Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 21:26
For Heshbon [was] the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon.
26 30. The writer explains that Heshbon used to belong to the Moabites, but that Sihon had taken it from them. He quotes an ancient poem with which he was acquainted, having heard it from the lips of ‘those that speak in proverbs’ (see on Num 21:27).
The interpretation of the song is somewhat doubtful, and Num 21:30 is corrupt and almost untranslateable. The word ‘wherefore’ ( Num 21:27) suggests that the poem is quoted in order to explain Num 21:26; the writer, as in Num 21:14, illustrates by an ancient song a statement which he has just made. This statement is that Moab had been previously conquered by the Amorites; and the song is a taunt to the Amorites whose capital Israel has destroyed. The taunt is, in effect, ‘Why do you not come and rebuild your fallen capital, for you shewed prowess enough in the past when you conquered Moab!’ All the verbs in Num 21:28 f. must therefore be rendered as aorists ‘a fire went out,’ ‘it devoured,’ ‘thou wast undone,’ ‘he gave.’ Another interpretation of the song will be mentioned after the notes on Num 21:30; but the above is much the more probable.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 26. For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, &c.] It appears therefore that the territory now taken from Sihon by the Israelites was taken from a former king of Moab, in commemoration of which an epikedion or war song was made, several verses of which, in their ancient poetic form, are here quoted by Moses.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The city of Sihon: this is added as a reason why Israel took possession of this land, notwithstanding Gods prohibition of meddling with them or their land, Deu 2:9, because it was not now the land of the Moabites, but had been some time since taken from them, and in the possession of the Amorites.
The former king of Moab, i.e. the predecessor of Balak, who was the present king.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
26. Heshbon (So7:4) situated sixteen English miles north of the Arnon, andfrom its ruins it appears to have been a large city.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites,…. His royal city, where he kept his palace, where he had resided for some time, and perhaps some of his predecessors; and therefore being now in his possession when taken by the Israelites, they had a good right and title to keep it, and dwell in it: and indeed this is here given as a reason of it,
who had fought against the former king of Moab; either the king that reigned before Balak, or some king of Moab, that reigned formerly, against whom one of the name of Sihon, which might be a common name to the kings of the Amorites, as Pharaoh to the Egyptians, had engaged in war:
and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon; and had been in the hands of the Amorites some years; and therefore the Moabites had no reason to object to the Israelites dwelling in it, and possessing it, which they had not taken from them, but from the Amorites in a lawful war. And for proof of this, reference is had to the bards and poets of those times, who were the persons that transmitted in verse the history of famous actions to posterity.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
26. For Heshbon was the city of Sihon. It is not without cause that Moses relates how the country near Heshbon had passed into the hands of the Amorites, because a long time afterwards this was sought for as a pretext for war by the Ammonites, when they saw that the people were brought into a low estate. In the time of Jephthah, therefore, having collected a great army, an irruption was made by them; and they made this their excuse, that they took up arms to recover what was their own, from Arnon as far as Jabbok, and as far as Jordan. Consequently, God would have it testified in the sacred records, as Jephthah then replied to the Ammonites, that this part of the land was taken from king Sihon, when the children of Israel were marching peacefully through the borders of the Ammonites. Designedly, then, did Moses, in order to sanction the right of the people, insert in these authentic registers, as it were, what had formerly occurred, namely, that the Amorites had had the dominion over that part of the country, without interference from the Ammonites; nor was there any question that the Amorites had secure and peaceful possession of it. Hence it follows that it passed to the Israelites, so that there were no grounds why, three hundred years afterwards, the Ammonites should reclaim what had so long been lost and abandoned by them. And, in order that posterity might know that there was then no obscurity about the matter, he records an ancient canticle, from which it appears that the Ammonites were so completely overcome, that their enemies triumphed magnificently over them, and cut off all hope of their restoration. Here, however, the question arises, why the king of Ammon, rather than the king of Moab, set on foot that war; for we clearly gather from the song, that the land was taken from the Moabites. But for men who are bent on rapine and robbery, it is sufficient to allege any trivial pretext, and often to glory in the rights of others. There doubtless remained a report that the Amorites had been driven out of their territories, (131) which they had obtained by force of arms. The Ammonites pass over in silence what had been forgotten in the lapse of many ages, and set up this false title, that, although the Israelites had conquered the Amorites, still their victory conferred upon them no right to occupy what the Amorites unjustly and forcibly held. With this object Moses inserted the account he here gives.
(131) “Par les enfans d’Israel;” by the children of Israel. — Fr.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(26) And taken all his land . . . i.e., the land between the Arnon and the Jabbok, as it is explained in the last clause of the verse.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Num 21:26. Heshbonthe city of Sihon Heshbon was the capital city of the Amorites, and their king’s seat; and Sihon is thought to be the name common to all the kings of the Amorites, as Pharaoh was to the kings of Egypt: so that the meaning is, that one of the kings of the Amorites made an inroad into the Kingdom of the Moabites, and took from them Heshbon, &c. Moses here remarks, that when the Israelites conquered those lands, they were not in the possession of the Moabites, but of the Amorites; and, consequently, that their title to them was good, notwithstanding the prohibition (Deu 9:19.) against meddling with the lands of the Moabites and Ammonites.
This precaution appears to have been very necessary; for we find that a contest arose afterwards, on this very head, between the Israelites and the Ammonites, Jdg 11:13. THE former king of Moab, should rather be rendered a former king of Moab; for it is not certain that it was that king of Moab who reigned immediately before Sihon.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Moab it should seem had heretofore those cities, but now being in the possession of the Amorite, they were to be conquered by Israel by the divine appointment. Gen 15:18-21 . But, Reader, it is sweet to trace all mercies to their fountain head. Hence, therefore, if you consult another scripture on this occasion, you will discover that it was the LORD who gave Israel the victory. See Deu 2:30-37 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Arnon: Arnon is a stream which takes its rise in the mountains of Moab, and, by a north-west course, during which it receives the waters of several streams, runs into the Dead sea. It is now called Wady Modjeb, and divides the province of Pelka from that of Kerek, as it formerly divided the kingdoms of the Moabites and Amorites. Its principal source is at a short distance to the north-east of Katrane, a station of the Syrian Hadj, where it is called Seyl Sayde; and lower down it receives the name of Esseim el Kereim, or Szefye. Num 21:26
Reciprocal: Num 32:3 – Heshbon Jos 13:25 – half Jos 21:39 – Heshbon Jer 48:20 – Arnon
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Num 21:26. Heshbon was the city of Sihon This is added as a reason why Israel took possession of this land, because it was not now the land of the Moabites, but in the possession of the Amorites. The former king The predecessor of Balak, who was the present king. See the wisdom of Gods providence, which prepares long before for the accomplishment of his purposes in their season! This country, being designed for Israel, is beforehand put into the hand of the Amorites, who little think they have it but as trustees, till Israel comes of age. We understand not the vast schemes of Providence: but known unto God are all his works!
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
21:26 For {k} Heshbon [was] the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon.
(k) For if it had been the Moabites, the Israelites might not have possessed it, De 2:9.