Joshua 16
Introduction
Joshua 16 begins the detailed description of the inheritance allotted to the descendants of Joseph — the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Joseph had received a double portion through his sons, whom Jacob adopted as his own (Genesis 48:5), and their combined territory would constitute the largest block of land in the central hill country. This chapter first traces the shared southern boundary of the Joseph allotment as a whole (vv. 1–4) and then narrows its focus to Ephraim's specific borders (vv. 5–9), with Manasseh's territory reserved for the following chapter.
The chapter ends with a familiar and troubling refrain: Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer (v. 10). This failure note — nearly identical in structure to the one about the Geshurites and Maacathites in Joshua 13:13 and anticipating the catalogue of failures in Judges 1:29 — introduces a permanent compromise into Ephraim's possession. The Canaanites remain, reduced to forced labor but never expelled, and Gezer would not come fully under Israelite control until Solomon's time, when Egypt's pharaoh conquered it and gave it as a wedding dowry (1 Kings 9:16). The chapter thus carries a double weight: it records the faithful distribution of God's promised land to Joseph's descendants, while simultaneously marking where Israel's resolve fell short.
The Territory of Joseph (vv. 1–4)
1 The allotment for the descendants of Joseph extended from the Jordan at Jericho to the waters of Jericho on the east, through the wilderness that goes up from Jericho into the hill country of Bethel. 2 It went on from Bethel (that is, Luz) and proceeded to the border of the Archites in Ataroth. 3 Then it descended westward to the border of the Japhletites as far as the border of Lower Beth-horon and on to Gezer, and it ended at the Sea. 4 So Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, received their inheritance.
1 The lot went out for the descendants of Joseph, running from the Jordan at Jericho — from the waters of Jericho on the east — through the wilderness that climbs up from Jericho into the hill country of Bethel. 2 From Bethel (that is, Luz) it continued to the border of the Archites at Ataroth. 3 Then it went down westward to the border of the Japhletites, as far as the border of Lower Beth-horon, and on to Gezer; and its limits reached the Sea. 4 So the sons of Joseph — Manasseh and Ephraim — received their inheritance.
Notes
The opening phrase וַיֵּצֵא הַגּוֹרָל — "the lot went out" — uses the same language of lot-casting found throughout the land distribution. The lot was not mere chance but a divinely guided mechanism for apportioning territory (Proverbs 16:33). The verb יָצָא — "to go out" — gives the lot an almost active quality, as though the divine decision emerges on its own.
The parenthetical identification of Bethel with Luz (v. 2) is significant. Luz was the older Canaanite name for the site; Bethel ("House of God") was the name Jacob gave it after his vision of the stairway to heaven (Genesis 28:19). By the time of the conquest, both names were in circulation, and the text preserves both for geographical precision. The Archites whose border is mentioned here are the same clan from which Hushai, David's loyal friend and spy, would later come (2 Samuel 15:32). The word הָאַרְכִּי designates a gentile group associated with this region between Bethel and Ataroth.
Beth-horon — named here in its "Lower" form — was a strategically important site in the central hill country. Upper and Lower Beth-horon controlled the main pass between the coastal plain and the central highlands, a route through which armies moved repeatedly throughout biblical history. Joshua had pursued the Amorite coalition down this very pass after the battle of Gibeon (Joshua 10:10-11). The boundary line thus traces a path from the Jordan Valley up through the highlands and down to the coastal plain, with the Mediterranean Sea (יָמָּה, literally "seaward") as its western terminus.
Verse 4 serves as a summary statement, noting that both Ephraim and Manasseh — listed here in the Hebrew as "Manasseh and Ephraim," following birth order rather than the blessing order Jacob reversed in Genesis 48:14-20 — received their inheritance as the two branches of Joseph's house. The double portion given to Joseph through two tribal allotments reflects his status as the favored son and the practical reality that his descendants were numerous enough to constitute two full tribes.
Ephraim's Borders (vv. 5–9)
5 This was the territory of the descendants of Ephraim by their clans: The border of their inheritance went from Ataroth-addar in the east to Upper Beth-horon 6 and out toward the Sea. From Michmethath on the north it turned eastward toward Taanath-shiloh and passed by it to Janoah on the east. 7 From Janoah it went down to Ataroth and Naarah, and then reached Jericho and came out at the Jordan. 8 From Tappuah the border went westward to the Brook of Kanah and ended at the Sea. This was the inheritance of the clans of the tribe of Ephraim, 9 along with all the cities and villages set apart for the descendants of Ephraim within the inheritance of Manasseh.
