And the lot came to the tribe of Manasseh (for he was the firstborn of Joseph), to Machir, the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead, for he was a man of war, and he had Gilead and Bashan.
Joshua 17 opens the lot of Manasseh, the firstborn son of Joseph, and names one man: Machir, given Gilead and Bashan east of the Jordan. Why is a fighter singled out here, and why does half this tribe sit outside the land?
after
The tribe's name teaches something before any border is drawn. One writer ties it to the apostle Paul's words about leaving the past behind:
after
Manasseh's territory was just north of Ephraim, spreading from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Manasseh means "forgetting." That reminds us of Paul's words in Philippians 3:13: "forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." So Manasseh and Ephraim go together. Manasseh was born first. But he teaches us to forget what we were in mere advantage of the flesh, for what is first is not spiritual, but natural. So Ephraim was given the first place, which speaks of the positive bearing of fruit.
after For the positive must always take precedence over the negative. Yet Manasseh has his place too, for we must all learn to put behind us everything that is merely to the credit of the flesh.
The verse names one man and gives the reason for his portion.
after
Verse 1 names one man: Machir, the firstborn of Manasseh, "because he was a man of war." Manasseh had died long before Israel's rescue from Egypt. But Machir took the place of the firstborn.
after He was given Gilead and Bashan, which were on the east side of the Jordan.
One writer sets this courage against the slackness of the moment:
after
Slackness and lack of courage are now clear to see. So it is cheering to read of a warrior with a fine heritage, "because he was a man of war." The family of Machir was brave, and so conquests fell to it. In the same way the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Machir, gained their portion, as promised.
after
Gilead is the land Machir received. Its name points the opposite way from Manasseh's:
after
Gesenius gives Gilead as meaning "hard, rocky." But there seems, on the other hand, reason to connect it instead with Jacob's Galeed (Genesis 31:47), "a heap of witness." That would put it in striking contrast with Manasseh, the name it is linked to, which means "forgetting."
after A heap of witness exists for the very purpose of making forgetfulness impossible.
Machir's family already had land across the Jordan. That split inheritance is treated as a real risk, not a neutral fact:
Faith can lay hold of even the present life, using this world without abusing it, and there is no outright condemnation of these tribes for choosing their portion this way. The ideal, as pictured in the millennium, was a portion on both sides of the river. Manasseh indeed has this, half the tribe in the land and the other half in Gilead. Yet the desire of these tribes raised questions with Moses, and later with the whole congregation. That very fact shows the danger in such a position. Wherever one's interests raise questions among the people of God, they should be examined closely.
after
Manasseh's heirs come before its borders. One writer sees meaning in that order:
after
The heirs are listed first, and this is true of no other tribe. Is it that the personal state is more before us — the man himself, as distinct from his inheritance? … It is Machir the family that seems to be the "firstborn of Manasseh," while the individual Machir is the father of the whole; and Keil takes "father of Gilead" here as meaning ruler of the land of Gilead. This interlacing of names must have its reason. It should help us see that names count for something throughout the history.
after Even the women of Manasseh show the courage of faith and gain an inheritance along with their brothers. Their story is repeated here, to their praise. We do well to covet the portion God has given us. There is abundance for all, and to enjoy it to the full will only enrich and not impoverish others. So Manasseh gains ten portions, for the single portion of Zelophehad swells into five through the inheritance of his daughters.
after
- Forget — Manasseh means "forgetting." The tribe teaches us to put behind us all that is merely to the credit of the flesh.
after
- Remember — Gilead likely means "a heap of witness." Such a heap exists to make forgetting impossible.
after
- Fight — Machir held Gilead and Bashan because he was a man of war. When courage was rare, conquests fell to the family that fought.
after
- Claim — the heirs are named before the land is measured, and the daughters gain a share too. We do well to covet the portion God has given us: enjoying it to the full enriches others rather than robbing them.
after
- Beware — half of Manasseh settled outside the land. When our interests raise questions among God's people, we should examine them closely.
after
There was also [a portion] for the rest of the children of Manasseh according to their families for the children of Abiezer, and for the children of Helek, and for the children of Asriel, and for the children of Shechem, and for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida these are the children of Manasseh, the son of Joseph, the males, according to their families.
Joshua 17 divides the land of Manasseh, and verse 2 names six family lines before the chapter draws a boundary. Why do the men come first, and why does the verse single out the male descendants?
Verse 1 dealt with Machir and the land east of the river. This verse turns to the other side, and the families listed here become the reference point for what follows.
Verse 2 lists other children of Manasseh who were given territory inside the tribe's borders. But more than that, five daughters of one man, Zelophehad, were given the inheritance that would have belonged to their father if he had not died earlier. Moses had promised them this (Num. 27:1-11), and now in boldness of faith they claim the inheritance (vs. 3-4). Certainly believing women also have as full a right to a spiritual inheritance in heavenly places as men do.
The same writer sets out how the shares fall on each side of the river.
Verse 5 speaks of ten shares taken by Manasseh on the west side of Jordan, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan on the east. So verse 1 refers to the east side of Jordan, and verses 2-4 to the west side. The daughters of Zelophehad received their inheritance among the sons named in verse 2. The rest of Manasseh's sons had the land of Gilead.
One writer stops at the order of the list and asks what it means.
The heirs are numbered first, and this is the case with no other of the tribes. Is it that the personal state is more in view — the man himself rather than his inheritance? The family of Machir already has its inheritance on the other side of the Jordan. The other six families all spring originally from Machir, but they are counted as Gileadites instead of Machirites. So Machir and Gilead, in different ways, cover the whole territory of Manasseh. This weaving together of names must have its reason, and should help us to see that names count for something throughout the history. Even the women of Manasseh show the courage of faith, and gain an inheritance with their brothers. Their story is repeated here, to their praise. We do well to covet the portion God has given us. There is abundance for all, and to enjoy it to the full will only enrich and not impoverish others.
One writer takes each of the six names for its meaning. (He uses "Jeezer," a shortened form of Abiezer.)
Gilead branches out into six families. Jeezer means "where there is help." Helek is "equal division." Asriel is "divine bond." Shechem is "shoulder" — that which bears the burden. Shemida is "name of knowledge," speaking of that one Name; to understand it is indeed true knowledge. Last comes Hepher, "a digging, a well" — the series ends with what provides lasting refreshment and growth.
The verse ties every family back to Manasseh, and that name carries its own meaning.
Manasseh — "forgetfulness" — is only negative when it stands alone. As a means to an end, it must be tied to that end and governed by it. Only then does it have its proper character. … So it is with "to me to live is Christ," said by the man who declared himself a Manassite, "forgetting what lies behind" (Phil. 1:21; Phil. 3:13). It was not asceticism; it was absorption.
Behind the whole division of the land stands the One who gave it.
The whole extent of the country is given to Israel, and each tribe has his share. So the portion that fell to each tribe was given them in full right by Jehovah Himself. Their borders were marked out too. The Spirit of God takes notice of everything when He gives out the spiritual inheritance, and He gives to each according to the mind of God. There is nothing uncertain in God's arrangements. But we find that not one tribe drove out all the enemies of God from His inheritance. Not one took possession of all that God had given him.
Manasseh's own story bears that out. Later in the chapter the tribe settles for less than it was given:
Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the people living in their cities. The Canaanites were determined to stay in that land (v. 12). If Manasseh had looked to God, the stubbornness of the Canaanites would have been a weak defence. … They suited their own convenience, without care for the word of the Lord.
