And Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight against my land?
Jephthah now leads Gilead, and his first act is a message, not a march. His question to the king of Ammon opens a fight over who owns the land east of the Jordan.
The verse records a deliberate choice of order — talk first, then war.
Rather than going to battle first, Jephthah sent a message to the king of Ammon asking him why he had come to fight against him in his land (v. 12). The king of Ammon sent the reply that Israel had taken away Ammon's land when they came out of Egypt. So now he demanded that Israel should restore those lands peaceably.
The wording Jephthah chose is a set phrase in the Bible, and it turns up on other lips too.
First, the demon-possessed man used the phrase "What have I to do with you?" to voice his own sense that darkness and light do not belong together. He knew there was nothing in common between himself and Jesus. This question appears elsewhere in both the Old Testament and the New with a similar meaning. Jephthah used it to the king of Ammon, David to the sons of Zeruiah, Elisha to Jehoram, and the Lord to Mary at Cana of Galilee (Judges 11:12; 2 Sam. 16:10; 2 Sam. 19:22; 2 Kings 3:13; John 2:4).
Jephthah wants proof that his side is right before he moves.
Jephthah takes the greatest pains to prove, when he comes forward, that he has clear right on his side. This is an important principle. It was not enough that the Ammonites were wrongly oppressing the people. Jephthah does not dare to go to war, and the Spirit of God does not clothe him with energy for the fight, until he is certain in his soul that the cause is a righteous one. That certainty rests on how God had dealt with Israel and with Ammon. This is deeply instructive.
Ammon's reply sounded like a legal grievance. It was not.
The answer however was incorrect. The king of the Ammonites was not being honest. Israel had not taken those lands, as he claimed. Ammon had already lost them before Israel took them from others, and those others Israel was allowed to attack and plunder. But God had forbidden Israel to plunder Ammon, Moab or Edom. God held even to the distant tie of connection — a most striking proof and witness of the ways of our God.
Israel had been bowing down to Ammon's idols. Then Ammon came for Israel's land.
Israel was low, and the children of Ammon used that moment to rise up against them. They tried to strip Israel of the land and privileges that were lawfully theirs, and to take them over. What had the people gained by bowing down before the idols of Ammon? They had fallen under the judgment of God, and into the hands of the enemies of Jehovah. If we step on to the world's platform, it robs us, causes us to lose the reality of our privileges, and takes them away.
What follows verse 12 is not a battle plan but a history lesson.
That may be why you find none of the details and methods of conflict when it comes to Ammon. Instead of methods of conflict, you have a chapter of the Bible read to them. Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways. God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into the inheritance that Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years Israel had enjoyed it without dispute.
Ridout notes that the name Jephthah means "the Opener" — a fitting name for a man who met a war threat by opening the Scriptures.
- Ask first. Jephthah opened the war with a question, not a charge; the message went out before the army did.
- Then be certain. He would not fight until he was sure the cause was righteous. That certainty rested on how God had dealt with both nations.
- Know why it came. Israel had bowed to Ammon's idols, and then the people whose gods they served came to take their land.
- The claim was false. Ammon had lost that land to the Amorites before Israel ever arrived. God had also barred Israel from touching Ammon, Moab or Edom. Old ties still counted with Him.
- The weapon was Scripture. Ammon demanded the land. Jephthah read him God's history instead — the answer to a false claim is an open Bible.
And the king of the children of Ammon said to the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from the Arnon even unto the Jabbok and unto the Jordan; and now restore it peaceably.
Jephthah opens the fight with words, not weapons. Ammon's king answers with a claim: Israel stole his land on the way out of Egypt, and must give it back. The rest of the chapter turns on one question — was that claim true?
One commentator shows how little the king had looked into his own case:
The king of Ammon had forgotten the real rights of the case, or had never asked about them. All he felt was that these lands had once been his, and that the children of Israel now held them. He knew no more, and he did not want to learn more. But this was far from the true and full history of the case. The fact was that other races and peoples had taken these lands from the Ammonites.
The land had changed hands before Israel ever arrived there:
Israel had not taken these lands from Ammon at all. They had taken them from the Amorite. If the Amorite got them from Ammon in the first place — as he no doubt did — that was a matter between Ammon and Sihon, not between Israel and Ammon. It was for the Ammonites to defend their claims against the Amorites as best they could. If they could not make those claims good, if they had lost their land and could not get it back, what did that have to do with Israel? They had won the land in a fight the Amorite forced on them. They had sought peace, and Sihon wanted war.
Another writer explains why the old records of that region were kept:
They are well known records, quoted to prove that the country in question was in the hands of the Amorites, and not of Moab, when Israel took possession of it. This mattered enormously, because Israel was forbidden to touch Moab, while the country of the Amorites was given to them.
The king's answer was not honest, and it ignored a limit God had set long before:
The answer was incorrect. The king of the Ammonites did not speak honestly. It was not true that the children of Israel had taken those lands, as he pretended... God had forbidden the children of Israel to plunder Ammon, or Moab, or Edom. God held on even to a distant tie of connection — a striking proof and witness of the ways of our God... Years might pass, hundreds of years go by, but moral principles and even natural relationships do not lose their force. And it was of the greatest importance that His people should be trained in this. The lands might be good pasture, and the temptation great.
Ammon expected a fight. What it got was a history lesson drawn from Scripture:
Instead of the methods of conflict, Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of the Bible. He gives them the history of God's ways. He tells how God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into the inheritance that Ammon now claimed from them. Israel had enjoyed it for three hundred years without dispute.
Much of Jephthah's reply is simply quotation, and one writer draws out why that matters when a claim is pressed against us:
Hence we find Jephthah quoting the Word against the king of the Ammonites: much of what he says being simply a quotation from the book of Numbers... Faith is ever and only the fullest reason, and it is the word of God alone that is able to make the whole field of reason a fruitful and goodly portion.
Israel had been bowing down to Ammon's idols (Judges 10:6). The demand for the land follows that:
The children of Ammon, taking advantage of the low condition of Israel to rise up against them, sought to despoil them of their lawful territory and privileges and to appropriate them to themselves... If we step on to the world's platform, it robs us. It makes us lose the reality of our privileges and takes them away. The world then says to us: My rights are as great as yours. I am as good a Christian as you are, for you are as busy with the things of the world as I am... Such are the consequences of our unfaithfulness.
Ammon names only the land east of the Jordan, but the demand does not stop there:
They claim the right to take away the land, on the ground that they own it... And notice that it is the land east of the Jordan which they openly demand, while in fact they are using it as a base for their attack on the tribes across the river.
- Claim — Ammon demands the land on a feeling, not a fact. It was once his, so he says it must still be his. He never looked further.
- Correction — Israel took the land from Sihon the Amorite, who forced the war. If Ammon lost it before that, the quarrel was Ammon's, not Israel's.
- Restraint — God fenced Ammon, Moab and Edom off from Israel's conquest because of an old tie. Good pasture was no excuse to cross that line.
- Answer — Jephthah replies with a reading, not a sword. He recites God's dealings, and three hundred years of undisputed possession back him up.
- Occasion — Israel had bowed to Ammon's gods first. When God's people borrow the world's ground, the world comes asking for the rest.
And Jephthah sent messengers again to the king of the children of Ammon,
Ammon's king had answered Jephthah's first message with a flat demand: give back the land. Instead of replying with an army, Jephthah sends his men a second time. Why does a judge raised up to fight spend so long talking, and what did he put into that message?
Jephthah will not move until he is sure of his ground. One writer treats this restraint as the key to the whole episode.
