And they removed from Oboth, and encamped at Ijim-Abarim, in the wilderness that is before Moab, toward the sun-rising.
After the bronze serpent healed the dying camp, the complaints stop and a travel list begins. This verse names one halt on that list. So why record a bare campsite, and what does "toward the sunrise" say about where Israel now stood?
One writer reads this camp against the thirty-eight years behind it.
From this statement we learn that Israel "set out," and began to make real advance in their journeys. Israel had now arrived at a new stage in their history — a transition stage. Their wanderings in the wilderness had come to an end… They are now on the border of Moab, "toward the sunrise." They had wandered with no aim for no less than thirty-eight years in mid-wilderness. Now there are only a few months left for them to finish the fortieth year and enter into their possessions.
Another commentator makes the same distinction in a single line — these are travels with a destination.
Now we are given an account of journeys of Israel that are no longer simply wanderings, but journeys that bring them nearer to the place from which they are to enter the land of Canaan.
Another writer traces this new pace back to grace, and to God's promise to end Israel's murmuring.
Israel now set forward under the full efficacy of grace (Num. 21:10). God had said that He would completely take away their murmuring… He dealt with this last outburst of murmuring in the wilderness in a way that shows us how the incurable evil of the flesh must be overcome. Once that lesson was given, the power of the living rod showed at once: the murmurs cease, not through judgment, but by the fullness of blessing.
Another writer ties the fast march to the death of Aaron and to the priest who followed him.
The death of Aaron and the succession of Eleazar are clearly the central points… In Eleazar, Aaron's priesthood carries on despite his death, and in the power of resurrection. This matters for what follows: the people now advance fast, pressing on through all opposition in triumph, right to the border of the land. Our great High Priest, His work finished, and risen out of death, can lead His people on like this.
A reference work places the camp, explains its name, and admits nobody has found the site.
This is one of the later stopping places of the Israelites, on the south-east border of Moab. The margin translates it "Heaps of Abarim" (Num. 21:11; Num. 33:44). It is shortened to Iim in Num. 33:45. The site has never been identified.
"Abarim" itself names a mountain range, and Moses would later die on one of its peaks.
This is probably the chain of mountains that lie "beyond" or to the east of the Dead Sea and the lower Jordan (Num. 33:47-48). Deut. 32:49-50 links Mount Nebo with Abarim, places it "opposite Jericho," and shows it was where Moses viewed the land and died. Deut. 3:27 connects this with Pisgah. So Pisgah and Nebo seem to have formed part of Abarim, in the land of Moab.
One writer lists the camp names with their meanings, and faults us for treating them only as map points.
Here the camps give us, no doubt, stages of true progress, although (to our shame) we can tell little about them… One day they will speak gloriously for God, as the history of our lives will. Meanwhile we have been busier fixing their places on the map (and failing) than looking in them for any spiritual meaning. For all but two we have little more than the names. I give them with their meanings, though even here judgments will differ: Oboth: "hollows" or "water-skins." Ije-Abarim: "heaps of the passages." Zared: "willow."… Beer: "the well." Mattanah: "gift." Nahaliel: "the inheritance of God."… Pisgah: "survey."
That God keeps a list of campsites at all is itself the lesson.
Think of Him keeping such a record of the journeys of His poor people, from the moment they marched out of Egypt until they crossed the Jordan… "He knows your going through this great wilderness. These forty years the LORD your God has been with you. You have lacked nothing." He went before them every step of the way. He travelled over every stage of the wilderness… And here He retraces the whole way His hand had led them, noting down each stage of that marvellous journey, and every spot in the desert where they had halted.
Follow the stages a little further and the mood of the march changes.
Next, Israel goes forward, but they are not yet in the land. God relieves and refreshes them out of His own free grace, with no murmuring from them… At the end of their journey, life is no longer the question. It is salvation from the deadly wound of the serpent. They are healed. They walk and drink with joy and songs of praise.
- Healed, then moving. The camp at Iye-abarim follows the healing at the bronze serpent. Grace, not judgment, silenced the murmuring and started the march.
- Wandering ends. These are no longer aimless circles but journeys aimed at the land, with only months of the forty years left.
- A real place. "Heaps of Abarim" sat on Moab's south-east border, in the range that holds Nebo and Pisgah. There Moses would view the land and die.
- Stages, not scenery. The camps mark real progress. Their names run from "the well" to "gift" to "inheritance of God" to "survey."
- Nothing unrecorded. God writes down every halting place. He travelled every stage with His people and led them the whole way home.
From thence they removed, and encamped at the torrent Zered.
The verse reads like a line from a travel log: one camp struck, another pitched in a ravine on the edge of Moab. Yet Deuteronomy marks this crossing as a dividing line in Israel's whole history. Why should one dry stream bed matter so much? The writers quoted below call it the brook Zered.
One writer divides Israel's route into three stages and puts the Zered at the end of the middle one. The distances show how much time the people lost.
Their arrival at Sinai was, in a way, the end of the first stage of the journey. The second stage was Kadesh Barnea. The people reached it before the end of the second year after the Exodus. The third was the plains of Moab. They had left the wilderness for ever when they crossed the brook Zered (Deut. 2:13-14). Between Sinai and Kadesh is eleven days' journey (Deut. 1:2). Between Kadesh and the brook Zered, thirty-eight years went by.
The record says almost nothing about those thirty-eight years. One writer finds that silence itself significant. The people who move on now are not the people who left Kadesh.
From the first arrival in Kadesh to the point we now reach, almost the whole forty years have passed. The people brought those years on themselves by refusing, at that time, to enter Canaan. The near-total silence about this time in the history is significant. It is the time of the dying out of the generation under sentence... But they pass to make room for those who now in the power of God are to take possession of the land of promise.
From this point the list of camps changes character.
Now we are given an account of Israel's journeys. They are no longer mere wanderings. They are journeys that bring the people nearer to the place from which they are to enter the land of Canaan.
Zered stands third in a chain of nine named camps. One writer lists what the names mean, and admits how little we know.
Here the camps surely give us stages of real progress, though — to our shame — we can say little about them. They are, however, nine in number (3 x 3)... Meanwhile we have been busier pinning their places on the map (and failing) than looking for any spiritual meaning in them. For all but two, we have little more than the names, which I give with their meanings... Oboth: either "hollows" or "[water-] skins." Ije-Abarim: "heaps of the passages." Zared: "willow." Arnon: "continual stream"... Beer: "the well." Mattanah: "gift." Nahaliel: "the inheritance of God (El)." Ramoth: "heights." Pisgah: "survey."
One writer traces this fresh start to the loss of two of Israel's leaders.
Israel had now reached a new stage in their history — a stage of transition. That is to say, their wanderings in the wilderness had come to an end. Miriam, the prophetess, has died. Aaron, God's priest and Miriam's brother, also lays aside his official garments and leaves the scene (Numbers 20). So Israel are set free to go forward and make real progress towards their goal, the land of promise, with nothing to hold them back.
With the testing behind them, Israel asked the nations for nothing but the right of way. That, one writer says, is the shape of a life aimed at heaven.
When they crossed the brook Zered, the wilderness testing was over, and they were really bound for Canaan. In picture, the judgment of sinful flesh in the bronze serpent, and the power of life in the springing well, made them able to be companions of the heavenly calling. They simply want to pass through the enemy's country in peace, for they are going to Canaan. They want nothing of theirs, only permission to pass on. So it is with us. If our hearts are true to the heavenly calling, we want nothing of the world except to pass on in peace, for we are going to heaven.
- Sentence. A journey of eleven days took thirty-eight years. The people had refused to enter at Kadesh.
- Silence. Scripture says almost nothing about those years. In them the generation under sentence died out.
- Freedom. With sinful flesh judged in the bronze serpent and Aaron's garments laid aside, nothing held the camp back.
- Progress. Zered means "willow." After it come "continual stream," "the well," "gift," "the inheritance of God," "heights," "survey" — each a stage toward the land.
- Passage. Past this valley Israel wanted nothing from the nations but the road through. The same marks a life headed for heaven.
From thence they removed, and encamped on the other side of the Arnon, which is in the wilderness that comes out of the border of the Amorites. For the Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites.
This verse is a travel note with a legal edge. Israel camps beyond the Arnon, and the text stops to record whose land lay on each side. Why did one valley matter so much, and why was Israel free to cross it?
The stages listed here mark a change in Israel's story. The camp is no longer going in circles. It is moving toward a destination.
Here we are given an account of Israel's journeys. They are no longer simple wanderings. They bring the people nearer to the place from which they are to enter the land of Canaan. Each stage has its own name, and all those names carry some spiritual significance, little as we may be able to see it.
The name of the river itself carries a picture:
Arnon: probably "continual stream." Literally, "the stream that renews itself."
The verse marks the Arnon as the line between Moab and the Amorites. That line decided what Israel could touch. Moab was off limits; God gave Israel the land on the far bank.
So Israel was not allowed to touch what belonged to any of these three nations: the Edomites, Ammonites and Moabites. But the very next sentence shows something completely different with the Amorites: "Rise up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land; begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle."
The choice was not Israel's to make. The same writer gives the rule behind it:
The great principle, in all these varied instructions to Israel, is that God's word must settle everything for His people. Israel was not to ask why they should leave the lands of Esau and Lot untouched and take those of Sihon. They were just to do what they were told. God can do as He pleases. He has His eye upon the whole scene. He sees it all.
