Joshuachapter 17
18 verses · Joshua, by tradition · 15th or 13th century BC · History
And the children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the Lord hath blessed me hitherto?
Introduction
Joshua, by tradition, History, Joshua Overview.
This chapter completes the portion of the sons of Joseph with the tribe of Manasseh, the elder brother. Half of that tribe already held land east of the Jordan, so its share crossed the river. The book is credited to Joshua by tradition. Its first hearers lived in a world where a family's land passed through sons, and a father with only daughters faced the loss of his name. The chapter keeps a ruling on that question inside its list of borders. Listen for the five women named one by one. Listen also for the complaint of a large tribe and for Joshua's answer to it.
Context
- Who
- A large tribe holding land on both sides of the river and complaining that its western portion was too small
- What
- Manasseh's portion on both sides of the Jordan, the grant to the daughters of Zelophehad, and Joshua's answer to the complaint of the sons of Joseph.
- Where
- The land of Manasseh north of Ephraim, from the Jordan to the sea, with forested hills and the Valley of Jezreel beyond them.
- When
- During the division of the land, about 1400 BC on the traditional dating, after Moses had ruled on the daughters' claim in the wilderness.
- Why
- To show the promise to Zelophehad's daughters kept, and to answer a tribe that wanted more land than it had taken.
Historical context
The chapter belongs to Manasseh, the elder son of Joseph, and it opens by saying so. Manasseh is called the firstborn and still draws his lot after Ephraim, which is the crossed hands of Genesis 48:14 to 20 taking effect on a map.
Show the rest of the historical context, 6 more paragraphs
It stands at the allotment, after the fighting recorded in chapters 6 to 12 and before the assembly at Shiloh in chapter 18. Half the tribe was settled before the river was ever crossed, because Machir held Gilead and Bashan by the grant Moses made at Numbers 32:39 and 40.
The ground in question runs from the hill country north of Ephraim down to the edge of the Jezreel valley, the broad flat plain that carried the main international road across the country. The six towns of verse 11 sit on that plain or at its rim.
The occasion inside the chapter is a legal claim and a complaint. The five daughters of Zelophehad come to collect on a ruling given in the wilderness, and the house of Joseph comes to ask for more land.
A first hearer knew what iron chariots meant on flat ground. A chariot force was decisive against infantry in a valley, which is why Israel held the ridges and the Canaanites held the plain and the road through it. Iron here most likely means iron fittings on the wheels and body rather than an iron vehicle.
A first hearer also knew that a woman inheriting land was a real legal novelty. Property moved through sons, and the case of Numbers 27:1 to 11 had to be heard before Moses and refined again at Numbers 36 so the land would stay inside the tribe.
The last thing such a hearer knew was how hill country got settled. Joshua tells the tribe to go into the forest and clear it, and the highlands of that era carried far more woodland than they do now. Clearing and terracing a wooded ridge is exactly how those hills were brought under the plough.
Significance
First hearers heard a leader refuse to solve a problem for a tribe that could solve it itself. The land was there and the work was the price of it.
Show the rest of the significance, 2 more paragraphs
They also heard the obstacle named rather than denied. Joshua grants that the Canaanites have iron chariots and are strong, and tells the tribe to drive them out anyway.
The ruling for the daughters told them that a case argued before Moses was still good law a generation later, and that it was discharged by name.
This chapter in Jewish lifeWhat this chapter is in Jewish life and reading.
How it is read
The chapter's first question is a question of inheritance law, and Rashi answers it out of the Talmud. Ten portions fall to Manasseh, and he accounts for each: six to the family divisions already named, and four to the daughters of Zelophehad. The four are not four families but four claims, their father's own portion as one who came out of Egypt, his share with his brothers in the property of Hepher, a second share because he was a firstborn, and the portion of an uncle who died in the wilderness without children. Rashi names his source, "This was stated by our Sages in Bava Basra" (Rashi on Joshua 17:5:1, the Metsudah Publications translation of 1997, CC-BY). He then draws the legal point the verse exists to teach, that the land of Israel counted as an inheritance actually possessed rather than one merely owed, because a firstborn takes a double portion only of property his father actually held.
This is worth a Christian reader's attention. A passage most English readers pass over as a list is read by the classical commentary as the decisive case in a standing question of Jewish civil law, and the daughters who carried it stand at the centre of the reading rather than at its margin.