When Jephthah comes forward, he takes the greatest pains to prove that right is clearly on his side. This is an important principle. It was not only that the Ammonites were oppressing the people unjustly. Jephthah would not dare to go to war, and the Spirit of God would not clothe him with energy for the fight, until he was certain in his soul that the cause was a righteous one — a certainty founded on God's dealings with the children of Israel and with Ammon.
Being right in private was not enough for him. The same writer weighs Jephthah's motives against his method.
No doubt his desire for his own importance and advancement is all too plain. But when he begins the work itself, he makes sure Israel feels that right is beyond dispute on their side — and he makes sure his enemy knows it too, and feels it on his conscience.
The messengers go back because the king's story does not hold up.
But the answer was wrong. The king of the Ammonites was not speaking honestly. It was not true that the children of Israel had taken those lands, as he claimed. The Ammonites had already lost them before Israel took them from others — people Israel was free to attack and plunder. But God had forbidden Israel to plunder Ammon, Moab or Edom. God held to even the distant tie of kinship — a striking proof and witness of the ways of our God... Years might pass, hundreds of years roll by, but moral principles and even natural relationships do not lose their power.
What the messengers deliver is history. The account of this war is strange for what it leaves out.
That may be the reason why you get none of the details and methods of the fighting with Ammon. Instead of methods of fighting, you have a chapter of the Bible read to them. Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways — how God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into that inheritance which Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years they had enjoyed it without dispute.
Jephthah does not argue from the state Israel is in now. He argues from where the nation started.
Jephthah did not deny the low condition of the people. But when he spoke to the children of Ammon, he went back to the beginning of Israel's blessings. Far from accepting this state of things, and the yoke Ammon had laid on the people for eighteen years, he took his stand on Israel's original blessings, in the day when they came out of Egypt to enter Canaan. He held to those blessings as the ones the people had been established on. We will go forward, he said, according to the principles which God gave us at the beginning, and which are ours for ever.
Writers take Jephthah's method as the pattern for meeting false teaching today. One limit comes with it.
There is the victory over false teaching for us. It comes with an open Bible, and an open heart and conscience. We will find that the first thing we have to do is to draw the line between ourselves and the false doctrine... We can bear with ignorance. We can bear with any failure to grasp the full scope of divine truth.
The same writer warns that this firmness has a way of turning in the wrong direction.
History and experience both show this: firmness that will not bend toward the enemy is often followed by the same unbending firmness toward our own fellow believers. Is it not true that Jephthah's offering up of his own daughter is followed by his slaughter of his own people?
- Speak first. Jephthah sends a second message, not an army. He will not fight until he is sure the cause is righteous.
- Test the claim. Ammon's demand rested on a story that was not true. Ammon lost that land to others long before Israel came.
- Open the book. Instead of battle tactics, the chapter gives us Scripture read aloud to the enemy — God's ways with Sihon and with Israel.
- Go back to the beginning. He answers a low present state by standing on the blessings God gave at the start. Those blessings are theirs for ever.
- Then discriminate. The open Bible draws a line against false doctrine. But we can be patient with those who are only ignorant — a difference Jephthah himself later lost.
and said to him, Thus saith Jephthah Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon.
An invading king claims Israel stole his land. Instead of drawing the sword, Jephthah sends back a flat denial. That raises a question: why does a judge raised up by God spend so much effort proving a point before he fights?
Jephthah does not move until he is sure the case is clean.
Jephthah takes the greatest pains to prove, when he comes forward, that he has clear right on his side. This is an important principle. It was not only that the Ammonites were oppressing the people unjustly. Jephthah does not dare to go to war, and the Spirit of God does not clothe him with energy for the fight, until he is certain in his soul that the cause is a righteous one. That certainty rested on how God had dealt with Israel and with Ammon.
The same writer weighs that care against what else we know about the man.
The man who perhaps more than any other shows the danger of rash vows... was anything but rash when he entered his service for the people of Israel. His desire for his own importance and advancement is all too plain. But once he takes up the work itself, he makes sure of two things. Israel must feel that the right is clearly on their side, and his enemy must know it too and feel it on his conscience.
The denial rests on an old command about those two nations.
The Ammonites had already lost that land before Israel took it from others, and those others Israel was free to attack and plunder. But God had forbidden Israel to plunder Ammon, Moab or Edom. God held even to a distant family tie. That is a striking witness to the ways of our God. Long ago there was a link between Israel and both Ammon and Moab. A cloud of shame hung over it, yet the link was real, and God would have it never forgotten. Years might pass, hundreds of years roll by, but moral principles, and even natural family ties, do not lose their power... God does not let Israel treat a nation as an enemy just because that nation is hostile to them. They must never have an enemy unless he is God's enemy.
Behind the denial stands a rule that reaches past this one dispute.
Nothing justifies departure from the word of God. It does not matter what good you hope to gain, or what harm you hope to avoid: the only place that suits a believer is obedience.
Obedience here was not cheap. Both Edom and Moab refused Israel passage.
And what did Israel do? Resent it? No: they took the insult patiently... It was a long way round, and very inconvenient. Did anyone doubt that Moab and Edom were unfriendly? Everyone knew it, and they meant to be. Even so, as Jephthah showed, Israel would not go against the word of God.
Jephthah's denial is exact, not evasive.
Israel had not taken these lands from Ammon at all. They had taken them from the Amorite. If the Amorites took that land from Ammon first, and no doubt they did, then the matter lay between Ammon and Sihon, not between Israel and Ammon. It was up to the Ammonites to defend their claim against the Amorites as best they could. If they could not make it good, if they had lost the land and could not win it back, what did that have to do with Israel? Israel won the land in a fight the Amorites forced on them. Israel asked for peace, and Sihon chose war.
Notice what this chapter gives us in place of battle tactics.
I think that may be why you get none of the details and methods of conflict with Ammon. Instead of methods of conflict, you get a chapter of the Bible read to them. Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways: how God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into that inheritance which Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years they had enjoyed it without dispute. Jephthah opens up the Scripture to them, and as he does so, he takes clear issue against them.
The same writer makes that method a pattern for meeting error of any kind.
We need an opener. We need that spirit of faith which would take our Bibles and open up the truth in the face of any false doctrine, whatever its name may be.
- Denial. Jephthah starts by correcting the facts. Ammon did not own that land when Israel passed by.
- Command. Israel left Moab and Ammon untouched because God forbade it. He honoured a family tie that time had not cancelled.
- Cost. Obedience meant taking insult from Edom and Moab. Israel marched a long detour instead of fighting for a shortcut.
- Title. What Israel holds, it won from the Amorites, who forced the war. Ammon's quarrel was never with Israel at all.
- Weapon. Jephthah reads history to his enemy before any sword is drawn. One writer calls this the pattern for answering error today.
But when they came up from Egypt, then Israel walked through the wilderness as far as the Red sea, and came to Kadesh.
Jephthah faces an invading army with a claim attached: Ammon says Israel stole its land on the way up from Egypt. Instead of drawing a sword, Jephthah answers with a travel record. Everything turns on one question: can a route taken centuries earlier settle a war today?
The reply to Ammon is a recital of events, not a threat. One writer notes what this chapter leaves out, and what stands in place of a battle report:
I think that may be why you get none of the details and methods of fighting when it comes to Ammon. Instead of methods of fighting, you have a chapter of the Bible read out to them. Jephthah goes to them and reads them a chapter of Scripture, so to speak. He gives them the history of God's ways: how God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into the inheritance that Ammon now claimed from them.
The history lesson comes before the battle, and that order matters:
The Ammonites were oppressing the people unjustly, but that alone was not enough. Jephthah does not dare to go to war, and the Spirit of God does not clothe him with energy for the fight, until he is certain in his soul that the cause is a righteous one. That certainty rested on how God had dealt with the children of Israel and with Ammon, each in turn. This is very instructive.