The careful wording about the border reads like a land title. Later in the chapter, Israel's record quotes outside sources, and one writer explains why:
These foreign traditions, written and spoken, are quoted on purpose, for one special reason. They prove, from witnesses that Israel's most zealous opponents could not question, that the land in debate did not belong to Ammon or Moab when Israel took it by conquest. It belonged to the doomed peoples of Canaan and the area around it… The Amorite had taken it from Moab, and Israel from the Amorite… A Jewish record of the land's previous owners and of Israel's own victories might be dismissed as self-serving by an enemy. But a quotation from the enemies' own popular songs of that day settled the matter.
Years later a leader of Israel named Jephthah had to defend that claim, and the same evidence held:
This is so clearly the case that the Ammonites claimed this very territory in the time of Jephthah (Judges 11). Jephthah goes over all this same ground as the reason Israel was right to keep the country. It was not Ammon's nor Moab's either. Nor did Balak, king of Moab, claim it then.
The Arnon itself is no gentle stream:
A ravine or valley with its mountain torrent… Its sources lie both north and south, and they join. The stream then runs almost east to west. It rushes through a deep ravine and falls into the Dead Sea about halfway along the sea's north-to-south length.
Something happened at these streams that Scripture remembers but never describes.
A few stages bring them to the brooks of Arnon. God did some wonderful act of power and grace there. We know that, because Scripture links it with the Red Sea as one of the marvellous scenes where God stepped in. So the book of the wars of the LORD records "what He did in the Red Sea and in the brooks of Arnon." We are not told what He did. But we know it was the beginning of blessing, for from the stream of brooks they came to Beer.
- Progress. The camps of this chapter are no longer aimless circling; they are stages that bring Israel to the edge of the land.
- Boundary. The verse names the Arnon as the line between Moab and the Amorites. That line fixed what Israel could take and what it had to leave alone.
- Obedience. God never told Israel why Moab was spared and Sihon given up. His word settled it, and that was enough.
- Title. The record fixes the border so exactly that the enemies' own songs proved Israel's claim. Jephthah later won the argument on that very ground.
- Grace. What God did at the brooks of Arnon ranks with the Red Sea. Scripture never says what it was, yet it began the blessing that carried Israel on.
Therefore it is said in the book of the wars of Jehovah, Vaheb in Suphah, and the brooks of Arnon;
Israel is camped beyond the Arnon gorge, on the border between Moab and the Amorites. There the story pauses to quote a poem from a lost book, which raises two questions: what was this book, and why does Scripture use it?
Older English versions added a word and turned the quoted line into a sentence. Commentators working from the Hebrew read it as a list of place names, which is how the ESV prints it.
Numbers 21:1, 14. — Here we must leave out "when." It is unwarranted and gives a false sense. We should also translate verse 14, "Vaheb in Suphah, and the valleys, or brooks, of Arnon."
The style of the fragment also tells us something about the book it came from.
The wars of the Lord. Num. 21:14. The quotation is poetry, so the book may have been a collection of songs by Moses about the LORD's wars.
Later in the chapter the text quotes a second source: sayings that people were repeating at the time. Some argue this proves that Moses pieced his books together from older material. One writer answers that these quotations do the opposite of what such a theory needs.
The account makes two references. One is to a book of that day, the book of the wars of the LORD (verse 14). The other is to certain proverbial sayings or legends in circulation at that time (verses 27-30). Critics pretend this supports the theory that Moses composed the first five books of the Bible from a mass of earlier material floating around among the Israelites of his day and their Gentile neighbours. It gives that theory no support at all. Scripture quotes these foreign traditions, written and spoken, on purpose. They serve one unusual aim: to prove from witnesses no opponent could challenge that the land in dispute did not belong to Ammon or Moab when Israel conquered it. It belonged to the doomed peoples of Canaan and the area around it.
Ownership was the real issue at the Arnon. God had forbidden Israel to touch Moab, so everything depended on one fact: the land had left Moab's hands before Israel arrived.
These well known records are quoted to prove one thing: the Amorites, not Moab, held the country in question when Israel took possession. This mattered enormously. God had forbidden Israel to touch Moab, but He had given them the country of the Amorites. Now Israel's own statements, whatever weight they carried at home, would have counted for nothing against their enemies... This is so plainly true that the people of Ammon claimed this very territory in the time of Jephthah (Judges 11). Jephthah goes over all this same ground to show why Israel was right to keep the country.
The same thing happens with the Book of Jasher. In the dispute with Ammon it counted as public evidence both sides could check, not as revelation.
The Book of Jasher was not inspired; but the king says to Ammon, "Go and look at that record, and see whether this country is not ours."
Borrowed material does not weaken the claim that God inspired all of Scripture.
No believer in God's full inspiration of the Scriptures needs to deny that Scripture includes human documents. He need not deny that it includes speeches or conversations of men who may have been godless or hostile.
The Bible names several such sources, and none has survived. One writer counts that loss as no loss at all.
You can look at these passages for original records that no longer exist: Num. 21:14; Joshua 10:13; 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29, 12:15, 33:18-19. They served a purpose for a time. Nothing in them can have had lasting importance, except what the historical books of the Hebrew canon preserve.
The title puts these wars in the Lord's name. One writer sorts them into two kinds.
"The wars of the Lord" (Num. 21:14)... are of two kinds — those He carried out entirely alone, and those in which He used His people. The battle at the Red Sea was of the first kind. The Lord was there all alone. Israel had nothing to do but be still and see God's salvation.
- Record. The verse quotes a poem from a lost book. Read as place names, the line marks Waheb, Suphah and the Arnon valleys along Israel's route.
- Right. The quotation is evidence in a property dispute: the land was Amorite, not Moabite, when Israel took it.
- Referee. Israel's own word proved nothing against its enemies. So Scripture points to a record the enemies themselves accepted — the argument Jephthah later used against Ammon.
- Reliability. A quoted document can be true and useful without being inspired. Scripture can include human records and still be God's word.
- Ruler. The book bears God's name because the victories were His. Some He won with His people. Some, like the Red Sea, He won alone while they stood still.
And the stream of the brooks which turneth to the dwelling of Ar, And inclineth toward the border of Moab.
Numbers 21:15 comes from a quotation out of another book — a record of Israel's wars — and it traces a line of land down to Ar, on Moab's frontier. Why does the Bible stop to quote an outside source here, and why did that border matter so much?
The record quoted here does legal work. It settles who held this land before Israel arrived:
These are well known records. They are cited to prove that the Amorites held this country, and not Moab, when Israel took possession. That mattered enormously. God had forbidden Israel to touch Moab, but He had handed the country of the Amorites over to them. So, to defend Israel's title to these lands, the text gives well known public records: how the Amorites had earlier conquered Moab, and how they gained this territory. It gives the border as it stood then.
Some read a quotation like this as proof that the Pentateuch is a patchwork of older scraps. One writer answers that charge:
Critics claim that Moses put the Pentateuch together from a mass of earlier material floating among the Israelites of his day and their Gentile neighbours. This gives that idea not the smallest support. Scripture quotes these foreign traditions, written and spoken, on purpose, with one unusual aim in view. They prove that when Israel took the land in dispute by conquest, it did not belong to Ammon or Moab. It belonged to the doomed nations of Canaan and the region around it. And they prove it from witnesses that Israel's most zealous opponents could not challenge. An enemy might dismiss a Jewish record of the land's earlier owners, and of Israel's own victories, as self-serving. But a quotation from the enemies' own popular songs settled the matter. In Judges 11 Jephthah takes exactly this ground when he refutes the claims of the king of Ammon in his day. The evidence was unanswerable: the Amorite held the disputed territory when Israel took it over.
The verse names Ar. God had already ruled that place out for Israel:
With Moab and Ammon it was the same. "The Lord said to me, Do not harass Moab or contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land for a possession, because I have given Ar to the people of Lot for a possession."
One writer draws out the lesson for Israel in that restraint:
What we find here is a warning not to give in to the sight of their eyes or the violence of their hands, guarding against a covetous spirit that pays little regard to what God has assigned to others. It is always the same duty of submission to God's will.
The frontier this verse leans on was a river. It sat where it did because of an earlier war:
When the tribe of Reuben received their possession, their southern boundary was the river Arnon. That same river was the northern boundary of the Moabites. The Amorites had driven the Moabites south before Israel arrived.
The verse belongs to a fragment of poetry, and that has drawn plenty of criticism. One writer explains what kind of poetry it is:
Of the stages of the journey, only the fourth and fifth get any attention. The fourth marks the boundary of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites, and that Amorite territory was now to become Israel's own. Here we have a fragment of song, little understood, which gives plenty of scope for criticism. It is a quotation from the "Book of the Wars of the LORD," so it certainly seems to be a battle-song. It comes in at the very place where they had to fight. Mere geography would be tame enough.
The verse sits at a turning point. What follows it is a song at a well:
This is a remarkable passage, coming in at such a moment and in such a connection. The murmuring is hushed. The people are nearing the borders of the promised land. The effects of the serpents' bite have passed. Now, without any rod and without any striking, the people receive refreshment. What if the Amorites, Moabites, and Ammonites are around them? What if the power of Sihon stands in the way? God can open a well for His people and give them a song despite it all.
