Joshua 19:6

Some of the towns given to the tribe of Simeon were also part of Judah’s land. This happened because Judah’s territory was too large for them (compare 17:14–18). Most of Simeon's territory became part of Judah before the end of the Old Testament period.

Simeon's lot was drawn after Judah's, Joseph's, and Benjamin's, because Jacob had put that tribe under disgrace; yet it is put before the two younger sons of Leah and the three sons of the handmaids. Not one person of note, neither judge nor prophet, was of this tribe, that we know of.
I. The situation of their lot was within that of Judah (Jos 19:1) and was taken from it, Jos 19:9. It seems, those that first surveyed the land thought it larger than it was, and that it would have held out to give every tribe in proportion as large a share as they had carved out for Judah; but, upon a more strict enquiry, it was found that it would not reach (Jos 19:9): The part of the children of Judah was too much for them, more than they needed, and more, as it proved, than fell to their share. Yet God did not by the lot lessen it, but left it to their prudence and care afterwards to discover and rectify the mistake, which when they did, 1. The men of Judah did not oppose the taking away of the cities again, which by the first distribution fell within their border, when they were convinced that they had more than their proportion. In all such cases errors must be excepted and a review admitted if there be occasion. Though, in strictness, what fell to their lot was their right against all the world, yet they would not insist upon it when it appeared that another tribe would want what they had to spare. Note, We must look on the things of others, and not on our own only. The abundance of some must supply the wants of others, that there may be somewhat of an equality, for which there may be equity where there is not law. 2. That which was thus taken off from Judah to be put into a new lot Providence directed to the tribe of Simeon, that Jacob's prophecy concerning this tribe might be fulfilled, I will divide them in Jacob. The cities of Simeon were scattered in Judah, with which tribe they were surrounded, except on that side towards the sea. This brought them into a confederacy with the tribe of Judah (Jdg 1:3), and afterwards was a happy occasion of the adherence of many of this tribe to the house of David, at the time of the revolt of the ten tribes to Jeroboam. Ch2 15:9, out of Simeon they fell to Asa in abundance. It is good being in a good neighbourhood.
II. The cities within their lot are here named. Beersheba, or Sheba, for these names seem to refer to the same place, is put first. Ziklag, which we read of in David's story, is one of them. What course they took to enlarge their borders and make room for themselves we find Ch1 4:39, etc.

Joshua 19:1-9

1. And the second lot came forth to Simeon, even for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah.

1. Egressa est autem sors secunda ipsi Simeon, tribui filiorum Simeon per familias suas: et fuit haereditas eorum in medio haereditatis filiorum Jehuda.

2. And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, or Sheba, and Moladah,

2. Fuitque eis in haereditate eorum Beer-seba, et Seba, et Moladah,

3. And Hazarshual, and Balah, and Azem,

3. Et Hasar-sual, et Balah, et Asen,

4. And Eltolad, and Bethul, and Hormah,

4. Et Eltholad, et Bethul, et Hormah,

5. And Ziklag, and Bethmarcaboth, and Hazarsusah,

5. Et Siclag, et Beth-Marcaboth, et Hasarsusa,

6. And Bethlebaoth, and Sharuhen; thirteen cities and their villages:

6. Et Beth-Lebaoth, et Saruhen: urbes tredecim, et villae earum.

7. Ain, Remmon, and Ether, and Ashan; four cities and their villages:

7. Aim, Rimmon, et Ether, et Asan: urbes quatuor, et villae earum.

8. And all the villages that were round about these cities to Baalathbeer, Ramath of the south. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families.

8. Et omnes villae quae erant per circuitus urbium istarum usque ad Baalath-beer, Ramath Australem. Ista est haereditas tribus filiorum Simeon per familias suas.

9. Out of the portion of the children of Judah was the inheritance of the children of Simeon: for the part of the children of Judah was too much for them: therefore the children of Simeon had their inheritance within the inheritance of them.

9. De portione filiorum Jehuda facta fuit haereditas filiorum Simeon: erat enim portio filiorum Jehuda major ipsis; itaque haereditatem acceperunt filii Simeon in medio haereditatis eorum.

Next followed the lot of the tribe of Simeon, not as a mark of honor, but rather as a mark of disgrace. Jacob had declared with regard to Simeon and Levi, "I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." (Genesis 49:7) The punishment of Levi, indeed, was not only mitigated, but converted into an excellent dignity, inasmuch as his posterity were placed on a kind of watch-towers to keep the people in the paths of piety. In regard to Simeon, the dispersion of which Jacob prophesied, manifestly took place when certain cities within the territory of Judah were assigned to his posterity for their inheritance. For although they were not sent off to great distances, yet they dwelt dispersed, and as strangers in a land properly belonging to another. Therefore, on account of the slaughter which they had perpetrated with no less perfidy than cruelty, they were placed separately in different abodes. In this way the guilt of the father was visited upon his children, and the Lord ratified in fact that sentence which he had dictated to his servant. The truth of the lot also was clearly proven.

