The Tribes of Israel – Asher
Asher springs from the pitiless infighting and the destructive rivalry bred of the deception Laban played on Jacob. Originally, Jacob had not planned on his polygamous union with both Rachel and her older sister Leah. The less-loved wife Leah adopted the stratagem of escalating her importance in the eyes of the community and Jacob by adding sons through surrogate motherhood.
By the end of Leah’s life her own six sons through Jacob and two additional sons of Jacob by her maidservant Zilpah meant that Leah was accountable for eight of Jacob’s twelve sons.
Error propagates error and the natural arrangement was set aside yet further. The Bible explicitly records that it was not the father and mother who named their child, for Leah’s maidservant Zilpah. Her name “Zilpah” means “Trickling,” cf. Strong’s, but Zilpah named neither of the sons Jacob fathered through her. It was Leah who named Zilpah’s second son “Asher” (meaning “Happy”) thus establishing her “claims” to him: “And Zilpah Leah’s maid bare Jacob a second son. And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name ‘Asher’ ” (Genesis 30:12-13).
Sadly, we learn from studies of the customs of the near east during this historical period of the middle bronze age that an infertile wife such as Rachel or Sarah were contractually obligated to supply a surrogate mother if they proved barren.1 However, even trying to find some justification for Leah’s behavior within the framework of flawed custom does not supply a satisfactory answer here. Clearly, there was no contractual obligation to supply a surrogate mother for the fecund Leah.
We observe that it is the opinion of “daughters,” that is the other women of her peer group, which was of special concern to Leah. Following Asher in birth order were Leah’s last two sons, Issachar and Zebulon, and then Rachel’s two sons, Joseph and Benjamin. Asher as the last-born son of a concubine wife was relegated to a lower status along with the other concubine sons: Dan, Napthali and Gad.
Dan, Gad, Asher and Napthai are treated in order by Jacob in his final blessing (Genesis 49:16-21), although here Asher receives an unusually bright promise: “Out of Asher his bread [shall be] fat, and he shall yield royal dainties” (Genesis 49:20).
Later, at the time of the entrance of Jacob and his children, the twelve tribes, into Egypt at Joseph’s invitation, Asher is mentioned last in the listing (Exodus 1:1-4). The tribe grew during the sojourn in Egypt and was fifth largest in population at the time of the Exodus as the census of Numbers 26 reveals. Population growth aside, Asher’s low status changed little and Asher is mentioned tenth in Numbers 1:1-16, eleventh in Numbers 26:44-47. No judges were ever to emerge from Asher.
ASHER – INHERITOR OF TYRE AND SIDON
During the division of the land of Canaan under Joshua, the fifth lot fell to Asher (Joshua 19:24-31). This lot secured the divine promise for inheriting the extreme Northwest districts. These districts allotted to Asher included some of the most fertile farmland in Canaan.
Thus was the promise to Abraham to be fulfilled. Asher’s inheritance formed part of the northern-eastern boundary of Israel – the invasion route – and ideally should have included the Mediterranean coastal towns with their fine ports. The district allotted to Asher included the Phoenician cities called in Joshua’s day “great” Sidon and the “strong city” of Tyre (Joshua 19:28, 29). Thus far, the curse on Canaan’s oldest son had not seen its fulfillment.
This pairing of a relatively weak tribe against one of the most powerful trade centers in the ancient world with military might to match, might seem unpromising from a fleshly perspective. Apparently, that is how the Asherites themselves viewed the situation. Yet so the lots were cast and providentially overruled.2 In conquest of the land of promise, Asher proved to be unsuccessful, as were the northern border tribes in general. We read the telling report of Asher’s failure in the account of Judges 1:31-32: “Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho [Acre], nor the inhabitants of Zidon [Sidon], nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob: But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out.”
The wording, “Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites” suggests that Asher did not even form a majority population in their allotted lands. Clearly this was a circumstance that seemed to forebode their assimilation.
The general lesson that the Lord’s people may draw here is that it is important that they should work with all members of the “body” in the conquest of spiritual Canaan. If there was ever a need for concerted effort, it was to conquer Tyre and Sidon. The districts under the control of Tyre and Sidon apparently could depend on a rapid deployment of troops at the first threat to their safety. To follow the scriptural testimony in this regard, we find that Dan was the least successful tribe in conquest, and the Danites were forced to marginal settlements in the hill country of their inheritance. Consider the enigmatic reference of verse 17 during the judgeship of Deborah, the “mother in Israel” Judges 5:6-17: “Why did Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the sea shore, and abode by his creeks.”
A reasonable suggestion has emerged that this reproach is a reference to both Dan and Asher serving as seasonal workers for the bustling shipping industries of Sidon and Tyre. Hence, their allegiance was divided as a consequence of their economic interests.3
WARRIORS FOR THEIR BRETHREN
The incomplete conquest of Canaan by the twelve tribes testifies to the failure of the loose confederacy to maintain cooperation. Initially, this common solidarity of purpose was shown when all the tribes first crossed the dried up Jordan and set up a memorial of twelve stones collected from the bed of the river, representing each tribe (Joshua 4:1-9). It would appear that within a short time each of the tribes rapidly became self-absorbed and concerned only for their own inheritance. Each tribe was content to let the others go their own way. Indeed, this lack of concern where each man was more or less content to let the others go their own way led to the observation: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6).
Asher in the Northwest part of the Promised Land
In this there is a lesson. All twelve tribes should have recognized their covenant obligations to the Lord also brought a responsibility to each other that usually would be a natural instinct for brothers. Had the twelve tribes collectively maintained the camaraderie and common purpose, had they collectively laid siege to each stronghold throughout the land, then the account of Judges might have ended differently. How much better it would be for all of Israel if Ephraim and Manasseh, the two tribes from Joseph, in confederation with Judah and Benjamin, had stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Asher to conquer and secure Sidon.
There is a lesson for spiritual Israel here as well. We are our brother’s keeper.
In Revelation 7, it is noteworthy that the concubine-son tribes directly follow the lead tribes of Judah and Reuben. The lesson of the advancement of these tribes in Revelation may be that those who are disesteemed among men and lacking in strength may none the less be highly esteemed in the sight of God.
– Richard Doctor
(1) Bright, J., A History of Israel, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky (2000) p. 79, relating studies of the Nuzi texts.
(2) Katzenstein, H. Jacob, The History of Tyre, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel (1997) p. 67.
(3) Please see, Skein, D., “The Miracle at Shiloh,” Beauties of the Truth, 16:3 (August 2005).