Chapter 19 The Portions of the Remaining Six Tribes.
In this chapter an account is given of the lots of the six remaining tribes, and the cities in them, of Simeon, whose cities were chiefly within the tribe of Judah (Joshua 19:1); of Zebulun, its border and cities (Joshua 19:10); of Issachar, its border and cities (Joshua 19:17); of Asher, its border and cities (Joshua 19:24); of Naphtali, its border and cities (Joshua 19:32); of Dan, its border and cities (Joshua 19:40); and lastly of a gift of inheritance to Joshua (Joshua 19:49).
‘ And the second lot came out for Simeon, for the tribe of the children of Simeon, according to their families, and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah.'
The first lot was of course the children of Benjamin's (Joshua 18:11). This is the second of the seven. The patriarchal name is given without qualification only for Simeon and Issachar. In the other cases only the tribal name ‘children of --' is given. There is no obvious reason for this unless it is connected with the fact that neither is mentioned as directly spoken to in the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33 - Issachar is included with Zebulun). This might suggest that Joshua or the writer took full note of the blessing of Moses and wished to include Simeon and Issachar in it by codicil.
Why the blessing of Moses excluded a direct reference to them is debatable. It was very possibly because Moses wished deliberately to name only ten names. Numbers had a great significance in those days and ten would for example, parallel the ten words of the covenant. It would also parallel the ten patriarchs in Genesis 5:11. Thus he deliberately included Issachar with Zebulun. The total omission of Simeon may have been for some judicial reason (e.g. Numbers 25:14) as an indication of Moses' displeasure, although he may have seen them as indirectly included with their twin Levi as in Genesis 49:5. But the exclusion was not permanent. They were elsewhere regularly mentioned with the twelve. And it may be that it is here seen as partly remedied by Joshua. (If Moses wished to omit two names, sons of Leah were obvious choices due to their preponderance. But the non-mention at all of Simeon must be seen as having some significance even though we may not know what it was).
After Judah had received their portion, with its cities, further consideration made Joshua recognise that Judah had been allocated too much. This is an indication of the genuineness of the narrative. He had to revise his allocations. Thus Simeon was chosen by lot to receive cities in the midst of Judah. This would later bring about a special relationship between the two tribes (Judges 1:3). But they remained separate tribes although working in close unison and Simeon is regularly mentioned as such in later history (1 Chronicles 4:42-43; 1Ch 12:25; 2 Chronicles 15:9; 2 Chronicles 34:6).