- Named — the heirs come first, before any land is measured. No other tribe is listed that way. The man himself is in view, not just his acres.
- Given — God gave each tribe its portion in full right and marked out its borders. Nothing in His arrangements is uncertain.
- Meaningful — the six names carry sense: help, equal division, a divine bond, a shoulder for the burden, the name of knowledge, and a well.
- Claimed — Zelophehad's daughters had the promise, and in boldness of faith they took hold of it. We do well to want the portion God has given us.
- Kept or lost — no tribe took all that God gave it. Manasseh later suited its own convenience instead of God's word.
And Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters; and these are the names of his daughters Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
The survey of Manasseh's land pauses here to name a man who had no son, and then names his five daughters one by one. Their case raises a large question: what happens to a family portion when the normal line of inheritance runs out?
Under Israel's law, only sons inherited. Zelophehad died without a son, so his name and his portion should have disappeared. One writer sees God stepping in where the rule left a gap.
Before Israel entered the land, the daughters of Zelophehad claimed their father's inheritance. Through that claim God proves the sovereignty of grace. He makes provision in a case where the law made none... But Zelophehad had no sons, and none to carry on the family name... By the law only sons could inherit. Is this inheritance to be lost, swallowed up by others? No — grace gives these daughters the inheritance of their father, and grace made it a "statute of judgment." Already we are given, in shadow, the great truth that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. All believers are sons, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.
Scripture names these same five women again and again. One writer notes that repetition, and also why their father had no son.
The Bible mentions them five times (Num. 26:33; Num. 27:1-11; Num. 36:3-12; Joshua 17:3-6; 1 Chron. 7:15), proof of the important place they occupy in God's thoughts. Not one of their names is forgotten... They recognized that their unusual situation came from their father's sin. He was not among those who joined Korah's rebellion against the LORD. Still, he died in the wilderness, and he died for his own sin. That was why he had no sons... Even so, his five daughters want to carry on their father's name. As true daughters of Israel they value their family line, and so their inheritance.
By nature these women had no case. Their father was dead. No brother stood in his place.
Here were those daughters of Joseph — for so we must call them. They had lost their father. As nature sees it, they were helpless and alone. Death had snapped the link that seemed to tie them to the inheritance of God's people. What then? Were they content to give up?... They were sure there was a portion for them in the promised land. Neither death nor anything that happened in the wilderness could ever take it from them.
One writer follows the sisters from their marriages to their claim.
They had married their uncles' sons, as the LORD had directed (Num. 36:11). Now they ask to receive their inheritance. "The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance along with our brothers," they say, relying on God's word alone. For them, this was enough to settle everything, even in a case that went beyond the usual order of the law. What is more, their faith and their confidence in the LORD's command to Moses led all Manasseh to adopt the same rule for female descendants, even beyond the Jordan. "The daughters of Manasseh received an inheritance along with his sons" (v. 6). So the rule given to a few became the privilege of all.
The same writer weighs the other side of such boldness.
The faith of the daughters was most lovely. But there was a danger. Their faith had lifted them to a high place, and there they might forget the claims of others and move the landmarks that guarded the inheritance of their fathers... We need to be guarded on every side, so that faith and the testimony keep their integrity. However strong our faith may be, we are not to carry things with a high hand and a strong will. We must always be ready to yield ourselves to the adjusting power of the whole truth of God.
One writer carries the case forward to the believer's portion, and marks a limit at the same time.
Five daughters of one man, Zelophehad, received the inheritance that would have been their father's if he had not died. Moses had promised them this (Num. 27:1-11), and now in boldness of faith they claim the inheritance (vs. 3-4). And believing women are just as fully entitled to a spiritual inheritance in heavenly places as men are. This blessing for them is wonderful. Of course it does not set aside God's order for the different places and responsibilities of the man and the woman in the church or in public testimony.
- Loss — Zelophehad died with no son, so by the ordinary rule his name and portion in the land were gone.
- Grace — God met the case the law had not covered, and gave the daughters their father's inheritance.
- Faith — They refused to let death cancel a promised portion, and asked for what they could not yet see.
- Word — Their entire claim rested on one thing: what the LORD had commanded Moses.
- Reach — What five women asked for became a settled right for all Manasseh, and it pointed on to an inheritance shared by every believer.
And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, Jehovah commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. And he gave them according to the commandment of Jehovah an inheritance among the brethren of their father.
Joshua 17 divides the land west of the Jordan among the families of Manasseh. In the middle of the boundary lists, five sisters step forward. Their father died without sons, yet they ask for land among the men of their family. The whole case turns on one thing: what God had already said to Moses.
They bring no argument of their own. Their whole case is what God told Moses:
The daughters of Zelophehad had married their uncles' sons according to the Lord's directions (Num. 36:11). Now they ask to receive their inheritance. "The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance along with our brothers," they say, relying on God's word alone. For them, this was enough to settle everything, even in a case that went beyond the usual order of the law. Their faith and their confidence in the LORD's command to Moses led all Manasseh, even beyond the Jordan, to adopt the same rule for female descendants. So the rule given to a few became the privilege of all.
They do not bring the case to one man. A priest and a leader together oversee the dividing of the land, and every hard case comes to them both:
At this new point in their history Eleazar takes his place beside Joshua, to divide the land at the door of the tabernacle… When difficulties arose, as with the daughters of Zelophehad, they came before Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun for a settlement… As for the tribe of Levi, they had no portion among the people, for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance.
This is not the first time Scripture tells their story. One writer reads the repeat as praise, and counts what their courage added to the tribe:
Even the women of Manasseh show the courage of faith, and gain an inheritance with their brothers. Scripture repeats their story here, to their praise. We do well to long for the portion God has given us. There is abundance for all. Enjoying it to the full will only enrich others, never impoverish them. So Manasseh gains ten portions. The single portion of Zelophehad grows into five through the inheritance of his daughters.
The sisters asked for one thing: land among their father's relatives. What came back was larger:
They fully counted on the Lord and His goodness, though the earlier instructions did not cover their case. "It is impossible for God to be like a poor man, who says, 'You expect more good than I am ready to give.' God could not make such an answer. He always gives more. Whatever faith asks for, the answer of grace never fails to go beyond it." The answer given to Moses was that they were surely to receive their inheritance.
That widening shows up in the chapter itself. Rossier observes in the passage quoted above that the ruling for these five became the settled practice for the whole tribe: "the rule given to a few became the privilege of all."
Had they stayed quiet, the loss would not have been theirs alone:
Suppose they had listened to the voice of fear and unbelief. Suppose they had refused to come forward before the whole congregation and press the claims of faith. Then they would have lost their own inheritance and blessing — and every future daughter of Israel in the same position would have lost her portion too. Instead they acted in the precious energy of faith. They kept their inheritance; they got the blessing; they received testimony from God; their names shine in the pages of Scripture; and their conduct gave, by divine authority, a precedent for all future generations.
One writer turns their example toward us, and toward every reader who holds a better inheritance:
The five daughters of Zelophehad greatly valued the inheritance that belonged to their father's house, even though their father was dead and they did not yet hold the land… Not only did these young women receive it at the mouth of the LORD, but they received something of far greater value — their names written in the Holy Scriptures… I wish believers today would copy the zeal of these sisters, for God has made them heirs of a much better inheritance. How eager we should be to learn the riches of the glory of God's inheritance in His saints, the inheritance in heaven, and the wonderful heritage we have in the Scriptures and the truth of God. The sisters were also to marry with the inheritance in view, and not to marry those who had no real interest in it.
