Resultados para: "JABBOK"

<p>Mahanaim--&quot;two hosts,&quot; or &quot;camps.&quot; The place was situated between mount Gilead and the Jabbok, near the banks of that brook.</p>

<p>ford Jabbok--now the Zerka--a stream that rises among the mountains of Gilead, and running from east to west, enters the Jordan, about forty miles south of the Sea of Tiberias. At the ford it is ten yards wide. It is sometimes forded with difficulty; but in summer it is very shallow.

he rose up and took--Unable to sleep, Jacob waded the ford in the night time by himself; and having ascertained its safety, he returned to the north bank and sent over his family and attendants, remaining behind, to seek anew, in silent prayer, the divine blessing on the means he had set in motion.</p>

<p>from Arnon unto Jabbok--now the Zurka. These rivers formed the southern and northern boundaries of his usurped territory.

for the border of . . . Ammon was strong--a reason stated for Sihon not being able to push his invasion further.</p>

<p>when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them--The Ammonites, being kindred to the Moabites, were, from regard to the memory of their common ancestor, to remain undisturbed by the Israelites. The territory of this people had been directly north from that of Moab. It extended as far as the Jabbok, having been taken by them from a number of small Canaanitish tribes, namely, the Zamzummins, a bullying, presumptuous band of giants, as their name indicates; and the Avims, the aborigines of the district extending from Hazerim or Hazeroth (El Hudhera) even unto Azzah (Gaza), but of which they had been dispossessed by the Caphtorim (Philistines), who came out of Caphtor (Lower Egypt) and settled in the western coast of Palestine. The limits of the Ammonites were now compressed; but they still possessed the mountainous region beyond the Jabbok (Jos 11:2). What a strange insight does this parenthesis of four verses give into the early history of Palestine! How many successive wars of conquest had swept over its early state--what changes of dynasty among the Canaanitish tribes had taken place long prior to the transactions recorded in this history!</p>

<p>Rise ye up . . . and pass over the river Arnon--At its mouth, this stream is eighty-two feet wide and four deep. It flows in a channel banked by perpendicular cliffs of sandstone. At the date of the Israelitish migration to the east of the Jordan, the whole of the fine country lying between the Arnon and the Jabbok including the mountainous tract of Gilead, had been seized by the Amorites, who, being one of the nations doomed to destruction (see Deu 7:2; Deu 20:16), were utterly exterminated. Their country fell by right of conquest into the hands of the Israelites. Moses, however, considering this doom as referring solely to the Amorite possessions west of Jordan, sent a pacific message to Sihon, requesting permission to go through his territories, which lay on the east of that river. It is always customary to send messengers before to prepare the way; but the rejection of Moses&#039; request by Sihon and his opposition to the advance of the Israelites (Num 21:23; Jdg 11:26) drew down on himself and his Amorite subjects the predicted doom on the first pitched battlefield with the Canaanites. It secured to Israel not only the possession of a fine and pastoral country, but, what was of more importance to them, a free access to the Jordan on the east.




Next: Deuteronomy Chapter 3</p>

<p>Argob was the capital of a district in Bashan of the same name, which, together with other fifty-nine cities in the same province, were conspicuous for their lofty and fortified walls. It was a war of extermination. Houses and cities were razed to the ground; all classes of people were put to the sword; and nothing was saved but the cattle, of which an immense amount fell as spoil into the hands of the conquerors. Thus, the two Amorite kings and the entire population of their dominions were extirpated. The whole country east of the Jordan--first upland downs from the torrent of the Arnon on the south to that of the Jabbok on the north; next the high mountain tract of Gilead and Bashan from the deep ravine of Jabbok--became the possession of the Israelites.</p>

<p>this land, which we possessed at that time, from Aroer . . . gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites--The whole territory occupied by Sihon was parcelled out among the pastoral tribes of Reuben and Gad. It extended from the north bank of the Arnon to the south half of mount Gilead--a small mountain ridge, now called Djelaad, about six or seven miles south of the Jabbok, and eight miles in length. The northern portion of Gilead and the rich pasture lands of Bashan--a large province, consisting, with the exception of a few bleak and rocky spots, of strong and fertile soil--was assigned to the half-tribe of Manasseh.</p>

