_THE INHERITANCE OF JOSEPH._
JOSHUA xvi., xvii.
Next to Judah, the most important tribe was Joseph; that is, the
double tribe to which his two sons gave names, Ephraim and Manasseh.
In perpetual acknowledgment of the service rendered by Joseph to the
family, by keeping them alive in the famine, it was ordained by Jacob
that his two sons should rank with their uncles as founders of tribes
(Gen. xlviii. 5). It was also prophetically ordained by Jacob that
Ephraim, the younger son, should take rank before Manasseh (Gen.
xlviii. 19). The privilege of the double portion, however, remained to
Manasseh as the elder son. Hence, in addition to his lot in Gilead and
Bashan, he had also a portion in Western Palestine. But Ephraim was
otherwise the more important tribe; and when the separation of the two
kingdoms took place, Ephraim often gave his name to the larger
division. And in the beautiful prophetic vision of Ezekiel, when the
coming re-union of the nation is symbolized, it is on this wise: "Son
of man, take thou one stick and write upon it, For Judah, and for the
children of Israel his companions; then take another stick and write
upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of
Israel his companions, and join them for thee one to another into one
stick, that they may become one in thine hand" (xxxvii. 16, 17). The
superiority allotted to Ephraim was not followed by very happy
results; it raised an arrogant spirit in that tribe, of which we find
some indications in the present chapter, but more pronounced and
mischievous manifestations further on.
The delimitation of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is not easy to
follow, particularly in the Authorized Version, which not only does
not translate very accurately, but uses some English expressions of
uncertain meaning. The Revised Version is much more helpful,
correcting both classes of defects in its predecessor. Yet even the
Revised Version sometimes leaves us at a loss. It has been supposed,
indeed, that some words have dropped out of the text. Moreover, it has
not been found possible to ascertain the position of all the places
mentioned. Uncertainty as to the precise boundaries cannot but
prevail, and differences of opinion among commentators. But the
uncertainty applies only to the minuter features of the description,
it bears chiefly on the points at which one tribe adjoined another.
The portion of the land occupied by Ephraim and Manasseh is, on the
whole, very clearly known, just as their influence on the history of
the country is very distinctly marked.
In point of fact, the lot of Joseph in Western Palestine was, in many
respects, the most desirable of any. It was a fertile and beautiful
district. It embraced the valley of Shechem, the first place of
Abraham's sojourn, and reckoned by travellers to be one of the most
beautiful spots, some say the most beautiful spot, in Palestine.
Samaria, at the head of another valley celebrated for its "glorious
beauty," and for its "fatness" or fertility (Isa. xxviii. 1), was at
no great distance. Tirzah, a symbol of beauty, in the Song of Solomon
(vi. 4) was another of its cities, as was also Jezreel, "a lovely
position for a capital city" (_Tristram_). On the other hand, this
portion of the country laboured under the disadvantage of not having
been well cleared of its original inhabitants. The men of Ephraim did
not exert themselves as much as the men of Judah. This is apparent
from what is said in chap. xvi. 10, "They drove not out the Canaanites
that dwelt in Gezer"; and also from Joshua's answer to the request of
Ephraim for more land (xvii. 15-18).
As we have said already, we have no information regarding Joshua's
conquest of this part of the country. It seems to have been run over
more superficially than the north and the south. Consequently the
ancient inhabitants were still very numerous, and they were formidable
likewise, because they had chariots of iron.
In the definition of boundaries we have first a notice applicable to
Joseph as a whole, then specifications applicable to Ephraim and
Manasseh respectively. The southern border is delineated twice with
considerable minuteness, and its general course, extending from near
the Jordan at Jericho, past Bethel and Luz, and down the pass of
Bethhoron to the Mediterranean, is clear enough. The border between
Ephraim and Manasseh is not so clear, nor the northern border of
Manasseh. It is further to be remarked that, while we have an
elaborate statement of boundaries, we have no list of towns in Ephraim
and Manasseh such as we have for the tribe of Judah. This gives
countenance to the supposition that part of the ancient record has
somehow dropped out. We find, however, another statement about towns
which is of no small significance. At chap. xvi. 9 we find that
several cities were appropriated to Ephraim that were situated in the
territory of Manasseh. And in like manner several cities were given
to Manasseh which were situated in the tribes of Issachar and Asher.