Rashi handles the mixed holdings of Ephraim and Manasseh as carefully as he handles the law. The land of Tappuah belongs to Manasseh while the city of Tappuah belongs to Ephraim (Rashi on Joshua 17:8:1); the cities from Tappuah to the brook Kanah belong to Ephraim while standing among the cities of Manasseh (Rashi on Joshua 17:9:1); Machir took his portion first, in the days of Moses beyond the Jordan, because he was the firstborn (Rashi on Joshua 17:1:1); and the three regions of the eleventh verse he reads through the Targum as three provinces, matched to the three mentions of Dor earlier in the book (Rashi on Joshua 17:11:1).
At the twelfth verse the commentary turns to judgment. Manasseh let the Canaanites remain and put them to tribute, and Rashi's note weighs that against what Ephraim did. Ephraim also failed to drive them out, but forced them into labour, while Manasseh demanded only a money tax, and the note reads the lighter demand as the graver sin, because it left the Canaanites free to influence Israel (Rashi on Joshua 17:12:1). The note calls it a bad precedent that the other tribes then followed.
The chapter closes on the complaint of the sons of Joseph, and Rashi reads it as a complaint of Manasseh alone. Ephraim had lost population while Manasseh had grown faster than any other tribe, so only Manasseh had cause to say the portion was too small (Rashi on Joshua 17:14:1). Joshua's answer he takes at face value, that a people numerous enough to complain is numerous enough to clear forest: "then you have the strength to cut down forests and to clear them" (Rashi on Joshua 17:15:1). The note adds that Joshua could not alter a portion the lot had assigned, so unclaimed woodland was what he had to offer. At the sixteenth and eighteenth verses Rashi keeps the exchange tight, the mountain too crowded by Joshua's own account, and the mountain still theirs to take (Rashi on Joshua 17:16:1 and 17:18:1).
Radak, Malbim and Metzudat David comment across the chapter, and the corpus carries their refs with the reason that Sefaria holds no English version of them, so they stand here cited and unquoted: Radak on Joshua 17:1:1, 17:5:1 and 17:7:1; Malbim on Joshua 17:2:1 and 17:4:1; and Metzudat David on Joshua 17:2:1, 17:4:1, 17:6:1, 17:7:1, 17:9:1 and 17:17:1.
What the rabbis say
The corpus carries thirty seven rabbinic locators for this chapter and the text of none, so each is cited and linked here rather than quoted. The daughters of Zelophehad draw the Talmud. On the second verse the corpus holds Bava Batra 118b:8 and 118b:13, Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 8:2:3, and Midrash Lekach Tov, Numbers 36:12:1. On the fourth it holds Bamidbar Rabbah 21:12, Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 9:1 and Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Pinchas 10:1. On the fifth, the ten portions Rashi explains from Bava Batra, it holds Bava Batra 119a:5, which is the folio his note names, with Bamidbar Rabbah 14:7, Midrash Lekach Tov, Numbers 1:5:1, Midrash Tannaim on Deuteronomy 32:9:4, Sifrei Devarim 312:2, and Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 774:2, 774:3 and 942:47.
The complaint of the sons of Joseph at the fourteenth verse carries the second heavy run, sixteen locators. Three are Talmudic, Bava Batra 118a:4 and Sotah 36b:5, with Bava Batra 118a:7 on the verse that follows. Beside them stand Aggadat Bereshit 83:1, Bereshit Rabbah 97:3, Bereshit Rabbati, Parashat Vayechi 30, Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition) at Bava Batra 8:7 and Sotah 7:19, Ein Yaakov at Bava Batra 8:10 and Sotah 7:20, Midrash Lekach Tov on Genesis 49:22:3 and 49:25:3 and on Numbers 26:54:1, Midrash Sekhel Tov, Bereshit 49:27:58, two entries of Otzar Midrashim under Lekach Tov on the Blessings of Yaakov Our Father at 24 and 27, Sifrei Bamidbar 132:2, and Yalkut Shimoni on Nach 29:3.
The rest follow the boundary and the answer. On the first twelve verses as a run the corpus holds Bereshit Rabbah 97:5; on the ninth, Zevachim 54b:5; on the fifteenth, Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 773:7; and on the sixteenth, where the Canaanites of the valley have chariots of iron, Bamidbar Rabbah 14:1. What each of them teaches is a saying of the rabbis, and is reported as theirs wherever this site quotes one. The quotations wait on a fetch that carries the text.
