Numbers 21
E. Israel's Victory over the Canaanites 21:1-3
F. The Failure of Israel 21:4-9
G. Journey to Moab 21:10-20
H. Israel's Victory over Sihon 21:21-32
I. Israel's Victory over Bashan 21:33-35
The Pulpit Commentary has as a heading over this section: "The Last March: from Mount Hor to Jordan (Ch. xxi - xxii. 1).E. Israel's Victory over the Canaanites 21:1-3
There is some confusion as to the place in Israel's history of this account of an attack by the Canaanite king of Arad and the subsequent victory over him and his domain. In The Pulpit Commentary we find a rather lengthy discourse about this question, which boils down to two possibilities: 1. That the report is out of place for some reason or another, or 2. that the chronology of the account is correct. Under the first heading, it is presumed by some commentators that Israel was attacked by the king of Arad and made a vow for the destruction of the country, but that the vow was not carried out until under Joshua. In the list of thirty-one kings Joshua defeated and whose land was conquered the king of Arad is mentioned also.[ 1 ] The second option would be, and we copy from The Pulpit Commentary: "That the Israelites lay for thirty days under Mount Hor is certain, and they may have been longer. During this period they could not get pasture for their cattle on the side of Edom, and they may have wandered far and wide in search of it. It may have been but a comparatively small band which approached the Negeb near enough to be attacked, and which, by the help of God, was enabled to defeat the king of Arad, and to lay waste his towns. It had certainly been no great feat for all Israel to overthrow a border chieftain who could not possibly have brought 5000 man into the field."
It is, of course, impossible to determine which of the two theories is closer to the truth. The fact that the king of Arad is mentioned in Joshua's list gives credence to the first one, but the mention of the capture of some Israelites leaves open the possibility that a smaller group of them had separated themselves temporarily from the main body of the army. It could also be that Arad did not dare to risk a frontal attack, and thus only carried out a surprise maneuver that was aimed at Israel's unsuspecting rear. Such a surprise would have infuriated the people more than an open frontal resistance.
There seems to be more behind the story than just a skirmish in the desert. The specific vow in vs. 2 indicates that this attack is viewed by the people as demonic interference, of the same kind as Amalek's attack forty years earlier. We read here: "Then Israel made this vow to the LORD: 'If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities.' " In the record of Amalek's attack in Exodus it was God who made the vow. We read there: "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.' Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner. He said, 'For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation.' "[ 2 ] It seems that the Israelites saw a connection between these two incidents, and placed Arad and his attack upon them in the same category as Amalek's. The fact that in this chapter other writings which are no longer in existence are mentioned, such as "the Book of the Wars of the LORD" in vs. 14, and "the poets" in vs. 27 seems to link this passage to the scroll on which Moses had to write the story of Amalek's defeat.[ 3 ]
The place where the attack took place is called Atharim, which some translations leave untranslated as a proper name, but others render as: "the way of the spies."[ 4 ] If the translation of the name is correct, it is still not clear which spies are meant.
At this point The Pulpit Commentary digs deeply into the moral problem of the eradication of the people of Canaan, in connection with the vow Israel made at this time. We copy: "If it was right to destroy the Canaanites at all, no fault can be found with the vow; it merely did for that military proceeding what national feeling and discipline does of the far more bloody exigencies of modern warfare, removing it from the sphere of private hatred, revenge, and cupidity, and placing it upon a higher level. The patriot soldier of these days feels himself to be a mere instrument in the hands of the rulers of his people to maintain their rights or avenge their wrongs. The Israelite could not have this feeling, which was foreign to his time and place in history, but he could feel that he was a mere instrument in the hands of God to perform his will upon his enemies. In either case a most important advantage is secured; the soldier does not slay in order to gratify his own hatred, or in order to satisfy his own cupidity. It is quite true that such vows as are here mentioned would certainly in a more advanced stage of civilization be abused to throw a cloak of religion over frightful enormities; but it does not in the least follow that they were not permitted and even encouraged by God in an age to which they were natural, and under circumstances in which they were beneficial."
