Joshua 17:1 - Joseph Benson’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh That half of it which had no portion on the other side Jordan. For he was the firstborn of Joseph The sense of this, as it here stands, is very obscure. But if the particle כי, ki, here rendered for, be translated though, as it often is, and as Bishop Patrick thinks it ought to be here, the meaning is plain, that the second lot was for Manasseh, because, though he was the firstborn of Joseph, yet Jacob had preferred Ephraim before him, Genesis 48:19-20. Or the sense may be, though Ephraim was to be more potent and numerous than Manasseh, according to the prophecy of Jacob, yet this should be no prejudice to Manasseh, nor deprive him of any privilege to which he might lay claim as the elder. “Both being sons of Joseph, drew but one lot; and their estates and cities were in some degree mixed together; but after having described the portion of the lot which fell to Ephraim, it was proper in like manner to describe the portion of his brother, as being the first born.” Dodd. For Machir The only son of Manasseh, who, therefore, is here put for the whole tribe. The firstborn So even only sons are sometimes called, as Matthew 1:25. Because he was a man of war That is, had given great proof of his valour, (though the particular history be not mentioned,) and his posterity were no degenerate sons, but had his valiant blood still running in their veins. Gilead and Bashan Part of those countries; for part of them was given to the Reubenites, and part to the Gadites. This may be added as a reason, either, 1st, Why he got those places from the Amorites. Or, 2d, Why they were allotted to him or his posterity, because this was a frontier country, and the outworks to the land of Canaan, and therefore required valiant persons to defend it.