- Border. The verse traces a line down to Ar, on Moab's frontier. That line decided what Israel could and could not claim.
- Evidence. Israel's own enemies acknowledged the record, so no one could dispute Israel's claim.
- Restraint. God gave Ar to Lot's descendants, so Israel's strength stopped where His gift to another began.
- Song. The quotation reads as a battle-song, not a travel note. At this border Israel's voice returns.
- Progress. Here the wandering ends and the advance begins; enemies ring them round, yet God opens a well and gives a song.
And from thence to Beer that is the well of which Jehovah spoke to Moses, Assemble the people, and I will give them water.
Numbers 21 closes Israel's forty years of wandering, and near the end of the road they reach a place called Beer — the Hebrew word for "well." Here God speaks first, before anyone complains, and what follows is not another crisis but a song.
Earlier in the wilderness, the people complained first. Only then did Moses strike the rock and the water flow. Here God moves first. One writer sets the two scenes side by side:
Now, at the close of their wanderings, grace shines out more fully and clearly than before they came to Sinai. They murmured at Horeb. God does not chide, though He heard them, but tells Moses to strike the rock, and the waters flow. Here God does not wait to be asked; He promises beforehand and tells Moses that the well is at Beer. And God is still ahead of them, He is ready before they are, waiting to be gracious. They are scattered: "Gather the people together, so that I may give them water."
Other wells in Scripture carry a second word in their name. This one does not:
Beer in Hebrew is the word for well. We read of Beersheba (well of the oath), and Beer-lahai-roi (well of Him who sees me), but here it is simply Beer, that is THE well. "The LORD said to Moses, 'Gather the people together, so that I may give them water.'" They came to this well and they sang, "Spring up, O well; sing to it." Does this not remind you of what our Lord said to the sinful woman at the well, "The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life" (John 4:14)?
Something has changed in how God supplies His people. Just before this came the deadly bite of the serpent and the healing that followed. The well comes next:
Next, Israel goes forward, but they are not yet in the land. God relieves and refreshes them out of His own free grace, without their murmuring. He gathers the people. Israel celebrates again, close by the land, the wells found in the wilderness. They can now say for themselves, "Spring up, O well"; no more rock to strike, no more murmuring near the land. Life at the end of their course is no longer the question: it is salvation from the deadly wound of the serpent. They are healed; they walk and drink with joy and songs of praise.
The Lord promises the water. Yet the people still dig. One writer keeps both sides together:
We must notice this. Beer was "the well of which the LORD said to Moses, 'Gather the people together, so that I may give them water.'" Yet "they dug." We see the energy of life in this. And afterwards Sihon king of the Amorites and Og king of Bashan fall before them. They go from victory to victory.
Commentators differ on how the water came up. One writer sees ordinary work, not a miracle:
It was not a miraculous provision of water, but it came through the work of the leaders and nobles of the people.
Others read the digging as the human touch on a supply God alone had placed there — the water "brought to the surface by the power of God," needing "only the touch of the staves upon the ground."
The setting for this song is not safety. Hostile kingdoms surround the camp:
This is a remarkable passage, coming at such a moment and in such a connection. The murmuring has stopped. The people are nearing the borders of the promised land. The effects of the serpents' bite have passed away. Now the people receive refreshment, without any rod and without any striking. What though the Amorites, Moabites, and Ammonites are around them? What though the power of Sihon stands in the way? God can open a well for His people and give them a song despite it all.
Beer is more than a stop on the road. One writer calls it "the true gathering point, where the fountain of living water is, and the place of songs and praises" (H. L. Rossier).
- Gathered. God speaks before anyone says they are thirsty. He gathers the scattered people so He can give, and He is ready before they are.
- Given. No rod, no rock struck, no complaint. This water is free grace, and it comes after the healing of the serpent's bite.
- Dug. The Lord names the well, yet the people still dig. Promise and the energy of life belong together.
- Sung. The camp that had spoken against God now sings, and the song rises with enemy kingdoms on every side.
- Springing. Beer means "the well." Commentators read it as a picture of the spring of water welling up to eternal life that Jesus promised.
Then Israel sang this song, Rise up, well! sing unto it
Near the end of the wilderness journey, God tells Moses to gather the people at Beer and promises them water. Israel answers with a song, and commentators ask what this well pictures and why the people still had to dig.
One writer sets this song in a series of three that begins at creation.
This is the second singing, and follows the lifting up of the bronze serpent. The earliest singing we read of was connected with Creation (Job 38:7). The next with Redemption (Ex. 15:1). And the third with Life (Num. 21:17).
Earlier, water came only after the people complained, and only when Moses struck the rock. Now God acts first, and the people themselves sing to the well.
Next, Israel goes forward, but they are not yet in the land. God relieves and refreshes them of His own free grace, without their murmuring. He gathers the people. Israel celebrates anew, close by the land, the wells which are found in the wilderness. They can now say themselves, "Spring up, O well"; no more rock to smite, no more murmurings near the land. Life at the end of their course is no longer the question: it is salvation from the deadly wound of the serpent. They are healed; they walk and drink with joy and songs of praise. They dug — for their activity showed itself in the presence of the grace of God — and the water sprang up in the wilderness.
No mark on the ground showed that water was there. One writer asks what the digging and the singing prove.
There was no outward mark, no human sign that water was ready for them — blessed water, the special gift of the living God. Is it not so? That is why God said, when the people came to Beer, that this was the well He had spoken of. If the well had been plain to the human eye, why should the princes and the nobles dig with their staffs? Why should Israel sing, "Spring up, O well"? God's power brought the water to the surface. It only needed the touch of the staffs on the ground, and the streams gushed out as from a fountain that had been shut up until then.
One writer reads the springing well as a picture of the Holy Spirit in the believer. He ties it to what Jesus said to the woman at the well in John 4.
Israel's song at the well is a picture of what the Lord said to the woman at the well… "Whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life" (John 4:14). What is that? Why, dear friend, it is the Spirit of God in the heart of the Christian. He now leads your soul up into the enjoyment of eternal life, and of what is yours in heaven, even though you are still in the wilderness.
God promised the water, yet the leaders still worked the ground with their staffs. One writer reads their work as a picture of what we must clear away.
If we are to know the power of the Spirit in a practical way there must be the removal of what would quench or grieve Him. Like the princes in verse 18, who laboured to remove the earth that would have hindered the free flowing of the water, we too must act. How often with us the things of earth are obstructive! Israel sang when the waters flowed freely… The springing up and the song go together.
One writer sets God's command to gather the people beside a later gathering, and finds one purpose in both.
In the wilderness God said, "Gather the people together," and all were to be present and to share in the blessing. On the day of Pentecost the disciples were all together in one place. On both occasions God brought together everyone for whom the blessing was prepared. It is God's joy to have a people here on whom He can pour the fulness of His blessing. He gathered Israel that day so He could have the joy of giving them water. He gathered the disciples so He could have the delight of an assembly formed to receive the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus said He would send the Helper, and that matches His word to Israel that He would give them water.
- Song three. Singing marks creation, then redemption, and now life; this song follows the lifting up of the bronze serpent.
- Grace first. No one strikes a rock and no one complains; God gives first, and the people themselves call to the well.
- Hidden gift. Nothing visible marked the spot; the water rose by God's power at the touch of the staffs.
- The Spirit. The well springing up pictures the Spirit in the believer — the spring "welling up to eternal life" in John 4.
- Dig and sing. Clear away the earth that blocks the flow; the springing up and the song come together, in a people God gathers so He can give.
Well which princes digged, which the nobles of the people hollowed out at [the word of] the lawgiver, with their staves. And from the wilderness [they went] to Mattanah;
The song at Beer comes near the end of Israel's forty years in the desert, just after the bronze serpent and the last outburst of murmuring. Here the people sing instead of complain, and the verse raises two questions: why did leaders dig a well God had already promised, and why was a walking staff tool enough?
The ESV reads "with the scepter and with their staffs." An older translation has "by the direction of the lawgiver, with their staves."
Earlier, water came only after Moses struck the rock. At Beer the order changes.
Now, at the end of their wanderings, grace shines out more fully and more clearly than before they came to Sinai. They complained at Horeb. God does not scold them, though He heard them. He tells Moses to strike the rock, and the waters flow. Here God does not wait for them to ask. He promises in advance and tells Moses that the well is at Beer. And God is still before them, He is ready before they are, waiting to be gracious. They are scattered — "Gather the people together, so that I may give them water."
The same writer asks why grace poured out at the moment the people were at their boldest.
The flesh had never shown itself like this before, never been so bold. But another and far greater fact stood out before God. It was so powerful that it turned the judgment aside and brought in healing — yes, positive blessing. Christ had been set forth as bearing the full condemnation of sin, and God, well pleased, turns the full tide of grace in upon Israel.
Hostile nations stood on every side, and still there was water and a song.
The murmurings are hushed. The people are nearing the borders of the promised land. The effects of the serpents' bite have passed away, and now, with no rod and no striking, the people have refreshment. What if the Amorites, Moabites, and Ammonites are all around them? What if the power of Sihon stands in the way? God can open a well for His people and give them a song despite it all.
The diggers were princes and nobles, and their tool was the stick they walked with.
