Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 11:12 - 11:28
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_11:12-28.
[2 Jdg_11:23.— úִּéøָùֶׁðּøּ , lit. “seize him.” “The construction of éָøַùׁ with the accusative of the people,” says Keil, “arises from the fact that in order to seize upon a land, it is necessary first to overpower the people that inhabits it.” Both he and Bertheau, however, refer the suffix to “the Amorite,” and are then obliged to make the Amorite stand for the “land of the Amorite.”—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_11:25.— øִéá , to contend in words, to plead before a judge. Dr. Cassel translates by rechten, to litigate, which must here of course be taken in a derivative sense.—Tr.]
What is there between me and thee, åָìָêְ îַäÎìִּé . A proverbial form of speech, which may serve the most divergent states of mind to express and introduce any effort to repel and ward off. While it might here be rendered, “What wilt thou? what have I done to thee?” in the mouth of the prophet Elisha, repelling the unholy king (2Ki_3:13), it means, “How comest thou to me? I know thee not!” and in that of the woman whose sorrow for the loss of her child breaks out afresh when she sees Elijah (1Ki_17:18), “Alas, let me alone, stay away!” The Gospel translates it by ôß ἐìïὶ êáὶ óïß ; in which form it appears in the celebrated passage, Joh_2:4, where Jesus speaks to Mary. But it has there not the harsh sense, “What have I to do with thee!” (which it has not even here in the message of Jephthah), but only expresses a hurried request for silence, for his “hour was not yet come.”
Jdg_11:13. Israel took away my land. For a question of right, Ammon, like other robbers and conquerors, was not at all prepared; but since it is put, the hostile king cannot well evade it. Reasons, however, have never been wanting to justify measures of violence. Although unacquainted with the arts of modern state-craft, ancient nations, as well as those of later times, understood how to base the demands of their desires on historical wrongs. Only, such claims, when preferred by nations like the Ammonites, usually did not wear even the appearance of truth. The king of Ammon seeks to excuse his present war against Israel, by asserting that when Israel came up out of Egypt they took from him the territory between Arnon, Jabbok, and Jordan, about coextensive with the inheritance of Reuben and Gad. It was utterly untrue. For when Israel went forth out of Egypt, this territory was in the hands of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon (Numbers 21). This king, it is true, had obtained it by conquest; but not so much from Ammon as from Moab, even though some connection of the Ammonites with the conquered lands is to be inferred from Jos_13:25. Israel itself had fought with neither Moab nor Ammon, taken nothing from them, nor even crossed their borders.
Jephthah does not fail to reduce this false pretense to its nothingness; for it was of the utmost importance in his view to make it manifest that the war, on the side of the Ammonites, was thoroughly unjust. The memoir which he sends to the king of Ammon, is as clear as it is instructive. It shows the existence of a historical consciousness in the Israel of that day, asserting itself as soon as the people became converted to God. For only a believing people is instructed and strengthened by history. Jephthah unfolds a piece of the history of Israel in the desert. It has been asked, in what relation the statements here made stand to those contained in the Pentateuch. The answer is, that the message of Jephthah makes a free use of the statements of the Pentateuch.
Jdg_11:15-28. Thus saith Jephthah. This introduction to Jdg_11:15 already indicates the free combination by Jephthah, of statements derived from the ancient records. That which is of peculiar interest in this document, and strongly evinces its originality, is, that while the turns of the language and the various verbal repetitions (already pointed out in the text) indicate the source whence it was borrowed, its departures from that source evidence the freedom with which the material is used for the end in view. Nothing is said which is not contained in the Pentateuch; only a few facts, of present pertinence, are brought forward and freely emphasized. Bertheau is inaccurate, when he thinks that the statement in Jdg_11:17, concerning Israel’s sending to Moab to ask for passage through their land and Moab’s refusal, is altogether new. For in the first place the perfect equality of Edom and Moab as regards the policy pursued towards them by Moses, is already intimated in Deu_2:9; and in the next place, Jdg_11:29 of the same chapter makes Moses request Sihon to give a passage to Israel through his land, and that he will not do “as the sons of Esau and the Moabites did,” to wit, deny them. That which connects Jdg_11:29 with Jdg_11:28 (Deuteronomy 2), is not that Esau and Moab had granted what Moses now requests of Sihon, but that they had not allowed his petition, by reason of which he is compelled to demand it of Sihon. Here, therefore, it is plainly intimated, that Moab also refused a passage. This fact, Jephthah clothes in his own language, and weaves into his exact narrative with the selfsame design with which Moses alluded to it in the passage already quoted, namely, to prove that Israel was compelled by necessity to take its way through the land of the Amorite. The same tracing of events to their causes, leads Jephthah in Jdg_11:20 to say of Sihon: “he trusted not Israel,” whereas Num_21:23 merely says: “he permitted not.” Jephthah seeks to give additional emphasis to the fact, that if Sihon lost his land, the fault lay not with Israel. Sihon could not but see that no other passage remained for Israel; but he refused to credit the peaceable words of Moses. His distrust was his ruin. Further: instead of the expression, “until I pass over Jordan, into the land which Jehovah our God giveth us” (Deu_2:29), Jephthah writes, “let us pass through thy land to my place.” At that time, he means to say, the Canaan this side the Jordan was Israel’s destination; for not till after that—and this is why he changes the phraseology—did God give us Canaan beyond the Jordan also. For the same reason he substitutes “Israel” for “Moses” in the expression, “And Moses sent messengers” (Num_20:14). Over against Ammon, he brings Israel into view as a national personality.
