Land Remaining to Be Possessed

Study notes

Joshua receives the LORD’s word that his advancing years coincide with substantial territory still outside Israelite control. The speech names Philistine city-states along the coast and Sidonian districts to the north, then pivots to a promise that the LORD himself will remove those populations. Immediately afterward comes the directive to assign the same districts as inheritance to the nine tribes and half-tribe of Manasseh. This sequence places the act of division ahead of completed conquest, anchoring the tribes’ portions in the divine commitment rather than in present military outcomes. The geography therefore functions less as a battle plan and more as a map of what the LORD has already granted, leaving the timing of actual clearance to his initiative.

What is Land Remaining to Be Possessed about?

Joshua had grown old and advanced in years when the LORD spoke to him. The statement records both the fact of his age and the direct claim that much of the land remains to be possessed. At this point the narrative has already listed the kings defeated on both sides of the Jordan, yet the LORD now names specific coastal and northern districts still held by Philistines, Sidonians, and other groups.

The central question raised by the exchange is how the remaining territory will be handled. The LORD describes the regions from Shihor to Lebo-hamath, identifies the five Philistine rulers and the Avites, and then issues the order to divide the land anyway. The command in verse 7 assigns the inheritance to the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh even though the inhabitants have not yet been removed.

These verses therefore stand at the hinge between the record of victories and the chapters that follow on tribal allotments. They show that the distribution of territory does not wait for total military success but rests on the earlier promise that the LORD will drive out the listed peoples. The scene fixes attention on the gap between what has been conquered and what must still be received as inheritance.

Where does this passage sit in Joshua?

Chapter 12 closes with its paired lists of defeated kings, one set east of the Jordan and one set west, each entry tied to a specific city or region. Joshua 13:1-7 immediately follows by turning attention to districts the lists do not cover. The LORD’s speech names the Philistine coastal strip, the northern hill country, and the Sidonian and Gebalite territories, marking them as still outside Israelite possession. This move creates a clear boundary in the narrative: the record of victories ends, and the work of apportionment begins.

The command in verse 7 to divide the land among the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh therefore launches the long allotment sequence that occupies chapters 13 through 19. The eastern tribes receive their portions first in 13:8-33, even though the western territories named in verses 2-6 remain largely untouched. The book’s structure thus separates the act of inheritance from the completion of conquest.

Within this larger design, the verses also prepare for later boundary descriptions. The southern and northern limits mentioned here reappear in expanded form when Judah, Ephraim, and the other tribes receive their specific borders. By placing the remaining-land notice right after the king lists and right before the first allotments, the narrative keeps the tension between promise and possession visible while shifting the reader’s focus from battlefield reports to the legal distribution of territory.

How is the passage structured?

The section opens with a plain statement of Joshua’s age followed immediately by the LORD’s direct address that repeats the same fact and adds the claim that much land remains. This opening exchange sets a two-part frame: human limitation stated, then divine assessment supplied. Verses 2 through 5 shift without transition into an extended geographical catalogue that names the Philistines and Geshurites, traces the southern coastal strip from Shihor to Ekron, lists the five rulers, and continues northward through Canaanite, Sidonian, and Amorite territories up to Lebo-hamath. The list functions as a single unbroken sentence chain that delays any further divine speech.

Verse 6 breaks the catalogue with a first-person divine promise that the speaker himself will drive out the hill-country Sidonians. The promise is followed at once by the command to allot the territory anyway. Verse 7 then narrows the command to a precise distribution order that names the nine tribes plus the half-tribe of Manasseh." The movement therefore proceeds from age and deficit, through exhaustive description of what is missing, to divine initiative, and finally to an administrative directive that treats the still-unpossessed regions as already assigned. The only reversal occurs inside verse 6, where the expected sequence of conquest before allotment is inverted by the order to divide first.

What is the historical background?