It is very difficult for twentieth century man to look objectively at the world in which Israel left Egypt, crossed the desert, and entered Canaan. In The Pulpit Commentary we see a tendency to judge the ancient world with a measure that applies to our day. The excesses of more recent history in which, in fact, godless acts were performed under the cover of "a cloak of religion" makes it hard for us to look objectively at what Israel was asked to do in the Name of God. We look at the medieval crusades, and at the progroms that were carried out in the Name of Christianity, and we tend to put Israel's invasion of Canaan on the same level, as the program Hitler wanted to carry out to create living space for the superior Aryan race. Unless we understand that the plan God had for Israel in giving them Canaan was the same kind of judgment over the world of that time as Noah's flood was centuries earlier, we tend to condemn the nation of Israel unjustly. That the conquest of Canaan was "an act of God" in the true sense of the word is clear from God's prophecy to Abraham, in which He said: "In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."[ 5 ] Also the miracle of the collapse of the walls of Jericho,[ 6 ] the rain of hailstones during Joshua's battle against the five kings,[ 7 ] and the standing still of the sun during that battle[ 8 ] testify to the fact that the eradication of the people that inhabited Canaan was God's punishment upon a sinful human race, more than the hunger for land of a homeless nation. As a matter of fact we find that in many cases Israel was slack in carrying out, to their own detriment, the charge the Lord had given them.
When Israel made a vow to the Lord they recognized that the enemy they faced was God's enemy, even more than theirs. This implies that they saw the demonic powers behind the human hostility that confronted them. The name which was given to the place of victory, Hormah, emphasizes the spiritual significance of the battle even further. The Septuagint translates Hormah with anathema, which is the same word the Apostle Paul uses in the last verses of his first epistle to the Corinthian church: "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha."[ 9 ] Anathema is the curse of God upon those who hate Him. In making this vow, Israel simply affirmed that it wanted to obey God's orders; that they were on His side in the cosmic struggle against a supernatural enemy. David expresses the same desire, when he interrupts his beautiful mediation on the miracle of God's creation of his body, soul, and spirit, and he says: "If only you would slay the wicked, O God! Away from me, you bloodthirsty men! They speak of you with evil intent; your adversaries misuse your name. Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies."[ 10 ] Some of the humanitarian tolerant feelings people express have their roots in hell.
For us, New Testament Christians, the Apostle Paul puts the Old Testament situation in its right perspective when he says: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."[ 11 ]
F. The Failure of Israel 21:4-9
In order to understand the following story, we have to take a closer look at the map. We read: "They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom." The Pulpit Commentary says at this point: "It appears from comparison of ch. xxxiii. 38 and ch. xx. 29 that their departure was not earlier than the beginning of the sixth month of the fortieth year. This season would be one of the hottest and most trying for marching. By way of the Red Sea, i.e. down the Arabah, towards Ezion-geber, at the head of the Elanitic Gulf. ... Not far from this place they would reach the end of the Edomitish territory, and turn eastwards and northwards up the Wady el Ithm towards the steppes of Moab."