- Word — Their whole case was what God had already told Moses. That alone settled a matter the ordinary law did not cover.
- Place — They brought it to Eleazar the priest and Joshua. These two men settled every hard case in the dividing of the land.
- More — The answer came back larger than the asking. Grace never fails to go beyond what faith asks.
- Reach — Their boldness became the rule for the whole tribe, and a precedent for later generations. Had they stayed silent, other daughters of Israel would have lost their portion too.
- Gain — They received the land, and their names in Scripture. Their portion enlarged the tribe instead of robbing it, for there is abundance for all.
And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which are beyond the Jordan.
Ten portions fall to Manasseh west of the Jordan, on top of Gilead and Bashan already held on the east side. Why ten, when fewer families are listed — and what does it mean for one tribe to own land on both banks?
The verse sums up the whole allotment, east and west. One writer maps it onto the chapter's verses.
Verse 5 speaks of ten shares taken by Manasseh on the west side of Jordan. These are besides the land of Gilead and Bashan on the east. So verse 1 refers to the east side of Jordan and verses 2-4 the west side. The daughters of Zelophehad received their inheritance among the sons mentioned in verse 2. The rest of Manasseh's sons had the land of Gilead.
The ten is not a round figure. One writer asks why this chapter counts people before it measures land.
The heirs are numbered first, and this is the case with no other of the tribes. Is it that the person himself is more in view here — the man as distinct from his inheritance? Even the women of Manasseh show the courage of faith, and gain an inheritance with their brothers. Their story is repeated here, to their praise. We do well to covet the portion God has given us. There is abundance for all, and to enjoy it to the full will only enrich and not impoverish others. This is how Manasseh gains ten portions: the single portion of Zelophehad grows into five through the inheritance of his daughters.
Five of those ten shares came to Zelophehad's daughters, who asked for them.
"The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brothers," they say, relying on God's word alone. For them, this was enough to settle everything, even in a case that went beyond the usual order of the law. What is more, their faith and their confidence in the Lord's commandment to Moses had a wider result. The same rule for female heirs then held throughout all Manasseh, even beyond the Jordan. "The daughters of Manasseh received an inheritance among his sons." So the rule given to a few became the privilege of all.
One writer turns this into a direct word to women today.
Do not think, sisters in Christ, that your enjoyment of heavenly things must be lessened by your position of seeming inferiority. Do not be satisfied until you have gained the same portion of the inheritance as your brothers. To overcome in this, remember that this is a commandment of the Lord to you. Whatever your humble condition may be, your inheritance is the same as that of your brothers.
Other tribes settled east of the Jordan and stayed there. Manasseh alone held ground on both banks, and that land included the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
How well suited it is that Manasseh, the one who forgets the things behind, should have the kingdom of Og in Bashan put into his hands! The things of the world can only be rightly used by someone who is pressing on to another world. And this is the only one of the tribes found on the east side of Jordan that in fact inherits on both sides of the river... In this way Manasseh comes nearer to the final division in the day still to come. Then each tribe receives its inheritance on both sides, the boundary lines running east and west across the river. Whatever Manasseh's personal failure in all this, it seems clear that we are not to view it here. We are to see in him the ability to use the world while the heart is in heaven.
The name Manasseh itself carries a lesson.
Manasseh means "forgetting." That reminds us of Paul's words in Philippians 3:13: "forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus"... Manasseh was born first. Yet he teaches us to forget what we once were by mere natural advantage, for what comes first is not spiritual but natural.
The ten portions were large. The borders around them were not all drawn.
On the north there is no line given at all. There is only the statement that Manasseh touched Asher on the north and Issachar on the east, and that it had cities in both. This looks as if the undrawn line was left open for growth... On the south he too yields to Ephraim, expansion being the rule for the people of God. Had they only been faithful, their borders on all sides would have been pushed out in the same way. God desired growth for them: they chose, sadly, contraction.
- Counted. Verse 5 adds up ten shares west of the Jordan, on top of Gilead and Bashan in the east.
- Claimed. Zelophehad's single share grew into five when his daughters asked for what God had promised.
- Widened. What was granted to five women became the standing rule for all the daughters of Manasseh, on both sides of the river.
- Shared. A believing sister's portion of the inheritance is the same as her brother's. She should not settle for less.
- Guarded. Undrawn borders left room to grow. God wanted growth for His people; they chose to shrink instead.
For the daughters of Manasseh received an inheritance among his sons; and the rest of Manasseh's sons had the land of Gilead.
One short line explains why the count of Manasseh's shares came to ten: five sisters received land beside their brothers. The answer God gave them became the rule for their whole tribe.
One writer shows what the daughters leaned on when they asked, and how far the answer reached.
They had married their uncles' sons, as the LORD directed (Num. 36:11). Now they ask to receive their inheritance. "The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance along with our brothers," they say, relying on God's word alone. For them, this was enough to settle everything, even in a case that went beyond the usual order of the law. Their faith and their confidence in the LORD's commandment to Moses do even more. Because of it, all Manasseh adopts the same rule for female descendants, even beyond the Jordan. "The daughters of Manasseh received an inheritance along with his sons" (v. 6). So the rule given to a few became the privilege of all.
Their father had died in the wilderness with no sons. Everything visible argued that his name and his share were gone. One writer draws from this a truth he finds all through Scripture.
Wherever we turn, we learn the same great practical truth: God delights in a bold and simple faith. Such faith takes hold of all He has given and holds on tightly. It refuses, even in the face of nature's weakness and death, to give up a single hair's breadth of the inheritance God has given. What if Zelophehad's bones lay crumbling in the dust of the wilderness? What if no son appeared to carry his name? Faith could rise above all these things, and count on God's faithfulness to make good everything His word had promised.
The same writer turns this into a rule about what faith may expect from God.
It is utterly impossible for faith to overdraw its account in God's bank. God could no more disappoint faith than He could deny Himself. He can never say to faith, "You have miscalculated; you take too high, too bold a stand; lower it down, and lessen your expectations."
Scripture does not leave the five women nameless. One writer counts the times Scripture tells their story, and follows what God gave beyond their asking.
They are mentioned five times in the course of biblical history (Num. 26:33; Num. 27:1-11; Num. 36:3-12; Joshua 17:3-6; 1 Chron. 7:15), proof of the important place they occupy in God's thoughts. Not one of their names is forgotten. They are Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah… Wherever there is zeal to take hold of God's blessings and promises, an answer is sure. But the Lord gives them much more than they were asking. He gives them their father's inheritance. He also adds to His law a clause of four parts — these weak women are the occasion for this — and it becomes a statute and rule for the people of Israel.
One writer draws a lesson from the way Manasseh's portions add up to ten.
Even the women of Manasseh show the courage of faith, and gain an inheritance with their brothers. Scripture repeats their story here, to their praise. We do well to want the portion God has given us. There is plenty for all, and to enjoy it to the full will only enrich and not impoverish others. This is how Manasseh gains ten portions. Zelophehad's single portion swells into five through the inheritance of his daughters.
The second half of the verse settles the rest of the tribe. Manasseh held land on both sides of the Jordan.
Verse 5 speaks of ten shares taken by Manasseh on the west side of the Jordan, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan on the east. So verse 1 refers to the east side of the Jordan, and verses 2-4 to the west side. The daughters of Zelophehad received their inheritance among the sons mentioned in verse 2, and the rest of Manasseh's sons had the land of Gilead.
One writer carries the principle into the present, and marks one limit to it.
