Joshua 17:9 · Bible study
Joshua 17:9 Commentary: Ephraim's Cities in Manasseh
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Commentary on Joshua 17:9: why Ephraim's cities lay within Manasseh's territory, the brook Kanah as boundary, and the unity of Joseph's sons.
Research Summary
- Meaning of verse: The border of Manasseh ran south of the brook Kanah and ended at the Mediterranean; Ephraim held certain cities north of the brook within Manasseh’s territory.
- Key words: “Brook of Kanah” (wadi of reeds), “southward” (Negbah), “border” (gebul), “extremities” (totzaot, outgoings).
- Main debate: Whether the text reflects a clear historical arrangement (separate cities per Joshua 16:9) or is textually corrupt at this point (Barnes).
- Theological theme: God’s sovereign allocation of land and the unity of Joseph’s sons expressed through intermixed inheritances.
- Best use: Teaching on boundaries, inheritance, and how God ordains even the details of tribal (and church) relationships.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
From there the border continued southward to the Brook of Kanah. There were cities belonging to Ephraim among the cities of Manasseh, but the border of Manasseh was on the north side of the brook and ended at the Sea.
WEB World English Bible 2000
The border went down to the brook of Kanah, southward of the brook. These cities belonged to Ephraim among the cities of Manasseh. The border of Manasseh was on the north side of the brook, and ended at the sea.
KJV King James Version 1769
And the coast descended unto the river Kanah, southward of the river: these cities of Ephraim are among the cities of Manasseh: the coast of Manasseh also was on the north side of the river, and the outgoings of it were at the sea:
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And the border went down unto the brook of Kanah, southward of the brook: these cities belonged to Ephraim among the cities of Manasseh: and the border of Manasseh was on the north side of the brook, and the goings out thereof were at the sea:
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And the border hath come down to the brook of Kanah, southward of the brook; these cities of Ephraim are in the midst of the cities of Manasseh, and the border of Manasseh is on the north of the brook, and its outgoings are at the sea.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And the border descended to the torrent Kanah, south of the torrent. These cities were Ephraim's among the cities of Manasseh. And the territory of Manasseh was on the north side of the torrent, and ended at the sea.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And the border goeth down to the valley of the reeds, to the south of the torrent of the cities of Ephraim, which are in the midst of the cities of Manasses: the border of Manasses is on the north side of the torrent, and the outgoings of it are at the sea:
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y desciende este término al arroyo de Cana, hacia el mediodía del arroyo. Estas ciudades de Ephraim están entre las ciudades de Manasés: y el término de Manasés es desde el norte del mismo arroyo, y sus salidas son á la mar.
E desce este termo ao ribeiro de Caná, até o sul do ribeiro. Estas cidades de Efraim estão entre as cidades de Manassés: e o termo de Manassés é desde o norte do mesmo ribeiro, e suas saídas são ao mar.
La limite descendait au torrent de Kana, au midi du torrent. Ces villes étaient à Éphraïm, au milieu des villes de Manassé. La limite de Manassé au nord du torrent aboutissait à la mer.
darnach kommt sie herab zum Bach Kana zur Mittagsseite des Bachs, die Städte daselbst sind Ephraims unter den Städten Manasses; die Grenze Manasses aber geht weiter an der Mitternachtseite des Baches und endet am Meer.
Daarna komt de landpale af naar de beek Kana tegen het zuiden der beek. Deze steden zijn van Efraim in het midden der steden van Manasse; en de landpale van Manasse is aan het noorden der beek, en haar uitgangen zijn aan de zee.
Poi il confine scendeva al torrente di Kana, a sud del torrente, presso città che appartenevano ad Efraim in mezzo alle città di Manasse; ma il confine di Manasse era dal lato nord del torrente, e facea capo al mare.
I bieży ta granica do potoku Kana na południe tegoż potoku; a miasta Efraimitów są między miasty Manasesowemi; ale granica Manasesowa idzie od północy onego potoku, a kończy się u morza.
Отсюда предел нисходит к потоку Кане, с южной стороны потока. Города сии принадлежат Ефрему, хотя находятся среди городов Манассии. Предел Манассии — на северной стороне потока и оканчивается морем.
其界 下 到加拿 河 的南邊。 在瑪拿西 城邑 中 的這些 城邑 都歸以法蓮。瑪拿西 的地界 是在河 北 直通 到海 為止；
And the limit goes down to the stream Kanah, to the south of the stream: these towns were Ephraim's among the towns of Manasseh; Manasseh's limit was on the north side of the stream, ending at the sea:
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Joshua 17:9
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that the brook Kanah (the “Wadi of Reeds”) formed the main boundary between the tribes of Ephraim (south) and Manasseh (north). The verse states that the border “went down to the brook of Kanah, southward of the brook,” meaning the boundary line descended to the wadi and then ran south of it, placing the watercourse itself within Manasseh’s territory. Yet several cities on the north bank, inside Manasseh’s allotted land, were assigned to Ephraim. Barnes notes the text may be corrupt in its phrasing, but the intention is that the cities south of the river (though geographically part of Manasseh) were given to Ephraim as “separate cities” (Joshua 16:9). Gill and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown explain that Ephraim possessed enclaves within Manasseh’s inheritance, reflecting the intertwined lot of Joseph’s two sons. The Cambridge Bible also observes that these were the same cities listed in Joshua 16:9. Thus the consensus establishes a clear geographical arrangement: a common boundary with intermingled populations by divine design.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Textual corruption: Barnes suggests the text is possibly corrupt; the intended meaning may be obscured by scribal error.