5 This was the territory of the descendants of Ephraim, by their clans: the border of their inheritance on the east ran from Ataroth-addar to Upper Beth-horon, 6 then continued westward to the Sea. From Michmethath on the north, the border curved eastward to Taanath-shiloh, passing beyond it to Janoah on the east. 7 From Janoah it descended to Ataroth and Naarah, touched Jericho, and came out at the Jordan. 8 From Tappuah the border went westward along the Brook of Kanah and ended at the Sea. This was the inheritance of the tribe of Ephraim, by their clans — 9 including all the cities with their villages that were set apart for the descendants of Ephraim within the inheritance of Manasseh.
Notes
The Ephraimite boundary description traces a rough rectangle in the central hill country. The southern border runs east-west from Ataroth-addar to Upper Beth-horon (v. 5), while the northern border swings from Michmethath through Taanath-shiloh to Janoah (v. 6). The eastern border descends to the Jordan Valley near Jericho (v. 7), and the western border follows the Brook of Kanah to the Mediterranean (v. 8). The result is a territory occupying fertile, defensible land in the heart of the central highlands.
The word גְּבוּל — "border, boundary" — appears repeatedly throughout this passage, emphasizing the precision with which tribal territories were demarcated. This was not vague frontier; it was surveyed and recorded. The Hebrew term נַחֲלָה — "inheritance" — carries covenantal weight beyond simple real estate. It denotes a God-given portion, a permanent trust held by each tribe as their share in the promised land.
The נַחַל קָנָה — "Brook of Kanah" (v. 8) — served as the dividing line between Ephraim to the south and Manasseh to the north. This wadi is generally identified with the modern Wadi Qanah, which flows westward through the Samarian hills to the coastal plain. The name קָנָה means "reed," likely reflecting the vegetation along its banks.
Verse 9 introduces an unusual arrangement: Ephraim held cities within Manasseh's territory. The word הַמִּבְדָּלוֹת — "the ones set apart" — indicates that these were specifically designated Ephraimite enclaves embedded within Manassite land. This interleaving of tribal territories was a practical solution to the fact that tribal populations did not always match the territory available. It also meant that Ephraim and Manasseh lived in close proximity and shared resources — as befitted two tribes descended from the same father.
The Canaanites Remain in Gezer (v. 10)
10 But they did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer. So the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites to this day, but they are forced laborers.
10 But they did not dispossess the Canaanites living in Gezer. So the Canaanites have lived in the midst of Ephraim to this day, though they have been put to forced labor.
Notes
This concluding verse carries the chapter's theological weight. The verb הוֹרִישׁ — in the Hiphil stem of יָרַשׁ — means "to dispossess, to drive out." It is the specific term used throughout Deuteronomy and Joshua for the complete removal of the Canaanite population from the land. Ephraim's failure is not military defeat; it is incomplete obedience. They subjugated the Canaanites but did not remove them.
The phrase עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה — "to this day" — is the narrator's marker indicating that this situation persisted into his own time. It signals that the compromise described was not temporary but became a settled reality in Israel's life. The same formula appears in Joshua 13:13 regarding the Geshurites and Maacathites, and Judges 1:29 records this identical failure about Gezer in its own catalogue of tribal shortcomings.
The term לְמַס עֹבֵד — "forced labor" or "laboring corvee" — describes the arrangement Ephraim imposed on the remaining Canaanites. The word מַס denotes compulsory labor service, a practice that would later become a central institution under Solomon's kingdom (1 Kings 5:13) and the grievance that ultimately split the nation when Rehoboam refused to lighten the burden (1 Kings 12:4-18). What began as a pragmatic arrangement in Ephraim's territory — keeping Canaanites alive as a labor force rather than obeying the command to drive them out — established a pattern that Israel's own monarchy would later turn upon its own people. The forced labor arrangement introduced here in Joshua 16 reappears with destructive consequences in 1 Kings 12.
Gezer itself was a strategically important city, sitting on the road between the coastal plain and the central highlands. It controlled access to the Aijalon Valley and the approach routes to Jerusalem. The fact that Ephraim could not — or would not — take Gezer meant that a Canaanite stronghold persisted at a critical junction. The city was not brought under full Israelite control until Pharaoh of Egypt conquered it and gave it as a dowry to his daughter, Solomon's wife (1 Kings 9:16). That it took an Egyptian military campaign to accomplish what Ephraim had declined to do underscores the cost of the original compromise.
Interpretations
The pattern of subjugation-without-expulsion raises interpretive questions. Some scholars see Ephraim's decision as pragmatic realism: the Canaanite cities of the lowlands had superior fortifications and chariot forces, and the hill-country Israelites lacked the resources for full conquest. On this reading, forced labor was a reasonable intermediate step. Others view it as a theological failure — a direct violation of the divine command in Deuteronomy 7:1-2 to make no covenant with the inhabitants and show them no mercy. The text itself seems to lean toward the latter interpretation. The narrator does not commend the arrangement; the "to this day" formula carries a note of resigned disapproval, and the parallel in Judges 1:29 is embedded in a passage where the angel of the LORD explicitly rebukes Israel for such compromises (Judges 2:1-3).