After all, not much digging was needed: their staffs were quite enough. Such is the goodness of God to us, even for the wilderness. The well was not made by the hard work of people used to labour. The princes put their hands to it with their staffs, and they probably did not know much about heavy work. But it was enough. Over-abounding grace gives abundant refreshment for the people.
The song celebrates the work of the diggers, not just the water.
Here they celebrate the way the princes dug. It is happy work when ruling is loving service like this, and the outflow of the Spirit is the fruit of a ministry of love! Blessed are those who give and those who receive!
One writer reads the digging as clearing away what blocks water that is already there.
If we are to know the power of the Spirit in a practical way there must be the removal of what would quench or grieve Him. Like the princes in verse 18, who laboured to remove the earth that would have hindered the free flowing of the water, we too must act. How often with us the things of earth are obstructive! Israel sang when the waters flowed freely. Christ gives a well of water "welling up to eternal life," and out of the believer flow "rivers of living water." When nothing blocks either, there is indeed a song in the heart. The upspringing and the song go together.
The warning runs the other way too: what was opened can be closed again.
The Spirit is in us, just as the water is in the wells, but the stones prevent our getting at it for practical uses. There is nothing for us but to return to the first love, to dig again, to open up again the channels for the welling up of the Spirit. God does not give His Spirit by measure, and if we are straitened it is in ourselves.
One writer counts the songs of Scripture up to this point.
This is the second singing, and follows the lifting up of the bronze serpent. The earliest singing we read of was connected with Creation (Job 38:7). The next with Redemption (Ex. 15:1). And the third with Life (Num. 21:17).
Yet the song did not last, and one writer draws the sober line:
Israel's joy in the wilderness was soon forgotten, their song very brief. How soon they fell into the trap of Moab! What a solemn example that the lips may speak praise while the heart is unchanged! They rejoiced in the gift. Human nature can appreciate the earthly gifts of God, but they did not rejoice in the Giver.
The verse ends with movement — from the wilderness to Mattanah. One writer gives the meaning of each stage that follows: Beer, "the well"; Mattanah, "gift"; Nahaliel, "the inheritance of God"; Pisgah, "survey" (Numerical Bible Notes).
- Promise. God named the well before anyone was thirsty enough to ask; He was ready before they were.
- Gift. No rod, no striking — the water came as pure grace, after the bronze serpent, where God judged sin in full.
- Staffs. The princes dug with their walking sticks. Over-abounding grace asks little work — only that leaders serve.
- Clearing. Earth on our side blocks the water. Dig again — the upspringing and the song go together.
- Song. Creation sang, redemption sang, and here life sings. But praise on the lips proves nothing if we love the gift and not the Giver.
and from Mattanah to Nahaliel; and from Nahaliel to Bamoth;
After the well at Beer, the account turns into a bare list of camps — one name after another, with no events attached. Commentators ask why God recorded these stops at all, and what the names themselves mean.
Something has changed by this point in the book.
These journeys of Israel are no longer simply wanderings. They are journeys that bring them nearer to the place from which they are to enter the land of Canaan. Various names mark the stages of the journey, and all of them, without doubt, have meanings that point to some spiritual significance — even though we can see so little of it.
Nahaliel was a real camp, not just a symbol. Reference works still try to place it.
One of the stations of the Israelites. Numbers 21:19. Some identify it with the ravine of the Zerka Main.
Bamoth, the last name in the verse, is the final camp before the mountain that overlooks the land:
The stopping place of the Israelites before they reached Pisgah, Numbers 21:19-20.
One writer gives the meanings of the stops along this stretch, while admitting that they are open to debate.
As to all but two, we have little besides the names, which I give with their meanings, though even about these there will be differences of judgment: —
Oboth: either "hollows" or "[water-] skins."
Ije-Abarim: "heaps of the passages."
Zared: "willow."
Arnon: "continual stream."
Beer: "the well."
Mattanah: "gift."
Nahaliel: "the inheritance of God (El)."
Ramoth: "heights."
Pisgah: "survey."
The meanings in this verse run from a gift, to the inheritance of God, to the heights. The heights had a history. The same writer treats a name like this verse's last stop as ground where idols were adored.
Bamoth-Baal, the "heights" where men adore their idols, fall into the hands of faith; as does Beth-baal-meon, the "house of the Baal of the dwelling," the home of idolatry in the house and heart.
Why keep a record of ordinary stopping places? And why does this list differ from the longer one later in the book?
Now we come to the account of the journeying. Only certain stages are marked out, and the list, with few exceptions, differs from the one in Numbers 33, which has a different purpose. Here the camps give us, no doubt, stages of true progress, although — and it is to our shame — we can tell little about them. There are nine of them (3 x 3), the number of God showing Himself, intensified. One day they will speak for God in glory, as the history of our lives will. Meanwhile we have been busier fixing their places on the map (and failing) than looking in them for any spiritual meaning.
Whatever stays uncertain about the middle names, the end of the road is not in doubt.
And now we see them journeying on, healed and victorious. Nine places are mentioned. The last is Pisgah. From there they see the land, and they can look back over the desert lands that are now forever behind them.
The writer who could tell little about the middle stops had no such trouble with the last one:
The end, at least, is clear: — thank God, the end is clear!
- Well. The stretch begins at Beer, "the well" — the stop just before this verse, where wandering has turned into a march.
- Gift. The next camp is Mattanah, "gift" — the journey moves on by what God gives.
- Inheritance. Nahaliel means "the inheritance of God" — commentators note the meanings are debated, but the road now runs toward what belongs to God.
- Heights. Bamoth is the last stop before Pisgah. A name like it belongs to ground where idols were once adored — high places that pass into the hands of faith.
- Survey. Pisgah means "survey". The desert lies behind forever, and the land lies open in front. So a string of plain camp names turns out to be a record of progress — one that will speak for God one day, as the history of our own lives will.
and from Bamoth to the valley that is in the fields of Moab, to the top of Pisgah, which looks over the surface of the waste.
Numbers 21 closes its travel record with a short list of camp sites. The journey ends on high ground in Moab, with the land in view and a wasteland spread out below — and these last names carry more weight than a map suggests.
One writer lists the last camp names with their meanings, and finds more in them than geography.
These camp sites surely give us stages of true progress, though — to our shame — we can tell little about them. They are nine in number (3 x 3), the number of divine manifestation intensified. One day they will speak gloriously for God, as the history of our lives will… For all but two we have little beside the names. I give them with their meanings, though even here people will judge differently: Beer: "the well." Mattanah: "gift." Nahaliel: "the inheritance of God (El)." Ramoth: "heights." Pisgah: "survey."
Whatever is uncertain about the individual stops, the same writer insists the destination is not in doubt.
The end, at least, is clear: — thank God, the end is clear! — they reach the spot where the land, their own land, stretches before them; and they are able to look back, too, over the desert passed.
Pisgah turns up again later in Israel's story, and for very different reasons.
Mountain on the east of the Jordan. Balaam offered sacrifices there, and it was the spot from which Moses viewed the promised land, and near to which he died. It was linked with Nebo, and said to face Jericho.
One writer takes the name itself as a picture of what faith does with a promise not yet in hand.
Pisgah must speak of faith's "survey" of the future inheritance; Beth-jeshimoth, the "house of the wastes," of provision for the wilderness. These together imply God's sovereignty over the future and the present.
The ESV's "the desert" translates the word Jeshimon. Commentators differ on whether it is a place name at all.
Plain or desert seen from the tops of Pisgah and Peor. Num. 21:20; Num. 23:28… Some do not treat Jeshimon as a proper name, but translate it "the waste" in all places.
Balaam later looked out over the same waste from a nearby height. One writer draws out what he saw.
The new point of view was "the top of Peor, that looks towards Jeshimon" (meaning, "the waste"). This time Balaam had to give a delightful description of the people as God saw them. But the people were not yet in Canaan, resting in possession of every promised blessing. They were still in the desert wastes.
Israel had avoided Edom earlier. Moab was different.
Though they had turned away from Edom, and had gone round it by this time, they did not avoid Moab. They came into a valley in that land, and even to the top of Mount Pisgah (v.20). Not much later, God gave Moses a view from there of all the land that Israel was to live in (Deut. 34:1-4). They did not even ask permission to pass through Moab, and it seems Moab had no power to stop them.
By this stage the mood of the journey has changed.
And now we see them journeying on, healed and victorious. Nine places are mentioned. The last is Pisgah, from which they get a vision of the land and can look back over the desert lands which are now forever behind them. Two songs are recorded. Israel begins now to sing again. There were no songs in the wilderness, nothing but murmurings.
A view from the top can become a substitute for going in. One writer names the danger.
People often do a great deal of looking from far off, a great deal of mere admiration — and the admiration is not untrue. The view from Pisgah captures the heart. They see the land that the Lord our God cares for, and on which His eyes rest continually, but they never enter it or live in it. They see it in a way that spoils everything else for them, yet gives them nothing better to possess.
- Well — The climb begins at Beer, "the well." Israel moves on healed and victorious, and songs replace the murmuring.
- Gift — Mattanah means "gift," and Nahaliel "the inheritance of God." The names move from one gift received to a whole inheritance.
- Heights — The stop before Pisgah means "heights." Israel is climbing now, not just walking.
- Survey — Pisgah means "survey." Faith looks ahead to the inheritance, and back over the desert now behind.