In the circumstance of a certain portion being withdrawn from the family of Judah, we again perceive that though the dividers had carefully endeavored to observe equity, they had fallen into error, which they were not ashamed to correct as soon as it was discovered. And though they were guided by the Spirit, there is nothing strange in their having been partially mistaken, because God sometimes leaves his servants destitute of the spirit of judgment, and suffers them to act like men on different occasions, that they may not plume themselves too much on their clear-sightedness. We may add that the people were punished for their carelessness and confident haste, because they ought at the outset to have ascertained more accurately how much land could be properly assigned to each. This they neglected to do. Through their unskillful procedure, the children of Judah had received a disproportion accumulation of territory, and equity required that they should relinquish a part. It would also have been better for themselves to have their limits fixed with certainty at once than to be subjected to a galling spoliation afterwards. Add that each tribe had indulged the vain hope that its members would dwell far and wide, as if the land had been of unlimited extent.

9. Out of the portion of the children of Judah, etc The praise of moderation is due to the tribe of Judah for not contending that the abstraction of any part of the inheritance already assigned to them was unjust. They might easily have obtruded the name of God, and asserted that it was only by his authority they had obtained that settlement. But as it is decided by the common consent of all the tribes that more has been given to them than they can possess without loss and injury to the others, they immediately desist from all pretext for disputing the matter. And it is certain that if they had alleged the authority of God, it would have been falsely and wickedly, inasmuch as though their lot had been determined by him in regard to its situation, an error had taken place with regard to its extent, their limits having been fixed by human judgment wider than they ought. Therefore, acknowledging that it would have been wrong to give them what would occasion loss to others, they willingly resign it, and give a welcome reception to their brethren, who must otherwise have remained without inheritance, nay, submit to go shares with them in that which they supposed they had acquired beyond controversy.

Beth-lebaoth - The house or city of lionesses. Probably so called from the numbers of those animals which bred there.

And Bethlebaoth, and Sharuhen,.... Whether the first is the same with Lebaoth, a city of Judah, Joshua 15:32; and with the Bethleptepha of Josephus (b), and the Betholene of Pliny (c), is not certain: in this place secret to have been an idol temple of the Canaanites, dedicated to lions, as in Egypt there was a city called Leontopolis, from whence was the Leontopolitan nome, the inhabitants of which worshipped lions (d); and the Egyptians had temples dedicated to them, as Aelianus (e) relates. Both these places are thought to be the same with Bethbirei and Shaaraim in 1 Chronicles 4:31; of the latter of which see Joshua 15:36. Those who take Sheba, Joshua 19:2, to be the same with Shema, Joshua 15:26, make but one city here, and take away the last, as the Greek version does, and render the word "and their fields", and so the number still is as follows:

thirteen cities and their villages; the sum total of those enumerated above.

(b) De Jud. Bell. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 1.((c) Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 14. (d) Strabo. Geograph. l. 17. p. 559. (e) De Animal. l. 12. c. 7.

Thirteen cities, or, towns, as some of them are called. . Nor are all Simeon’ s cities here numbered, for Etam is added, , unless that were built afterward.

The Inheritance of Simeon fell within the inheritance of the children of Judah, because the land allotted to them at Gilgal was larger than they required (Jos 19:9). Thus the curse pronounced upon Simeon by Jacob of dispersion in Israel (Gen 49:7) was fulfilled upon this tribe in a very peculiar manner, and in a different manner from that pronounced upon Levi. The towns allotted to the tribe of Simeon are divided into two groups, the first (Jos 19:2-6) consisting of thirteen or fourteen towns, all situated in the Negeb (or south country); the second (Jos 19:7) of four towns, two of which were in the Negeb and two in the shephelah. All these eighteen towns have already been enumerated among the towns of Judah (Jos 15:26-32, Jos 15:42), and are mentioned again in Ch1 4:28-32, in just the same order, and with only slight differences in the spelling of some of the names. If the classification of the names in two groups might seem to indicate that Simeon received a connected portion of land in Judah, this idea is overthrown at once by the circumstance that two of the four towns in the second group were in the south land and two in the lowland, and, judging from Jos 15:32, Jos 15:42, at a great distance from one another. At the same time, we cannot decide this point with any certainty, as the situation of several of the towns is still unknown.
Jos 19:2-6
Beersheba: see at Jos 15:28. Sheba is wanting in the Chronicles, but has no doubt been omitted through a copyist's error, as Shema answers to it in Jos 15:26, where it stands before Moladah just as Sheba does here. - On the names in Jos 19:3-6, see the exposition of Jos 15:28-32. - The sum total given in Jos 19:6, viz., thirteen towns, does not tally, as there are fourteen names. On these differences, see the remarks on Jos 15:32.
Jos 19:7
Ain and Rimmon were in the south land (Jos 15:32), Ether and Ashan in the lowlands (Jos 15:42).
Jos 19:8-9
In addition to the towns mentioned, the Simeonites received all the villages round about the towns to Baalath-beer, the Ramah of the south. This place, up to which the territory of the Simeonites extended, though without its being actually assigned to the Simeonites, is simply called Baal in Ch1 4:33, and is probably the same as Bealoth in Jos 15:24, though its situation has not yet been determined (see at Jos 15:24). It cannot be identified, however, with Ramet el Khulil, an hour to the north of Hebron, which Roediger supposes to be the Ramah of the south, since the territory of Simeon, which was situated in the Negeb, and had only two towns in the shephelah, cannot possibly have extended into the mountains to a point on the north of Hebron. So far as the situation is concerned, V. de Velde would be more likely to be correct, when he identifies Rama of the south with Tell Lekiyeh on the north of Beersheba, if this conjecture only rested upon a better foundation than the untenable assumption, that Baalath-beer is the same as the Baalath of Dan in Jos 19:44.