Believing women have just as full a right to a spiritual inheritance in heavenly places as men do. This blessing for them is wonderful. Even so, it does not set aside God's order of government. In the assembly and in public testimony, the man and the woman each have their own place and responsibilities.
- Claim. The daughters asked for nothing but what God had already said. That alone settled a case the law had not covered.
- Answer. God delights in faith that refuses to give up a hair's breadth of what He has promised. No one can ask Him for too much.
- Gift. He gave them more than they asked for: their father's portion, a lasting rule for all Israel, and their names kept in Scripture five times over.
- Reach. What God gave five women became the right of every daughter in Manasseh, on both sides of the Jordan.
- Result. One man's share became ten for the tribe. Enjoying your portion in full enriches others; it does not rob them.
And the territory of Manasseh was from Asher to Micmethath, which is before Shechem, and the border went on the right hand toward the inhabitants of En-Tappuah.
Joshua 17:7 traces one line: Manasseh's southern boundary. It runs from Asher, past Michmethath east of Shechem, down to the people of En-tappuah. Why does Scripture spend a verse on a survey line, and what do these names carry?
God handed out the whole land tribe by tribe. No border was left to chance.
God marked out their borders. The Spirit of God takes notice of everything when He hands out the spiritual inheritance, and He gives to each according to the mind of God. There is nothing uncertain in God's arrangements. But we find that not one tribe drove out all the enemies of God from His inheritance. Not one took possession of all that God had given him.
The tribes received their land by lot. One writer marks the limit of what the lot decided.
The lot clearly showed the mind of God, and showed it more plainly than any other way could: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD," says the voice of inspiration itself (Prov. 16:33). But the lot seems to have settled only the position of these possessions, not their extent. Room was left to revise the boundary-lines, since each tribe might grow or shrink depending on its faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Had they all been faithful, their territories would have grown, and that growth would have made such a revision necessary.
Manasseh's territory was large. Its edges are not all described the same way.
Manasseh had a fairly large possession. Its southern border touched Ephraim. The Mediterranean Sea was its western border and the river Jordan its eastern one. Issachar lay on its north-east border, and Asher on the north (v.10).
Verse 7 measures the south in detail. The north gets no line at all, and that silence carries weight.
On the north no line is given at all. We are simply told that Manasseh touched Asher on the north and Issachar on the east, and that Manasseh had cities in both. This looks as if the undrawn line was left open for progress — and Manasseh surely stands for progress. On the south he too gives way to Ephraim, for expansion is the rule for the people of God. Had they only been faithful, their borders would have widened on every side in the same way. God desired growth for them. They chose, alas, to shrink.
Asher, Michmethath and Shechem are not only dots on a map. One writer reads their meanings in order, and finds a story of man in them.
The starting-point is Asher — not the tribe, of course, but a place thought to be still known, carrying the same meaning, "happy," man's original condition. From there the line passes to Michmethath, "the corruption of the dead," which is now marked as opposite Shechem, "shoulder." Shechem is already familiar to us as the picture of obedience, the bearing of the yoke. So man turns away from God — not in ignorance, but in full view of duty.
The line then turns south to En-tappuah. Older translations read "on the right hand" here. The same writer takes up that phrase and both halves of the name.
But there is a change. The border passes south, literally "to the right hand," the place of exaltation and honour, but in dependence. So it comes to the inhabitants of En-tappuah. Tappuah is a word we well know as pointing to the Breather of new life, a new creation. Its prefix "En" means "spring," the living water that waters the new creation-life. Here we are stopped to have it explained that the land only belonged to Manasseh. Tappuah, standing on the boundary-line itself, belonged to Ephraim. So Paul, in New Testament style, tells us that we are "created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10).
The list of Manasseh's places that begins here closes with cities they never cleared. One writer names the reason.
Their strength exposed the secret of their inability: they "could not" because they "would not" drive them out. They preferred to profit from these pagan peoples rather than obey God. So it happened that, after a time, Israel learned all the detestable practices of the Canaanites, and served them as a punishment for their sins. Making terms with the enemy, in disobedience to God, was a shortsighted principle. It ended with those who paid tribute becoming thorns in their eyes and pricks in their sides, and at last their masters.
- Border: God marked every line Himself. Nothing in His arrangements is uncertain, and He gives to each according to His own mind.
- Room: the lot fixed where a tribe would sit, not how far it would reach. Faithfulness would have pushed the boundary-stones outward.
- Open north: Manasseh's northern line was never drawn. It was room left for progress, and the tribe settled for less.
- Names: the line runs from "happy" to "the corruption of the dead," opposite "shoulder," the picture of obedience. Man turns from God with duty in full view.
- Spring: the border ends at a spring of new life. Yet Manasseh's story closes with cities kept for profit instead of cleared in obedience.
Manasseh had the land of Tappuah; but Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim.
The survey of tribal borders stops here over one small oddity. The district around Tappuah fell to Manasseh. The town of Tappuah itself sat on the border line, and it went to Ephraim. Why would Scripture slow down to record one town changing hands?
Chapter after chapter of Joshua divides land between the tribes. One writer sees no accident in where any of those lines fell:
The whole extent of the country is given to Israel, and each tribe has its share. So the portion that fell to each tribe was given to them in full right by Jehovah Himself. Their borders were marked out, because the Spirit of God takes notice of everything when He gives out the spiritual inheritance. He gives to each according to the mind of God. There is nothing uncertain in God's arrangements.
The verse splits two things that belong together: the district and the town it is named after. One writer traces the border to that spot and finds the split matched by a line from Paul:
The border passes south, literally "to the right hand," the place of exaltation and honour, but in dependence. So it comes to the people of En-tappuah. The prefix "En" means "spring" — the living water that waters the new creation-life. Here we are stopped to have it explained that the land only belonged to Manasseh. Tappuah itself, on the boundary line, belonged to Ephraim. So Paul, in New Testament style, tells us that we are "created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph. 2:10)
The town's name carries the weight here. One writer takes "Tappuah" to mean "the Breather," and what he draws from it is not about land at all:
Tracing the border the other way, we take it up again and find first a name that has twice truly fulfilled itself to us where we found it — Tappuah, the "Breather." Here is a precious and encouraging thought. Christ, the last Adam, has breathed into us the breath of a new, eternal life. We belong to a new creation: "the old has passed away." And we who live this way are no longer to live for ourselves, but for Him who died for us and rose again.
Tappuah is not the only place where Manasseh gives ground to Ephraim. The same writer points out that Manasseh's northern boundary is never drawn at all:
On the north there is no line given at all. We are only told that it touched Asher on the north, and Issachar on the east, and that Manasseh had cities in both. It looks as if the undrawn line were left open for progress... On the south he too yields to Ephraim, since expansion is the rule for the people of God. Had they only been faithful, their borders on all sides would have been pushed out in the same way. God desired for them growth: they chose, alas, contraction.
Verse 8 is one of several places where Ephraim's and Manasseh's holdings overlap. One writer reads that mixing as a sign that something had gone wrong:
Judah's lot was clear and broad. The lands and cities given to Ephraim and Manasseh are neither, and their lots are also mixed together in a way that is difficult to explain. Once again we see these tribes failing to carry out God's purpose.
- Border given. Men did not negotiate the lines between the tribes. God handed each tribe its share in full right, and He overlooks nothing when He divides an inheritance.
- Border named. Tappuah means "the Breather." Christ, the last Adam, breathes a new, eternal life into His people, and those who have it no longer live for themselves.