- Waste — Below lies Jeshimon, "the waste." The view from the top does not remove the wilderness. Admiring a land is not the same as living in it.
And Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, saying,
Israel now meets the first kingdom standing between them and the Jordan. Moses sends messengers instead of an army, which raises two questions: why ask permission from a people already marked for judgment, and what happens when the answer is no?
Israel's first move toward Sihon was not an attack. One writer draws out the principle:
We meet people we do not want to fight, but they will not let us pass in peace. Our war is with those who hold our inheritance beyond the Jordan. If someone attacks us, we must defend ourselves; but we must not be the attackers. Israel wants to pass quietly through the land of the Amorites, but the Amorites will not allow it. So they suffer the consequences of the war they chose to make on the people of God.
Another writer asks what methods God gave Israel to use with this king:
Did He authorise Israel to force Sihon with threats of vengeance, or to win him by flattery? Did He offer him the book of the law with one hand and the sword with the other? Nothing of the sort. Look at the way the LORD treated even these enemies of Israel. "Let me pass through your land. I will go only by the road; I will turn aside neither to the right nor to the left. You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink. Only let me pass through on foot." … Israel kept the path of right and courtesy. Sihon rushed on them to his own ruin.
Not every writer reads Israel's message as faultless. One asks why they needed to ask at all:
God's original gift to Israel included the land of the Amorite. So why send messengers asking permission to pass through it, as they did to Edom? … God had given them the land of the Amorite. Was it faith to ask only for leave to pass through it? The request did bring out their hatred and their effort to stop Israel, and their destruction followed. But the question remains: should Israel not have taken possession at once?
So commentators differ: some see the path of right and courtesy, others a request that fell short of faith.
The name of this people carries a warning:
What is the character of the Amorites? Their name means "Sayer." That recalls the Lord's words about the scribes and Pharisees: "they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:3). They are those who have a form of godliness, but only know how to use their tongue to get their own way.
The king's own name points the same way, and it shapes how Israel answered him:
Sihon's name means "sweeping away," for mere talk tends to sweep away all that is good, for it is empty vanity. So when Sihon and his army attacked, Israel did not answer him with talk, but with decided action.
Sihon's "no" did not wreck God's plan. It served it:
They did not want to quarrel with the king of Heshbon, even though he was an Amorite, unless he was actually inside the holy land. But God was behind it: these Amorites, to their own ruin, would not let Israel pass through in peace. This makes Israel's case clearer still. People might have assumed that the Amorite had to be removed anyway, since God had marked that most wicked race for destruction.
One writer sees an order in the chapter, and the same order in our own lives:
As at the beginning of our chapter, so at the end, we hear the noise of conflict. Sihon had struck Moab, but now he falls before Israel. So does Og the king of Bashan, even though he was a giant, as we learn in Deuteronomy 3:11. First come the events that picture victory over the flesh within. Then comes the record of victory over the foes outside. And this is indeed the way things work in our spiritual experience.
The chapter preserves old songs and records about this territory, and they had a legal purpose:
These foreign traditions are purposely quoted with the exceptional aim of proving, from witnesses unquestionable in the eyes of their most zealous opponents, that the land in dispute, when Israel took it by conquest, did not belong to Ammon or Moab, but to the doomed races of Canaan and its neighbourhood. To the country of the former they had no just claim; that of the Amorite was handed over to them by God.
- Ask first. Israel asked for safe passage instead of threatening war — the path of right and courtesy, with no force and no flattery.
- Ask, or take? Commentators differ: was the polite request proper restraint, or a failure to claim at once what God had already given?
- Words, not deeds. "Amorite" means sayer; "Sihon" means sweeping away. Their strength was their tongue, and Israel answered it with decided action.
- The no was God's. Israel did not come looking for a fight. God was behind Sihon's refusal, and that refusal ruined him.
- Inside, then outside. Victory over the flesh within comes first, then victory over the enemies outside — the same order in a believer's experience.
Let us pass through thy land; we will not turn into the fields, or into the vineyards; we will not drink water out of the wells; on the king's road will we go until we have passed thy border.
Israel's road to the Jordan ran through the land of the Amorites, ruled by Sihon at Heshbon. The message Moses sent was a request, not a threat. So why ask permission for land God had already given? And what turned a polite request into a war?
Israel's request is narrow. They will keep to the road, touch nothing on either side, and pay for what they use. One writer asks how God taught Israel to treat even an enemy:
Look at the principles of the Lord's discipline here. Did He authorise Israel to force Sihon with threats of vengeance, or to win him by flattery? Nothing of the sort. Look at the way in which the Lord treated even these enemies of Israel. "Let me pass through your land. I will go only by the road; I will turn aside neither to the right nor to the left. You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink; only let me pass through on foot." "But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might give him into your hand." … Israel kept the path of right and courtesy. Sihon rushed on them to his own ruin.
The same restraint carries a lesson for anyone who follows God. Israel had a real war ahead of them, but this was not it:
We meet people we do not want to fight, but they will not let us pass in peace. Our war is with those who hold our inheritance beyond the Jordan. If someone attacks us, we must defend ourselves; but we must never be the one who attacks first. 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.
Commentators differ here. Some read the message as plain courtesy. One writer sees a problem in it, because God had already given this land to Israel:
The land of the Amorite was part of God's original gift to Israel. So why send messengers asking permission to pass through it, as they did to Edom? The land of Edom and of Moab was no part of what God had promised Israel. God had commanded that Israel should not take it. But the land of the Amorite was given to them. Was it faith to ask only for passage through it? … The question remains: should Israel not have taken possession at once? To ask permission to pass quietly through a land God had given them — was that the obedience of faith?
Whatever the answer, Israel's right to the land was never in doubt. God had said so to Moses:
These lands were won by conquest, and won according to God's will. "Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land" (Deut. 2:31) is the Lord's word to Moses. So there can be no question about their right to the land.
One writer draws a lesson from the meaning of the Amorites' name:
When Sihon refused, Israel did not turn away, as they did from Edom. Sihon came out with an army to fight against Israel. What is the character of the Amorites? Their name means "Sayer," which reminds us of the Lord's words about the scribes and Pharisees: "they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:3). They are those who have a form of godliness, but only know how to use their tongue to get their own way.
The peaceful terms of verse 22 were not lost detail. They became Israel's legal defence long afterwards, when Ammon claimed the same land:
Israel offered to pass through the land of the Amorites on the king's highway, without drinking the water of the well. Sihon their king refused. He "gathered all his people together … and fought against Israel" (Num. 21:21-23). This was the undoing of Sihon and his people… Heshbon, the city of Sihon, once belonged to Moab. But Israel did not take it from Moab; they took it from the Amorites. About three hundred years later, Jephthah quoted this history to the king of the Ammonites. That king claimed the land Israel had taken from Sihon, king of the Amorites, as belonging to Ammon (Judges 11:12-27).
- Request — Israel asked only to use the road. They would touch no field or vineyard and would pay for their water. This was the path of right and courtesy, not force or flattery.
- Restraint — the real war lay beyond the Jordan. God's people defend themselves when attacked, but they never strike first.
- Riddle — writers differ. Was asking permission for land already given the obedience of faith, or a lack of confidence in God?
- Right — Sihon's refusal settled nothing about ownership. God's own word, "Begin to take possession," left no doubt about Israel's title.
- Record — Sihon rejected a peaceful offer. Three hundred years later, Jephthah used that fact against Ammon's claim to the land.
But Sihon would not suffer Israel to go through his border; and Sihon gathered all his people, and went out against Israel into the wilderness, and came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel.
Israel asked Sihon for safe passage through his land. His answer was an army. This verse turns a peaceful appeal into Israel's first real conquest, and it raises a hard question: why did God let the refusal happen?
Commentators note the restraint in how Israel approached this king.
In this case let us see the principles of the Lord's discipline. Did He authorise Israel to force Sihon with threats of vengeance, or to win him by flattery? … 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 drive out the king of Heshbon.
Another writer turns the same restraint into a rule for believers who meet people blocking their way:
We meet people we do not want to fight, but they will not let us pass in peace… If they attack us, 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. So they suffer the consequences of the war they had sought against the people of God.
Sihon's stubbornness was no accident. Writers trace it back to God's own purpose.
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. He allowed the Amorites to have no confidence in Israel's peaceful intentions, for the very purpose of putting Israel in possession of the land.
That purpose also clears Israel of greed or bloodlust:
What is emphasised here… is that God gave him into their hand. Even the stubbornness that refused passage to the advancing army came from Him, since the wickedness of the Amorites was now full… Neither greed for land nor love of destruction drove Israel to bring this merciless removal on Sihon and his people. The mercy was for the world, in rooting out of it a deadly evil.
Commentators differ here. Kelly and Darby see courtesy. Another writer asks whether it was faith to ask at all, since God had already given this land to Israel.
God's original gift to Israel included the land of the Amorite. So the question arises: why send messengers asking permission to pass through it, as they did to Edom? The lands of Edom and Moab were no part of Israel's promised possession, and God had commanded that they should not be driven out. The land of the Amorite was given. Was it faith to ask only to pass through it? The asking did bring out their hatred and their effort to stop Israel. Their destruction was the result. But the question remains — should Israel not have taken possession at once?