On the basis of this historical review, Jephthah in a few sentences places the unrighteousness of his demands before the king of Ammon. What, therefore, Jehovah our God allowed us to conquer—that thou wilt possess? thou, who hadst no claims to it at any time, since, properly speaking, it was never thine? If any party could maintain a claim, it was Moab; but Balak, the king of Moab, never raised it, nor did he make war on that account. The conquest, by virtue of which Israel held the land, was not the result of wrongful violence, but of a war rashly induced by the enemy himself. God gave the victory and the land. A more solid title than that which secures to Israel the country between the Arnon and the Jabbok, there cannot be. Or has Ammon a better for his own possession? Were they not taken by force of arms from the Zamzummim (Deu_2:21)? or, as Jephthah expresses it, “were they not given thee by Chemosh, thy god?” He makes use of Ammon’s own form of thought and expression. Chemosh (the desolater, from ëָּáַùׁ = ëָּîַùׁ ) is the God of War. As such, he can here represent the god of Ammon, although usually regarded as the Moabitish deity; for it is the martial method in which Ammon obtained his land on which the stress is laid. Chemosh is war personified, hence especially honored by the Moabites, whose Ar Moab, the later Areopolis, is evidently related to the Greek Ares (Mars). Hence also the representation of him on extant specimens of ancient Areopolitan coins, where he appears with a sword in his right, and a lance and shield in his left hand, with torches on either side (Eckhel, Doctr. Nummor, iii. 394; Movers, Phönizier, i. 334).
Jephthah is sincere in this reference to the title by which Ammon holds his land. He does not dispute a claim grounded on ancient conquest. For in Deu_2:21, also, it is remarked, from a purely Israelitish point of view, that “Jehovah gave the land to the sons of Ammon for a possession.” Quite rightly too; inasmuch as Jehovah is the God of all nations. But as Jephthah desires to speak intelligibly and forcibly to Ammon, who does not understand the world-wide government of Jehovah, he connects the same sentiment with the name of Chemosh, to whom Ammon traces back his warlike deeds and claims. He thereby points out, in the most striking and conclusive manner, that if Ammon refuses to recognize the rights of Israel to its territory, he at the same time undermines, in principle, his own right to the country he inhabits. Aside from this, 300 years have passed since Israel first dwelt in Heshbon, Aroer, and on the banks of the Arnon. The statement exhibits a fine geographical arrangement: Heshbon, as capital of the ancient kingdom, is put first; then, to the north of it, Aroer (or Aror, probably so called to distinguish it from the southern Aroer) in Gad, over against the capital of Ammon; and finally, in the south, the cities on the Arnon. Possession, so long undisputed, cannot now be called in question. Jephthah concludes, therefore, that on his side no wrong had been committed; but Ammon seeks a quarrel—may God decide between them! But Ammon hearkened not—a proof how little the best and most righteous state papers avail, when men are destitute of good intentions. On the other hand, let this exposition of Jephthah be a model for all litigating nations, and teach them not only to claim, but truly to have, right and justice on their side. For God, the judge, is witness and hearer for all.
