BibleTools.info

The Lord God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites - Jephthah shows that the Israelites did not take the land of the Moabites or Ammonites, but that of the Amorites, which they had conquered from Sihon their king, who had, without cause or provocation, attacked them; and although the Amorites had taken the lands in question from the Ammonites, yet the title by which Israel held them was good, because they took them not from the Ammonites, but conquered them from the Amorites. So now the Lord - hath dispossessed the Amorites. - The circumstances in which the Israelites were when they were attacked by the Amorites, plainly proved, that, unless Jehovah had helped them, they must have been overcome. God defeated the Amorites, and made a grant of their lands to the Israelites; and they had, in consequence, possessed them for three hundred years, Judges 11:26.

Consult the marginal references. If the ark with the copy of the Law Deuteronomy 31:26 was at Mizpeh, it would account for Jephthah‘s accurate knowledge of it; and this exact agreement of his message with Numbers and Deuteronomy would give additional force to the expression, “he uttered all his words before the Lord” Judges 11:11.

Judges 11:17

No mention is made of this embassy to Moab in the Pentateuch.

Judges 11:19

Into my place - This expression implies that the trans-Jordanic possessions of Israel were not included in the land of Canaan properly speaking.

Judges 11:21

The title “God of Israel” has a special emphasis here, and in Judges 11:23. in a narrative of transactions relating to the pagan and their gods.

Judges 11:24

Chemosh was the national god of the Moabites (see the marginal references); and as the territory in question was Moabitish territory before the Amorites took it from “the people of Chemosh,” this may account for the mention of Chemosh here rather than of Moloch, or Milcom, the god of the Ammonites. Possibly the king of the children of Ammon at this time may have been a Moabite.

Judges 11:25, Judges 11:26

Jephthah advances another historical argument. Balak, the king of Moab, never disputed the possession of Sihon‘s kingdom with Israel.

Principle, Not Policy, Must Control—Had the Israelites preserved a clear perception of right and wrong, they would have seen the fallacy of Abimelech's reasoning, and the injustice of his claims. They would have seen that he was filled with envy, and actuated by a base ambition to exalt himself by the ruin of his brethren. Those who are controlled by policy rather than by principle are not to be trusted. They will pervert the truth, conceal facts, and construe the words of others to mean that which was never intended. They will employ flattering words, while the poison of asps is under their tongue. He who does not earnestly seek the divine guidance will be deceived by their smooth words and their artful plans (The Signs of the Times, August 4, 1881). 2BC 1005.1