Joshua 16:10

16:20-63 Here is a list of the cities of Judah. But we do not here find Bethlehem, afterwards the city of David, and ennobled by the birth of our Lord Jesus in it. That city, which, at the best, was but little among the thousands of Judah, Mic 5:2, except that it was thus honoured, was now so little as not to be accounted one of the cities.

And they drove not out the Canaanites which dwelt in Gezer,.... Which was the border of their tribe length ways, and was near the sea, Joshua 16:3 ; in this they did not obey the command of God, and either they did not drive them out, because they could not, God not delivering them up into their hands, because of their sins; or through their slothfulness, or it may be through covetousness, being willing to make some advantage to themselves by them, being a trading people, which seems to be intended in the next clause: but the Canaanites dwelt among the Ephraimites unto this day; which Joshua, the writer of this book, might truly say, and be no objection to it, since the same is observed after his death, Judges 1:29; and indeed they continued to dwell there until the times of Solomon, when it was taken by Pharaoh king of Egypt, and given as a present to his daughter, the wife of Solomon, 1 Kings 9:15; and though this clause does not furnish out an argument against the writing of this book by Joshua, yet, from the instance given, it appears it must have been written before the times of Solomon, and so not by Ezra, as some: and serve under tribute; so that they were under their power, and therefore could have driven them out, or slain them, as by the command of God they should; but they spared them for the sake of the tribute they received from them, which seems to agree with the character of the Ephraimites, Hosea 12:8.

The verb "were," introduced by the King James Version in this verse should be omitted; and the full stop after Joshua 16:8 replaced by a colon. The purport of Joshua 16:9 is simply to add to the inheritance of Ephraim, defined by the preceding context, "the separate cities" or more properly "single cities" which were allotted to them in addition within the borders of Manasseh. The reasons for granting these additional cities to the Ephraimites can only be conjectured. Perhaps the territory assigned to this numerous tribe proved on experiment to be too small; and therefore some towns, which are named in 1 Chronicles 7:29 , were given to them from the kindred Manassites, the latter being recompensed ( Joshua 17:11 note) at the expense of Issachar and Asher.

Verse 10. And they drave not out. The Ephraimites soon grew slack in the fulfilment of the Divine command. There is a distinction, apparently, between this passage and ch. 15:63. There the tribe of Judah was unable to drive out the Jebusites from their stronghold, and no mention is made of tribute. Here the Ephraimites seem deliberately to have preferred the easier task of reducing the Canaanites to tribute to the sterner and more difficult task of destroying them utterly. Joshua 16:10

[Reformed Biblical] It seems most probable that part of it, and indeed the greatest part and main body of it, stood in the tribe of Benjamin; and hence this is mentioned in the list of their cities, and not in Judah’s list: and part of it stood in Judah’s share, even Mount Moriah, on which the temple was built; and Mount Sion, when it was taken from the Jebusites. ## Unto this day ; when this book was written, whether in Joshua’s life and old age, which continued many years after the taking of Jerusalem; or after his death, when this clause was added here and elsewhere in this book by some other man of God, which must needs be done before David’s time, when the Jebusites were quite expelled, and their fort taken. ## JOSHUA CHAPTER 16 The general borders of the sons of Joseph, #Joshua 16:1-4 . The borders of Ephraim, #Joshua 16:5-9 . Some of the Canaanites not expelled, but made tributary, #Joshua 16:10 . ## Ver. 1. Of Joseph, i.e. of Ephraim, and the half tribe of Manasseh, which are here put together in one; not because they had but one lot, for Ephraim had one here, #Joshua 16:5 , and Manasseh another, #Joshua 17:1 ; but because in these first verses he speaks of them in common, and of the south border, which seems to be the same, either wholly or in a great part; and then he comes to the particular description of their several portions.

29, 30 . The expulsion of the Canaanites will however be gradual: it will not be completed till the Israelites are numerous enough to fill effectually the territory vacated by them. Hence, with verbal variations, Deuteronomy 7:22 . The representation is in striking contrast to the idealized pictures of rapid conquests drawn in the Deuteronomic sections of the book of Joshua, from which the popular conception of the ‘extermination of the Canaanites’ is derived (e.g. Joshua 10:28-43 ; Joshua 11:16-23 ; Joshua 21:43-45 ); but it agrees with the accounts given in the older strata of Joshua and Judges, according to which there were many districts from which the Israelites were unable to expel the Canaanites, and the country as a whole was only occupied by them gradually ( Joshua 13:13 ; Joshua 15:63 ; Joshua 16:10 ; Joshua 17:11-18 , Jdg 1:19 ; Jdg 1:21 ; Jdg 1:27-35 ; Jdg 1:9 ). The historical reason why the Canaanites thus remained so long in many parts of the land was because the Israelites had not the military resources enabling them to cope with them (cf. Jdg 1:19 ); but the fact nevertheless remained one which many religiously-minded Israelites found it difficult to reconcile with their sense of Jehovah’s sovereignty; and different moral, or religious, theories were framed to account for it.