- Border shared. The district stayed with Manasseh, and the town went to Ephraim. One writer matches that split to the good works God prepared beforehand for us to walk in.
- Border stretched. Manasseh's northern line was never fixed. It was left open for growth. God wanted expansion to be the rule, but the people chose contraction instead.
- Border blurred. Ephraim's and Manasseh's lots run into each other in a way that is hard to explain. One writer reads that tangle as a sign these tribes never carried out God's purpose.
And the border descended to the torrent Kanah, south of the torrent. These cities were Ephraim's among the cities of Manasseh. And the territory of Manasseh was on the north side of the torrent, and ended at the sea.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Southward it was Ephraim's, and northward it was Manasseh's, and the sea was his border. And they touched upon Asher on the north, and upon Issachar on the east.
This verse draws Manasseh's land in a few strokes. Ephraim lies to the south, the sea runs along the west, and two names stand in for the north and east. Why does one side get a careful line while the north is a bare mention of Asher and Issachar? And why did Manasseh hold cities inside other tribes' land?
First, the plain geography: what lay on each side of Manasseh.
Manasseh had a fairly large portion. Its southern border ran alongside Ephraim. The Mediterranean Sea was its western border and the river Jordan its eastern one, though Issachar lay on its north-east border, and Asher on the north.
Only the south gets a real line, and that line belongs to Ephraim. One writer takes the missing northern border as room to grow, not as a gap in the record.
We now have Manasseh's borders, with only one side really defined: the south, where Ephraim's line has already been drawn. Yet it is repeated here with changes from the earlier account. This is surely not just an add-on to fix a flaw in the first account, but something very different, and it proves how little geography is really in question. On the north there is no line at all. We are simply told that it touched Asher on the north, and Issachar on the east, and that Manasseh had cities in both. That looks as if the undecided line were left open for growth — and Manasseh is surely the picture of growth. On the south he too gives way to Ephraim. Expansion is the rule for the people of God. Had they only been faithful, their borders on every side would have been pushed out in the same way. God wanted growth for them. Sadly, they chose to shrink.
Borders still grow the same way today. Writing on Israel's family records, one commentator points to people whose portion grew while the nation stood still.
Here and there these family records point out people whose borders God enlarged in the promised land, at a time when most of the nation had failed to conquer their inheritance fully... It is the same with us. Our spiritual borders grow in the heavenly sphere while we are still on earth. To reach this, we must admit our ruin, which we cannot repair. We must admit that we have shown no power to enlarge our own borders. And we must show humble dependence that leans on the grace of God alone to gain them.
Commentators differ about these tangled lots. One sees room left for growth. Another sees the tangle itself as a sign of failure, set against the clear, wide lot given to Judah.
The lot of the sons of Joseph came after Judah's. This is another case of God's hand ordering Israel's inheritance so that His word to the fathers of the nation would come true. The clear outline and the breadth of Judah's lot are missing from the lands and cities given to Ephraim and Manasseh. Their lots are also mixed in together, which is hard to explain. Once again these tribes fail to carry out God's purpose, and it shows.
Manasseh's reach into Asher and Issachar came at a cost.
As already said, no one traces the northern boundary line. We are told only that it touched Asher on the north, and Issachar toward the sunrise, and that Manasseh held cities in both tribes. Yet this reach seems to go beyond their strength, an evil that too often goes with energy. The Canaanites keep these cities still, though they now pay tribute.
Manasseh's name itself carries a lesson, and it pairs with Ephraim's.
Manasseh means "forgetting," reminding us of Paul's words in Philippians 3:13, "forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." So Manasseh and Ephraim go together. Manasseh was born first, but he teaches us to forget what we once were in merely natural advantage, for what comes first is not spiritual but natural. So Ephraim received the first place, which speaks of the positive side: bearing fruit.
- Border drawn. Ephraim to the south, the sea to the west, Jordan to the east, Asher and Issachar touching the north. Manasseh's share was a large one.
- Border open. No one traces the northern line. One writer reads that blank as space for growth, since expansion is God's rule for His people.
- Border earned. Borders widen through humble dependence on God's grace, not self-confidence. Some gained ground while the nation stood still.
- Border overreached. Manasseh's cities inside Asher and Issachar went beyond its strength. The Canaanites stayed put and paid tribute.
- Border named. Manasseh means "forgetting." Beside fruitful Ephraim it teaches the negative half: leave the past behind and press on to Christ.
And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher, Beth-shean and its dependent villages, and Ibleam and its dependent villages, and the inhabitants of Dor and its dependent villages, and the inhabitants of En-Dor and its dependent villages, and the inhabitants of Taanach and its dependent villages, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and its dependent villages, the three hilly regions.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
But the children of Manasseh could not dispossess [the inhabitants of] those cities; and the Canaanites would dwell in that land.
Joshua's record of Manasseh's land ends on a sour note. He names the cities and hands them out, but the Canaanites stay put. The verse raises a question the rest of Israel's history answers: was this inability, or unwillingness?
The next verse gives the test. When Israel finally grew strong, that strength exposed the excuse.
"Now when the people of Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor" (v. 13). Their strength revealed the secret of their inability. They "could not" because they "would not" drive them out. They preferred to make a profit out of these nations instead of obeying God. And so, after a time, Israel learned all the detestable practices of the Canaanites, and served them as a punishment for their sins.
The Canaanites were stubborn. But how big that obstacle looked depended on where Manasseh was looking.
Had Manasseh looked to God, the stubbornness of the Canaanites would have proved a weak defence. … Israel suited their own convenience, without care for the word of the Lord.
Israel had already beaten these nations in battle. The problem was what they allowed to remain afterwards.
The enemies are all conquered, but not all driven out. There will always be enemies, until the coming of the Lord. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15:26). But Israel has to dispossess them. As long as the enemy holds anything, the joy of the people of God is not complete. Worse still, they are leaving among themselves what could keep making them fail. If the enemy is not destroyed, he will be quick to lift his head and corrupt the people, if he cannot overcome them.
Making the Canaanites pay looked like victory. It was something less. (The older translation Rossier follows reads "would dwell"; the ESV has "persisted in dwelling.")
Notice the wording: "the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land." The world has more power over a Christian in a low state than the Word and promises of God have. It is true that when Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor. But that was ruling them, not driving them out.
The same deal repeats itself whenever God's people trade obedience for advantage. It never ends well for them.
Putting false things under tribute is a common practice in the church of God, but playing with evil will end in ruin and misery. Spiritual enemies placed under tribute will do what these Canaanites did: they will claim the right to rule. … Turning a blind eye to evil, giving in to sin, smoothing over the false teaching or practice of favourite leaders — that is simply putting the enemy under tribute. Disloyalty like this to the Lord always ends with those under tribute mastering the people of God and enslaving them.
Manasseh was not the only tribe to fall short. God's gift was complete and carefully mapped. The taking was not.
God gives the whole country to Israel, and each tribe has its share. So the Lord Himself gave each tribe its portion in full right. He marked out their borders, for the Spirit of God notices everything when He hands out the spiritual inheritance, and gives to each according to the mind of God. There is nothing uncertain in God's arrangements. But we find that not one tribe drove out all the enemies of God from His inheritance. Not one took possession of all that God had given him.
Reading such chapters is uncomfortable because the pattern has not changed.
We may be enjoying the pure truth of the living Word of God to some degree. Yet our inheritance — that great land of the heavenly places with its countless blessings — is still largely untaken by the people of God. Lack of faith, lack of spiritual energy, lack of real love for Christ, has left us too indifferent to the precious fullness of what is truly ours.