This detour brought the people close to the place where they had been forty years before. The Red Sea mentioned here, however, is not the part where they crossed when coming out of Egypt, but the arm of the sea that went inland East of the peninsula. They must have felt, however, that they were, so to speak, back to square one. This in itself can be a discouraging experience, and if we add it to the hardship of the terrain and the weather, as the above mentioned commentary suggests, we can feel some sympathy for their tendency to feel down. NIV uses the word "impatient" in vs. 4. Other translations say: "discouraged." The word literally means "shortened." It is the same word that is used in Exodus 6:9, where the RSV reads: "Moses spoke thus to the people of Israel; but they did not listen to Moses, because of their broken spirit and their cruel bondage." This seems to be more than an emotional discouragement; it can be seen as a frontal attack by the enemy of the people upon their spirits. Discouragement comes from a loss of hope. Now, as they were on "The Last March: from Mount Hor to Jordan," as The Pulpit Commentary's heading over this section reads, they lose their vision, and they doubt whether they will ever arrive at the objective of the exodus. They even doubt as to whether the goal had been worth the effort. They turn against God, and they ask Him why He bothered to redeem them from Egypt. This returning tendency to idealize the place of their bondage, that began immediately after the exodus and kept on sticking up its ugly head during the forty years of wandering, cannot be explained other than by means of some supernatural evil influence among the people. Satan's ministry of propaganda relentlessly broadcasted programs in which Egypt was built up in the minds of the people, and Canaan was played down. This is an example of what Paul meant when he wrote to the Corinthians: " The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."[ 12 ]
The immediate complaint was: "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!" Death in the desert had come to an end with the death of Aaron. There was no reason for this generation to believe that God wanted them dead. The forty years were over. As far as the food was concerned, they must have had water, and they had the manna, which they called "this miserable food."
Dissatisfaction about food can be a trap of the enemy of our souls. It is no sin to enjoy culinary delights, but if our gourmet tastes come between us and the Lord we are in serious trouble. The devil knows how much our souls, and sometimes our stomachs, depend upon variety, and he is very clever in exploiting boredom. If eating the same food day after day affects us spiritually, he will certainly allow us to eat instead of to starve. On the other hand, if he can make us dependent upon a daily change of diet, he will use that to enslave us, and separate us from God in that way. It is important, therefore, to say prayers of thanksgiving before every meal, and consider all that we eat, or cannot eat, as coming from the Lord. Our gratitude to God will make the difference, and cut off the means by which the Evil One tries to control us. Speaking about false teachers, Paul says: "They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."[ 13 ] And the Apostle's advice to the Thessalonians is: "Give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus."[ 14 ]
The Lord's punishment for the people's flare up of discontent was an invasion of venomous snakes. The Pulpit Commentary explains the following about the word for snake used here: "Nachash is the ordinary word for serpent. The word saraph , which seems to mean 'burning one,' stands (by itself) for a serpent in ver. 8, and also in Isa. xiv. 29; xxx. 6. In Isa. vi. 2, 6 it stands for one of the symbolic beings (seraphim) of the prophet's vision. The only idea common to the two meanings (otherwise so distinct) must be that of brilliance and metallic luster. It is commonly assumed that the 'fiery' serpents were so called because of the burning pain and inflammation caused by the bite,… But [it] is hardly possible that Isaiah should have used the same word in such wholly dissimilar senses, and it is clear from comparison with Ezekiel's vision of the cherubim (Ezek. I. 7) that the saraph of Isa. vi. 2 was so called from the burnished luster of his appearance. Even our Lord himself is described in the Apocalypse as having in the highest degree this appearance of glowing brass (Rev. I. 15; ii. 18). It is further clear that the saraph was so named from his colour, not his venom, because when Moses was ordered to make a saraph he made a serpent of brass (or rather copper), with the evident intent of imitating as closely as possible the appearance of the venomous reptile. We may conclude then with some confidence that these serpents were of a fiery red color, resembling in this respect certain very deadly snakes in Australia, which are known as 'copper snakes.' Travelers speaks of some such pests as still abounding in the region of the Arabah, but it is quite uncertain whether the fiery serpents of that special visitation can be identified with any existing species."
There does not seem to have been any supernatural feature in the punishment God meted out to Israel. If anything supernatural, it was that nobody had fallen victim to snake bites before, because the desert must have harbored a good number of those reptiles. So we can say that Israel's sinful attitude brought out the evil of the land. It is the presence of sin within that makes man susceptible to the influence of the evil that surrounds him. Jesus, who knew no sin, could take upon Himself the sin of the world without being contaminated in His own soul, but man, who is conceived and born in sin, always finds within himself a sounding board for the evil that comes from outside.
