The Land Not Yet ‘Possessed' (Joshua 13:1-6).
‘ Now Joshua was old and bearing the signs of old age (well stricken in years). And YHWH said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and there remains yet very much land to be possessed.” '
Reference here is to lands untouched or uncontrolled by Joshua. ‘Possessed' here refers not so much to the initial conquest of land and weakening of the peoples in preparation for moving in and taking over, but to that moving in and taking over. Joshua had expressed Israel's ‘right' of ownership. Such peoples were now vulnerable and weakened, and it would be up to the different tribes to take advantage of the situation and possess them literally. But some had still not been ‘possessed'. It must be remembered that conquering kings saw land as ‘possessed' once they had conquered it, thus in terms of the times most of Canaan was ‘possessed'. But that possession then had to be continually enforced in order that tribute or settlement might be received. That was a more difficult matter, and was the problem that Israel faced.
Most of Canaan probably did not see themselves as possessed. In contrast Israel now considered that the land was theirs, not only by promise but by conquest. Final possession would, however, only become evident when tribute was claimed or the conquerors began to settle in the land. This case was especially unusual in that Israel were a stateless people and would therefore actually want to settle in the ‘possessed' land and take it over, whilst YHWH had demanded the expulsion of the local inhabitants. This task, a very different thing from initial ‘conquering', would now pass on to the individual tribes. But meanwhile a new problem had arisen. The arrival of the Philistines in the coastal plain.
“Old and advanced in years.” Forty years (a generation) had passed since Joshua had been one of the spies in Canaan (Numbers 13:8), plus the time spent in conquering Canaan. Thus he was at least in his seventies, or even older.
“This is the land that yet remains. All the regions of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites, from the Shihor which is before (east of) Egypt even to the border of Ekron northward, which is counted to the Canaanites; the five Tyrants of the Philistines, the Gazites and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites. Also the Avvim to the South.”
All this up to verse 9 is described as words of YHWH. What this means is that as Joshua summarised the situation he was conscious that he was expressing YHWH's will communicated to him probably through his thoughts. He saw all his plans as YHWH's plans because he was seeking to fulfil God's requirements as outlined in the Books of Moses.
The mention of these as yet unpossessed lands was a reminder that even Joshua's ‘conquests' had not covered the whole of the land promised to Israel, most of which, if not all, would be in the hands of the people of God at one time or another before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. YHWH wanted it to be known that their present exclusion was not intended to be permanent, therefore they are mentioned first.
It is clear that the Philistines were now seen as in the land although not yet as a major threat to Israel. This would date this statement to around 1200 BC and support the 13th century BC date for the conquest (the alternative suggested is the 15th century BC).
It is always possible that the particular phrase ‘ the five Tyrants (seranim) of the Philistines' was inserted later by a scribe to bring the passage up to date, (with ‘land of the Philistines also possibly being an update, although this could refer back to the earlier occupation by a trading station - Genesis 26) and it would then read ‘which is counted to the Canaanites; the Gazites and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites. Also the Avvim.' But ‘counted to' fits well with the idea of the references to the Philistines being original, with the idea being that in spite of being Philistine it belonged to the land of Canaan, and the phrase itself makes better sense that way. The Philistines were a race of warriors who brought the Canaanites under their own domination, with they themselves being the military aristocracy. They did not try to drive them out of the country in the way that, at least theoretically, the Israelites did. Altering the text to fit a theory without any other evidence usually casts doubt on the theory.
As the text stands the Geshurites (compare 1 Samuel 27:8) were a people living in the Negeb between the Philistines and the Egyptian border (and were not the same as the Geshurites in Joshua 12:5; Joshua 13:11, although possibly connected). The Shihor is given as the border. In Isaiah 23:3; Jeremiah 2:18 the Shihor (egyptian ‘s-hr', waters of Horus) is the Nile proper, thus here the branch in the Delta nearest to Canaan is considered roughly to be the boundary so as to include the Wilderness of Shur. The idea is that anything east of the Egyptian Delta is included in the inheritance. In view of this there is no real justification for seeing the ‘Torrent-Wadi (nahal) of Egypt' (Joshua 15:4; Joshua 15:47 - probably Wadi el-Arish) as being in mind.
Ekron is the northernmost of the five major Philistine cities, ruled over by five ‘Tyrants' (seranim - a word uniquely used of Philistine lords) whose inhabitants are mentioned. Thus the description covers both Philistine and Geshurite territory. All this was seen as Canaanite territory, ‘counted to the Canaanites', and thus included in the inheritance. If we connect ‘on the South' to the Avvim, who ‘lived in villages as far as Gaza' (Deuteronomy 2:23) and were displaced by the Philistines, this would place the Avvim within the broad description of Geshurite territory.
Joshua 13:4-5 (4b-5)
‘All the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah which belongs to the Zidonians, to Aphek, to the border of the Amorites and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon toward the sunrising (the east), from Baal-gad under Mount Hermon to the entering in of Hamath.'
These refer to northern areas. ‘Canaanites' probably here signifies ‘Phoenicians' south of Zidon (see Judges 3:3 - ‘Canaanites' does not just refer to people who lived in the land of Canaan but is also regularly used extra-Biblically of Phoenicians further to the north). Me‘arah was presumably an important area on the southern Zidonian border (although ‘Me' may be ‘from' followed by the name of a town). Mention of ‘the Amorites' here probably has reference to the kingdom of the Amurru in Lebanon, well known from Hittite and Egyptian sources. Aphek, which means ‘fortress' and was a common name, was probably on its southern border. Designations of peoples were very fluid and depended on the viewpoint of those who used them.
Gebal (Byblos) was an important coastal town north of Zidon. The land of the Gebalites would possibly be in some way connected with it and this may have in mind its southern border. ‘All Lebanon'. The adjoining regions to the Lebanon Range, probably again thinking of its southern border. It is not likely that Joshua had these territories in mind as part of the promised land. Baal-gad (compare Joshua 11:17) was in the far north of Israel's territories at the foot of and to the west of Mount Hermon. It may be Tell Haus or Hasbeiyah, both in the Wadi et-Teim. ‘The entering in of Hamath' or more probably ‘Lebo of Hamath' (mentioned in inscriptions), is modern Lebweh at the head of the road north to Hamath.
“ All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, even all the Zidonians, them will I drive out from before the children of Israel. Only allot it to Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded you.”
For Misrephoth-maim compare Joshua 11:8. The reference is to the Zidonians in the hill country south of Zidon. This too was allotted to Israel as an inheritance. For the whole range of unpossessed territory compare Judges 3:3. Thus God confirmed His promise that the whole land would be theirs. He always gives full measure. It was not His fault if they did not go ahead and take it.