Sources: Rashi, Rashi on Joshua 17:1:1 to 17:18:1, The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997, CC-BY; Radak, Radak on Joshua 17:1:1, 17:5:1 and 17:7:1, cited by ref because the corpus carries no English text; Malbim, Malbim on Joshua 17:2:1 and 17:4:1, cited by ref because the corpus carries no English text; Metzudat David, Metzudat David on Joshua 17:2:1 to 17:17:1, six refs cited because the corpus carries no English text; The Sefaria corpus, scripts/data/sources/sefaria/joshua/17.json, the 37 Talmud and Midrash locators of this chapter.
The heads below are this chapter's scenes. The numbered points under each are its verses.
Zelophehad's daughters claim their inheritance
Joshua 17:1-2
Manasseh is called Joseph's firstborn yet receives his lot after Ephraim, which is Genesis 48:14-20 worked out on a map, where Jacob crossed his hands and set the younger first. Machir already held Gilead and Bashan, granted by Moses at Numbers 32:39-40 and Deuteronomy 3:15, so half the tribe was settled before the crossing. Gideon comes from Abiezer, the first clan of verse 2, at Judges 6:11.
Joshua 17:1
“It is here said that the lot came to Manasseh, for he was the first-born of Joseph. Bishop Patrick thinks it should be translated, though he was the first-born of Joseph, and then the meaning is plain, that the second lot was for Manasseh, because, though he was the first-born, yet Jacob had preferred Ephraim before him.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
1 more voice on this verseWhat preachers and commentators have said about this verse, in their own words.
Joshua 17:1
“Manasseh, as the “first-born,” was to receive not only the territory on the east of Jordan won by the valor of the Machirites, but also a portion with the other tribes on the west of Jordan, the holy land of promise strictly so called. Thus, though Ephraim took precedence of Manasseh, according to the prediction of Joseph Gen 48:20, yet Manasseh received “the double portion” which was the special privilege of the first-born Deu 21:17.”
Barnes reads the rest as the clans west of the Jordan. Wesley notes that the phrase about male descendants prepares for the daughters who follow in verse 3. One clan bears the name Shechem, the town that verse 7 names near Manasseh's border.
Joshua 17:2
“The rest of the children of Manasseh - That is, his grandchildren; for it is contended that Manasseh had no other son than Machir; and these were very probably the children of Gilead, the son of Machir.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Joshua 17:2
“The most remarkable person of this half tribe in after-time was Gideon, whose great actions were done within this lot. He was of the family of Abiezer; Cesarea was in this lot, and Antipatris, famed in the latter ages of the Jewish state.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Joshua 17:3-6
Numbers 27:1-11 heard this case before Moses and Numbers 36 refined the ruling, and verse 4 settles it by name a generation later. The daughters approach Eleazar, Joshua and the leaders, the court of Numbers 27:2 with Moses gone. How the ten shares of verse 5 are counted is disputed, Albert Barnes reckoning five from Gilead's male line and five for the daughters, and other readers dividing them otherwise.
Joshua 17:3
“But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters,.... The descent of this man is particularly given, to show the truth and reality of it, upon which his daughters made their request, and that granted and now claimed: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah; by the same names, and in the same order they are called in Num 26:33; the order is a little different in Num 36:11.”
The daughters quote the command given through Moses, and at Numbers 27:4 they had asked for property among their father's brothers, the terms in which Joshua now grants it. Matthew Henry observes that Joshua raised no objection that they had fought in none of the wars. The ruling had been settled already.
Clarke says the Hebrew word for shares means cords, which points to land measured out with a line. Calvin asks how ten parts were reckoned. Wesley and Clarke answer with five shares for the sons of Gilead and five for the daughters of Zelophehad, since, as Clarke puts it, neither Hepher nor Zelophehad is reckoned.
Joshua 17:5
“Ten portions - i. e. five for the five families descended from the male children of Gilead, and five others for the five daughters of Zelophehad, who represented the sixth family, the Hepherites.”