The clear miracle in this story is not the plague but the deliverance. When the people show signs of repentance, and ask Moses to intercede for them, we read: "The LORD said to Moses, 'Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.' " It is with this part of the record that Jesus identifies Himself in His conversation with Nicodemus. We read that He said: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."[ 15 ] Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary comments on this passage: "Just as the bronze serpent brought deliverance from poisonous snakes, so the Son of Man would be raised to deliver His people from sin. Just as the Israelites had to look in faith at the bronze serpent to be saved from death, so we must look in faith at the crucified Christ to have eternal life." Jesus' reference to this portion of Scripture has made it into an image of that which is the core of the Gospel message. The bronze serpent was, of course, only a symbol of the evil that had befallen the Israelites; the piece of metal Moses put up on the pole had no intrinsic evil value, or any healing power. Healing came to those bitten as God's answer to their faith. From a medical viewpoint, or any other viewpoint, it is foolishness to expect that looking at a bronze snake from any distance could have any effect upon poison that had penetrated the human bloodstream. We find, therefore, in this story a quadruple spiritual lesson: there is the life threatening power of sin, the identification of Christ with our sinful condition, the redeeming power of Christ's death on the cross, and the meaning of faith, which the Apostle Paul calls "the foolishness of the cross."[ 16 ]
Jesus testified to the people of His time that the Old Testament was written about Him. In John's Gospel we read: " You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me."[ 17 ] But there are very few instances in which Jesus personally identifies Himself with certain Scripture passages. The reference to the bronze snake is one of them, and another one is the elements that were part of the Passover celebration, particularly of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which Jesus gave new meaning in the Lord's supper, by taking the bread, and saying: "Take and eat; this is my body," and with the cup of wine: "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."[ 18 ] There are other references, but they are less direct.
We read nowhere that the Lord exterminated the snakes in answer to Moses' prayer. Undoubtedly, they moved away, and stopped being a threat, but in this instance also, evil was not taken out of the world. God saved from the consequences of sin, but not from the presence of it.
The bronze serpent itself, that was made to provide healing and salvation for those who were dying, became a fetish among the Israelites in later days. Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary says about it: "When the Israelites entered the land of Canaan, they carried the bronze serpent with them and preserved it until the time of Hezekiah, king of Judah (715-686 B. C.). During his religious reform, Hezekiah destroyed the image because it had been turned into an idol which the people regarded with superstitious reverence [2 Kin. 18:4]." The Scripture reference given here reads: "He [Hezekiah] broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)"
According to Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Nehushtan, literally means "bronze serpent-idol," which was the contemptuous name given to it by King Hezekiah.
From these fragments of the history of the bronze serpent left to us, we can see something of the subtlety of the devil in drawing man's focus away from the central truths of God's revelation in order to make him concentrate on the object used instead of on the One who heals and saves. The cross of Christ has not escaped this fate completely either; in certain cases it has become a fetish that absorbs man's attention so that he sees the symbol and not the Lord. We are not saved by "the old rugged cross" but by the Lord who died for us.
We cannot leave this Scripture portion without reminding ourselves of the fact that the devil is often presented in the Bible in the form of a serpent. When he makes his first appearance in Paradise, he showed himself to Eve as a snake, and the book of Revelations calls him "that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray."[ 19 ] This may account for the fact that the word used for snake in this story is not nachash but saraf, which is the same word Isaiah used for the heavenly beings that surround God's throne in Isaiah's vision.[ 20 ] After all, Satan was created as a saraf, and the fact that he fell into sin did not change the glorious aspect of his appearance; only the glory turned into poison.
G. Journey to Moab 21:10-20
The Pulpit Commentary writes above this section The end of journeys, the beginning of victories. We are told that the Israelites pitched their tents at Oboth. Ch. 33:41-43 gives a more complete account of the places where the people rested for shorter or longer periods of time. We read there: "They left Mount Hor and camped at Zalmonah. They left Zalmonah and camped at Punon. They left Punon and camped at Oboth." By circumventing Edom they arrived at Moab, at the Arnon river, which marked the border between the Moabites and the Amorites. The quote from The Book of the Wars of the LORD, supposedly, implies that, in the words of The Pulpit Commentary, that: "the Amorites had wrested from Moab all to the north of Arnon."