One writer finds a picture in the names themselves — the king's, his city's, and the battlefield at Jahaz.
There is not much agreement about his name… It may be, actively, "sweeping away," as pride of intellect would sweep away the things of God. He is always called king of Heshbon, where he lived. The common version only translates that word as "account," "device," or "reason." It certainly gives the thought of mental work. He comes out to meet Israel at Jahatz, which Gesenius gives, from the Arabic, as "a place trodden down" — probably a "threshing-floor."
Another writer reads the king's name the same way, and draws a lesson about answering words with deeds.
Sihon's name means "sweeping away," for mere talk tends to sweep away all that is good, since it is empty vanity. On this occasion, then, when Sihon and his army attacked, Israel did not meet him with talk but with decided action. By the grace and power of God they defeated this proud enemy and took his cities… So Israel showed something of the courage of faith before they ever entered the land of Canaan.
One writer brings this home to the Christian life. What God has given us, we still have to take hold of.
As soon as we begin to possess, opposition springs up. The old powers do not yield without a struggle. It is a hard business… It means exercise and conflict and trouble. But it is well worth it. Then comes the joy of victory — the joy of really holding a little more of what is ours by an unquestionable title, given to us by God.
- Ask first. Israel asked to pass through. They did not threaten or flatter. They struck only after Sihon attacked.
- Refusal served God. The refusal itself came from God. He used it to sweep away a people whose wickedness was full and to put Israel in the land.
- A question left open. Was it courtesy to ask permission for land God had already given, or a lack of faith? Commentators differ.
- Talk meets action. The names picture a king of words and reasoning. Israel answered him not with talk but with action.
- Possession costs conflict. You keep what God gives only through struggle. Opposition rises the moment you take hold. Then comes the joy of victory.
And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and took possession of his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon; for the border of the children of Ammon was strong.
Israel asked Sihon for safe passage and got a war instead — and with it their first land, from the Arnon to the Jabbok. Why this land, and what does a victory east of the Jordan have to do with the promise of Canaan?
Israel did not want this war.
We meet people we do not wish to fight, but they will not let us pass peaceably. Our warfare is with those who hold our inheritance beyond 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. But the Amorites will not allow it. They suffer the consequences of the war they had sought against the people of God. Israel takes their cities. Already on this side of Jordan they begin to enjoy, ahead of time, the possession of the promise.
God had signed this land over to Israel before a sword was drawn.
So two things are quite definite. First, God had given. Second, He had also begun to give. A superficial reader might object to this. He might demand the reverse order, if we are to accept both statements: first, He began to give; second, He had fully given. But the Scriptural order is the right one. First He gives, so that the title deeds are ours. Then He begins to give practically and in detail, as we begin to possess.
Because the title was real, taking the land was not theft:
Both of these kings — Sihon and Og — hold land that God has given to Israel. Israel may seize it and keep it — indeed, should do so… Whatever God has given, we may take from His hand without suspicion, if it really is from His hand.
The land stopped at Ammon's border, and that limit was deliberate. Later a king of Ammon claimed Israel had stolen this same strip.
The answer was not true. The king of Ammon did not speak honestly. Israel had not taken those lands, as he pretended. The Ammonites had lost them before Israel ever took them from others. 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 tie of connection. That is a striking proof and witness of the ways of our God… The lands might be good pasture. The temptation might be great. Moab or Ammon might give real provocation. On human grounds there might be a just right of conquest; but all this would not do.
Israel's appetite does not explain what happened to Sihon's people. God's verdict on the Amorites does.
Moses stresses here that God gave Sihon into their hand. Even the stubbornness that refused passage to the advancing army came from Him, since the iniquity of the Amorites was now full… Neither greed for land nor love of destroying brought this on Sihon and his people. The mercy was for the world, in rooting a deadly evil out of it.
Commentators differ on Israel's opening move. Darby reads it as restraint. Others ask whether it showed doubt about God's promise.
God's original gift to Israel included the land of the Amorite. So why send messengers asking permission to pass through it, as they did to Edom?… They asked to pass quietly through a land God had given them. Was that the obedience of faith? On the Amorite there was righteous retribution. They had taken that land from Moab, and now Israel, by the will of God, takes it from them.
Whatever the hesitation at the start, the fight itself steadied them.
When Sihon and his army attacked, Israel did not meet him with talk, but with decided action. By the grace and power of God they defeated this proud enemy and took possession of his cities. So Israel showed something of the courage of faith before they entered the land of Canaan. In this way God was preparing them for the conquest of the land.
This eastern territory was never an accident or an afterthought.
So the land of Israel's inheritance lay on both sides of the Jordan, just as God had determined beforehand… This is a picture of the full inheritance of the heavenly saints, which takes in heaven and earth. In symbolic language, it takes in what is east of Jordan as well as what is west, for Jordan is a picture of death.
- Given. The title deeds came before the battle — God gave the land, then began to give it in practice as Israel moved in.
- Bounded. God handed Sihon's land over, yet forbade touching Edom, Moab and Ammon. Old ties still counted with Him.
- Judged. Sihon's fall was a sentence carried out on a full measure of evil, not a land grab.
- Grasped. Faith had to act. Asking to pass through land already promised raises a question: did Israel trust the gift?
- Enlarged. East and west of Jordan together picture an inheritance that spans earth and heaven.
And Israel took all these cities, and Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, at Heshbon, and in all its dependent villages.
Here Israel stops passing by other people's land and starts living in it. The cities of Sihon, king of the Amorites, become Israel's homes — ground they had only asked to walk through.
Israel is still on the wilderness side of the Jordan. Yet taking these cities is more than a win in battle. It is the promise starting to come true.
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 someone attacks us, 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. Israel takes their cities, and already on this side of the Jordan begins to enjoy, ahead of time, the possession of the promise.
God had told Israel to leave Edom and Moab alone. The Amorite land was different. One writer asks whether asking to pass through it was the right move at all.
The land of the Amorite was part of God's original gift to Israel. So why send messengers asking permission to pass through it, as they did to Edom? The land of Edom and of Moab was no part of Israel's promised possession; God had commanded that they should not be driven out. The land of the Amorite was given. Was it faith to ask only to pass through it? The request did bring out their hatred, and their attempt to stop Israel. Their destruction followed. But the question remains: should Israel not have taken possession at once? Upon the Amorite there was righteous retribution, for they had taken that land from Moab; and now Israel, by the will of God, takes it from them.
Commentators differ here. Darby sees the request as restraint, since Israel were not to be aggressors. This writer sees it as a failure to trust what God had already given.
Heshbon had not always belonged to Sihon. That detail still mattered centuries later, when Ammon claimed the land and Israel's leader Jephthah had to answer them.
Israel offered to pass through the land of the Amorites on the king's highway, without drinking the water of the well. Sihon their king refused, gathered all his people together and fought against Israel (Num. 21:21-23). This was the undoing of Sihon and his people. Israel defeated them completely and took possession of their land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, as far as the Ammonites (Num. 21:24). Heshbon, the city of Sihon, once belonged to Moab, but Israel did not take it from Moab; they took it from the Amorites. About three hundred years later, Jephthah used this against the king of the Ammonites, who claimed for Ammon the land Israel had taken from Sihon, king of the Amorites (Judges 11:12-27).
One writer sees the Amorites as a picture of an enemy whose religion is all talk.
What is the character of the Amorites? Their name means "Sayer," which reminds us of the Lord's words about the scribes and Pharisees, the religious teachers of His day — they say things and do not do them (Matthew 23:3). They are people who keep the outward form of godliness, but only know how to use their tongue to get their own way.
Israel gave that enemy the only answer it understands.
Sihon's name means "sweeping away," because empty talk tends to sweep away all that is good. So when Sihon and his army attacked, Israel did not meet him with talk, but with firm action. By the grace and power of God they defeated this proud enemy and took possession of his cities (vv. 24-26). So Israel showed something of the courage of faith before they ever entered the land of Canaan. In this way God was preparing them for the conquest of the land.
East of the Jordan was part of the inheritance too. One writer sees in the two sides of the river a picture of something larger.
The Amorite territory east of the Jordan was to form part of the inheritance of Israel, and God told Moses so… So they took the country of Sihon, and that of Og as well (Num. 21:24, 35; Deut. 3:12). The land of Israel's inheritance lay on both sides of the Jordan, settled beforehand by God — though it does not appear that He meant any of them to live on the east of that river… So we must remember that the inheritance of the people, as God designed it, lay east of the Jordan as well as west. This is a picture of the full inheritance of the heavenly saints, which takes in heaven and earth.
- Given. God had already granted Israel the Amorite land. Edom and Moab He told them to leave alone.
- Contested. Israel asked only to pass through. Sihon refused and attacked, and it destroyed him. One writer asks whether faith should have claimed the land from the start.
- Taken. Against an enemy whose name means "Sayer," Israel answered talk with decided action, and by God's power took his cities.
- Settled. Israel lived in Heshbon and its villages. Their claim held so well that Jephthah still argued from it three hundred years later.
- Foreshadowed. Living in these cities east of the Jordan was the promise coming true ahead of time — a first taste of an inheritance that reaches to heaven and earth.
For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites; and he had fought against the former king of Moab, and had taken all his land out of his hand, even unto the Arnon.