- Given — God Himself drew the boundaries and gave each tribe full right to its share.
- Not taken — not one tribe drove out all the enemies. Not one took everything God had given.
- Could not — later strength exposed the real reason. They would not, because profit from the Canaanites suited them better than obedience.
- Tribute — taxing an enemy is ruling him, not driving him out. The enemy you tolerate will claim the right to rule you.
- Today — our inheritance in the heavenly places lies largely untaken, for the same reasons: little faith, little energy, little love for Christ.
And it came to pass when the children of Israel were become strong, that they made the Canaanites tributary; but they did not utterly dispossess them.
Israel finally grew strong, and used that strength to tax the Canaanites instead of driving them out. The verse records a choice, not a defeat — commentators read it as the point where Israel traded obedience for profit.
Older translations call it tribute. A Bible dictionary explains what that arrangement was.
Several Hebrew words are translated this way. In general it means what one nation or people paid to another, in money or in goods (2 Kings 3:4), to be left in peaceful possession. Some of the Canaanites were not driven out of the land, but they paid tribute to the Israelites, and Solomon put others under tribute. Joshua 17:13; 2 Chronicles 8:7-8. Later, because of their sin, Israel had to pay tribute to Assyria, Egypt and others.
So the Canaanites kept their homes and bought peace. Israel took the income and left the land in enemy hands — and later paid tribute itself.
Verse 12 said Manasseh could not drive them out. Verse 13 says that once Israel was strong they still did not. One writer points out what that sequence proves.
Their strength exposed the secret of their inability: they "could not" because they "would not" drive them out. They preferred to make a gain of these heathen rather than obey God. And so it happened that, after a time, Israel learned all the abominations of the Canaanites, and served them as a punishment for their sins. Making terms with the enemy, in disobedience to God, is a short-sighted principle. In the end those who paid tribute became thorns in their eyes and pricks in their sides, and at last their masters. Some exchange faith in God, with its demanding life, for compromise with evil and a life of self-seeking. The reaping day will then show, by its sorrowful fruits, the bitterness of departing from God.
The obstacle was real: the Canaanites meant to stay. Manasseh weighed it without looking to God.
Had Manasseh looked to God, the stubbornness of the Canaanites would have been a weak defence… They suited their own convenience, without care for the word of the Lord.
Manasseh was not an exception. One writer stands back and looks at the division of the whole land.
A large part of the land still had to be taken. Even so, Joshua divides the whole of it among the tribes of Israel, as the Lord commanded. The Lord declares that He will Himself drive out its inhabitants before them. But the people responded poorly to this promise… Wherever there is faithfulness, there is rest… God gives the whole extent of the country to Israel, and each tribe has his share… Yet not one tribe drove out all the enemies of God from His inheritance. Not one took possession of all that God had given him.
Subduing an enemy is not the same as removing him. Whatever he still holds costs God's people twice.
The enemies are all conquered, but not all driven out… But Israel has to dispossess them. As long as the enemies hold anything, the enjoyment of the people of God is not complete. More than this, the people are allowing in their midst what might continually cause them to fail. If the enemy is not destroyed, he will not be slow to lift his head and corrupt the people, if he cannot overcome them.
That corruption is what followed. Israel learned the ways of the people it had spared.
One writer takes the same arrangement into the church today.
Putting false things under tribute is a common practice in the church of God, but trifling with evil will end in ruin and misery. Spiritual foes placed under tribute will claim the right to rule, just as these Canaanites did… Do we not see Christian men putting up with known wrongdoing in their communities? Do they not allow among them people and practices that are enemies to God? Closing our eyes to evil, indulging sin, smoothing over the false doctrine or practice of favourite leaders — this is putting the enemy under tribute. Such disloyalty to the Lord always ends with the tributaries mastering the people of God and enslaving them.
- Tribute — The Canaanites bought the right to stay. Israel took the payment and kept the problem.
- Would, not could — Strength removed the excuse. They could not because they would not, and they chose gain over obedience.
- Convenience — Manasseh suited itself instead of caring for the word of the Lord. Had it looked to God, the enemy's stubbornness would have been a weak defence.
- Incomplete — God gave every tribe its full share, yet not one took all of it. Whatever the enemy still holds, you do not enjoy.
- Mastered — A spared enemy lifts his head. Those who paid tribute became thorns, then rulers. Tolerated evil in the church ends the same way: in slavery.
And the children of Joseph spoke to Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given me as inheritance one lot and one portion, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as Jehovah has blessed me hitherto?
Ephraim and Manasseh — the two branches of Joseph's family — come to Joshua with a complaint. Their land is too small, they say. They back the complaint with their own numbers and their own record of blessing. Their words raise a question that outlives them. Does past blessing earn us more, or does it send us out to take what God has already given?
The request sounds reasonable. Commentators read it as something less flattering:
The complaint of the children of Joseph shows dissatisfaction with their lot; it was selfishness. Joshua takes them by their word. His answer reminds us of the command God gave in chapter 13: "Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, just as I promised to Moses." Over there stood the great forests and the wooded hills and mountains. The Perizzites and the giants still lived there. All they needed to do was go there and drive them out, and they would possess a larger portion.
What they called too small was really unfinished. The land was there. They had not done the work.
Older translations word the boast as "I am a great people." One writer makes that phrase the name of a whole way of thinking, and sets it against real faith:
In them, self-importance took the place of the old fighting energy. Memories of their history fed it. Faith in God makes a man nothing in his own eyes while making him great in his deeds. They traded that faith for the "I-am-a-great-people" doctrine!
Note the reversal. Faith shrinks a person's view of himself and enlarges what he does. Ephraim's boast enlarged their view of themselves and shrank what they did.
Their argument leans on the past: God has blessed us up to now. That clause is where the whole appeal collapses.
"Cut down for yourself!" Past victories are not power today. In fact, boasting about the past is only evidence of weakness in the present. "The Lord has blessed me until now" is no proof that the Lord's hand is with us for blessing today. If the believer is building on the past, he is building on the blessing and not on the Lord. Today, "cut down for yourself," and prove the Lord's might by present faith in Him. The experience of the past is only a reason to encourage ourselves in the Lord today.
There is a difference between resting on God and resting on what God once did. The second feels like faith and functions like nostalgia.
Joshua does not argue about acreage. He takes their claim and hands it back as a task. One writer notes he had every reason to favour them and did not:
But Joshua was a man of God. God had guided him in allotting the territory, and he was not partial to his own tribe. His answer was wise and to the point: "If you are a numerous people, go up by yourself to the forest, and there clear ground for yourself." The land was theirs by title, but they had not taken possession of it. They were much like many believers today. They would like to have what others fought for, but they are afraid of the conflict needed to take hold of what is already theirs.
Title and possession are not the same thing. Conflict fills the gap between them, and that is what they wanted to skip.
Their complaint won them no extra allowance:
Joshua answered them on their own ground. ... He does not move away from his earlier decision, and he does not add to it. Still less would he indulge their boastful cowardice or their laziness.
The refusal was not a passing mood. Writers trace it forward through the nation's whole story:
He says, "If you are a great people, go up into the mountain and cut down for yourselves. You are a great people. Go up and overthrow the enemy, with his chariots of iron." Let your greatness be shown in work, not boasting. That was his answer to Ephraim then. But from that time on, the tribe of Ephraim was always jealous about its position in the nation of Israel. It always envied those who did anything for God... In the end that jealousy bore its fruit in the division of the kingdom.
