Ataroth . Another Ataroth, on the northern border of Ephraim. The name, which signifies crowns is a common one (see Numbers 32:3 , Numbers 32:34 , Numbers 32:35 ; 1 Chronicles 2:54 ). Came to Jericho. Or perhaps skirted Jericho. The word used (see note on Joshua 16:5 ) is akin to the Latin pango and our impinge. read more
The border went out from Tappuah westward. This would seem to be a more minute description of the border line drawn from the sea to Michmethah above. Tappuah seems to have been near Mich-methah, and on the border ( Joshua 17:8 ) of Manasseh. According to Knobel, Tappuah signifies plain, which is a little inconsistent with his idea that Michmethah, close by, was the watershed. Tappuah elsewhere signifies apple. Unto the river Trench. The winter-bound torrent Kanah, so named from its... read more
And the separate cities. Literally, and the cities divided off. The word "were," in our version, is misplaced. It should be read thus: "And there were cities divided off and assigned to the tribe of Ephraim in the midst of the inheritance of the sons of Manasseh" (see note on verse 5). This fact, together with the compensation given to Manasseh, may serve to explain the cohesion of the ten tribes in opposition to Judah. The boundaries of the latter tribe were more strictly defined, her... read more
From the abrupt manner in which the statements are introduced, as well as from their imperfect character, there is probability in the conjecture that some words have, in these verses, fallen out of the text. Few of the places are known for certain. read more
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... read more
Joshua 16:5. East side That is, the north-east side. It is no wonder if some of these descriptions are dark to us at this distance of time; there having been so many alterations made in places, and so many circumstances being now altogether undiscoverable. But this is certain, that all the descriptions here mentioned were then evident to the Israelites, because these were the foundation of all the possessions which then they took, and peaceably possessed in succeeding ages. read more
Joshua 16:6-7. Toward the sea The midland sea, toward the west. To Jericho Not to the city of Jericho, which belonged to Benjamin’s lot, (Joshua 18:21,) but to its territory. read more
Joshua 16:9. The separate cities That is, besides those cities which were within Ephraim’s bounds, he had some other cities out of Manasseh’s portion, because his tribe was all here, and was larger than Manasseh’s. read more
The Joseph tribes (16:1-17:18)Ephraim and the western half of Manasseh together occupied most of the central portion of Canaan between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (16:1-4). The southern part of this territory belonged to Ephraim (5-10), the northern part to Manasseh (17:1). (The other half of Manasseh had already received its allotment east of Jordan.)Western Manasseh was divided between six major family groups. No details are given concerning portions received by five of these... read more
Get Bible verse every day in your inbox
Read on Mobile
The Pulpit Commentary - Joshua 16:6
And the border went out towards the sea. Or, "and the western border." On the north side. Or, "northward." Apparently a line is drawn from the sea, which ( Joshua 16:3 ) is given as the termination of the southern boundary to Michmethah, near Shechem ( Joshua 17:7 ). Knobel thinks that Michmethah (the signification of which is perhaps hiding place ) was upon the watershed, and thus served as a dividing point. Went about. Rather, deflected. The border ran m a northeasterly... read more