What this book was, nobody knows. This is the only instance in the Bible where such a book is mentioned. About this Book of the Wars of the LORD, The Pulpit Commentary writes the following: "Nothing is known of this book but what appears here. If it should seem strange that a book of this description should be already in existence, we must remember that amongst the multitude of Israel there must in the nature of things have been some 'poets' in the then acceptation of the word. Some songs there must have been, and those songs would be mainly inspired by the excitement and triumph of the final marches. The first flush of a new national life achieving its first victories of the national foe always finds expression in songs and odes. It is abundantly evident from the foregoing narrative that writing of some sort was in common use at least among the leaders of Israel …, and they would not have thought it beneath them to collect these spontaneous effusions of a nation just awaking to the poetry of its own existence. The archaic character of the fragments preserved in this chapter, which makes them sound so foreign to our ears, is a strong testimony to their genuineness. It is hardly credible that any one of a later generation should have cared either to compose or to quote snatches of song which, like dried flowers, have lost everything but scientific value in being detached from the soil which gave them birth." I believe the commentary to be right in assuming that the quote was not a later addition to the record by some editor. The contrary rather seems to be the case, that the quote was more extensive and that parts were lost over centuries of copying the text, which makes it less intelligible to us. That Israel could break out in spontaneous song at times of victory is clear from the song of Moses and Miriam after the crossing of the Red Sea on the topic: "The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea."[ 21 ]
There seems to have been a complete change of mood among the people upon their arrival at Beer. We do not read here about any complaint regarding lack of water, although this must have been the case; otherwise God's command in vs. 16: "Gather the people together and I will give them water," would not have made much sense. The way the water was supplied was quite different from some previous occasions. There was no striking of a rock like at Massah and Meribah,[ 22 ] but the people had to dig their own well. Evidently, the leaders of the people gave the good example, since we read in the song, composed for this occasion: "Spring up, O well! Sing about it, about the well that the princes dug, that the nobles of the people sank-- the nobles with scepters and staffs." Whether the princes and nobles literally used their scepters for digging is, of course, very doubtful. The poetry expresses the fact that the leaders laid aside the dignity of their position in order to do the work. The KJV gives a different translation of this verse: "The princes digged the well, the nobles of the people digged it, by the direction of the lawgiver, with their staves." The Pulpit Commentary comments on this with: "The meaning of michokek is disputed,… but in either case the meaning must be practically as in the A.V. It speaks of the alacrity with which the leaders of Israel, Moses himself amongst them, began the work even with the insignia of their office." The main point is that Israel entered upon a new phase in its existence as a nation. The dispensation of miraculous sustenance was ending; soon the manna would no longer come down, and they would have to labor, both in conquering the land, and in making a living in it.
God is always the God of the miraculous, but this does not mean that we will always see miracles happen at every stage in our life. The Almighty does not perform miracles upon demand in order to satisfy our curiosity and sense of sensation. When the people in Jesus' time asked for a miracle, just for the sake of seeing one, the Lord turned them down. In Matthew's Gospel we read: "Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, 'Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.' He answered, 'A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.' "[ 23 ]
God's miracles are always practical; they come when needed. When Israel came out of the desert they no longer needed any water from the rock; they could dig for it. We should commend them for their sense of reality which caused them to burst out in a spontaneous song.
There is a difference between living a life that has its origin in the supernatural, and the occurrence of miracles. God's main means of sustaining our fellowship with Him is through His Word. Often miracles will occur when God's Word is unknown, and people cannot be reached by means of it. We have seen this happen in certain situations on the mission field. In such cases miracles happened to draw people's attention, so the Word could be preached. Where there is a desire for miracles, when God's Word is readily available, we are in grave spiritual danger. When the rich man in Jesus' story of Lazarus said to father Abraham: "I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment," we read: "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "[ 24 ] The Apostle Paul writes: "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."[ 25 ] In the order of revelation God's miracles take second place to God's Word.
