Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 11:13
And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those [lands] again peaceably.
From Arnon even unto Jabbok … – The land bounded by the Arnon on the south, by the Jabbok on the north, by the Jordan on the west, and by the wilderness on the east was, of old, the kingdom of Sihon, but then the territory of Reuben and Gad.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 13. From Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan] That is, all the land that had formerly belonged to the Amorites, and to the Moabites, who it seems were confederates on this occasion.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
My land, i.e. this land of Gilead, which was mine, but unjustly taken from me, by Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, and the injury perpetuated by Israels detaining it from me. This land, before the conquests of Sihon and Og, belonged partly to the Ammonites, as is affirmed, Jos 13:25; and partly and principally to the Moabites, as appears from Num 21:24,26; Deu 3:11. And indeed Moab and Ammon did for the most part join their interests and their forces, as appears from Scripture story; and as Balak the king of the Moabites acted for the Ammonites, so now the king of Ammon seems to act for the Moabites; either as being now his subjects, or as his confederates; whence it comes to pass that Moab and Ammon are here promiscuously mentioned, as Jdg 11:15,17,18,25; and Chemosh, the known god of the Moabites, Num 21:29; 1Ki 11:33; 2Ki 23:13; Jer 48:13,46, is here called the god of the Ammonites, Jdg 11:24, though, to speak strictly, Moloch or Milcom was their god, 1Ki 11:5,7,33; 2Ki 23:13.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13. the king of Ammon . . ., BecauseIsrael took away my land(See on De2:19). The subject of quarrel was a claim of right advanced bythe Ammonite monarch to the lands which the Israelites wereoccupying. Jephthah’s reply was clear, decisive, andunanswerable;first, those lands were not in the possession of theAmmonites when his countrymen got them, and that they had beenacquired by right of conquest from the Amorites [Jud11:21]; secondly, the Israelites had now, by a lapse of threehundred years of undisputed possession, established a prescriptiveright to the occupation [Jdg 11:22;Jdg 11:23]; and thirdly, havingreceived a grant of them from the Lord, his people were entitled tomaintain their right on the same principle that guided the Ammonitesin receiving, from their god Chemosh, the territory they now occupied[Jud 11:24]. This diplomaticstatement, so admirable for the clearness and force of its arguments,concluded with a solemn appeal to God to maintain, by the issue ofevents, the cause of right and justice [Jud11:27].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah,…. Who this king of Ammon was is not said, however he returned an answer to Jephthah’s messengers, which they brought to him, and it was to this purpose; that the reason of his invading the land, and bringing war into it, was,
because Israel took away my land when they came out of Egypt; not as soon as they came out of Egypt, for it was thirty nine years afterwards, and upwards, even a little before they entered into the land of Canaan; and the land they took was not theirs, but in the possession of Sihon and Og, kings of the Amorites; though indeed, before their conquest of it, it had been in the hands of the Moabites and Ammonites, and who being confederates, or subjects of the same king, is here claimed by the king of the children of Ammon:
from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan; the river Arnon was the border between Moab and the Amorites, and the river Jabbok was the border of the children of Ammon, Nu 21:13, the one was to the south of the country claimed, and the other to the north and to the west, which was Jordan, and the wilderness to the east, Jud 11:22,
now therefore restore these lands again peaceably; this is demanded or proposed as terms or conditions of peace, and what would prevent a war, and nothing short of this would do it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(13) Because Israel took away my land.This was a very plausible plea, but was not in accordance with facts. The Israelites had been distinctly forbidden to war against the Moabites and Ammonites (Deu. 2:9; Deu. 2:19); but when Sibon, king of the Amorites, had refused them permission to pass peaceably through his land, and had even come out to battle against them, they had defeated him and seized his territory. It was quite true that a large district in this territory had originally belonged to Moab and Ammon, and had been wrested from them by Sihon (Num. 21:21-30; Jos. 12:2; Jos. 12:5); but that was a question with which the Israelites had nothing to do, and it was absurd to expect that they would shed their blood to win settlements for the sole purpose of restoring them to nations which regarded them with the deadliest enmity.