Why did Israel take the long way round to Kadesh instead of going straight through? God had forbidden them to touch Moab, Ammon and Edom. Kelly states the rule plainly:
Nothing justifies departure from the word of God. It does not matter what good seems to be gained, or what harm seems to be avoided: the only place that suits a believer is obedience.
Kelly also tests Ammon's claim against the facts:
The answer, however, was incorrect. The king of the Ammonites was not speaking honestly. It was not true that the children of Israel had taken those lands, as he claimed. Ammon had already lost them before Israel took them from others — people Israel was allowed to attack and plunder. But God had forbidden the children of Israel to plunder Ammon, Moab or Edom. God held even to a distant family tie, and that is a striking proof of the ways of our God. Long ago there had been a link between Ammon and Moab and the children of Israel. A cloud of dishonour and shame hung over them, yet the link was there, and God would have it never forgotten. Years might pass, hundreds of years roll by, but moral principles and even natural relationships do not lose their power.
The verse ends at Kadesh — in full, Kadesh-barnea. The name itself holds two things together:
God's people are redeemed. But He must still show His holiness in the way He deals with them. Kadesh-barnea, the "sanctuary of the wanderer," may well remind us of that. God had a place of refuge for His people in the wilderness. But it was a "sanctuary," a holy refuge, and they, because of their sins, were "wanderers."
Israel's condition at this moment is low, and Jephthah does not pretend otherwise. He argues from something older:
Jephthah did not deny the low condition of the people. But when he spoke to the children of Ammon, he went back to the beginning of Israel's blessings (vs. 15-27). He was far from agreeing with the way things now stood, far from accepting the yoke Ammon had kept on the people for eighteen years. He took his stand on Israel's original blessings, given in the day they came out of Egypt in order to enter Canaan.
What follows the speech is not an argument won but power given:
When Jephthah had spoken like this, a fresh blessing was given to him: "Then the Spirit of the LORD was upon Jephthah" (v. 29). He found the power of God in the path he was walking. Refusing to go along with the ruin as though God could accept it, and acting on the principles God gave us at the beginning — that is the path of power, even when we are reduced to two or three gathered together in His name.
- Beginning — Jephthah meets a present crisis by going back to where the blessings began: the day Israel came out of Egypt.
- Route — The long way round to Kadesh was obedience, not bad navigation. God had forbidden Israel to touch Moab, Ammon and Edom.
- Record — Ammon's claim collapses on the facts. Ammon had already lost the land to others before Israel arrived.
- Righteousness — Jephthah would not fight until he was sure the cause was right. The Spirit did not clothe him for battle before that.
- Power — Refuse to treat the ruin as normal, stand on what God gave at the first, and you are in the path of power — even as two or three.
And Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land; but the king of Edom would not hearken. And they also sent to the king of Moab; and he would not. And Israel abode in Kadesh.
Ammon has invaded, claiming that Israel stole its land on the way up from Egypt. Jephthah answers with history instead of a sword, and verse 17 is where his account begins at Kadesh: two polite requests and two refusals.
Ammon's claim was false. One writer traces where the land really came from:
Jephthah replied that Israel had not taken the lands of the Ammonites, but had in fact bypassed Moab and Ammon. The Amorites then refused Israel permission to pass through their land. So Israel defeated the Amorites and took possession of their lands. These lands therefore were not taken from Ammon, but from the Amorites, but now Ammon was demanding them.
Verse 17 is his first exhibit. Israel asked to cross, both kings said no, and Israel stayed where it was.
Israel asked instead of taking, and Jephthah's defence explains why:
Moab, Ammon and Edom were left out of the sentence God passed on the nations of Canaan, at least because they were relatives. His answer was, "This is what Jephthah says: Israel did not take away the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites." Nothing justifies turning away from the word of God. It does not matter what good might come of it, or what harm it might avoid. The only place that suits a believer is obedience.
Israel could have fought its way through. God forbade it, and the reason was family:
It must have been very hard for Israel to bear the unfriendliness of the Edomites, Ammonites and Moabites in silence. But whatever the provocation, however much these peoples insulted them — and they did — Israel must not lift a hand against their brothers. The Lord reminds them of the link, and gives those peoples the closest name possible: their brothers. Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites might be unfeeling and ready to harm Israel. Still God would train His people to remember every natural tie of family. If blows came, God would not forget the offender.
Two doors shut in Israel's face. The response was to absorb the insult and walk around:
And what did Israel do? Resent it? No. They bore the insult patiently, and these were people called to be witnesses of righteousness on earth... They took it quietly and went on their way... It was a great way round, and very inconvenient. Who doubted the unfriendliness of Moab and of Edom? Everyone knew it, and it was meant to be known. Yet still, as Jephthah showed, the people of Israel would not go against the word of God... The king of Ammon's aim was to put Israel in the wrong, and Jephthah proves beyond doubt that the right was all on Israel's side.
Another writer shows where Kadesh sat, and reads God's hand in the refusal itself:
They had just come up to Kadesh, on the very borders of the Land. Between them and it lay a small strip belonging to Edom, and the king's highway ran through it. Edom refused to let them pass that way. God arranged that it should be so, because that was not the way for the redeemed to enter Canaan. They were turned back for two years, to be tested and to show what had been hidden in them until then. They had to go far south around Mount Seir, which belonged to Edom. Then they turned north up the east side of the Jordan, and entered the Land through its dried-up waters, following the Ark of God. Death and resurrection is the only pathway there.
Israel's restraint was not weakness, and it was not the end of the matter:
When Israel was in the wilderness, Esau stopped their way. The power of God could have struck him down, as He had determined long before; but the time had not yet come. So Israel did not strike a blow against their guilty brother, but rather turned back like a rebuked child. Their patience was itself a sign that an even more terrible judgment was in store for Edom. Nothing is more ominous than God bearing the wrongdoing of men patiently.
- Ask. Israel sent messengers, not soldiers. Edom's and Moab's land was not Israel's to take, and "the only place that suits a believer is obedience."
- Accept. Both kings refused. Israel did not argue or hit back, because God trained His people to remember a family tie even when relatives were unkind.
- Abide. Israel stayed at Kadesh, then took the long road round. God Himself arranged that route, so the closed door was not a disaster but a direction.
- Wait. God's silence over Edom's insult was not indifference. The patience He taught His people was itself the sign that judgment was coming.
- Answer. Long afterwards that obedience became Jephthah's defence. Israel had kept God's word at Kadesh, so Ammon's charge collapsed and the right was all on Israel's side.
And they walked through the wilderness, and went round the land of Edom and the land of Moab, and came by the east of the land of Moab, and encamped beyond the Arnon, but came not within the border of Moab, for the Arnon is the border of Moab.
Jephthah answers Ammon's war threat with a history lesson: Israel went the long way round Edom and Moab and camped beyond the Arnon. He keeps pressing where Israel did not go, and that turns out to be his whole case.
Edom and Moab would not let Israel through. Israel did not force a way past them. Kelly weighs what that choice cost.
And what did Israel do? Resent it? Not so: they took the insult patiently... They took it quietly, and passed along their way... It was a great way about, and extremely inconvenient. Who doubted the unfriendliness of Moab and of Edom? It was known, but intended to be so; but for all that the children of Israel, as Jephthah showed, would not go against the word of God.
The long way round was not Israel's choice. God had fenced off these neighbouring nations, and the surprise is who He fenced them off from.
But in Deuteronomy 2 we find the LORD, faithful and righteous, stepping in to protect three distinct nations in the enjoyment of their national rights. He protects them against the encroachments of His own chosen people. He says to Moses, "You are about to pass through the territory of your brothers, the people of Esau, who live in Seir... do not contend with them, for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession."