1 more voice on this verse
Joshua 17:5
“Ten portions - Five for the sons, and five for the daughters; for as for Hepher, both he and his son Zelophehad was dead, and that without sons, and therefore had no portion; but his daughters had several portions allotted to them.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
Verse 6 gives the reason for the ten shares, since the daughters counted as heirs alongside the sons. Gill takes the rest who held Gilead to be the families of Machir and Gilead, whom Numbers 26:29 names. Moses had given Gilead to Machir's clan at Numbers 32:40.
Joshua 17:6
“Because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance among his sons,.... Which occasioned such a number of portions; the daughters of Zelophehad are meant, who descended from Manasseh: and the rest of Manasseh, some had the land of Gilead; that is, those besides the six families before expressed, namely, the two families of the Machirites and Gileadites, Num 26:29.”
Manasseh's towns, and the Canaanites who would not go
Joshua 17:7-11
Each son of Joseph holds towns inside the other's line, Ephraim within Manasseh at 16:9 and Manasseh six towns inside Issachar and Asher here. All six have later history: the kings of Canaan fight at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo at Judges 5:19, and Saul finds a medium at Endor at 1 Samuel 28:7. The Philistines hang Saul's body on the wall of Beth-shan at 1 Samuel 31:10.
Joshua 17:7
“Asher - Not the tribe so called, but a place somewhere toward the eastern end of the boundary line here drawn: perhaps “Teyasir,” on the road from Sichem to Beth-shean.”
The district and its town were split between the two tribes, the fields to Manasseh and the town to Ephraim. Gill counts Tappuah among the separate cities of 16:9. This Tappuah is distinct from Judah's lowland town at 15:34.
Joshua 17:8
“Now Manasseh had the land of Tappuah,.... The whole territory that went by that name, from a city of note in it, next mentioned; all the fields and villages in it belonged to the tribe of Manasseh: but Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim; and was one of those separate cities they had among the inheritance of the children of Manasseh; though it seems they had only the city, not the territory adjacent to it, and which was named from it.”
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, following Keil, read the verse to mean that the cities south of the Kanah went to Ephraim even inside Manasseh's limits. Barnes thinks the text may be corrupt here. North of the brook, land and towns were Manasseh's alone.
Joshua 17:9
“Thus the river was in the territory of Manasseh; but the cities which were upon the river, though all were within the limits of Manasseh's possessions, were assigned partly to Ephraim, and partly to Manasseh; those on the south side being given to the former; those upon the north to the latter [KEIL].”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
Barnes takes the northern border as common to both tribes of Joseph and says it is sketched in general terms, perhaps because Israel had yet to master that ground. Clarke explains the meeting with Asher through Dor near Carmel, named in verse 11. The sea closes the west side.
Joshua 17:10
“His border - Manasseh's, whose portion is here described, and whose name was last mentioned. In Asher - That is, upon the tribe of Asher; for though Zebulon came between Asher and them for the greatest part of their land; yet it seems there was some necks of land, both of Ephraim's and of Manasseh's, which jutted out farther than the rest, and touched the borders of Asher.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
Dor had a king of its own at 12:23. Barnes suggests these towns were given to Manasseh in return for its towns handed to Ephraim, and 1 Chronicles 7:29 still lists them along Manasseh's borders. Under Solomon, Naphath-dor and the Beth-shean district were placed under two of his officers at 1 Kings 4:11 and 4:12.
Joshua 17:11
“Inhabitants of Dor - Not the places only, but the people; whom they spared and used for servants. Three countries - The words may be rendered, the third part of that country; and so the meaning may be, that the cities and towns here mentioned are a third part of that country, that is, of that part of Issachar's and Asher's portion, in which those places lay.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
2 more voices on this verse
Joshua 17:11
“Perhaps Beth-shean (in Issachar) and the other five towns (in Asher) were given to the Manassites in compensation for towns in the Manassite territory allotted to the Ephraimites. (See Jos 17:9. Compare Jos 21:9.) To the wall of Beth-shean, or Bethshah (“Beisan,” about 5 miles west of the Jordan), the bodies of Saul and his sons were fastened by the Philistines after the battle on Mount Gilboa. After the exile it received the Greek name of Scythopolis, perhaps because it was principally tenanted by a rude and pagan population, styled in contempt Scythians.”