<p>of Gad he said--Its possessions were larger than they would have been had they lain west of Jordan; and this tribe had the honor of being settled by Moses himself in the first portion of land conquered. In the forest region, south of the Jabbok, &quot;he dwelt as a lion&quot; (compare Gen 30:11; Gen 49:19). Notwithstanding, they faithfully kept their engagement to join the &quot;heads of the people&quot; [Deu 33:21] in the invasion of Canaan.</p>

<p>he went up thence to Penuel, and spake unto them likewise--a neighboring city, situated also in the territory of Gad, near the Jabbok, and honored with this name by Jacob (Gen 32:30-31).</p>

<p>Gideon went up by the way of them that dwelt in tents on the east--He tracked the fugitives across the mountain range of Gilead to the northeast of the Jabbok, and there came upon them unexpectedly while they were resting secure among their own nomadic tribes. Jogbehah is supposed to be Ramoth-gilead; and, therefore, the Midianites must have found refuge at or near Abela, &quot;Abel-cheramim,&quot; &quot;the plain of the vineyards.&quot;</p>

<p>We have here the treaty between Jephthah, now judge of Israel, and the king of the Ammonites (who is not named), that the controversy between the two nations might, if possible, be accommodated without the effusion of blood.
I. Jephthah, as one having authority, sent to the king of Ammon, who in this war was the aggressor, to demand his reasons for invading the land of Israel: &quot;Why hast thou come to fight against me in my land? Jdg 11:12. Had I come first into thy land to disturb thee in thy possession, this would have been reason enough for fighting against me, for how must force be repelled but by force? but what hast thou to do to come thus in a hostile manner into my land?&quot; so he calls it, in the name both of God and Israel. Now this fair demand shows, 1. That Jephthah did not delight in war, though he was a mighty man of valour, but was willing to prevent it by a peaceable accommodation. If he could by reason persuade the invaders to retire, he would not compel them to do it by the sword. War should be the last remedy, not to be used till all other methods of ending matters in variance have been tried in vain, ratio ultima regum - the last resource of kings. This rule should be observed in going to law. The sword of justice, as well as the sword of war, must not be appealed to till the contending parties have first endeavoured by gentler means to understand one another, and to accommodate matters in variance, Co1 6:1. 2. That Jephthah did delight in equity, and designed no other than to do justice. If the children of Ammon could convince him that Israel had done them wrong, he was ready to restore the rights of the Ammonites. If not, it was plain by their invasion that they did Israel wrong, and he was ready to maintain the rights of the Israelites. A sense of justice should guide and govern us in all our undertakings.
II. The king of the Ammonites now gives in his demand, which he should have published before he had invaded Israel, Jdg 11:13. His pretence is, &quot;Israel took away my lands long since; now therefore restore those lands.&quot; We have reason to think the Ammonites, when they made this descent upon Israel, meant no other than to spoil and plunder the country, and enrich themselves with the prey, as they had done formerly under Eglon (Jdg 3:13) when no such demand as this was made, though the matter was then fresh; but when Jephthah demanded the cause of their quarrel, and they could not for shame own what was their true intent and meaning, some old musty records were searched, or some ancient traditions enquired into, and from them this reason was drawn to serve the present turn, for a colourable pretence of equity in the invasion. Even those that do the greatest wrong yet have such a conviction in their consciences of justice that they would seem to do right. Restore those lands. See upon what uncertain terms we hold our worldly possessions; what we think we have the surest hold of may be challenged from us, and wrested out of our hands. Those that have got to the heavenly Canaan need not fear having their titles questioned.
III. Jephthah gives in a very full and satisfactory answer to this demand, showing it to be altogether unjust and unreasonable, and that the Ammonites had no title to this country that lay between the rivers Arnon and Jabbok, now in the possession of the tribes of Reuben and Gad. As one very well versed in the history of his country, he shows,