Of these last the names are given. They were Bethshean, Ibleam, Dor,
Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo. Some of them were famous in after
history. Bethshean was the city to whose wall the bodies of Saul and
his sons were fixed after the fatal battle of Gilboa; Ibleam was in
the neighbourhood of Naboth's vineyard (2 Kings ix. 25, 27); Endor was
the place of abode of the woman with a familiar spirit whom Saul went
to consult; Taanach was the battle-field of the kings of Canaan whom
Barak defeated, and of whom Deborah sung,--
"The kings came and fought;
Then fought the kings of Canaan,
In Taanach by the waters of Megiddo:
They took no gain of money" (Judg. v. 19).
As for Megiddo, many a battle was fought in its plain. So early as the
days of Thotmes III. of Egypt (about 1600 B.C.) it was famous in
battle, for in an inscription on the temple of Karnak, containing a
record of his conquests in Syria, Megiddo flourishes as the scene of a
great conflict. The saddest and most notable of its battles was that
between King Josiah and the Egyptians, in which that good young king
was killed. In fact, Megiddo obtained such notoriety as a battle-field
that in the Apocalypse (xvi. 16) Ar-Mageddon (Har-magedon, R.V.) is
the symbol of another kind of battle-ground--the meeting-place for
"the war of the great day of God the Almighty."
We can only conjecture why these cities, most of which were in
Issachar, were given to Manasseh. They were strongholds in the great
plain of Esdraelon, where most of the great battles of Canaan were
fought. For the defence of the plain it seemed important that these
places should be held by a stronger tribe than Issachar. Hence they
appear to have been given to Manasseh. But, like Ephraim, Manasseh was
not able to hold them at first. "The children of Manasseh could not
drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would
dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when the children of Israel
were waxen strong that they put the Canaanites to task-work, and did
not utterly drive them out" (R.V.). This last verse appears to have
been inserted at a later date, and it agrees with 1 Chron. vii. 29,
where several of the same towns are enumerated, and it is added, "In
these dwelt the children of Joseph, the son of Israel."
Undoubtedly these sons of Joseph occupied a position which gave them
unrivalled opportunities of benefiting their country. But with the
exception of the splendid exploit of Gideon, a man of Manasseh, and
his little band, we hear of little in the history that redounded to
the credit of Joseph's descendants. Nobility of character is not
hereditary. Sometimes nature appears to spend all her intellectual and
moral wealth on the father, and almost to impoverish the sons. And
sometimes the sons live on the virtues of their fathers, and cannot be
roused to the exertion or the sacrifice needed to continue their work
and maintain their reputation. A humorous saying is recorded of an
eminent pastor of the Waldensian Church who found his people much
disposed to live on the reputation of their fathers, and tried in vain
to get them to do as their fathers did; he said that they were like
the potato--the best part of them was under the ground. If you say,
"We have Abraham for our father," take care that you say it in the
proper sense. Be sure that you are following hard in his footsteps,
and using his example as a spur to move your languid energies, and not
as a screen to conceal your miserable defects. If you think of Abraham
or of any forefather or body of forefathers as a cover for your
nakedness, or a compensation for your defects, you are resorting to a
device which has never proved successful in past ages, and is not
likely to change its character with you.
After the division, the vain, self-important spirit of Ephraim broke
out in a characteristic way. "Why," said he to Joshua, "hast thou
given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a
great people, forasmuch as hitherto the Lord hath blessed me?" A
grumbling reference seems to be made here to his brother Manasseh, who
had received two lots, one on each side of the Jordan. At first it
appears that there was some reason in the complaint of Ephraim. The
_free_ part of his lot seems to have been small, that is, the part not
occupied by Canaanites. But we cannot think that the whole inheritance
of Ephraim was so small as we find represented in the map of Major
Conder, of the Palestine Exploration Fund, in his "Handbook to the
Bible," because it is said, both in the Authorized and in the Revised
Version, that his western boundary extended to the sea, while Major
Conder makes it cease much sooner. But, looking at the whole
circumstances, it is probable that Ephraim's complaint was dictated by
jealousy of Manasseh, who certainly had received the double
inheritance.