It is also obvious from Israel's history that there is no direct link between miracles and faith. People who saw the most astounding miracles happen before their very eyes, did not draw near to God because of it. Jesus reproaches the people of His time that the miracles He performed had no effect upon their souls. In the Gospel of Matthew we read: "Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 'Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.' "[ 26 ] This should not make us afraid of miracles, but we should be aware of the danger of going after miracles and missing the point that God wants to make in our lives.
At vs. 21 the story picks up where it left off at vs. 13. Messengers were sent to Sihon the king of the Amorites to ask for free passage through their territory. Actually, as we have seen before, the land had originally belonged to the Moabites, but had been taken from them by the Amorites. The Pulpit Commentary points out that Amorites were not related to the Israelites as Edom and Moab were. The Amorites were the original inhabitants of Canaan, mentioned by God to Abraham.[ 27 ] The name "Amorites" is sometimes used for the all of the inhabitants of Canaan.[ 28 ]
It seems strange that Israel even offered a possibility for the Amorites to be exempt from extinction by allowing Israel free passage through their territory. Whether this was done by divine mandate or not, we are not told. It does show, though, that the Israelites did not fall upon un-expecting nations without provocation. Their first approach was one of peace. If Sihon had allowed Israel free passage, he would have saved his life and that of his people. It is understandable that he showed suspicion, but his suspicion was probably the reflection of his own unreliability. He could not imagine that Israel would have traveled along the king's highway without robbing the country poor. So he not only refuses, but he attacks Israel with his whole army. Thus he sets the pattern for his own extermination, and also for the whole conquest of Canaan. It seems that the Canaanites could have come to terms with Israel, but their entrenchment into sin would not permit them to do so. Their master, whom they had served faithfully over the centuries, would not allow for surrender. We can say that Satan was more bent upon their extinction than God was. This puts the conquest of Canaan in a different light than that in which we tend to look at it.
In the verses 27-30 we read about another commemoration in song of a historical event. The NIV introduces the poem with: "That is why the poets say." The RSV speaks about "the ballad singers," and the KJV reads: "Wherefore they that speak in proverbs say." The Pulpit Commentary describes those poets: "A class of person well marked among the Hebrews, as perhaps in all ancient countries. It was their gift, and almost their profession, to express in the sententious, antistrophic poetry of the age such thoughts or such facts as took hold of men's minds. At a time when there was little difference between poetry and rhetoric, and when the distinction was hardly drawn between the inventive faculty of man and the Divine afflatus, it is not surprising to find the word mashal applied to the rhapsody of Balaam (ch. xxiii. 7), to the 'taunting song' of Isaiah (ch. xiv. 4) to the 'riddle' of Ezekiel (xvii. 2) as well as to the collection of earthly and heavenly wisdom in the Book of Proverbs. That which follows is a taunting song, most like to the one cited from Isaiah, the archaic character of which is marked by its strongly antithetic form and abrupt transitions, as well as by the peculiarity of some of the words."
The gist of the poem seems to be that Sihon who took the land from Moab, and caused terror among the Moabites, suffered the same fate himself at the hands of Israel. God used Israel to pay him back what he had done to others.
In the poem the Moabites are called "people of Chemosh," which was their idol. Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary writes about Chemosh: "Chemosh [Judg. 11:24; 2 King. 23:13] was the national god of the Moabites and Ammonites. This deity was apparently compounded with Athtar, the Venus star, and so is thought to be a pagan god associated with the heavenly bodies. Chemosh has been identified with Baal of Peor, Baal-Zebub, Mars, and Saturn, as the star of ill-omen. Dibon [Num. 21:30], a town in Moab north of the River Arnon, was the chief seat of its worship. Like Molech, Chemosh was worshipped by the sacrifice of children as burnt offerings, but scholars believe it is incorrect to identify Chemosh directly with Molech. Solomon sanctified Chemosh as a part of his tolerance of pagan gods [1 Kin. 11:7], but Josiah abolished its worship [2 Kin. 23:13]. Human sacrifice was made to Chemosh, according to [2 Kings 3:27], which reports that Mesha, king of Moab, offered his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of Kir Hareseth, the ancient capital of Moab."
