-8) were situated, two in the south, and two elsewhere, with tracts of the country around them.

OF DAN. (Jos 19:40-48) the seventh lot came out for the tribe . . . Dan--It lay on the west of Benjamin and consisted of portions surrendered by Judah and Ephraim. Its boundaries are not stated, as they were easily distinguishable from the relative position of Dan to the three adjoining tribes.

The Inheritance of the Tribe of Dan. - This fell to the west of Benjamin, between Judah and Ephraim, and was formed by Judah giving up some of its northern towns, and Ephraim some of its southern towns, to the Danites, so as to furnish them with a territory proportionate to their number. It was situated for the most part in the lowland (shephelah), including, however, the hill country between the Mediterranean and the mountains, and extended over a portion of the plain of Sharon, so that it belonged to one of the most fruitful portions of Palestine. The boundaries are not given, because they could be traced from those of the adjoining territories. Jos 19:41-42 From Judah the families of Dan received Zorea and Eshtaol (see at Jos 15:33), and Ir-shemesh, also called Beth-shemesh (Kg1 4:9), on the border of Judah (see Jos 15:10); but of these the Danites did not take possession, as they were given up by Judah to the Levites (Jos 21:16 : see at Jos 15:10). Saalabbin, or Saalbim, which remained in the hands of the Canaanites (Jdg 1:35), is frequently mentioned in the history of David and Solomon (Sa2 23:32; Ch1 11:33; Kg1 4:9). It may possibly be the present Selbt (Rob. iii. App.; Bibl. Res. p. 144), some distance to the north of the three places mentioned (Knobel). Ajalon, which was also not taken from the Canaanites (Jdg 1:35), was assigned to the Levites (Jos 21:24; Ch1 6:54). It is mentioned in the wars with the Philistines (Sa1 14:31; Ch1 8:13), was fortified by Rehoboam (Ch2 11:10), and was taken by the Philistines from King Ahaz (Ch2 28:18). It has been preserved in the village of Yalo (see at Jos 10:12). Jethlah is only mentioned here, and has not yet been discovered. So far as the name is concerned, it may possibly be preserved in the Wady Atallah, on the west of Yalo (Bibl. Res. pp. 143-4). Jos 19:43 Elon, which is mentioned again in Kg1 4:9, with the addition of Beth-hanan, has not yet been traced; according to Knobel, it "may possibly be Ellin, near Timnath and Beth-shemesh, mentioned by Robinson in his Pal. vol. iii. App." Thimna (Thimnathah) and Ekron, on the boundary of Judah (see at Jos 15:10-11). Jos 19:44 Eltekeh and Gibbethon, which were allotted to the Levites (Jos 21:23), have not yet been discovered. Under the earliest kings of Israel, Gibbethon was in the hands of the Philistines (Kg1 15:27; Kg1 16:15, Kg1 16:17). Baalath was fortified by Solomon (Kg1 9:18). According to Josephus (Ant. 8:6, 1), it was "Baleth in the neighbourhood of Geser;" probably the same place as Baalah, on the border of Judah (Jos 15:11). Jos 19:45 Jehud has probably been preserved in the village of Jehudieh (Hudieh), two hours to the north of Ludd (Diospolis), in a splendidly cultivated plain (Berggren, R. iii. p. 162; Rob. iii. p. 45, and App.). Bene-berak, the present Ibn Abrak, an hour from Jehud (Scholz, R. p. 256). Gath-rimmon, which was given to the Levites (Jos 21:24; Ch1 6:54), is described in the Onom. (s. v.) as villa praegrandis in duodecimo milliario Diospoleos pergentibus Eleutheropolin, - a statement which points to the neighbourhood of Thimnah, though it has not yet been discovered. Jos 19:46 Me-jarkon, i.e., aquae flavedinis, and Rakkon, are unknown; but from the clause which follows, "with the territory before Japho," it must have been in the neighbourhood of Joppa (Jaffa). "The territory before Japho" includes the places in the environs of Joppa. Consequently Joppa itself does not appear to have belonged to the territory of Dan, although, according to Jdg 5:17, the Danites must have had possession of this town. Japho, the well-known port of Palestine (Ch2 2:15; Ezr 3:7; Jon 1:3), which the Greeks called Ἰόππη (Joppa), the present Jaffa (see v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 204-5, and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 574ff.). Jos 19:47-48 Besides this inheritance, the Danites of Zorea and Eshtaol went, after Joshua's death, and conquered the town of Leshem or Laish, on the northern boundary of Canaan, and gave it the name of Dan, as the territory which was allotted to them under Joshua was too small for them, on account of their inability to drive out the Amorites from several of their towns (Jdg 1:34-35; Jdg 18:2). For further particulars concerning this conquest, see Judg 18. Leshem or Laish (Jdg 18:7, Jdg 18:27), i.e., Dan, which the Onom. describes as viculus quarto a Paneade milliario euntibus Tyrum, was the present Tell el Kadi, or el Leddan, the central source of the Jordan, to the west of Banjas, a place with ancient ruins (see Rob. iii. p. 351; Bibl. Res. pp. 390, 393). It was there that Jeroboam set up the golden calves (Kg1 12:29-30, etc.); and it is frequently mentioned as the northernmost city of the Israelites, in contrast with Beersheba, which was in the extreme south of the land (Jdg 20:1; Sa1 3:20; Sa2 3:10 : see also Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 207ff.).