The tie between Israel and these nations was old and distant. God still held to it, and Israel had to hold to it too.
God held even to the distant tie of connection — a most striking proof and witness of the ways of our God... The lands might be good pasture, the temptation great, the provocation given by Moab or Ammon very considerable. On human grounds there might be a just right of conquest; but all this would not do for God...
Ammon makes the demand, yet Jephthah's reply keeps naming Moab. That is not a slip.
"The close relationship between the two peoples, indicated in their origin, continued throughout their existence," says Grove. "Their union was so close, and their identity so near, that each is sometimes called by the other's name... In Jephthah's answer to the king of Ammon the allusions are continually to Moab (Judges 11:15, 18, 25), while Chemosh, the particular god of Moab (Num. 21:29), is called 'your god' (v. 24). The land from Arnon to Jabbok, which the king of Ammon calls 'my land' (v. 13), is elsewhere plainly said to have once belonged to a 'king of Moab.' (Num. 21:26.)"
The Arnon was not a vague line. It was a named landmark on the ground, and it can still be found today.
Ravine or wadi with its mountain torrent, which formed the border between Moab and Ammon, now known as Wady Mojib.
That line is exactly why Israel's later conquest was lawful. The land beyond it had already changed hands before Israel arrived — and old public records proved it.
The two poems quoted in Numbers 21 are well known records, cited to prove that the country in question was in the hands of the Amorites, and not of Moab, when Israel took possession. This was of the utmost importance, because Israel was forbidden to touch Moab, whereas the country of the Amorites was given up to them... This is so true that the children of Ammon claimed exactly this territory in the time of Jephthah (Judges 11). Jephthah goes over all this same ground as the thing that justified Israel in keeping the country. It was not Ammon's, nor Moab's either.
Jephthah faces an army, and his first weapon is not a sword. Ridout points out what is missing from this chapter.
You have none of the details and methods of conflict in connection with Ammon. Instead, Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways. God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into that inheritance which Ammon now claimed from them.
- Line: The Arnon was the border, and Israel stopped at it. That old restraint is what gives Jephthah his case now.
- Cost: The long way round was hard and the neighbours were hostile. Israel still would not break God's word to gain good land.
- Protection: In Deuteronomy God guarded three neighbouring nations against the encroachments of His own people.
- Proof: The disputed land had passed from Moab to the Amorites before Israel came. Israel took it from the Amorites, not from Moab or Ammon.
- Deed: Jephthah answers a war threat by reading out the history of God's ways. The line Israel once honoured is now his title deed.
And Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon, and Israel said to him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land unto my place.
Ammon has accused Israel of stealing land. Jephthah's reply goes back three hundred years, and the message sent to Sihon, king of Heshbon, is a key part of it. Why would a people promised the land ask permission to cross it?
Ammon's king wanted the dispute framed as theft, and Jephthah answers by laying out the record step by step.
The moral importance of this was immense. If they were simply doing the will and word of God, who could stand in their way? The aim of the king of Ammon was to put the children of Israel in the wrong. Jephthah proves in the most convincing way that the right was all on their side. ... They did not wish to quarrel with the king of Heshbon, Amorite though he was, unless he was actually in the holy land. But it was of God that these Amorites, to their own ruin, would not let them pass through in peace.
The message follows God's own way of dealing with an enemy.
In this case let us see the principles of Jehovah's discipline. Did He authorise Israel to force Sihon with threats of vengeance, or to win him over by flattery? Did He offer him the book of the law with one hand and the sword with the other? Nothing of the sort... Israel kept the path of right and courtesy. Sihon rushed on them to his own ruin; and only so did Israel strike down and dispossess the king of Heshbon.
Darby draws the same pattern into the believer's own conflicts.
We meet with people with whom we do not wish to have war, but they will not let us pass peaceably. Our warfare is with the possessors of our inheritance beyond Jordan. If we are attacked, we must defend ourselves; but we are not to be aggressors. Israel wishes to pass quietly through the land of the Amorites, but the Amorites refuse. So they suffer the consequences of the war they had sought against the people of God.
Because the land passed from Sihon's hand and not Ammon's, Ammon's whole claim collapses — any grievance it had belonged to an earlier quarrel.
Israel had not taken these lands from Ammon at all. They had taken them from the Amorite. If the Amorite first took them from Ammon, as was no doubt the case, that was a matter between Ammon and Sihon, not between Israel and Ammon... They had won the land by the fight the Amorite provoked and drew them into. They had sought peace, and Sihon would have war.
Kelly finds God's own hand behind that refusal.
God Himself had ordered things so. He knew very well that having the Amorites on their borders would be a constant snare and evil. He allowed that no one would trust Israel's peaceful intentions, for the very purpose of putting them in possession of the land.
Notice what Jephthah does not do: he sends no army first. He sends history.
Instead of the methods of conflict, you have a chapter of the Bible read to them. Jephthah goes to them, and, as it were, reads to them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways. He tells how God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into the inheritance that Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years they had enjoyed it without dispute.
Commentators differ here. Kelly saw courtesy and right. Another writer asks a harder question about the same message.
The land of the Amorite was part of God's original gift to Israel. So the question arises: why send messengers asking permission to pass through it, as they did with Edom?... To ask permission to pass quietly through a land given to them by God — was that the obedience of faith? The Amorite met righteous retribution, for they had taken that land from Moab. And now Israel, by the will of God, takes it from them.
- Asked — Israel asked Sihon for passage, with no threat and no flattery behind it.
- Refused — Sihon did not trust Israel, and chose war over letting them pass.
- Overruled — Kelly sees God's hand in that refusal. It removed a neighbour who would have been a lasting snare.
- Owned — so the land came to Israel from the Amorite, not from Ammon. Ammon's quarrel lay with Sihon.
- Argued — Jephthah's weapon is the record of God's ways: three hundred years of possession no one had disputed.
But Sihon trusted not Israel, to let him pass through his border, and Sihon gathered all his people, and they encamped in Jahzah; and he fought with Israel.
Jephthah is arguing a case, not telling a story. An Ammonite king claims Israel stole his land. Jephthah answers by retracing a journey made three hundred years earlier. This verse is the hinge of his case, because it names who started the fighting.
Israel's message to Sihon asked only for passage. One commentator weighs what hung on Israel being in the right, and what God was doing through Sihon's refusal.
The moral importance of this was immense. If they were only doing the will and word of God, who could stand in their way? The king of Ammon's aim was to put the children of Israel in the wrong. Jephthah proves in the clearest way that the right was all on their side... They did not want to quarrel with the king of Heshbon, Amorite though he was, unless he was actually inside the holy land. But it was God's doing that these Amorites, to their own ruin, would not let them pass through peacefully.
Before Sihon, Edom and Moab had turned Israel away. Israel took the refusal and went the long way round.
And what did Israel do? Resent it? No: they took the insult patiently... They took it quietly, and passed along their way... It was a long way round, and very inconvenient. Who doubted that Moab and Edom were unfriendly? It was known, and it was meant to be so. But for all that, as Jephthah showed, the children of Israel would not go against the word of God.
Sihon's distrust was not just a political misjudgement. One commentator explains why God would let a king suspect a people who meant him no harm.
Israel kept the path of right and courtesy. Sihon rushed on them to his own ruin; and only so did Israel smite and dispossess the king of Heshbon.
The same writer explains why God would allow Sihon to suspect a people who meant him no harm.
God Himself had ordered things so. He knew well that Amorites on their borders would be a constant snare and evil to them. He allowed that no one would trust Israel's peaceful intentions, and He did it for the very purpose of putting Israel in possession of the land.
Everything in Jephthah's argument turns on who Israel fought. The land came from Sihon, not from Ammon — and that single fact decides the case.