Alas, how apt is the spirit of discontent still to crop up when we
compare our lot with that of others! Were we quite alone, or were
there no case for comparison, we might be content enough; it is when
we think how much more our brother has than we, that we are most
liable to murmur. And, bad though murmuring and grieving at the good
of our brother may be, it is by no means certain that the evil spirit
will stop there. At the very dawn of history we find Cain the murderer
of his brother because the one had the favour of God and not the
other. What an evil feeling it is that grudges to our brother a larger
share of God's blessing; if at the beginning it be not kept under it
may carry us on to deeds that may well make us shudder.
Joshua dealt very wisely and fearlessly with the complaint of Ephraim,
though it was his own tribe. You say you are a great people--be it so;
but if you are a great people, you must be capable of great deeds. Two
great undertakings are before you now. There are great woodlands in
your lot that have not been cleared--direct your energies to them, and
they will afford you more room for settlements. Moreover, the
Canaanites are still in possession of a large portion of your lot; up
and attack them and drive them out, and you will be furnished with
another area for possession. Joshua accepted their estimate of their
importance, but gave it a very different practical turn. What they had
wished him to do was to take away a portion from some other tribe and
give it as an extra allotment to them, so that it would be theirs
without labour or trouble. What Joshua did was to spur them to
courageous and self-denying exertion, in order that their object might
be gained through the instrumentality of their own labour. For the
sickly sentiment that desires a mine of gold to start into being and
scatter its untold treasure at our feet, he substituted the manly
sentiment of the proverb, "No gains without pains." "The soul of the
sluggard desireth and hath nothing; but the hand of the diligent
maketh rich." If they wished more land they must work for it; they
must not take idleness for their patron-saint.
We have all heard of the dying father who informed his sons that there
was a valuable treasure in a certain field, and counselled them to set
to work to find it. With great care they turned up every morsel of the
soil; but no treasure appeared, till, observing in autumn what a rich
crop covered the field, they came to understand that the fruit of
persevering labour was the treasure which their father meant. We have
heard, too, of a physician who was consulted by a rich man suffering
cruelly from gout, and asked if he had any cure for it. "Yes," said
the doctor, "live on sixpence a day, and work for it." The same
principle underlay the counsel of Joshua. Of course it gratifies a
certain part of our nature to get a mass of wealth without working for
it. But this is not the best part of our nature. Probably in no class
has the great object of life been so much lost, and the habit of
indolence and self-indulgence become so predominant as in that of
young men born to the possession of a great fortune, and never
requiring to turn a hand for anything they desired. After all, the
necessity of work is a great blessing. We speak of the curse of toil,
but except when the labour is excessive, or unhealthy in its
conditions, or when it has to be prosecuted in sickness or failing
strength, it is not a curse but a blessing. Instead of being ashamed
of labour, we have cause rather to be proud of it. It guards from
numberless temptations; it promotes a healthy body and a healthy mind;
it increases the zest of life; it promotes cheerfulness and flowing
spirits; it makes rest and healthy recreation far sweeter when they
come, and it gives us affinity to the great Heavenly Worker, by whom,
and through whom, and for whom are all things.
This great principle of ordinary life has its place too in the
spiritual economy. The age is now past that had for its favourite
notion, that seclusion from the world and exemption from all secular
employment was the most desirable condition for a servant of God. The
experiment of the hermits was tried, but it was a failure. Seclusion
from the world and the consecration of the whole being to private acts
of devotion and piety were no success. He who moves about among his
fellows, and day by day knows the strain of labour, is more likely to
prosper spiritually than he who shuts himself up in a cell, and looks
on all secular work as pollution. It is not the spiritual invalid who
is for ever feeling his pulse and whom every whiff of wind throws into
a fever of alarm, that grows up to the full stature of the Christian;
but the man who, like Paul, has his hands and his heart for ever full,
and whose every spiritual fibre gains strength and vitality from his
desires and labours for the good of others. And it is with churches as
with individuals. An idle church is a stagnant church, prone to
strife, and to all morbid experiences. A church that throws itself
into the work of faith and labour of love is far more in the way to be
spiritually healthy and strong. It was not for the good of the world
merely, but of the church herself likewise, that our Lord gave out
that magnificent _mot d'ordre_,--"Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature."