1. That Israel never took any land away either from the Moabites or Ammonites. He puts them together because they were brethren, the children of Lot, near neighbours, and of united interests, having the same god, Chemosh, and perhaps sometimes the same king. The lands in question Israel took away, not from the Moabites or Ammonites (they had particular orders from God not to meddle with them nor any thing they had, Deu 2:9, Deu 2:19, and religiously observed their orders), but they found them in the possession of Sihon king of the Amorites, and out of his hand they took them justly and honourably, as he will show afterwards. If the Amorites, before Israel came into that country, had taken these lands from the Moabites or Ammonites, as it should seem they had (Num 21:26; Jos 13:25), Israel was not concerned to enquire into that or answer for it. If the Ammonites had lost these lands and their title to them, the children of Israel were under no obligation to recover the possession for them. Their business was to conquer for themselves, not for other people. This is his first plea, &quot;Not guilty of the trespass.&quot;
2. That they were so far from invading the property of any other nations than the devoted posterity of cursed Canaan (one of the branches of which the Amorites were, Gen 10:16) that they would not so much as force a passage through the country either of the Edomites, the seed of Esau, or of the Moabites, the seed of Lot; but even after a very tedious march through the wilderness, with which they were sadly tired (Jdg 11:16), when the king of Edom first, and afterwards the king of Moab, denied them the courtesy of a way through their country (Jdg 11:17), rather than give them any offence or annoyance, weary as they were, they put themselves to the further fatigue of compassing both the land of Edom and that of Moab, and came not within the border of either, Jdg 11:18. Note, Those that behave themselves inoffensively may take the comfort of it, and plead it against those that charge them with injustice and wrong doing. Our righteousness will answer for us in time to come (Gen 30:33) and will put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, Pe1 2:15.
3. That in that war in which they took this land out of the hands of Sihon king of the Amorites he was the aggressor, and not they, Jdg 11:19, Jdg 11:20. They sent a humble petition to him for leave to go through his land, willing to give him any security for their good behaviour in their march. &quot;Let us pass (say they) unto our place, that is, to the land of Canaan, which is the only place we call ours, and to which we are pressing forward, not designing a settlement here.&quot; But Sihon not only denied them this courtesy, as Edom and Moab had done (had he only done so, who knows but Israel might have gone about some other way?) but he mustered all his forces, and fought against Israel (Jdg 11:20), not only shut them out of his own land, but would have cut them off from the face of the earth (Num 21:23, Num 21:24), aimed at nothing less than their ruin, Jdg 11:20. Israel therefore, in their war with him, stood in their own just and necessary defence, and therefore, having routed his army, might justly, in further revenge of the injury, seize his country as forfeited. Thus Israel came to the possession of this country, and doubted not to make good their title to it; and it is very unreasonable for the Ammonites to question their title, for the Amorites were the inhabitants of that country, and it was purely their land and their coasts that the Israelites then made themselves masters of, Jdg 11:21, Jdg 11:22.
4. He pleads a grant from the crown, and claims under that, Jdg 11:23, Jdg 11:24. It was not Israel (they were fatigued with their long march, and were not fit for action so soon), but it was the Lord God of Israel, who is King of nations, whose the earth is and the fulness thereof, he it was that dispossessed the Amorites and planted Israel in their room. God gave them the land by an express and particular conveyance, such as vested the title in them, which they might make good against all the world. Deu 2:24, I have given into thy hand Sihon and his land; he gave it to them, by giving them a complete victory over the present occupants, notwithstanding the great disadvantages they were under. &quot;Can you think that God gave it to us in such an extraordinary manner with design that we should return it to the Moabites or Ammonites again? No, we put a higher value upon God&#039;s favours than to part with them so easily.