The five Philistine rulers named in the description of the remaining land governed a string of coastal cities that operated as independent power centers rather than a single kingdom. Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron each maintained its own territory and military force while sharing a common interest in controlling the trade routes and farmland along the Mediterranean shore. This arrangement of city-states under local lords matches patterns visible in earlier Egyptian and Canaanite records, where similar clusters of rulers negotiated alliances or resisted outsiders without forming a unified state.

Northward, the Sidonians and the Gebalites represent coastal populations whose economies depended on maritime trade and timber from the Lebanon mountains. Sidon exercised influence over scattered settlements rather than a continuous stretch of territory, while Gebal, known for its harbor and stone-working traditions, sat at the edge of the higher ranges. The reference to Lebo-hamath places the northern boundary near the pass that later marked the conventional limit of Israelite settlement, separating the hill country from the broader valley systems around Mount Hermon.

The command to allot the land as an inheritance to the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh draws on an established custom of assigning tribal portions by divine direction or lot before every enemy had been removed. In this setting, inheritance language treated the territory as already granted under covenant promise, distinct from the process of actual military clearance. The Avites appear as a smaller group whose earlier displacement is presupposed by the list, underscoring that the remaining districts included both long-standing coastal powers and residual pockets of earlier inhabitants.

What does this passage teach about God?

The LORD addresses Joshua by repeating the fact of his age and then declares that he himself will drive out the Sidonians along with the other hill-country inhabitants. This direct claim places the remaining conquest squarely in divine hands rather than in any further human campaign. The promise stands alongside the command to allot the land anyway, showing that possession rests on the word already spoken rather than on the completion of every battle.

The inheritance is therefore assigned to the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh even while Philistine rulers, Geshurites, Avites, and others still occupy the listed districts from Shihor to Lebo-hamath. The act of division treats the territory as already belonging to Israel by covenant grant. Human leaders receive the task of marking boundaries and assigning portions, yet the ground itself is secured by the one who promises to remove its current occupants.

The detailed geography in the LORD’s speech names specific rulers and borders without suggesting that Israel must first subdue every listed group before receiving its share. This ordering of events underscores that the land functions as a gift held in trust rather than a prize earned through exhaustive victory. Joshua is told to proceed with the allotment while the divine promise concerning the inhabitants remains in force.

The exchange therefore presents God as both the one who initiates the gift and the one who undertakes its full realization. The tribes receive their portions on the basis of that prior commitment, not on the basis of present military control. In this way the passage ties the reality of inheritance to the reliability of the one who speaks rather than to the visible extent of Israelite settlement at any single moment.

What are the interpretive difficulties?

The command to divide the land in verse 7 comes immediately after the LORD states that much of it remains in the hands of the Philistines, Sidonians, and others. One question this raises is whether the allotment itself functions as a legal act that grants title even while the inhabitants stay in place. The text itself supplies no further procedure for removing those groups, leaving open how the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh are expected to take possession of districts still described as Canaanite.

Another point of tension appears in verse 6. The LORD says, "I myself will drive them out before the Israelites," yet the same sentence directs Joshua to allot the territory at once. The wording does not clarify whether the divine action precedes the division, follows it, or occurs through the tribes after they receive their portions. Readers must therefore decide how much weight to give the promise of future expulsion when the inheritance is already being assigned.

The passage also remains silent on Joshua’s own role once the allotments begin. It records his age and the LORD’s address but offers no indication whether he will lead further campaigns or simply oversee the distribution. Later chapters show the tribes receiving their shares, yet nothing here settles whether the remaining coastal and northern regions were ever fully occupied under Joshua or whether the division stands as an act of faith that the LORD’s word will still prove true.

These silences do not prevent the verses from functioning within the larger narrative. The explicit list of rulers and borders in verses 2–5 keeps the focus on concrete territory rather than abstract claims, and the order to divide the land is presented as a direct continuation of what the LORD had already commanded. The text therefore leaves the timing and means of full possession unresolved while treating the inheritance as already determined.

Notes accompany the Anselm Project Bible, an AI translation from the original languages. Tap any verse above for the committee's word-level decisions.