When it is said in vs. 31: "So Israel settled in the land of the Amorites," we must probably take this to mean that this territory was included in the land the Israelites occupied when they conquered Canaan. As far as we can see no occupational force was left behind in the land of the Amorites while the main army marched on. The victory over Sihon, however, was the beginning of the conquest. It was a turning point in Israel's history. At this point they left the desert for good and marched toward the land the Lord had promised them.
Sihon's opposition to Israel's advance set the trend for other nations to resist. Og, the king of Bashan mobilized his whole army to attack Israel. Apparently, the forces of Sihon had been small in comparison with the force that Og brought into the field to battle Israel, because the Lord gave a special promise to Moses. Also the fact that Og, and probably his sons were descendants of a race of giants, may have been cause for concern. Nelson' Illustrated Bible Dictionary says about Og: "Og was the last survivor of the race of giants [Deut. 3:11]. His huge iron bedstead was kept on display in Rabbah Ammon long after his death [Deut. 3:11]." The words: "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you, with his whole army and his land," seem to indicate that the nation was apprehensive of this next test of their strength. The victory over Sihon must have been like a rehearsal for the real test that was before them in the form of the formidable army of Og. Apparently, the Lord wanted Israel to receive some training in the field before they engaged in any major battles.
The words: "I have handed him over to you" did not imply that Bashan and its people were handed to Israel on a silver platter. God would give them the victory, but they had to fight for it. There are instances in which the Lord takes complete charge of a situation, and expects His children to stand back and see Him work. To king Jehoshaphat the Lord said: "The battle is not yours, but God's.… You will not have to fight this battle. Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the LORD will give you."[ 29 ]
The victory over Og is reported in one single verse: "So they struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army, leaving them no survivors. And they took possession of his land," but it is doubtful that the victory was as smooth and easy as that. In recounting the event in the book of Deuteronomy, Moses, talking about the cities of Bashan said,: "All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars."[ 30 ]
We have to remember that these first major victories were won by those who had looked at the brass serpent and received healing from the poison that threatened their lives. Once the enemy within is defeated, the enemy without will not be able to stand against us.
[ 1 ]
See Josh. 12:14
[ 2 ]
Ex. 17:8-16
[ 3 ]
See Ex. 17:14
[ 4 ]
See KJV, and TLB
[ 5 ]
Gen. 15:16
[ 6 ]
Joshua 6:20
[ 7 ]
Joshua 10:11
[ 8 ]
Joshua 10:12-14
[ 9 ]
I Cor. 16:22 (KJV)
[ 10 ]
Ps. 139:19-22
[ 11 ]
Rom. 16:20
[ 12 ]
II Cor. 4:4
[ 13 ]
I Tim. 4:3-5
[ 14 ]
I Thes. 5:18
[ 15 ]
John 3:14,15
[ 16 ]
See I Cor. 1:18-24
[ 17 ]
John 5:39
[ 18 ]
Matt. 26:26-28
[ 19 ]
Rev. 12:9
[ 20 ]
See Isa. 6:2
[ 21 ]
Ex. 15:21
[ 22 ]
See Ex. 17:1-7; Num. 20:2-13
[ 23 ]
Matt. 12:38-40
[ 24 ]
Luke 16:27-31
[ 25 ]
Rom. 10:17
[ 26 ]
Matt. 11:20-24
[ 27 ]
See Gen. 15:18-21
[ 28 ]
See Gen. 15:16
[ 29 ]
II Chr. 20:15,17
[ 30 ]
Deut. 3:5
Copyright (c) 1999, 2000
E-sst, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Please see the License at Copyrights for restrictions and limitations
Note: Copyright does not apply to KJV text.
Table of Contents
Copyrights