- Complaint — Asking for a bigger lot showed dissatisfaction and selfishness. There was no real shortage. The land was there, uncleared.
- Claim — "I am a great people" is the reverse of faith, which makes a person nothing in his own eyes and great in his deeds.
- Credit — Past blessing is not present power. Building on what God once did is building on the blessing, not on the Lord.
- Challenge — Joshua showed no favouritism and gave no extra allowance. He took their claim of greatness and turned it into a job: go and cut down.
- Consequence — Greatness proved by work ends in possession. Greatness kept in words hardened into Ephraim's jealousy, and ended in a divided kingdom.
And Joshua said unto them, If thou art a great people, then get thee up to the wood, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if the hill-country of Ephraim is too narrow for thee.
The tribe of Joseph has just received its allotment, and instead of taking it, it asks for more. Joshua sends them to forest held by the Perizzites and the Rephaim — the "giants" of older translations — where greatness has to be proved with an axe.
The tribe asking for more had already left work undone at home.
The children of Manasseh could not drive out the people living in their cities. The Canaanites were determined to stay in that land. Had Manasseh looked to God, their stubbornness would have been a weak defence… The unfaithful often complain, as the children of Joseph did to Joshua.
Joshua holds them to the words they had just used about themselves.
The complaint of the children of Joseph shows they were unhappy with their share. It was selfishness. Joshua takes them at their word… Over there were the great forests, the wooded hills and mountains, where the Perizzites and the giants still lived. All they needed to do was go there and drive them out, and they would have a larger portion.
The children of Joseph push back about the iron chariots. Kelly notes that Joshua "does not swerve from nor add to his former decision; still less would he indulge their boastful cowardice or their laziness."
The forest Joshua names was not a consolation prize. It was already theirs on paper.
Joshua was a man of God. God had guided him in dividing up the land, and he was not partial to his own tribe. His answer was wise and to the point… They had title to this land, but they had not taken possession of it. They were much like many believers today. They would like to have what others had fought for, but they are afraid of the fight it takes to own what is theirs.
Joshua names two peoples in that forest. The second name carries a meaning of its own.
Rapha means "a fearful one." In the plural, with "the" in front of it, the word becomes a proper name: the Rephaim, or sons of Raphah, a race of giants… At times Rephaim can mean any people in Canaan who were very tall.
These were the giants Joseph's people refused to face. Gaebelein says Joshua's word was "his challenge to their faith. Faith does not take chariots or difficulties into account." He reads the refusal as unbelief. They "looked to the iron chariots the Canaanites had, instead of looking to the Lord and trusting His power."
Joseph's claim rested on a record of past blessing. One writer presses hard on the word "today." Where the ESV reads "clear ground for yourselves," the older wording he quotes is "cut down for yourself."
"Cut down for yourself!" Former victories are not power today. Boasting about the past is only evidence of weakness in the present. "The Lord has blessed me up to now" is no proof that the hand of the Lord is with us for blessing today. If the believer is building on the past, he is building on the blessing, and not on the Lord. Today, "cut down for yourself" — prove the Lord's might by present faith in Him. The experience of the past is only a reason to encourage ourselves in the Lord today.
The answer to cramped borders is not a bigger share. It is an axe.
God's way for His people to enlarge their borders is by driving out the enemies. Only one thing leads to true possession: a Christianity that goes on the attack, wins souls, presses on to know the Lord, and gains daily victories of faith. Cut down the woods, and plant the truths of the gospel in the barren places. Stop complaining that our situation gives few openings for usefulness. Let us get up and, in God's strength, cut down the giants with sword and axe, and widen the borders.
- Complaint. The tribe that left Canaanites in its own cities is the tribe that asks for more land. One commentator calls this selfishness, not need.
- Claim. Joshua takes them at their word. If they are a great people, the forest of the Perizzites and the giants is waiting for them.
- Title. The forest was already theirs by title. What they lacked was possession, because they feared the fight it costs.
- Today. Past blessing proves nothing about present power. Building on old victories is building on the blessing, not on the Lord.
- Axe. Borders widen only one way: by cutting down and driving out. Work widens them, not complaint.
And the children of Joseph said, The hill-country will not be enough for us; and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, those that are of Beth-shean and its dependent villages, and those that are in the valley of Jizreel.
Joshua had just told the tribes of Joseph to clear the forested hill country for themselves, since they called themselves great. Their reply here is a second objection. The hills are too small, and the plains below belong to Canaanites with iron chariots. Commentators read this as an excuse, not a report.
The two tribes had opened by calling themselves a great and blessed people. Joshua does not argue with that. He takes it at face value and holds to his earlier ruling.
Joshua answered them on their own ground. When they replied that the hill country was not enough, and that all the Canaanites of the valleys had chariots of iron, Joshua repeated his word to Ephraim and Manasseh: "You are a great people, and have great power: you shall not have one lot only, but the mountain shall be yours." He does not back away from his earlier decision, and he does not add to it. Still less would he indulge their boastful cowardice or their laziness.
The same principle reaches us. The Lord takes us at the size of the claim we make for ourselves.
These men of Joseph, so great in words, avoided the axe and feared the sword, saying, "all the Canaanites who dwell in the plain have chariots of iron." But Joshua let them move no distance from their own first words... So we can be sure the Lord Jesus Christ takes us according to what we claim to be. If we are such wonderful people, as great as we say, then let us "cut down for ourselves."
The verse puts two claims side by side. They are too big for the land they have, and too small for the enemy they face.
The protest these tribes make to Joshua is a plea of weakness that can sit right next to high claims, and that is nothing but shame. They have no low opinion of themselves. Yet when it comes to facing the enemy, they are glad to hide behind the most humbling confession. It is a case of "when I am weak, then I am strong," so a true sense of weakness would only have encouraged them, by throwing them back on God... They should have said: we do not believe, we dare not trust God; we are lazy, and we do not want the trouble of clearing the mountain. But then they could not have faced Jehovah with that! How good it would be to look honestly at all our excuses this way.
The chariots were real. Two things stood behind the complaint about them.
The complaint of the sons of Joseph shows they were not content with their lot; it was selfishness... They plead weakness. It was nothing less than unbelief, for they looked at the iron chariots the Canaanites had, instead of looking to the Lord and trusting His power. They refused to meet the enemy and have their borders enlarged on those terms. What a contrast with bold and humble Caleb! And yet Joshua encourages them. He urges them to go forward and take the forest and cut it down. It was his challenge to their faith. Faith does not count up chariots or difficulties.
Israel had already seen what God does with chariots. God was about to promise victory over these very ones.
To tremble before the power of the world comes from not trusting the power of God. Had they not already burned Jabin's chariots with fire in an earlier victory? (Joshua 11:4-9) Had God not promised the house of Joseph that "they should drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots and though they are strong"? (Joshua 17:17-18) So what were iron chariots to Jehovah?
Behind the complaint is a wish for land someone else has already cleared. The title was theirs; the ground was not.
They had title to this land, but they had never taken it. They were much like many believers today. Such believers would like to have what others fought for, but they are afraid of the fight needed to take what is rightly theirs.
- Claim. Joseph's tribes called themselves great. In the same breath they pleaded weakness. A boast and an excuse cannot both be true.
- Excuse. The iron chariots were the reason they gave. Unbelief was the real reason. They measured the enemy instead of the Lord.
- Answer. Joshua did not soften his word or add to it. He held them to their own claim: if you are great, then cut down for yourselves.
