Matthew Henry on Joshua 21:9-42
We have here a particular account of the cities which were given to the children of Levi out of the several tribes, not only to be occupied and inhabited by them, as tenants to the several tribes in which they lay - no, their interest in them was not dependent and precarious, but to be owned and possessed by them as lords and proprietors, and as having the same title to them that the rest of the tribes had to their cities or lands, as appears by the law which preserved the house in the Levites' cities from being alienated any longer than till the year of jubilee, Lev 25:32, Lev 25:33. Yet it is probable that the Levites having only the cities and suburbs, while the land about pertained to th…
Read the whole note in the consoleJamieson-Fausset-Brown on Joshua 21:9
THE CITIES OF THE PRIESTS. (Jos. 21:9-42)
they gave . . . these cities which are here mentioned by name--It was overruled by the unerring providence of the Divine Lawgiver that the cities of the priests lay within the territories of Judah and Benjamin. This was a provision, the admirable wisdom and propriety of which were fully manifested on the schism that took place in the reign of Rehoboam.
Adam Clarke on Joshua 21:36
Jahazah - See on Jos 13:18 (note).
John Gill on Joshua 21:37
Kedemoth with her suburbs,.... Near to which was a wilderness of that name; see Deuteronomy 2:26,
and Mephaath with her suburbs; of which See Gill on Joshua 13:18; where the two preceding cities are mentioned along with it:
four cities, Joshua 21:35, are not in some ancient copies of the Hebrew Bible, as is noted by the Masorites; but are in some others, as Kimchi owns, and stand in the Targum, in the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions, and in a manuscript referred to by Hottinger (e); and the same words are to be, found in 1 Chronicles 6:78, and are absolutely necessary to be retained, since without them there would be but eight cities for the Merarites, whereas they are expressly sa…
Read the whole note in the console
