John Calvin Commentary Joshua 17

The historian returns to the tribe of Manasseh to confirm what we previously saw regarding the daughters of Zelophehad. For although it was a novelty for females to inherit alongside males, yet as five of them had survived their father, they established that it was equitable for them to receive a share, so that their innocent father would not suffer the reproach of having died childless.

God had replied to Moses through His oracle that, regarding succession, they should be counted as one head. They now demand that the decision given by the mouth of the Lord be put into effect. As for the title of firstborn, still given to Manasseh, it must be understood in such a way that it does not conflict with the prophecy of Jacob; or rather, his primogeniture is here, in a way, set aside, and his dignity restricted to the past.

Here, however, it must be noted that people are so tenacious and so devoted to their own interests that they seldom think to give others their due. The daughters of Zelophehad had obtained a portion by a heavenly decree, and no one had dared to speak against it; yet if they had remained silent, no attention would have been paid to them.

Therefore, so that the delay would not harm them, they approached Joshua and Eleazar and insisted that they not be deprived of their legitimate succession. Joshua caused no delay in their immediately obtaining what was just, nor was there any complaining from the people.

From this we infer that all were inclined to act equitably; but everyone is preoccupied with their own interests and too inclined to carelessly overlook the interests of others.

And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, etc. In this passage, the descendants of Manasseh are classified under seven branches. Machir, the firstborn, is set apart; the other six follow. Here the question arises: How was the inheritance divided into ten parts? Some expositors cunningly disguise the difficulty; others, because they are unable to solve it, engage in utter trivialities.

It is certainly very absurd that four portions would be given to five daughters; and it is no more fitting that their share would be doubled because their father was the firstborn. It is beyond all dispute that Gilead, son of Machir, and great-grandfather of the women we are now discussing, chose his settlement in Mount Gilead and Bashan.

Therefore, since he had already obtained an inheritance by special privilege, without drawing lots, he should not have obtained one by lot in the land of Canaan, unless perhaps he settled only a part of his family beyond the Jordan. For Hepher was one of his sons, but not the only one; and similarly, the offspring of five other brothers might be divided into several heads, according to whose number the allocation by lot could be made.

For it is not known on what basis families whose portion fell in the land of Canaan were counted. And all we read here is that ten lots were cast among the sons of Manasseh, in addition to the land they had previously acquired for themselves beyond the Jordan.

It is therefore futile to dispute the number, which cannot be determined with certainty from the present narrative, because the first thing that needs to be known is the exact number of families who shared in the division. Indeed, it is not impossible that the daughters of Zelophehad obtained their inheritance there.

They are said, indeed, to have lived among their father’s relatives, but the location is not specified. Be that as it may, I have no doubt that mutual fairness was observed, and that after provision was made for others, the land which had been subject to the lot was distributed among ten families whose names are omitted here.

And Manasseh had in Issachar, etc. How they were so intermingled as to possess some cities in the allotment of Asher and Issachar, while the tribe of Ephraim lived between their borders, is not easy to determine, unless, perhaps, it was perceived that a more suitable dwelling place would not be subject to many complaints, or, perhaps, after the whole country had become better known, some change was made based on principles of fairness in the previous division.

This, therefore, seems to have been a new acquisition after it was discovered that the descendants of Manasseh could occupy a larger area without loss to others. Nor was the dwelling place given to them a conquered one, which they could immediately enjoy; instead, it was an inheritance held in hope, founded more on heavenly promise than on actual possession.

And yet, their failure to gain possession of those cities is attributed to their own fault, because the allotment assigning it to them was an undoubted pledge of victory. The reason, therefore, why they could not expel the inhabitants was that they were not fully convinced that God is true, and they hindered His work by their own inaction.

But another, even less pardonable crime was committed when, though they had the power to easily destroy everyone, they were not only negligent in executing God’s command but, motivated by sordid gain, they preserved alive those whom God had condemned to destruction. For when we impose tribute on people, we, in a way, take them under our trust and protection.

God had appointed them as agents of His vengeance, and He provided them with the strength to carry it out; yet they not only delayed but also deprived themselves of the freedom to act rightly. It is not surprising, therefore, that God severely punished this willful disobedience by making those nations—whom they had spared despite a clear command against it—become like thorns to pierce their eyes and pricks to irritate their sides.