Israel had not taken these lands from Ammon at all. They had taken them from the Amorite. If the Amorite first took them from Ammon, as no doubt he did, that was a matter between Ammon and Sihon, not between Israel and Ammon... They won the land in a fight the Amorite provoked and drew them into. They wanted peace; Sihon wanted war. The result was that the Amorite lost his land... So Israel's title to that land could not be overturned.
Some writers also look at what the names here mean: Sihon, his city Heshbon, and Jahaz where he fought.
There is not much agreement about his name. What seems to come most fairly from the Hebrew root is "sweeping off," perhaps "refuse" or "off-scouring" — which is how the wisdom of the world would count God's wisdom. Or it may mean "sweeping away," as pride of intellect would sweep away the things of God. He is always called king of Heshbon, the place where he lived. The common English version translates that word only as "account," "device," or "reason." It clearly carries the thought of mental work. He comes out to meet Israel at Jahaz, which... is given as "a place trodden down," probably a "threshing-floor."
Notice what Jephthah does with this old battle record. He answers a land claim by telling God's history.
Instead of the methods of conflict, you have a chapter of the Bible read to them. Jephthah goes to them, and, as it were, reads to them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways; how God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into that inheritance which Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years Israel had enjoyed it without dispute. Through those three hundred years Ammon had to acknowledge the rights of the children of Israel, who had received the inheritance from God... Jephthah opens up the Scripture to them, and as he does so, he takes clear issue against them.
- Asked — Israel asked to pass through, and meant it. The war began with Sihon's distrust, not with Israel's greed.
- Refused — Edom and Moab had already turned Israel away. Israel went the long way round rather than disobey God.
- Overruled — God allowed the distrust. Through it He gave Israel the land Sihon was defending.
- Owned — the land came from the Amorite, not from Ammon. So Ammon's quarrel was with Sihon, and Israel's title stood.
- Rehearsed — Jephthah answered a hostile claim by reading out God's history with His people. The record was his argument.
And Jehovah the God of Israel gave Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them; and Israel took possession of the whole land of the Amorites, who dwelt in that country.
The king of Ammon has demanded back the land Israel held east of the Jordan, and Jephthah answers him with history rather than with an army. His case rests on one line: the Lord gave Sihon into Israel's hand three hundred years before.
Ammon's demand was a moral attack before it was a military one.
The moral importance of this was immense, for if they were simply doing the will and word of God, who could stand in their way? The object of the king of Ammon was to put the children of Israel in the wrong. Jephthah proves in the most triumphant way that the right was all on their side.
The verse names the loser: Sihon and the Amorites. Even if Ammon once held that land, their quarrel was with someone else.
Israel had not taken these lands from Ammon at all. They had taken them from the Amorite. If the Amorite took them from Ammon in the first place, as was no doubt the fact, then the affair was not between Israel and Ammon. It was between Ammon and Sihon. The Ammonites should have defended their claims against the Amorites as best they could. If they could not make those claims good, if they had lost their land and could not win it back, what had Israel to do with their affairs?
Israel did not start this fight. They asked to pass through, and the refusal and the attack came from Sihon.
We meet people we do not want to fight, but they will not let us pass in peace. Our warfare is with those who hold our inheritance beyond the Jordan. If we are attacked, we must defend ourselves; but we are not to be the aggressors. Israel wants to pass quietly through the land of the Amorites. The Amorites will not allow it, and they suffer the consequences of the war they had sought against the people of God.
Before the battle, God had already spoken of Sihon's land as something He was handing over.
Yet Israel gained these lands east of the Jordan by conquest, and according to God. "Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you," is the Lord's word to Moses: "begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land" (Deut. 2:31). Of Israel's right to hold it, then, there can be no question.
A nation destroys a kingdom and calls it right — many readers stumble there. One writer answers by setting Israel beside the Spanish conquest of South America.
Israel had the direct authority of God for what they did to Sihon and Og. The Spaniards could show no such authority for what they did to the poor, ignorant native peoples of South America. This alters the case completely. The introduction of God and His authority is the one perfect answer to every question, the divine solution of every difficulty.
Notice what Jephthah does before he draws a sword. He recites history — this verse is part of that recital — and lets the record do the work.
Instead of the methods of conflict, Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways. He tells how God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into that inheritance which Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years they had enjoyed it without dispute. In all that time Ammon had been forced to acknowledge that the children of Israel had received the inheritance from God.
God's hand was in the refusal that led to this battle, and in what it left of Ammon's claim.
God Himself had ordered things so. He knew well that the presence of the Amorites on their borders would be a constant snare and evil. So He allowed that there should be no confidence in Israel's peaceful intentions, in order to put them in possession of the land. Thus the king of Ammon had lost his old claim, and had no present title to question Israel's right of conquest... The king of Ammon might attack the Israelites and let the sword decide again, but he was unrighteous in demanding the land from Israel.
- Given, not grabbed. The Lord gave Sihon into Israel's hand, so Israel's right to the land is beyond question.
- Provoked, not sought. Israel asked only to pass through. God let Sihon refuse, and Sihon suffered the war he himself chose.
- Amorite, not Ammonite. Israel took the land from Sihon, not from Ammon. Any older claim was Ammon's to settle with the Amorites.
- Authority, not appetite. God's direct authority is what sets this apart from every other conquest. Bring God in, and every difficulty has its answer.
- Scripture, not swords. Jephthah reads God's record like a title deed before he fights. That is the pattern for meeting any claim against what God has given.
And they possessed all the borders of the Amorites, from the Arnon unto the Jabbok, and from the wilderness unto the Jordan.
Ammon's king demanded back a stretch of land east of the Jordan, and Jephthah answers by naming who Israel really took it from: the Amorites. That one point decides the case, since Ammon had never lost this land to Israel.
Ammon's charge was that Israel had stolen its territory. One writer sets out what really happened:
Jephthah replied that Israel had not taken the lands of the Ammonites, but had in fact bypassed Moab and Ammon. The Amorites refused to let Israel pass through their land. So Israel defeated the Amorites and took possession of their lands. These lands came from the Amorites, not from Ammon — yet now Ammon was demanding them.
If Ammon ever owned that ground, its quarrel was with the Amorites who took it, not with Israel:
If the Amorite first took these lands from Ammon, as was no doubt the fact, that was a matter between Ammon and Sihon. It was not a matter between Israel and Ammon. It was the business of the Ammonites to defend their claims as best they could against the Amorites. Suppose they could not prove their claims. Suppose they had lost their land and could not win it back. What did any of that have to do with Israel?
Israel asked Sihon, king of Heshbon, only for safe passage. Sihon refused, and the war started:
The object of the king of Ammon was to put the children of Israel in the wrong. Jephthah proves in the most triumphant way that the right was all on their side. They did not want to quarrel with the king of Heshbon, even though he was an Amorite, unless he stood inside the holy land itself. But God was behind what followed: these Amorites would not let Israel pass through in peace, and it ruined them.
The same writer traces that refusal back to God Himself:
God Himself had ordered things so. He knew very well that Amorites on their borders would be a constant snare and evil. So He allowed there to be no trust in Israel's peaceful intentions. He did this for the very purpose of putting Israel in possession of the land. So the king of Ammon had lost his old claim, and had no present title to question Israel's right of conquest.
The Jabbok, one of the two rivers marking this border, has its own history:
Stream on the east of the Jordan, near which the angel wrestled with Jacob. It was afterwards called "the border of the children of Ammon."
That strip of country was no accidental prize. God had promised it in advance:
The Amorite territory east of Jordan was to form part of the inheritance of Israel; of this God told Moses. "Rise up, take your journey, and pass over the valley of the Arnon. Behold, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land. Begin to take possession, and contend with him in battle" (Deuteronomy 2:24).