This verse pauses to explain how Sihon came to own the land Israel had just taken. Heshbon once belonged to Moab, and the Amorite king seized it before Israel ever arrived — so why does Moses record the earlier owner?
Verses 26-30 read like an aside. One writer explains why Moses quotes outside records here:
The account of this makes two references. One is to a book of that day, the book of the wars of Jehovah (verse 14). The other is to sayings or legends that were passed around at the time (verses 27-30). This gives no support at all to the theory that Moses composed the Pentateuch out of earlier material floating among the Israelites of his age and their Gentile neighbours. These foreign traditions, written and spoken, are quoted on purpose, with one special aim. They prove that the land in dispute, when Israel took it by conquest, did not belong to Ammon or Moab, but to the doomed races of Canaan and the region around it. And they prove it from witnesses that Israel's most zealous opponents could not question. Israel had no just claim to the country of Ammon or Moab. God gave them the land of the Amorite. The Amorite had taken it from Moab, and Israel took it from the Amorite.
This record of the earlier owner mattered far beyond Moses' own day:
Heshbon, the city of Sihon, once belonged to Moab. But Israel did not take it from Moab; Israel took it from the Amorites. About three hundred years later, Jephthah quoted this to the king of the children of Ammon. That king claimed that the land Israel had taken from Sihon, king of the Amorites, belonged to Ammon (Judges 11:12-27).
Why could Israel take this land and not Moab's? One writer also sees an older score being settled:
The land of Edom and of Moab formed no part of Israel's promised possession. God commanded that Israel should not drive those nations out. The land of the Amorite, though, God gave to Israel... On the Amorite there was righteous retribution, for they had taken that land from Moab. And now Israel, by the will of God, takes it from them.
The song in verses 27-30 began as an Amorite victory chant about this very capture:
The Amorite boasted against Moab. Israel now boasts over the Amorite, and in mockery turns their boasting against them. They had a national song celebrating the capture of Heshbon, and Israel takes it up as a proverb against them. In his boasting song, Sihon seems to have made the captured city the source of the fire that went out and consumed Ar of Moab... If fire came from Heshbon and destroyed Ar of Moab, fire came from Israel and Heshbon perished.
Some writers read these nations as pictures of spiritual conditions. One draws a warning from how easily Moab lost the city:
We are told that Heshbon, Sihon's chief city, had been captured from the Moabites, for the self-satisfied, lazy pride of man (as seen in Moab) will often give way to the persuasive talk of a deceiver. Our only protection from such things is a vital knowledge of the Lord Jesus.
One writer follows the meanings of the names, and finds a lesson in who ends up holding the city:
It is Reuben who builds up again Sihon's capital, Heshbon, which falls to him (Numbers 32:37). "Heshbon" means "the reason, cause, or ground of a thing as an object of thought or study." ... Sihon cannot hold Heshbon against Reuben, although the Moabite may have had to give it up to him. And so "reason" is not alien to faith. Faith only destroys reason in its alien form, in order to build it up again more securely.
The same writer applies this beyond Heshbon:
Do not give up reason because Satan is using it against the truth of God. Do not refuse natural blessings because men turn them into carnality and disorder. Whatever God has given, we may take from His hand without suspicion, if it is indeed from His hand.
- Boast — Heshbon fell to Sihon first, and the Amorites made a song about it. Moab's self-satisfied pride gave way to a deceiver's persuasive talk.
- Record — Moses cites the enemy's own song as evidence. Even hostile witnesses confirm that the land was Amorite, not Moabite, when Israel took it.
- Restraint — Israel took nothing from Moab or Edom; God had forbidden it. Only the Amorite territory was theirs by gift.
- Retribution — Israel received by God's will what the Amorite had seized from Moab. The boast that burned Ar of Moab ended with Heshbon itself in ruins.
- Rebuilding — Heshbon, the city of "reasoning," does not stay in enemy hands. Reuben builds it again. What an enemy misuses, faith may still take back from God's hand and hold securely.
Therefore the poets say, Come to Heshbon; let the city of Sihon be built and established.
Israel has just taken Heshbon from Sihon and settled in his cities. Then the story stops to repeat the victory boast of the beaten king — why?
The lines that follow belong to the Amorites. They had celebrated their capture of Heshbon from Moab in verse, and Israel now repeats that celebration back at them.
The Amorite boasted against Moab. Israel now boasts over the Amorite, turning their boasting back on them in mockery. They had a national song celebrating the capture of Heshbon, and Israel takes it up as a proverb against them. Sihon seems to have made the captured city the point from which, in his boasting song, fire went out and consumed Ar of Moab.
The same writer notes that verse 29 is not certain: it may still be the Amorite boast, or it may be Israel's lament over Moab.
Whoever the speakers are, the song does not end the way Sihon meant it to.
Verses 27-30 record the words of the "ballad singers," showing Moab's defeat by Sihon (vs. 28-29), for Moab's pride could not resist the smooth talk of the Amorites. However, verse 30 introduces a "But." In other words, Israel changed everything. They had shot at the Amorites, and Heshbon had perished instead of consuming Moab (v. 28). Israel laid the country of the Amorites waste and took possession.
There is a legal reason for quoting a song Israel did not write. Everything depended on proving whose land this was when Israel arrived. An enemy's own song was evidence no one could accuse Israel of inventing.
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 enormously, because Israel was forbidden to touch Moab, while the country of the Amorites was given to them. Israel's own statements, whatever weight they carried for Israel, would have been no record against their enemies. So, to hold Israel's title to these lands, the account preserves memorials the whole region knew: the earlier conquest of Moab by the Amorites, how the Amorites gained this territory, and where the border ran at that time.
That record mattered later. When the Ammonites demanded this territory back, Jephthah answered them from the history this proverb preserves.
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 first got them from Ammon, as was no doubt the fact, that was a matter between Ammon and Sihon, not between Israel and Ammon. It was the business of the Ammonites to defend their claims as best they could against the Amorites... They had won the land in a fight the Amorite provoked and drew them into. They had sought peace, and Sihon wanted war.
Some writers look for meaning in the names themselves. Sihon's name is debated, but Heshbon — the city the proverb calls to rebuild — carries the sense of thought and reasoning.
There is not much agreement about his name. The most likely sense from the Hebrew root is "sweeping off," perhaps "refuse," "off-scouring" — which is what the wisdom of the world really is, the very wisdom that would count God's wisdom as refuse. Or it may mean "sweeping away," as pride of intellect would sweep away the things of God. He is always spoken of as king of Heshbon, where he lived. Older English translations render that word only as "account," "device," or "reason." It clearly gives the thought of mental work.
Read that way, Israel is meant to take the land these kings held and keep it.
Both of these kings — Sihon and Og — occupy a land which by the gift of God Israel may seize and hold; indeed, Israel should do so. Do not give up reason because Satan is using it against the truth of God, and do not refuse natural blessings because men turn them into self-indulgence and disorder. Whatever God has given, we may take from His hand without suspicion — if it really is from His hand.
- Boast. The words belong to the Amorites, who set them to music after taking Heshbon from Moab.
- Borrowed. Israel repeats the enemy's own song back at him, and the fire that once went out from Heshbon ends by consuming Heshbon.
- Deed. A song from outside Israel proved the land was Amorite, not Moabite — the one witness Israel's enemies could not dismiss.
- Tested. Later, when Ammon claimed this land, Jephthah answered from this same history: the quarrel was Ammon's with Sihon, never Israel's.
- Held. Heshbon speaks of reasoning. Do not abandon what an enemy has misused; take it from God's hand as His gift.
For there went forth fire from Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon; It consumed Ar of Moab, the lords of the high places of the Arnon.
This verse sits inside a song Israel did not write: verses 27–30 quote an old ballad about fire going out from Heshbon to burn up Moab. So why does Scripture record a foreign war-song, and what does it mean that the city that sent the fire has now burned?
The line belonged to the Amorites. They had taken Heshbon from Moab and sang about the victory. Israel now picks up that same song and turns it back on the singers.
The Amorite boasted against Moab. Israel now boasts over the Amorite, and mockingly turns their own boast against them. They had a national song about the capture of Heshbon, and Israel takes it up as a proverb against them. In his boasting song, Sihon seems to have made the captured city the place from which fire went out and consumed Ar of Moab. Whether the next verse continues the Amorite's boast, or is Israel's lament over Moab, it declares that Chemosh, the god of Moab, was powerless… If fire came from Heshbon and destroyed Ar of Moab, fire came from Israel and Heshbon perished.
There is a legal reason for the quotation. Moab and Ammon later claimed the land east of the Jordan. Israel needed proof that it had not been theirs. An enemy's own song settles the matter.
These foreign traditions are quoted on purpose, and for one unusual reason. They prove, from witnesses that Israel's fiercest opponents could not question, that the land in dispute did not belong to Ammon or Moab when Israel took it by conquest. It belonged to the doomed races of Canaan and the region around it… An enemy could dismiss a Jewish record of the land's earlier owners and of Israel's own victories as self-interested. But a quotation from the enemy's own popular songs settled the matter. And the Spirit of God is pleased to use such an extract for this purpose.
One writer weighs what the two names mean. Sihon's name is hard to pin down, while Heshbon points to the mind.