&quot; To corroborate this plea, he urges an argument ad hominem - directed to the man: Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee? He not only appeals to the common resolutions of men to hold their own against all the world, but to the common religion of the nations, which, they thought, obliged them to make much of that which their gods gave them. Not that Jephthah thought Chemosh a god, only he is thy god, and the worshippers even of those dunghill deities that could do neither good nor evil yet thought themselves beholden to them for all they had (Hos 2:12, These are my rewards which my lovers have given me; and see Jdg 16:24) and made this a reason why they would hold it fast, that their gods gave it to them. &quot;This thou thinkest a good title, and shall not we?&quot; The Ammonites had dispossessed those that dwelt in their land before them; they thought they did it by the help of Chemosh their god, but really it was Jehovah the God of Israel that did it for them, as is expressly said, Deu 2:19, Deu 2:21. &quot;Now,&quot; says Jephthah, &quot;we have as good a title to our country as you have to yours.&quot; Note, One instance of the honour 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. He has given it to us to possess, not to enjoy. He himself only must be enjoyed.
5. He pleads prescription. (1.) Their title had not been disputed when they first entered upon it, Jdg 11:25. &quot;Balak who was then king of Moab, from whom the greatest part of these lands had been taken by the Amorites, and who was most concerned and best able to oppose us, if he had had any thing to object against our settlement there, yet sat still, and never offered to strive against Israel.&quot; He knew that for his own part he had fairly lost it to the Amorites and was not able to recover it, and could not but acknowledge that Israel had fairly won it of the Amorites, and therefore all his care was to secure what was left: he never pretended a title to what was lost. See Num 22:2, Num 22:3. &quot;He then acquiesced in God&#039;s way of disposing of kingdoms, and wilt not thou now?&quot; (2.) Their possession had never yet been disturbed, Jdg 11:26. He pleads that they had kept this country as their own now about 300 years, and the Ammonites in all that time had never attempted to take it from them, no, not when they had it in their power to oppress them, Jdg 3:13, Jdg 3:14. So that, supposing their title had not been clear at the first (which yet he had proved it was), yet, no claim having been made for so many generations, the entry of the children of Ammon, without doubt, was barred for ever. A title so long unquestioned shall be presumed unquestionable.
6. By these arguments Jephthah justifies himself and his own cause (&quot;I have not sinned against thee in taking or keeping what I have no right to; if I had, I would instantly make restitution&quot;), and condemns the Ammonites: &quot;Thou doest me wrong to war against me, and must expect to speed accordingly,&quot; Jdg 11:27. It seems to me an evidence that the children of Israel, in the days of their prosperity and power (for some such days they had in the times of the judges) had conducted themselves very inoffensively to all their neighbours and had not been vexatious or oppressing to them (either by way of reprisal or under colour of propagating their religion), that the king of the Ammonites, when he would seek an occasion of quarrelling with them, was forced to look 300 years back for a pretence. It becomes the people of God thus to be blameless and harmless, and without rebuke.
7. For the deciding of the controversy, he puts himself upon God and his sword, and the king of Ammon joins issue with him (Jdg 11:27, Jdg 11:28): The Lord the Judge be judge this day. With this solemn reference of the matter to the Judge of heaven and earth he designs either to deter the Ammonites from proceeding and oblige them to retire, when they saw the right of the cause was against them, or to justify himself in subduing them if they should go on. Note, 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 hereby requested to determine them. If manifest rights be invaded or denied, he is hereby applied to for the vindicating of what is just and the punishing of wrong. As the sword of justice was made for lawless and disobedient persons (Ti1 1:9), so was the sword of war made 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 patronise unrighteousness.
Neither Jephthah&#039;s apology, nor his appeal, wrought upon the king of the children of Ammon; they had found the sweets of the spoil of Israel, in the eighteen years wherein they had oppressed them (Jdg 10:8), and hoped now to make themselves masters of the tree with the fruit of which they had so often enriched themselves. He hearkened not to the words of Jephthah, his heart being hardened to his destruction.</p>