Before we pass from the inheritance of the sons of Joseph, it is
proper that we should direct attention to an incident which may seem
trifling to us, but which was evidently regarded as of no little
moment at the time. What we refer to is the petition presented by the
five daughters of Zelophehad, a member of the tribe of Manasseh, for
an inheritance in their tribe. Their father had no son, so that the
family was represented wholly by daughters. No fewer than four times
the incident is referred to, and the names of the five girls given in
full (Numb. xxvi. 33, xxvii. 1-11, xxxvi. 11; Josh. xvii. 3). We know
not if there be another case in Scripture of such prominence given to
names for no moral or spiritual quality, but simply in connection with
a law of property.
The question decided by their case was the right of females to inherit
property in land when there were no heirs male in the family. We find
that the young women themselves had to be champions of their own
cause. Evidently possessed of more than ordinary spirit, they had
already presented themselves before Moses, Eleazar the priest, and the
princes of the congregation, at the door of the tabernacle, and
formally made a claim to the inheritance that would have fallen to
their father had he been alive. The case was deemed of sufficient
importance to be laid before the Lord, because the decision on it
would settle similar cases for the whole nation and for all time. The
decision was, that in such cases the women should inherit, but under
the condition that they should not marry out of their own tribe, so
that the property should not be transferred to another tribe. In point
of fact, the five sisters married their cousins, and thus kept the
property in the tribe of Manasseh.
The incident is interesting, because it shows a larger regard to the
rights of women than was usually conceded at the time. Some have,
indeed, found fault with the decision as not going far enough. Why,
they have asked, was the right of women to inherit land limited to
cases in which there were no men in the family? The decision implied
that if there had been one brother, he would have got all the land;
the sisters would have been entitled to nothing. The answer to this
objection is, that had the rights of women been recognised to this
extent, it would have been too great an advance on the public opinion
of the time. It was not God's method to enjoin laws absolutely
perfect, but to enjoin what the conscience and public opinion of the
time might be fairly expected to recognise and support. It may be that
under a perfect system women ought to inherit property on equal terms
with men. But the Jewish nation was not sufficiently advanced for such
a law. The benefit of the enactment was that, when propounded, it met
with general approval.
Certainly it was a considerable advance on the ordinary practice of
the nations. It established the principle that woman was not a mere
chattel, an inferior creature, subject to the control of the man, with
no rights of her own. But it was far from being the first time when
this principle obtained recognition. The wives of the patriarchs--Sarah,
Rebekah, Rachel--were neither chattels, nor drudges, nor concubines.
They were ladies, exerting the influence and enjoying the respect due
to cultivated, companionable women. And though the law of succession
did not give the females of the family equal rights with the males, it
recognised them in another way. While the eldest son succeeded to the
family home and a double portion of the land, he was expected to make
some provision for his widowed mother and unmarried sisters. In most
cases the sisters came to be provided for by marriage. It is the
circumstance that among us so many women remain unmarried that has
drawn so keen attention to their rights, and already caused so much to
be done, as no doubt more will be done speedily, for enlarging their
sphere and protecting their interests.
No doubt these spirited daughters of Zelophehad conferred a great
benefit on their sex in Israel. Their names are entitled to grateful
remembrance, as the names of all are who bring about beneficial
arrangements that operate in many directions and to all time. Yet one
would be sorry to think that this was the only service which they
rendered in their day. One would like to think of them as shedding
over their households and friends the lustre of those gentle, womanly
qualities which are the glory of the sex. Advocacy of public rights
may be a high duty, for the faithful discharge of which the highest
praise is due; but such a career emits little of the fragrance which
radiates from a female life of faithful love, domestic activity, and
sacred devotion. What blessed ideals of life Christianity furnishes
for women even of middling talent and ordinary education! It is
beautiful to see distinguished talents, high gifts, and persuasive
elements directed to the advocacy of neglected claims. "And yet I show
unto you a more excellent way."