Jephthah's first weapon is history, not the sword:
Instead of the methods of conflict, you have a chapter of the Bible read to them. Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways. God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites. He had brought His people into that inheritance which Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years they had enjoyed it without dispute.
The strength of the case lay in documents both sides could recognise:
Israel's own statements might carry weight with Israel, but they were no proof against their enemies. So the record preserves well-known popular memorials instead. They tell how the Amorites had earlier conquered Moab, how the Amorites took this territory, and where the border then stood. They uphold Israel's title to these lands. This fits the case exactly. In Jephthah's day the children of Ammon claimed this very territory. Jephthah goes back over all this ground to justify Israel in keeping the country.
One writer draws a picture out of the land lying on both sides of the river:
God designed His people's inheritance to lie on the east of Jordan as well as on the west. This is a picture of the full inheritance of the heavenly saints, which takes in heaven and earth: what lies east of Jordan as well as what lies west, for Jordan is a symbol of death.
- Claim. Ammon demanded land back, alleging Israel seized it on the way from Egypt.
- Correction. Israel took the land between the Arnon and the Jabbok from the Amorites, not from Ammon. Any older grievance lay between Ammon and Sihon.
- Cause. Israel asked only to pass through in peace. Sihon refused, and that refusal started the war — God allowed it so that Israel would gain the land.
- Charter. God promised the ground east of Jordan to Israel in His word to Moses, before a blow was struck.
- Case. Jephthah answered with recorded history, not bare claims. He pointed to records his opponents knew, and to three hundred years of undisputed possession.
And now Jehovah the God of Israel has dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and shouldest thou take possession of it?
An invading king claims Israel stole his land three hundred years earlier. Jephthah answers with a history lesson instead of a battle plan. This verse is the hinge of his case: the land changed hands because God drove the Amorites out. So who has the right to hold what God gives?
Ammon's demand rested on a claim that falls apart under examination. Ammon lost this land long before Israel arrived, and lost it to a different people.
Israel had not taken these lands from Ammon at all. They had taken them from the Amorite. If the Amorite first took them from Ammon, as was no doubt the fact, that was a matter between Ammon and Sihon, not between Israel and Ammon. It was up to the Ammonites to defend their claim against the Amorites as best they could. If they could not hold it, if they had lost their land and could not win it back, what had Israel to do with their affairs? ... They had won the land in a fight the Amorite forced on them. They had sought peace, and Sihon wanted war. So Israel's title to that land could not be overturned.
The verse credits the dispossession to God. Commentators see His hand even in the refusal that started the war. Israel asked Sihon for peaceful passage, and his refusal became God's door.
God Himself had ordered things so. He knew very well that having the Amorites on their borders would be a constant snare and evil to Israel. He allowed the Amorites to put no trust in Israel's peaceful intentions, for the very purpose of giving Israel the land. So the king of Ammon had lost his old claim, and had no right now to question Israel's conquest. The king of Ammon might attack the Israelites and put the matter to the sword again, but he was unrighteous in demanding the land from Israel.
What makes Jephthah's case airtight is what Israel did not take. Edom and Moab both refused them passage. Israel took the insult and walked the long way round, because God had drawn a line around those nations.
And what did Israel do? Resent it? No: they took the insult quietly. They went on through the wilderness, around the land of Edom and the land of Moab, and camped on the far side of the Arnon. It was a long way round, and very inconvenient. Who doubted that Moab and Edom were unfriendly? Everyone knew it, and it was meant to be so. Yet for all that, as Jephthah showed, the children of Israel would not go against the word of God.
Obedience, not appetite, set the borders. Israel would not cross a line God had drawn, whatever it cost them in time and comfort.
The next verse presses the logic further. It turns a border dispute into a question of which god gave what.
Jephthah tells them that they can keep whatever their idol Chemosh was able to give them, but Israel would not give up what the Lord God had given them.
Jephthah answers Ammon's campaign before a single blow falls. Instead of tactics, the chapter gives us a man reciting the acts of God.
Instead of the methods of conflict, you have a chapter of the Bible read to them. Jephthah goes to them, and, as it were, reads to them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways: how God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into the inheritance that Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years Israel enjoyed it without dispute. All through that time Ammon had to acknowledge the right of the children of Israel to the inheritance God gave them.
Ridout carries this into the reader's own conflicts, where someone claims ground God has already given:
We need that spirit of faith which takes up our Bibles and opens up the truth in the face of false doctrine. Its name does not matter... If the Spirit of God has opened your heart to His truth, you can meet a man who holds wicked doctrine, whatever he claims to be. You can overthrow him in the power of that Word.
- Given — The land is held on one ground only: God dispossessed the Amorites and put His people in. Possession rests on His gift, not on Israel's sword.
- Guarded — The gift also fixed the borders. Israel took a long detour around Edom and Moab instead of crossing a line God had drawn.
- Governed — God Himself arranged even Sihon's hostility, "for the very purpose of giving Israel the land."
- Contested — Ammon's claim collapses under the facts. Ammon lost the land to the Amorites centuries earlier, then let three hundred years pass without a word.
- Defended — Jephthah's weapon is the record of God's ways, read aloud. Faith that knows its title deeds can meet a false claim without panic.
Dost not thou possess what Chemosh thy god puts thee in possession of? and whatever Jehovah our God has dispossessed before us, that will we possess.
Jephthah is not yet fighting Ammon. He is arguing with its king, sending back a long message that reviews three hundred years of history. Verse 24 is the sharp point of that message: let each side keep what its god has given it, and Israel will keep what the LORD gave.
Jephthah sets Ammon's claim beside Israel's and asks the king to be consistent with his own religion.
Jephthah answers the king of Ammon with a question. The Lord God of Israel had dispossessed the Amorites before Israel, so was it right for Ammon to possess that land? (v. 23). In fact, Jephthah tells them that they can possess what their idol Chemosh was able to give them, but what the Lord God had given Israel would not be given up (v. 24).
Verse 24 rests on the history Jephthah has just recited. Ammon had lost that land to the Amorites first. So Israel's war had never been with Ammon at all.
Israel had not taken these lands from Ammon at all. They had taken them from the Amorite. No doubt the Amorite had taken them from Ammon in the first place. If so, this was a matter not between Israel and Ammon, but between Ammon and Sihon. The Ammonites should have defended their claims against the Amorites as best they could. If they could not make those claims good, if they had lost their land and could not get it back, what did Israel have to do with their affairs? … The title of the children of Israel to that land could not be overturned.
Jephthah speaks to a pagan king in the language pagan kings used. That raises a question about how Israel thought of their own God.
He was not a mere national God, though He was indeed their God. He was the Lord of all the earth… A national god was a common enough thing, and so was crediting it with whatever was done. Jephthah says, "Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess?"
Chemosh was the god of Moab, yet Jephthah calls him the Ammonite king's god. Moab and Ammon were closely tied.
The close relation between the two peoples, shown in their origin, continued throughout their existence. … In Jephthah's answer to the king of Ammon the references point again and again to Moab (Judges 11:15, 18, 25). Chemosh, the particular deity of Moab (Num. 21:29), is called "your god" (v. 24). The land from Arnon to Jabbok, which the king of Ammon calls "my land" (v. 13), once belonged to a king of Moab, as Scripture elsewhere states plainly (Num. 21:26).
The other campaigns in Judges come with an account of the fighting. This one does not. Jephthah's weapon is the record of God's dealings.
… You have none of the details and methods of conflict in connection with Ammon. Instead of the methods of conflict, you have a chapter of the Bible read to them. Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways. God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites. He had brought His people into that inheritance which Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years they had enjoyed it without dispute. In all that time Ammon had been forced to acknowledge the rights of the children of Israel, who had received the inheritance from God.