- Historical arrangement / separate cities: Most commentators (Gill, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Cambridge) accept the text as is, citing Joshua 16:9 where ‘separate cities’ for Ephraim are explicitly described.
What is clear: The border followed the brook Kanah, and Ephraim held cities within Manasseh’s allotted territory, whether by design or later arrangement.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Location of the brook Kanah as a boundary marker | All commentators agree the brook Kanah (a wadi) was the real boundary between Ephraim and Manasseh. | Some think the phrase ‘southward of the brook’ means the border itself ran south of the water; others interpret it as the territory south of the brook was Ephraim’s. The difference does not affect the fact of the boundary. |
| Reason for Ephraimite cities inside Manasseh | It is agreed that Ephraim possessed several cities within Manasseh’s territorial allotment (Joshua 16:9). | Whether this was a deliberate provision for Ephraim’s larger population, a consequence of incomplete conquest, or a sign of tribal unity is not settled in the supplied sources. Barnes notes possible textual corruption; others accept it as historical fact without speculation. |
| Textual integrity of the verse | The verse is present in all major manuscripts and translations. | Barnes suggests the clause “these cities of Ephraim are among the cities of Manasseh” may be corrupt or misplaced. Other commentators (Gill, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Cambridge) treat the text as sound and explain it from the context. |
| Theological significance of the mixed inheritance | The passage shows God’s precise care in assigning land to each tribe. | Some traditions (e.g., early church allegorists) see the intermixing as a type of Jew-Gentile unity; reformation-era commentators read it as moral instruction about contentment with one’s lot. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Joshua 17:9 sits within the larger description of the tribal allotments for the house of Joseph. After the conquest of Canaan, Joshua distributed the land by lot (Joshua 14, 19). The tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, both descendants of Joseph, received adjoining territories west of the Jordan. As Jacob’s blessing in Genesis 48 had elevated Ephraim ahead of his older brother, the allotment reflects that priority: Ephraim’s portion lay south of the brook Kanah, while Manasseh’s stretched northward to Asher and Issachar.
The brook Kanah (Hebrew Naạal Qāneh, “Wadi of Reeds”) was a seasonal watercourse that fitted the region’s dry landscape. The Vulgate translates it vallis arundintei (valley of reeds), as Clarke notes. This wadi served as a natural boundary, common in ancient land division. What stands out is that Ephraim received cities “among the cities of Manasseh”, that is, enclaves north of the brook. Joshua 16:9 calls these “separate cities” set apart within Manasseh’s inheritance. The surrounding context (Joshua 17:12, 13) records that Manasseh failed to drive out the Canaanites in those very towns, later putting them to forced labor. The intermingling of Israelite tribes with Canaanite populations and with each other created a complex patchwork of settlement. This arrangement may have been practical (Ephraim was more populous) or symbolic of the one family of Joseph. But the text presents it as God’s sovereign ordering of the land, down to the last wadi and city.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants among Hebrew manuscripts for this verse. Barnes’ Notes raises a possibility of corruption in the phrase “these cities of Ephraim are among the cities of Manasseh,” suggesting the wording may have been altered or misplaced. However, other commentators (Gill, Cambridge Bible) accept the Masoretic Text as coherent and interpret it in light of Joshua 16:9. No further variants are attested in the supplied data.
Reception History
From the Reformation era onward, commentators approached Joshua 17:9 primarily as a straightforward historical boundary description. The Geneva Bible Notes (1599) and Matthew Henry (1710) read it as part of God’s faithful distribution of the promised land. Wesley (1754) and Gill (1748) focused on the practical intermingling of Ephraim and Manasseh, noting that it demonstrated the close relationship between Joseph’s sons. The verse also appears in discussions of tribal inheritance patterns; some Christian writers have used it to illustrate how believers from different backgrounds can share a common spiritual inheritance. Early church allegorists (like Origen) would have seen the intermixed cities as a figure of Jews and Gentiles united in Christ, but that interpretation is not directly attested in the supplied sources.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Boundaries that define, The brook Kanah marks a clear line between tribes, showing that God gives precise limits to His people. Every inheritance has borders, and those boundaries are meant to be honored (Joshua 16:8).
- Intermingling as a sign of unity, Ephraim’s cities within Manasseh illustrate the close bond between Joseph’s descendants. This foreshadows how in Christ, believers from different backgrounds share one inheritance (Ephesians 3:6).