- Promise. God had already promised they would drive out the Canaanites, chariots and all. That was the ground they refused to stand on.
- Possession. Title is not the same as possession. Land already given still has to be taken. Those who will not fight live smaller than their inheritance.
And Joshua spoke to the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art a great people, and hast great power thou shalt not have one lot only,
The house of Joseph had just complained that one share of land was too small for a people so large. Joshua answers them by handing their own boast straight back, and the verse shows why he meets a call for more land with a reminder of their strength.
Joshua's words are a reply. Ephraim and Manasseh had already failed to clear the Canaanites out of the land they held. Then they came asking for more.
Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the people living in their cities. The Canaanites chose to stay in that land. Had Manasseh looked to God, the stubbornness of the Canaanites would have proved a weak defence… The unfaithful are apt to complain, as the children of Joseph did to Joshua… Joshua answered them on their own ground. If a great people, why not go up to the wood and cut down for themselves?… Joshua repeats his word to Ephraim and Manasseh. He does not turn aside from his earlier decision, nor add to it; still less would he indulge their boastful cowardice or their laziness.
The phrase "you are a numerous people" is not flattery. It is their own claim, handed back to them as a demand for proof.
In them, inflation replaced the old fighting energy, fed by memories of history. Faith in God makes a man nothing in his own eyes while making him great in his deeds. They traded it for the "I-am-a-great-people" doctrine!… "If you are a great people, then go up to the wood country, and cut down for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants."
Joshua's answer also marked the tribe of Ephraim for the rest of its history.
Show your greatness in work, not in boasting. That was his answer to Ephraim then. But from that time on, the tribe of Ephraim was always jealous about its place in Israel. It always envied those who did anything for God.
They had pleaded the iron chariots of the Canaanites in the valleys. That plea covered reasons they would never have said out loud.
When the brother tribes argued with Joshua, they pleaded weakness. Such a plea can sit alongside high claims about themselves, and that is shameful… They should have said, "We are unbelieving, we dare not trust God; we are lazy, and do not want the trouble of clearing the mountain" — but then they could not have faced the Lord with that! How good it would be to look honestly at all our excuses this way… Can we have an excuse for not taking possession of what God has made our own?
Joshua's confidence rests on a promise God had already made about those very chariots.
Trembling before the power of the world comes from not trusting the power of God… Had God not promised the house of Joseph that they would drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots and are strong? What then were iron chariots to the Lord?
"You shall not have one allotment only" is a real promise of more. But the boundaries move outward only in step with actual conquest.
True, there is plenty of land for all. Their boundaries, as we have often seen, are quite open to enlargement where there is real need. But that cannot happen until they can fill what they have already been given, and until they drive the enemies of God out of their inheritance. The answer from their Captain is a call to act, with encouragement in it. True, if we measure ourselves against the difficulties, there is no hope at all. Measure them in faith with God, and where have they gone?
Their argument rested on what God had done for them so far. That is where the answer cuts.
Former victories are not power today. In fact, boasting about the past is only evidence of weakness in the present. "The Lord has blessed me up to now" is no proof that the Lord's hand is with us for blessing today. If the believer is building on the past, he is building on the blessing, and not on the Lord.
- Claim. Joshua hands back their own boast. They called themselves a great people, so their greatness must show in work, not complaint.
- Excuse. The iron chariots were a screen. The real problems were unbelief and laziness.
- Promise. God had promised they would drive out the Canaanites, chariots and all. The chariots counted for nothing against Him.
- Condition. God did promise more land. But borders widen only as the enemy is driven out of what they already hold.
- Warning. Yesterday's blessing is not today's power. Leaning on a good history means building on the blessing, not on the Lord.
but the hill-country shall be thine, as it is a wood, thou shalt cut it down, and its outgoings shall be thine; for thou shalt dispossess the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots; for they are powerful.
Joshua's last word to the sons of Joseph refuses their excuse. The wooded hill country is theirs to clear, and the iron chariots they fear will not settle the outcome. So why did a promise of certain victory meet with reluctance, and what did that reluctance cost?
The tribe had called itself great and asked for more land. Joshua gives them what they asked for. They must act like the people they claim to be.
These sons of Joseph, so great in words, avoided the axe and feared the sword, saying that all the Canaanites who live in the valley have chariots of iron. But Joshua allowed them no retreat from their first words. "You are a great people, and have great power," he says. "The hill country shall be yours, for though it is a forest, you shall clear it." So we may be sure the Lord Jesus Christ takes us at our own word. If we are such wonderful people, so great as we profess, then let us "cut down for ourselves."
Joshua does not soften the task. He repeats what he already said.
He does not swerve from nor add to his former decision; still less would he indulge their boastful timidity or their laziness.
The last line of the verse is a promise, not advice. God had already said who would win, chariots and all.
Had God not promised the house of Joseph that they would drive out the Canaanites, "though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong"? (Joshua 17:17-18) What then were iron chariots to the Lord? When our confidence in Him and in His promises is shaken, we say like the spies sent by Moses to view the land: "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak... and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13:33)
They said they were not strong enough. But their weakness was not the real problem.
They plead weakness. It was nothing less than unbelief. They looked at the iron chariots the Canaanites had, instead of looking to the Lord and trusting His power. They refused to meet the enemy and have their borders enlarged under these conditions. What a contrast with bold and humble Caleb! And yet Joshua encourages them. He urges them to go forward, take the forest and cut it down. It was his challenge to their faith. Faith does not reckon with chariots, with difficulties.
Joshua told them where greatness shows itself. What followed marked the tribe for generations.
He says, if you are a great people, go up into the mountain and cut down for yourselves. You are a great people. Go up and overthrow the enemy, with his chariots of iron. Let your greatness be shown in work, not boasting. That was his answer to Ephraim then; but from that time on, the tribe of Ephraim was always jealous as to its position in the nation of Israel. It always envied those who did anything for God. They kept pushing themselves forward all through the book of Judges and in David's time. In the end that jealousy bore its proper fruit: the kingdom split in two.
Their complaint leaned on what God had done for them so far. The command to clear the forest is for today.
"Cut down for yourself!" Former victories are not power today. Boasting of the past is only evidence of weakness in the present. "The Lord has blessed me so far" is no proof that the hand of the Lord is with us for blessing today. If the believer is building on the past, he is building on the blessing, and not on the Lord. Today "cut down for yourself" — prove the Lord's might by present faith in Him.
The verse ties their borders to their clearing: the land is theirs as far as they cut.
God's way for His people to enlarge their borders is by driving out the enemies. Only bold Christianity leads to true possession: winning souls, pressing on to know the Lord, daily victories of faith. Cut down the woods, and plant the truths of the gospel in the barren places. Do not mourn how few openings for usefulness our lot gives us. Rise up instead, and in God's strength cut down the giants with sword and axe, and widen the borders.
- Claim — They called themselves a great people. Joshua took them at their word and handed them the forest to clear. Christ also takes us at the word we give.
- Command — Joshua did not reduce the task or add to it. He would not indulge their boastful fear or their laziness.
- Chariots — God Himself promised they would drive the Canaanites out, so iron chariots counted for nothing. Shaken confidence, not enemy strength, is what makes people feel like grasshoppers.
- Cost — Pleading weakness was unbelief. Ephraim's refusal hardened into jealousy that ran through Judges and David's reign, until the kingdom split.
- Clearing — Only driving out the enemy enlarges the borders. Past blessing proves nothing about present power, so the word stands for today: cut it down for yourself.