Joshua 17:11
“Beth-shean and her towns--Greek, "Scythopolis" (now Beisan), in the valley of the Jordan, towards the east end of the plain of Jezreel. "Beth-shean" means "house of rest," so called from its being the halting place for caravans travelling between Syria or Midian, and Egypt, and the great station for the commerce between these countries for many centuries.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
Joshua 17:12-13
Judges 1:27-28 tells this again with the same outcome: Manasseh failed to drive them out and put them to forced labor once Israel grew strong. The book sets 21:45, where none of the LORD's good promises failed, beside verse 12, where the Canaanites stay, and softens neither. Forced labor is taken from people left in place, so verse 13 records a settlement rather than a removal, answered at Judges 2:1-3.
Joshua 17:12
“Could not drive out, etc. - They had neither grace nor courage to go against their enemies, and chose rather to share their territories with those whom the justice of God had proscribed, than exert themselves to expel them. But some commentators give a different turn to this expression, and translate the passage thus: But the children of Manasseh could not (resolve) to destroy those cities, but the Canaanites consented to dwell in the land.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Judges 1:28 repeats the sentence nearly word for word. Solomon later made forced labourers of the peoples Israel had been unable to destroy, at 1 Kings 9:20 and 9:21. Ephrem the Syrian reads such service against Noah's word at Genesis 9:26 that Canaan would be the servant of Shem.
Too great for one lot? Then clear the forest
Joshua 17:14-18
Joshua, an Ephraimite by Numbers 13:8, sends his own kinsmen to clear the forest in the land of the Perizzites and the Rephaim. Albert Barnes weighs their claim against Numbers 26, where Ephraim and Manasseh together are not much larger than Judah alone, and beside their complaints at Judges 8:1 and 12:1. Joshua grants their strength and says they can drive out the Canaanites despite iron chariots.
Joshua 17:14
“Seeing I am a great people - The assertion can hardly have been warranted by facts, for at the census Num. 26 the two tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim together were not greatly more numerous than the single tribe of Judah; and now that half the Manassites were provided for on the eastern side of Jordan, the remaining children of Joseph could hardly be stronger than the Danites or the Issacharites. The children of Joseph seem therefore to exhibit here that arrogant and jealous spirit which elsewhere characterises their conduct (Jdg 8:1; Jdg 12:1; 2Sa 19:41; 2Ch 28:7 etc.).”
Clarke says Joshua takes them at their own word: if they are many, they are strong enough to clear more ground. He would not reverse the lot. Barnes places the forest on the range joining Gilboa to Carmel, and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown place it on the Gilboa hills.
Joshua 17:15
“Joshua was himself of the tribe of Ephraim, but far from supporting the demands of his kinsmen he reproves them, and calls upon them to make good their great words by corresponding deeds of valor. He bids them clear the country of its woods and thus make room for settling their people. The “wood country” means probably the range which runs along the northern border of Manasseh, and which connects the mountains of Gilboa with Carmel.”
Barnes describes the plain of Jezreel as the natural battlefield of the land, and he places Midian's camp in this valley when Gideon attacked at Judges 7:1. Wesley reads the complaint as fear of fighting in woods where the defenders hold the advantage. Israel later fell on nearby Gilboa at 1 Samuel 31:1.
Joshua 17:16
“The hill is not enough for us - The mountain of Gilboa being that which had fallen to them by lot. Chariots of iron - We cannot possess the plain country, because that is occupied by the Canaanites; and we cannot conquer them, because they have chariots of iron, that is, very strong chariots, and armed with scythes, as is generally supposed.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Joshua 17:16
“Is not enough - Hebrew. the hill will not be found, that is, obtained by us; those fierce and strong people the Perizzites and the giants will easily defend themselves, and frustrate our attempts, having the advantage of the woods and mountains.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
Joshua grants their claim to be many and then turns it into a task. Barnes explains the further allotment as land won by driving out the Canaanites, so the tribe doubles its portion by its own strength. Matthew Henry says Joshua turned their own argument back on them.
Joshua 17:17
Thou shalt not have one lot only - i. e. by dispossessing the Canaanites, thou shalt double the portion of land at thy disposal. The “but” with which the King James Version begins Jos 17:18 should be “for.”
Verse 18 opens with because, as Barnes said it should, where the King James has but. Clarke reads the order as a plan: clear the wood, hold the mountain, and the valleys below can be commanded. Judges 1:27 records Manasseh's failure in the valley towns.