Henry: Jephthah did not delight in war, though a mighty man of valor, but was willing to prevent it by a peaceable accommodation. War should be the last remedy, not to be used till all other methods of ending matters in variance have been tried in vain. This rule should also be observed in going to law. The sword of justice, as the sword of war, must not be appealed to till the contending parties have first endeavored by gentler means to understand one another, and to accommodate matters in variance (1Co_6:1).—The same: (on Jdg_11:17-18): Those that conduct themselves inoffensively, may take the comfort of it, and plead it against those that charge them with injustice and wrong. Our righteousness will answer for us in time to come, and will “put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.”—The same: One instance of the honor and respect we owe to God, as our God, is, rightly to possess that which He gives us to possess, receive it from Him, use it for Him, keep it for his sake, and part with it when He calls for it.—The same: (on Jdg_11:27-28): War is an appeal to heaven, to God the Judge of all, to whom the issues of it belong. If doubtful rights be disputed, He is thereby requested to determine them; if manifest rights be invaded or denied, He is thereby applied to to vindicate what is just, and punish what is wrong. As the sword of justice was made for lawless and disobedient persons (1Ti_1:9), so was the sword of war for lawless and disobedient princes and nations. In war, therefore, the eye must be ever up to God; and it must always be thought a dangerous thing to desire or expect that God should patronize unrighteousness.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Bp. Hall: “Men love to go the nearest way, and often fail. God commonly goes about, and in his own time comes surely home.”—Tr.]
Jdg_11:17.—The words printed in blackfaced type are found in Num_20:21. The first part of Jdg_11:17 is from Num_20:14, except that there “Moses” takes the place of “Israel.” On the other hand, the expression, “Thus saith thy brother Israel,” there used, is here wanting.
Jdg_11:17.—Num_20:17; only, “let me pass,” is there read, “let us pass.”
Jdg_11:18.—Num_21:4 has ìִíְáֹּá .
Jdg_11:18.—Num_21:11
Jdg_11:18.—Num_21:13.
Jdg_11:19.—Num_21:21.
Jdg_11:19.—Num_21:22 has àֶòְáְּøָä for ðָּà ðַòְáְּøָäÎ .
Jdg_11:20.—Num_21:23.
Jdg_11:20.—Num_21:23, the words “they encamped” being substituted for “he came.”
Jdg_11:21.—Num_21:24; “Israel smote him.”
[Jdg_11:23.— úִּéøָùֶׁðּøּ , lit. “seize him.” “The construction of éָøַùׁ with the accusative of the people,” says Keil, “arises from the fact that in order to seize upon a land, it is necessary first to overpower the people that inhabits it.” Both he and Bertheau, however, refer the suffix to “the Amorite,” and are then obliged to make the Amorite stand for the “land of the Amorite.”—Tr.]
[Jdg_11:25.— øִéá , to contend in words, to plead before a judge. Dr. Cassel translates by rechten, to litigate, which must here of course be taken in a derivative sense.—Tr.]
[This interpretation of Deu_2:29, which would clear it of all appearance of conflict with Num_20:14-20, is unfortunately not supported by the language of the original. The natural rendering of the text is substantially that of the E. V.: “Thou shalt sell me food for money, that I may eat; and thou shalt give me water for money, that I may drink; only I will pass through on my feet: as did unto me the sons of Esau who dwell in Seir, and the Moabites who dwell in Ar: until I pass over Jordan, into the land which Jehovah our God giveth us.” The reader’s first thought is, that the conduct of Edom and Moab is referred to as a precedent covering both parts of the present request to Sihon: “Sell me food and grant me a passage—as Edom and Moab did, so do thou.” But history relates that Edom denied a passage, and that Israel made a detour around the Edomite territories. May we then regard the precedent as referring only to the matter of supplies? and the clause which recalls it to the memory of Sihon, as occupying a place after that which a logical arrangement of the clauses would assign it? This supposition, by no means unlikely in itself, seems to be favored by the construction of the sentence. It does not, however, relieve the passage of all difficulty. For it still leaves the implication that Edom and Moab sold food and water to Israel, whereas according to Num_20:20 they refused to do that also. Keil therefore argues that this refusal was made when Israel was on the western boundary of Edom, where the character of the mountains made it easy to repulse an army; but that when Israel had reached their eastern boundary, where the mountains sink down into vast elevated plains, and present no difficulty to an invading army, the Edomites took counsel of prudence, and instead of offering hostilities to the Israelites, contented themselves with the profitable sale of what would otherwise have been taken by force. This is at least a plausible explanation, although not founded on historical evidence, unless, what is by no means improbable, Deu_2:2-9 is designed to explain the course of actual events by a statement of divine instructions.—Tr.]
Hence, the name Aroer proves also that the worship of the “War-god” obtained in Ammon as well as in Moab. For a city of that name existed in the territories of each of these nations.
[Wordsworth: “It does not seem that Jephthah is here using the language of insult to the Ammonites, but is giving them a courteous reply. He appears to recognize Chemosh as a local deity; and he speaks of the Lord as the God of Israel, and as our God; and calls Israel his people. He regards Him [speaks of Him?] as a national deity, but does not claim universal dominion for Him.”—Tr.]