Here, again, a question arises: How were cities granted to them in the territory of the tribes of Asher and Issachar when the portions of both were still unknown? It seems, therefore, that what had not yet taken place is related here in anticipation. However that may be, we gather that due to a lack of knowledge about the locations, individual portions were not divided so precisely as to prevent the need for later corrections to what had been somewhat decided.

We must understand in general, regarding both the tribe of Ephraim and the others, that many of the cities they gained were insignificant because of the destruction. I do not doubt that many ruins lie buried here.

On the other hand, we must conclude that their famous cities were founded in fertile areas, or in places with other advantages where only small villages had previously existed.

It is certain that Sichem was important enough to have both a name and status, yet there is no mention of it here. The same is true for Samaria, which, as is well known, belonged to the same tribe of Ephraim when it was the capital of the kingdom of Israel.

It is clear, therefore, that each tribe possessed several cities that are not mentioned here.

And the children of Joseph spoke to Joshua, etc. Although they dress up their complaint with some semblance of an excuse, they still dishonestly disguise the fact that more was included in one lot than was appropriate for one tribe. I do not know, however, whether or not the lot was cast indefinitely for the sons of Joseph; it certainly does not seem fitting that it should be so.

Joshua and the other dividers were not unaware that Ephraim and Manasseh formed two heads, or two stems; and it has repeatedly been said before that the land was divided into ten tribes, which number was not accurate unless the tribe of Manasseh was considered distinct from that of Ephraim. It is certain, therefore, that they had not fallen into such a gross blunder as to throw the two names into one lot. Now, to conceal two tribes under the name of Joseph, in order to defraud them of half their right, would have been intolerable injustice. We may add, that the domain of each was distinctly explained and described by its proper boundaries.

We are therefore led to conclude that when the lots were cast for the two tribes, the admirable counsel of God arranged that the brothers, who had a common father, should be contiguous and neighbors to each other. It is unworthy of them, therefore, to complain and plead that only one inheritance had been given to them, because Joshua had neither such heartlessness nor so much malice as to defraud them of a clear right either through thoughtlessness or envy.

But the falsehood of their complaint concerning narrow boundaries lay in this: that they counted all that was yet to be acquired by warlike prowess as nothing, as if the lot had assigned portions to the other tribes only in subjugated territory. Joshua, accordingly, in a single sentence, refutes and disposes of their plea, and retorts with an accusation against them, who were trying to bring him into disrepute.

“If your resources and your numbers are so great,” he asks, “why do you not advance against the enemy, whose country has been given to you? Nor will the outcome disappoint you, if, trusting to the promise of God, you boldly proceed to the inheritance which he has bestowed upon you.”

We see how, although proper provision had been made for them, they were so blinded by sloth as to complain that they lacked space, because they were unwilling to move their finger to seek the full possession of their inheritance. Therefore, this passage teaches us that if at any time we think less is provided for us than is due, we ought carefully to shake off all delays, and not rashly throw upon others the blame which is inherent in ourselves.

And the children of Joseph said, and so on. It is quite apparent that they were thinking only of themselves, because they quibble as much as they can to avoid following Joshua's suggestion—a suggestion than which, however, nothing was more reasonable. They object that the mountain is rugged and little better than a desert, and therefore, even if it were added to them, they would derive very little benefit from it.

In regard to the plain, which was cultivated and fertile, they object that they are shut out and debarred from it because of the formidable array of the enemy. Accordingly, they mention their iron chariots, as if they had not already learned by experience that the Lord was able, without any difficulty, to trample down both horses and chariots.

Joshua, however, with a simple and sincere answer, delivers a fitting rebuke for both their greed and their weakness and sluggishness. If the forest, as it is now, is not productive enough, cut down the trees and turn it into good fields; provided you are not sparing of your labor, you will have no reason to be dissatisfied with your dwelling place. Moreover, iron chariots cannot prevent the Lord from performing what He has promised you. The inheritance is yours; simply do your part by taking possession of it with due confidence.