Israel was in a low state, with eighteen years under Ammon's yoke behind them. Jephthah does not deny it. He still refuses to let present weakness settle the question of ownership.
Jephthah did not deny the low condition of the people. But when he addressed the children of Ammon, he went back to the beginning of Israel's blessings (vv. 15-27). He was far from agreeing to this state of things by accepting the yoke which Ammon had placed on the people for eighteen years. He took his stand on Israel's original blessings. … We will proceed, he said, according to the principles God gave us at the beginning, which are ours for ever. … Our language should be that of Jephthah: "All that the LORD our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess" (v. 24).
- Gift decides ownership. Each side keeps what its god gave it. Jephthah holds the king of Ammon to his own logic.
- Gift, then title. Israel took the land from the Amorites, not from Ammon. Ammon's quarrel was with Sihon, and it came centuries too late.
- Gift named rightly. Jephthah calls Chemosh the king's god in the ordinary language of the nations. Israel's God is Lord of all the earth, not one national god among many.
- Gift defended by Scripture. Judges records no battle plan here. Jephthah reads Ammon the history of God's ways and wins the argument first.
- Gift never surrendered. The people were weak and under Ammon's yoke. Jephthah still went back to what God gave at the beginning, and refused to hand it over.
And now art thou indeed better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? did he ever strive with Israel? did he ever fight against them?
Ammon has come to take land from Israel, and Jephthah answers with history instead of a sword. He points to Balak, king of Moab, a mightier king who never fought Israel over this land — so on what ground does Ammon claim it?
Jephthah will not fight until he is sure the right is on his side.
Jephthah takes the greatest pains to prove, when he comes forward, that he has clear right on his side. This is an important principle. It was not only that the Ammonites were oppressing the people unjustly. Jephthah does not dare to go to war, and the Spirit of God does not clothe him with energy for the fight, until he is certain in his soul that the cause is a righteous one. That certainty rests on how God had dealt with the children of Israel and with Ammon.
Jephthah now names a mightier king than the one he is answering.
Now he gives them a warning from the blows that God had inflicted on a mightier king than himself… So it was proved that Israel had a valid title, however you look at it. That title came not only from long possession, but from a right founded on their conquest of one of the enemies God Himself had marked out for destruction — an enemy who had attacked them without cause, when they would have left him unharmed, just as they would leave the Ammonite alone now. From every point of view the ground Israel took was solid, and no one could fairly dispute it. The king of Ammon had no just claim whatever.
Israel's own word could never settle the argument with an enemy. The proof had to come from records the nations around them already knew.
These are well known records, quoted to prove that the country in question was in the hands of the Amorites, and not of Moab, when Israel took possession. This mattered greatly, because God forbade Israel to touch Moab, while He gave them the country of the Amorites. Israel's own statements, whatever weight they carried for Israel, would have been no evidence against their enemies. So, to support Israel's title to these lands, well known popular memorials are quoted — memorials of the earlier conquest of Moab by the Amorites, and of how the Amorites took over this territory… This is so clearly the case that the children of Ammon claimed exactly this territory in the time of Jephthah (Judges 11), and Jephthah goes over all this same ground as what justified Israel in keeping the country. It was not Ammon's, and it was not Moab's either. Nor did Balak, king of Moab, lay claim to it then.
What the text leaves out is striking. There are no battle plans here — only an argument.
I think that may be why you get none of the details and methods of the fighting where Ammon is concerned. Instead of methods of conflict, you have a chapter of the Bible read to them. Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of Scripture: the history of God's ways, how God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into that inheritance which Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years they had enjoyed it without dispute.
The same writer turns that into a rule for meeting false teaching.
We need an opener. We need that spirit of faith that takes our Bibles and opens up the truth in the face of any false doctrine, whatever it is called.
The nation was in a low state, and Jephthah does not deny it. He argues from what God gave Israel at the start.
Jephthah did not deny how low the people had sunk. But when he spoke to the children of Ammon, he went back to the beginning of Israel's blessings… He held to those blessings as the foundation the people were established on. We will go on, he said, by the principles God gave us at the beginning, and which are ours for ever. He saw the people, the family of God, as God had looked at them at the first, and said: "Our conflict is not with the children of Ammon, but with the Amorites."
- Title first. Jephthah will not move against Ammon until he is sure the cause is righteous. God's dealings with both peoples settle that.
- Title from God. Israel took the land from the Amorites, not from Ammon. The Amorites attacked first, so no argument can overturn Israel's right.
- Title unchallenged. Balak, a mightier king who hated Israel, never fought Israel for this land, and his silence is the strongest witness against Ammon.
- Title on record. The proof came from records the surrounding nations knew, not from Israel's own word alone.
- Title defended by the open book. The text records no battle tactics. Jephthah reads Ammon the history of God's ways, and that is still how to meet a false claim.
While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its dependent villages, and in Aroer and its dependent villages, and in all the cities that are along the banks of the Arnon, three hundred years -- why did ye not recover [them] within that time?
Jephthah ends his case to the king of Ammon with a question about time: if the land was really Ammon's, why say nothing for three hundred years? He answers an invasion with history instead of force, which raises a question worth weighing: what gives a people a right to a land?
The question about time is the second half of a two-part argument. The verse asks why Ammon never delivered the land — that is, why they never took it back. One writer sets both halves side by side:
He reminds Ammon of the hostility of Balak toward Israel when they came out of Egypt (Numbers 22-24), but points out that he did not fight against Israel. Were the Ammonites better than Balak, that they could hope to defeat Israel? (v. 25). Also, now that Israel had lived for 300 years in Heshbon and Aroer and their villages, why had Ammon not in all that time recovered that land, if it was really theirs? (v. 26).
One writer traces the claim further back, to how this land became open to Israel at all:
God had certainly exempted the children of Moab, Ammon, and Edom from the sentence He passed on the nations of Canaan, if only for reasons of kinship. If some of those nations had taken away land that belonged to the Ammonites, Israel was free, and perfectly within its rights, to put the intruders out of the land and to take whatever was theirs as spoil. If Ammon could not, or would not, try to recover it earlier, they had no title to claim it now from Israel. On this principle Jephthah argues that Israel's cause is righteous — the cause the sword was now to settle between Ammon and Israel.
Long possession is only half of Jephthah's case. The other half is how Israel came to hold Heshbon and Aroer at all.
So Israel had a valid title, from whatever angle you look at it. It rested on long-continued possession. It also rested on a right founded on their conquest of one of the enemies God Himself had devoted to destruction. That enemy attacked them without cause, when they would have left him alone, just as they would leave the Ammonite alone now. From every point of view Israel's ground was solid, and no one could rightly dispute it. The king of Ammon had no just claim at all.
Notice what is missing from this chapter. One writer points to what fills the gap:
I think that may be why you get none of the details and methods of the fighting with Ammon. Instead, Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways. God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into the inheritance Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years they had enjoyed it without dispute. All through that time Ammon had to acknowledge the rights of the children of Israel, who had received the inheritance from God.
The same writer draws the lesson out for anyone facing a claim on the truth they hold:
That is what is needed in meeting false doctrine. We need an opener. We need that spirit of faith which takes up our Bibles and opens the truth in the face of any false doctrine, whatever its name. And here is a blessed fact. It makes no difference whether a man who holds wrong teaching has the Bible in his hand — all the better if he does. You can still use the word of God against him, if you are an opener.
Where does a man find his footing when his nation is at its lowest?
Jephthah did not deny the low condition of the people, but when he addressed the children of Ammon he went back to the beginning of Israel's blessings (vv. 15-27). He would not agree to this state of things by accepting the yoke Ammon had placed on the people for eighteen years. Instead he took his stand on Israel's original blessings, from the day they came out of Egypt to enter Canaan. He held to the blessings as the ground the people had been established on. We will go on, he said, by the principles God gave us at the beginning, principles that are ours for ever.