- Incomplete conquest, lingering tensions, Right after this boundary note, the text reports Manasseh could not drive out the Canaanites. The mixed population created struggles. Our spiritual inheritance too is contested; we must actively take possession (Hebrews 4:11).
Five-point outline
- A brook as a border, The “Brook of Reeds” is a physical marker of God’s provision and order.
- South vs. north, Ephraim takes the south, Manasseh the north; each has its place.
- Separate cities within, Ephraim holds enclaves in Manasseh. This wasn’t a mistake but a deliberate arrangement (Joshua 16:9).
- The route to the sea, The border ends at the Mediterranean, linking the inheritance to the wider world and trade.
- Failure to fully possess, Manasseh’s incomplete obedience (v.12, 13) casts a shadow over the boundary lines. God’s gifts must be claimed.
Illustration hooks
- A family splits a large farm between two children, but one child keeps a few fields inside the other’s section to maintain shared access to a pond.
- A neighborhood where houses are arranged so that one street belongs to a different postal code, causing friendly confusion about who maintains the road.
- A church with two congregations sharing one building, different schedules but one roof, reflecting unity in diversity.
Questions your congregation is asking
- “If God gave each tribe specific land, why did Ephraim get cities inside Manasseh’s territory?”
- “Does the intermingling of tribes have anything to do with Christ’s church being made from Jews and Gentiles?”
- “How should we handle boundaries in our own lives, work, family, church, when they seem crossed by others?”
Leading a Discussion
This verse shows us a curious case of overlapping inheritances. God gave precise borders to the tribes of Joseph, yet Ephraim held cities within Manasseh’s land. As you discuss this passage, think about the way God sometimes arranges for His people to share space and resources, not as a failure of planning, but as an expression of family unity.
Discussion questions
- What geographical details stand out in Joshua 17:9? (Look at words like “brook,” “southward,” “north side,” “sea.”)
- How does this verse connect to Joshua 16:8, 9, which mentions “separate cities” for Ephraim in Manasseh?
- Why do you think the Bible devotes so much space to describing land boundaries? What does that tell us about God’s character?
- What might be the practical reasons behind giving Ephraim enclaves in Manasseh’s territory? (Consider population, family ties, or military strategy.)
- If you were a Manassite, how would you feel about Ephraimites living in your tribal area? Does this arrangement challenge our sense of ownership?
- In what ways does the church today experience a similar intermingling, different gifts, backgrounds, or congregations sharing space and resources?
- How can we apply the principle of “shared inheritance” when dealing with disagreements over property, roles, or leadership in Christian community?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Joshua 16:3 | and it went down westward to the border of the Japhletites, to the border of Beth Horon the lower, and on to Gezer; and ended at the sea. |
| Joshua 16:8 | From Tappuah the border went along westward to the brook of Kanah; and ended at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim according to their families; |
| Joshua 16:9 | together with the cities which were set apart for the children of Ephraim in the middle of the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages. |
| Joshua 19:29 | The border turned to Ramah, to the fortified city of Tyre; and the border turned to Hosah. It ended at the sea by the region of Achzib; |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke highlights that the name Kanah literally means reeds, showing the boundary marker was a reed-filled torrent or valley. He then notes this valley formed the northern border of Manasseh's territory, while the Mediterranean Sea served as its southern limit.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes suggests the text here may be corrupted, but its likely intent is clear. Cities south of the river, though within Manasseh's territory, were assigned to Ephraim as separate cities. The north bank, both land and towns, belonged exclusively to Manasseh.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The Cambridge Bible identifies the river Kanah as the Brook of Reeds, linking it to the earlier description in Joshua 16:8. It also notes that the mention of "these cities of Ephraim" refers back to the tribal territory already described.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Notes highlight a geographical puzzle: cities belonging to Ephraim lie inside Manasseh's territory, while the river forms the boundary between them. This detail shows the tribes' lands were interwoven, not neatly separated.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill notes that the river Kanah formed a boundary between Ephraim and Manasseh, with Ephraim north and Manasseh south. Even so, Ephraimites inhabited certain cities within Manasseh's assigned territory, and Manasseh also held land north of the river that extended to the Mediterranean Sea.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
The boundary between Ephraim and Manasseh ran south of the river Kanah, placing the river itself inside Manasseh's territory. Yet the cities along that river were divided: those on the south bank went to Ephraim, those on the north to Manasseh. This arrangement shows how deeply the two tribes were interwoven.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange notes that Joshua, himself an Ephraimite, refuses to give his own tribe special treatment. When they complain of insufficient land, he replies with ironic encouragement: they must clear the forest and conquer the Canaanites, even those with iron chariots. This is noble humor, not harsh mockery.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry notes that Manasseh's territory was tightly interwoven with Ephraim's, with towns and borders overlapping between the two tribes descended from Joseph. He also observes that Manasseh failed to drive out the Canaanites, only subjecting them to forced labour, which fell short of God's command.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley observes that the cities of Ephraim and Manasseh were intermixed among each other's territories. He explains this was neither strange nor unfitting, because these two tribes shared a closer bond than the rest, both descending from Joseph's sons.