From Arnon even unto Jabbok.The space occupied by Gad and Reuben. The Arnon (noisy ) is now the Wady Modjeb. It was the southern boundary of Reuben, and its deep rocky ravine separated that tribe from Moab. The Jabbok (pouring out) was originally the border of the children of Ammon (Deu. 3:16; Num. 21:24). It is nearly midway between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee, and is now called the Wady Zurka.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
13. Israel took away my land This was probably in a certain sense tree, for, according to Jos 13:24-25, Moses gave to the tribe of Gad half the land of the children of Ammon; and though Israel captured the land from Arnon even unto Jabbok, not of Moab nor of Ammon, but of Sihon, king of the Amorites, yet Sihon had previously fought against the king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand. See Num 21:24-26. So, though Israel strictly observed the divine order (Deu 2:9; Deu 2:19) not to disturb Moab or Ammon, they took from the Amorites lands which seem to have anciently belonged to those descendants of Lot. Israel was not to blame for conquering these lands of Sihon, and fairly owned them by the right of conquest, yet both Ammonites and Moabites might feel that they were the ancient owners. But having neglected their claim for three hundred years, (Jdg 11:26,) it was idle for them to urge it now.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ And the king of the children of Ammon replied to the messengers of Jephthah, “Because Israel took away my land when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even to Jabbok, and to Jordan. Now therefore restore those lands again peaceably.” ’
The reply came back just as haughtily. The king demanded the return to him of lands now under the control of Israel, (the territory of Reuben and Gad), which he claimed had once belonged to Ammon, (although Israel had taken them from the occupying Amorites, not from Ammon). But that land had never belonged to Ammon, it had belonged to Moab (Num 21:26). Thus it is clear that the king of Ammon was here linking Moab with himself in his claims. In other words he was speaking on behalf of an Ammonite/Moabite confederacy. (Compare Deu 2:9; Deu 2:19 where both were to be treated as the same by Israel because they were the descendants of Lot. They were ‘brothers’). Furthermore he knew perfectly well how impossible it would be for Jephthah to acknowledge his claims. It would be to admit that Reuben and Gad should pay tribute to him in perpetuity. That would be worth sacrificing a bit of Gilead for, especially as he could always come back for that later and no doubt would levy tribute, but he did not really expect it to happen. What he hoped was that Jephthah would give up and pay tribute.
“From Arnon even to Jabbok, and to Jordan.” The river Arnon was the border between Moab and the Reubenites (the latter living where the Sihon and the Amorites were previously – Num 21:13), and the river Jabbok was the northern border of Gad (formerly of Sihon and the Amorites – Num 21:24). It was true that the land occupied by Sihon and the Amorites had formerly belonged to Moab (Num 21:26-30) and was captured by the Amorites from Moab, and then by Israel from the Amorites and populated by Reuben and Gad. But it had not been Moab’s for a long time and all saw it as having belonged to the Amorites by right of conquest.
One special importance for us of this statement is that it demonstrates that this attack was therefore not only by Ammon, but included Moab who regularly allied themselves with Ammon, for they were ‘the descendants of Lot’ and therefore ‘brothers’. (Compare Jdg 3:13 where Moab was predominant and mentioned alone all the way through except in Jdg 11:13. Had it not been for Jdg 11:13 we would have thought it was Moab alone. It was a general tendency among kings of a confederacy to take credit to their own people. Also see Deu 23:3).
We do not of course have here the full text of the message from the king of Ammon, and what follows suggests strongly that he did indeed stress that the territory had belonged to Moab their ‘brother’ and that it was theirs because it belonged to Chemosh their god.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jdg 11:13 And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those [lands] again peaceably.
Ver. 13. Because Israel took away my land. ] This was a lie; but that is a small matter with many, where anything is to be gotten. Hegesippus saith of Pilate, that he was Vir nequam et parvi faciens mendacium, a naughty man, and one that made no bones of a lie. All this country that the king of Ammon layeth claim to, was first the Moabites’, and from them won by Sihon king of Amorites, and from him by the Israelites.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Because Israel: Num 21:24-26, Pro 19:5, Pro 19:9
from Arnon: That is, all the land which had belonged to the Amorites and Moabites.
Jabbok: Gen 32:22, Deu 2:37, Deu 3:16
Reciprocal: Deu 2:19 – General Jos 12:2 – Jabbok Jos 13:25 – half 2Ki 8:6 – Restore all Jer 49:1 – their king
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jdg 11:13. Because Israel took away my land The land was not theirs when the Israelites conquered it, but the land of Sihon, king of the Amorites. For as to the country of the Ammonites, God expressly charged the children of Israel not to meddle with it, Deu 2:19. It is true, this land, which they now claimed, had formerly belonged to the Moabites, but Sihon had made a conquest of it, and driven them out, as we read Num 21:26.