The three hundred years also fixes a point in Israel's history. One writer places it on the map:
Jephthah's reply to the Ammonites shows that at this point the children of Israel had held Heshbon and Aroer for only three centuries. They had won the whole country between the Arnon and the Jabbok from the Amorites, not from the Ammonites (Numbers 21:24-26).
- Claim. Ammon demanded the land back. Jephthah answered that three hundred years of silence had already settled it.
- Title. Israel's right rested on two things. They had held the land unbroken, and they had won it from the Amorite who attacked them first.
- Method. The chapter records no battle plan. Jephthah reads his enemy a chapter of history instead.
- Application. Meet any claim on what God has given the same way. Open the Word and use it.
- Ground. In a low time, Jephthah argued from what God gave at the beginning, not from the eighteen years of bondage around him.
So I have not sinned against thee, but it is thou who doest me wrong in making war against me. Jehovah, the Judge, be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon!
Jephthah has traced Israel's history all the way back to the day they came out of Egypt. Here he closes his case: Israel has done no wrong, Ammon's attack is the wrong, and God must settle it.
Jephthah does not open with an army. He opens with an argument.
When he comes forward, Jephthah takes the greatest pains to prove that he has clear right on his side. This is an important principle. It was not just that the Ammonites oppressed the people unfairly. There was more. Jephthah does not venture to go to war, and the Spirit of God does not clothe him with energy for the conflict, until he is certain in his soul that the cause is righteous. That certainty rests on God's dealings with the children of Israel and with Ammon.
The denial is not bluster. It rests on a point of history: the land in question never passed from Ammon to Israel at all.
Jephthah's title was plain and sure. Israel had not taken these lands from Ammon at all. They had taken them from the Amorite. If the Amorite got them from Ammon in the first place, as was no doubt the fact, that was a matter not between Israel and Ammon, but between Ammon and Sihon... Israel had sought peace, and Sihon wanted war. The result was that the Amorite lost his land. The title of the children of Israel to that land therefore could not be overturned.
Jephthah's first weapon is not a sword. Sihon was the Amorite king Israel defeated on the way to Canaan.
That may be the reason why you have none of the details and methods of conflict in connection with Ammon. Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways. God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into that inheritance which Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years they had enjoyed it without dispute. Through those three hundred years Ammon had to acknowledge the rights of the children of Israel, who had received the inheritance from God.
Israel at this moment was in a poor spiritual state, and Jephthah does not pretend otherwise.
Jephthah did not deny the low condition of the people, but when he addressed the children of Ammon he went back to the beginning of Israel's blessings (vv. 15-27). He would not agree to this state of things by taking on the yoke Ammon had placed on the people for eighteen years. Instead, he took his stand on Israel's original blessings, from the day they came out of Egypt to enter Canaan... "We will go on," he said in effect, "according to the principles God gave us at the beginning, which are ours forever."
Jephthah does not hand down the verdict himself.
Therefore, Jephthah concludes, the sin was not on Israel's part but on the part of the Ammonites, and he appeals to the Lord, the Judge, to render fair judgment in this matter (v. 27).
Jephthah's case was airtight. It did not end the matter.
Jephthah had proved the king of Ammon was in arms without any right. The king only grew fiercer — as usually happens when people meet proof of a wrong their will is set on.
- Case first. Jephthah proves the right before he draws the sword. The Spirit's power for the fight comes only when he is sure the cause is righteous.
- Case documented. Israel's claim was a clear title. The land came from the Amorite, not from Ammon, so Ammon's quarrel was never with Israel.
- Case from the beginning. A ruined present does not cancel what God gave at the start. Those blessings are "ours forever," whatever the current state.
- Case pleaded. Having named the wrong, he leaves the verdict with God, appealing to the Lord as the Judge.
- Case refused. Proof does not soften a will set on wrong. It hardens it. Expect that, and leave the outcome with God.
But the king of the children of Ammon hearkened not to the words of Jephthah that he had sent him.
Jephthah has just answered Ammon's land claim in full — the history, the dates, the title, and a final appeal to God to judge between them. Verse 28 gives the result in one line: the king would not listen.
Jephthah's argument left no gap. He had traced how the land came to Israel: not from Ammon, but from the Amorites, who attacked Israel first. To that he added three hundred years of undisputed possession.
Looked at from every angle, the ground Israel stood on was solid, and no one could rightly dispute it. The king of Ammon had no just claim at all.
The verse does not say the king disagreed. He gave nothing back at all.
So Jephthah concludes that the sin was not Israel's but the Ammonites', and he appeals to the Lord, the Judge, to give fair judgment in the matter (v. 27). The king of Ammon had no reply to this, but simply refused to consider Jephthah's words (v. 28). Let us remember that Ammon stands for the basic false teachings by which Satan seeks to destroy the people of God.
Losing the argument did not soften the king. It had the opposite effect.
Jephthah had now proved that the king of Ammon was in arms without any right. That only made him fiercer. People usually react this way when they are convicted of a wrong their will clings to.
This episode has no battle tactics in it. Up to this point, Jephthah's campaign is an argument from history.
Instead of the methods of conflict, you have a chapter of the Bible read to them. Jephthah goes to them and, as it were, reads them a chapter of Scripture. He gives them the history of God's ways. He tells how God had overthrown Sihon, king of the Amorites, and had brought His people into the inheritance that Ammon now claimed from them. For three hundred years they had enjoyed it without dispute. Through all that time Ammon had to acknowledge the rights of the children of Israel, who had received the inheritance from God. Jephthah opens up the Scripture to them, and as he does so, he takes clear issue against them.
Israel was in a poor state — eighteen years under Ammon's hand. Jephthah did not argue from where the people stood at that moment.
Jephthah did not deny the low condition of the people, but when he spoke to the children of Ammon he went back to the beginning of Israel's blessings (vv. 15-27). He would not accept this state of things, and he would not accept the yoke Ammon had laid on the people for eighteen years. Instead he took his stand on Israel's original blessings, from the day they came out of Egypt to enter Canaan.
Grant reads Ammon as a picture of false teaching. That gives the king's deaf ear a wider use, and Ridout separates two very different cases.
The victory over heresy comes with an open Bible, and an open heart and conscience. The first thing we have to do is to draw the line between ourselves and the false doctrine. We may bear with ignorance; we can bear with any failure to grasp the full scope of divine truth. A fellow Christian may not know the truths of prophecy; he may not know the full extent of redemption in all its blessed results. But I can go on patiently with someone who is only ignorant.
A denial is different.
If a man denies the value of the atoning work of Christ, or anything else that touches the foundations of our most holy faith, then to go on with him even for an hour is disloyalty to Christ who has bought us. There is only one thing to do when you meet false teaching. Do what Jephthah did: face it with the word of God, and deny it and all its power outright. So he gains the victory for the people and for God, and the inheritance which had been theirs for so many years still remains in their power.
- Proved. Jephthah's case was watertight. Israel's title came from God through the Amorites and had stood for three hundred years. Ammon had no just claim.
- Refused. The king offered no counter-argument. He would not even consider the words. Being answered is not the same as being persuaded.
- Hardened. Proof can make a man fiercer instead of humbler, when his will is committed to the wrong.
- Opened. Jephthah's weapon was Scripture, not tactics. He read Ammon a chapter of God's dealings. He stood on Israel's blessings as they were at the beginning, not as they looked after eighteen years of oppression.
- Separated. Ignorance calls for patience. Settled false teaching calls for the answer Jephthah gave: meet it with the word of God and concede nothing.