Joshua 17:18
“WHEN the children of Israel had come to Canaan and by God's good care had entered into the land that flowed with milk and honey they were not immediately at rest. The Canaanites were there—there in possession, there in strong cities—which seemed to be walled up to Heaven. And they had to drive out these Canaanites before they could possibly possess the country. In fact, this was the reason why they were sent there. The Canaanites had been outlawed by God. They had been guilty of such horrible offenses that He had adjudged their race to destruction.”
1 more voice on this verse
Joshua 17:18
For if at last we come to perfection, then the Canaanite is said to have been exterminated by us and handed over to death. But as to how this is accomplished in our flesh, hear the apostle saying, "Mortify your members that are upon the earth: fornication, impurity," and the other things that follow. And again it says, "For those who belong to Christ have crucified their flesh with its vices and lusts."
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · HOMILIES ON JOSHUA 22.2patristic
How this psalm is built
The form: A boundary and city list for one tribe, opened by a legal ruling and closed by a complaint with its answer, as Barnes classes it.
The patterns in this chapter
| Device | What it does | Where to see it |
|---|---|---|
| The claim brought and the claim granted | Verses 3 and 4 set the daughters' request beside Joshua's grant in the same words. They say the LORD commanded Moses to give them an inheritance among their brothers, and verse 4 records Joshua giving them an inheritance among their father's brothers. The case argued at Numbers 27:1 to 11 is closed here by name.Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament, 1834 to 1885, on Joshua 17:3 to 6. | Joshua 17:3, Joshua 17:4 |
| The six towns Manasseh could not hold | Verse 11 lists Beth-shean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach and Megiddo, every one of them on or beside the plain. Verse 12 then says the tribe was unable to occupy them. Judges 1:27 and 28 repeat the same six names with the same outcome.Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1708 to 1710, on Joshua 17:12 to 13. | Joshua 17:11, Joshua 17:12, Joshua 17:13 |
| The complaint answered with the same word it used | The house of Joseph says at verse 14 that it is a numerous people. Joshua grants the word at verse 17, saying they are a numerous people with great strength, and turns it into the reason they can clear the forest for themselves. The complaint's own premise becomes the answer to it.Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament, 1834 to 1885, on Joshua 17:14. | Joshua 17:14, Joshua 17:17, Joshua 17:18 |
The structure
9 more paragraphs on the patterns
Three parts. Verses 1 to 6 settle who is in the tribe and who inherits, including the daughters' claim. Verses 7 to 13 trace the border and list the towns, closing on the six the tribe could not take. Verses 14 to 18 are a dispute between the house of Joseph and Joshua, and they are the only direct speech in the chapter apart from the daughters' one line.
The chapter turns twice on the same fact. Manasseh is large, and largeness is first the reason ten portions fall to it and then the reason Joshua refuses a second lot.
Across the canon
Numbers 26:30 to 32 counts the same six families of verse 2, and Gideon comes out of the first of them, Abiezer, at Judges 6:11. Numbers 27:1 to 11 and Numbers 36 are the case law the daughters stand on.
Every one of the six towns of verse 11 has later history in the text. Taanach and Megiddo are where the kings of Canaan fight Deborah and Barak at Judges 5:19. Endor is where Saul finds the woman with a familiar spirit at 1 Samuel 28:7. The Philistines fasten Saul's body to the wall of Beth-shean at 1 Samuel 31:10.
The iron chariots of verse 16 become the reason Judah could not take the valley at Judges 1:19 and the strength of Sisera's nine hundred at Judges 4:3.
Verse 12 and Joshua 21:45 stand beside each other without either being softened. Judges 2:1 to 3 is where the arrangement of verse 13 is answered.
In the New Testament
No New Testament writer quotes this chapter. The daughters of Zelophehad are named in the Old Testament alone.
Keep studying
Sources for this chapter
The summary
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory; John Calvin, Commentaries; John Wesley, Notes on the Old Testament and Matthew Henry, Complete Commentary.
The form and classifications
Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament, 1834 to 1885, on Joshua 17:14; Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1863, on Joshua 19 and 21 and Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1708 to 1710, on Joshua 17:12 to 13.
The exposition
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible; Albert Barnes; Ephrem the Syrian, On Genesis 7.4; Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; John Calvin, Commentaries; John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament (1748-1763); John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament; Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Joshua, Judges, Ruth; Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible and The Berean Standard Bible, Joshua 17, with the verses cited in the note.