The most likely meaning of Sihon's name, from the Hebrew root, is "sweeping off" — perhaps "refuse" or "off-scouring." That is what the wisdom of the world really is, and that is how it would count God's wisdom. Or the name may mean "sweeping away," as pride of intellect would sweep away the things of God. He is always called king of Heshbon, where he lived. The older English version gives that word only as "account," "device," or "reason." It certainly gives the thought of mental work.
The song records a defeat. One writer takes it as a warning about the enemy that overcomes a self-satisfied people.
Heshbon, Sihon's chief city, had been captured from the Moabites. That is because the self-satisfied, lazy pride of man — as seen in Moab — will often give way before the persuasive talk of a deceiver. Our only protection from such things is a living knowledge of the Lord Jesus.
The boast did not stand. What Heshbon did to Ar, Israel has now done to Heshbon — and one writer sees more than a turn of fortune in it.
Upon the Amorite there was righteous retribution, for they had taken that land from Moab; and now Israel, by the will of God, takes it from them.
Verse 30 answers the boast with one word.
However, verse 30 introduces a "But." In other words, Israel changed matters decisively. They had shot at the Amorites, and Heshbon had perished instead of consuming Moab. Israel laid the Amorites' country waste and took possession.
Israel did not answer the boast with words.
So when Sihon and his army attacked, Israel did not meet him with talk, but with firm action. By the grace and power of God they defeated this proud enemy and took his cities. Israel was showing something of the courage of faith before they entered the land of Canaan. In this way God was preparing them for the conquest of the land.
Israel had asked only to pass through, and fought because they were attacked:
If we are attacked, we must defend ourselves; but we are not to be the aggressors. Israel wishes to pass quietly through the land of the Amorites; but they will not allow it, and they suffer the consequences of the war they sought against the people of God. Israel takes their cities, and begins already on this side of Jordan to realise, as if beforehand, the possession of the promise.
- Boast. The fire-from-Heshbon line is the Amorites' own victory song about beating Moab. Israel did not write it.
- Evidence. Scripture quotes it as proof no opponent could deny: the land was the Amorite's, not Moab's or Ammon's.
- Fall. Moab's pride gave way to persuasive talk; Heshbon changed hands before Israel ever arrived.
- Reversal. The city that sent out fire is burned by fire — righteous repayment, sealed by the "But" of the next verse.
- Possession. Israel answered the boast with action, took the Amorite cities, and learned the courage of faith before ever entering Canaan.
Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, people of Chemosh He gave his sons that had escaped, and his daughters into captivity to Sihon the king of the Amorites.
These lines come from an old battle song about Sihon's defeat of Moab, which Israel then sang back at the Amorites. Its centre is a jeer at Chemosh, Moab's god: what sort of god hands his own worshippers over to the enemy?
The song began as the Amorites' own boast, and Israel took it up after beating them. One commentator leaves open who speaks in verse 29:
The Amorite boasted against Moab. Israel now boasts over the Amorite, and in mockery turns their boasting against them. They had a national song celebrating the capture of Heshbon, and Israel takes it up as a proverb against them... The following verse (the 29th) may be the continuation of the Amorite's boast, or Israel's lament over Moab. Either way, it declares the powerlessness of their god Chemosh. In irony they say that Chemosh had played them false. He had given his sons and daughters (the Moabites) to the Amorite as captives. If these are Israel's own words, they only prove how deceitful the heart is. Israel later worshipped the god they despise here.
Moab had lost Heshbon to Sihon before Israel ever arrived. The song names the cause of that loss, and then the reversal that followed:
Verses 27-30 record the words of "those who speak in proverbs." They point to Moab's defeat by Sihon (vv. 28-29), for Moab's pride was unable to resist the smooth talk of the Amorites. However, verse 30 introduces a "But." In other words, Israel changed matters decisively. Israel had shot at the Amorites, and Heshbon had perished instead of consuming Moab (v. 28). The country of the Amorites was laid waste, and Israel took possession.
The verse calls Moab "the people of Chemosh" — a nation named after its god. A later prophecy against Moab says who that god was, and where he ends up:
Moab's national deity was Chemosh. The Ammonites, their sister nation, worshipped him too. Chemosh was probably the same as Molech. He is now to go forth into captivity with his priests and princes.
Why could a god like this not protect his people? Set him beside the living God and the answer is plain:
Idols are contrasted with Jehovah, but cannot for one moment be compared with the true God. Jehovah is the Maker, but an idol has to be made. Once made, it does not carry others; it has to be carried. Set in its place, it cannot move, cannot answer the cry of need, and cannot save from trouble.
Israel mocked Chemosh here, and later bowed to him. Centuries after this song, Israel's wisest king built a shrine to that same idol:
The case of Solomon is the flagrant proof of how great a snare idolatry was for Israel in its brightest days. What could be more solemn or humbling? The pages of inspiration record that the wise king built the magnificent temple to Jehovah's glory, the house where God's glory was pleased to dwell. That same king also built a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, on the mount that is before Jerusalem, and another for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
- Song. These words began as the Amorites' victory song. Israel took their boast and turned it back on them as a proverb.
- Pride. Moab lost Heshbon through pride that could not stand up to Amorite smooth talk. Then verse 30 turns it all around with a single "But."
- Powerlessness. The jeer targets Chemosh. He handed his own sons and daughters — the Moabites — to the Amorite king. Someone must make an idol and then carry it; it cannot move, or answer, or save.
- Captivity. The god who gave his people away goes into captivity himself, with his priests and princes.
- Warning. The people who sang this mockery later worshipped that same god. Solomon built Chemosh a high place facing Jerusalem. Mocking an idol is no protection against taking it up.
And we have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon; and we have laid [them] waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba.
Numbers 21:30 ends a piece of poetry quoted into the story, just after Israel defeats Sihon, king of the Amorites. The lines are short and the place names are strange. Two questions matter here: who is speaking, and why is an old war song in the Bible at all?
Israel did not write the song in verses 27–29. It was the Amorites' own victory chant about taking Heshbon from Moab. This closing line answers it.
The Amorite boasted against Moab. Now Israel boasts over the Amorite, and mockingly turns their own boast against them. They had a national song celebrating the capture of Heshbon, and Israel takes it up as a proverb against them… Verse 30 seems to be Israel's triumph over the Amorite… If fire came out of Heshbon and destroyed Ar of Moab, then fire came out of Israel and Heshbon perished.
The Hebrew opens this line with a sharp contrast. Everything before it describes what the Amorites did to Moab; here the subject changes.
Verses 27-30 record the words of the ballad singers. They point to Moab's defeat by Sihon (verses 28-29), because Moab's pride could not resist the smooth talk of the Amorites. However, verse 30 introduces a "But." In other words, Israel changed everything. Israel had shot at the Amorites, and Heshbon had perished instead of consuming Moab (verse 28). Israel laid the Amorites' country waste and took possession of it.
Israel had been forbidden to attack Moab. So the legal question mattered: did this land belong to Moab when Israel seized it? Quoting the enemy's own folk songs settles it in a way Israel's own records never could.
These are well known records. They are quoted to prove that the land in question was in the hands of the Amorites, and not of Moab, when Israel took possession. This mattered enormously. Israel was forbidden to touch Moab, but the country of the Amorites was given over to them. Israel's own statements, whatever weight they carried among themselves, would have proved nothing against their enemies. So, to establish Israel's title to these lands, the text gives well known popular records of how the Amorites had earlier conquered Moab and taken this territory, and of where the border ran at that time.
Centuries later this same argument was used in court, so to speak, when Ammon claimed the territory back.
A Jewish record of its previous possessors and of their own victories might be disputed as biased by an enemy; but a quotation from their own current proverbial songs was conclusive; and the Spirit of God stoops to use an extract to this end.
The verse names towns to mark how far the defeat reached. Dibon is known, and it changed hands again later.
City on the east of the Jordan in Moab, afterwards possessed by Gad; but near the time of the captivity it was again seized by Moab.
Morrish Bible Dictionary — on Dibon
Nophah is lost to us:
Ancient name of some place, probably near Heshbon.
Commentators differ on how far to press the meaning of these names. The writer below presses them, but admits the evidence is thin. He follows the song from Sihon's own city to the last place it names.
There is little agreement about his name. What seems to come most fairly from the Hebrew root is "sweeping off," perhaps "refuse," "sweepings" — which is what the wisdom of the world is, and what it would call 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 city where he lived. That word is only translated "account," "device," or "reason" in the common English version, so it gives the thought of mental work… And in the song of victory the pursuit ends at Medeba, "quiet waters."
The same writer draws a practical lesson. Do not throw away a good thing because an enemy has misused it.
Do not give up reason because Satan is using it against the truth of God. Do not refuse natural blessings because people turn them into self-indulgence and disorder. Whatever God has given, you may take from His hand without suspicion, if it really is from His hand.
- Boast — The Amorites composed a song about the fire that went out from Heshbon and burned Moab. It was their own trophy.
- Reversal — This verse is the "but." The fire that went out from Heshbon came back on Heshbon. The city that burned Moab perished itself.
- Reach — Geography measures the defeat: as far as Dibon, as far as Nophah, as far as Medeba. Sihon's whole kingdom fell inside those lines.
- Title — The song stands as legal evidence. The land was Amorite, not Moabite. Israel's claim rests on words its enemies wrote.
- Possession — What God hands over is to be taken and held, not shunned. The enemy's misuse of a thing does not forfeit Israel's right to it.