<p>ABNER MAKES ISH-BOSHETH KING OVER ISRAEL. (Sa2 2:8-17)

Abner the son of Ner, captain of Saul&#039;s host took Ish-bosheth--Here was the establishment of a rival kingdom, which, however, would probably have had no existence but for Abner.

Ish-bosheth--or &quot;Esh-baal&quot; (Ch1 8:33; Ch1 9:39). The Hebrews usually changed names ending with Baal into Bosheth (&quot;shame&quot;) (compare Jdg 9:53 with Sa2 11:21). This prince was so called from his imbecility.

Abner--was first cousin of Saul, commander of the forces, and held in high respect throughout the country. Loyalty to the house of his late master was mixed up with opposition to David and views of personal ambition in his originating this factious movement. He, too, was alive to the importance of securing the eastern tribes; so, taking Ish-bosheth across the Jordan, he proclaimed him king at Mahanaim, a town on the north bank of the Jabbok, hallowed in patriarchal times by the divine presence (Gen 32:2). There he rallied the tribes around the standard of the unfortunate son of Saul.</p>

<p>the city of waters--Rabbah, like Aroer, was divided into two parts--one the lower town, insulated by the winding course of the Jabbok, which flowed almost round it, and the upper and stronger town, called the royal city. &quot;The first was taken by Joab, but the honor of capturing so strongly a fortified place as the other was an honor reserved for the king himself.&quot;</p>

<p>In the plain of Jordan did the king cast them--Zarthan, or Zaretan (Jos 3:16), or Zartanah (Kg1 4:12), or Zeredathah (Ch2 4:17), was on the bank of the Jordan in the territories of western Manasseh. Succoth was situated on the eastern side of Jordan, at the ford of the river near the mouth of the Jabbok. One reason assigned by commentators for the castings being made there is, that at such a distance from Jerusalem that city would not be annoyed by the smoke and noxious vapors necessarily occasioned by the process. [Note in Bagster&#039;s Bible.] But the true reason is to be found in the nature of the soil; Margin, &quot;the thickness of the ground.&quot; That part of the Jordan valley abounds with marl. Clay and sand are the moulding material still used for bronze. Such large quantities of metal as one of these castings would contain could not be fused in one furnace, but would require a series of furnaces, especially for such a casting as the brazen sea--the whole series of furnaces being filled with metal, and fused at one time, and all tapped together, and the metal let run into the mould. Thus a national foundry was erected in the plain of Jordan [NAPIER].</p>

<p>Jeroboam built Shechem--destroyed by Abimelech (Jdg. 9:1-49). It was rebuilt, and perhaps fortified, by Jeroboam, as a royal residence.

built Penuel--a ruined city with a tower (Jdg 8:9), east of Jordan, on the north bank of the Jabbok. It was an object of importance to restore this fortress (as it lay on the caravan road from Gilead to Damascus and Palmyra) and to secure his frontier on that quarter.</p>

<p>cedars . . . oaks--image for haughty nobles and princes (Amo 2:9; Zac 11:1-2; compare Rev 19:18-21).

Bashan--east of Jordan, north of the river Jabbok, famous for fine oaks, pasture, and cattle. Perhaps in &quot;oaks&quot; there is reference to their idolatry (Isa 1:29).</p>

<p>With united forces they shall subdue their foes (Amo 9:12).

fly--as a bird of prey (Hab 1:8).

upon the shoulders--This expresses an attack made unexpectedly on one from behind. The image is the more apt, as the Hebrew for &quot;shoulders&quot; in Num 34:11 is used also of a maritime coast (&quot;side of the sea&quot;: Hebrew, &quot;shoulder of the sea,&quot; Margin). They shall make a sudden victorious descent upon their borders southwest of Judea.

them of the east--Hebrew, &quot;children of the East,&quot; the Arabs, who, always hostile, are not to be reduced under regular government, but are only to be despoiled (Jer 49:28-29).

lay . . . hand upon--take possession of (Dan 11:42).

Edom--south of Judah, from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea; &quot;Moab&quot;--east of Jordan and the Dead Sea.

Ammon--east of Judea, north of Moab, between the Arnon and Jabbok.</p>

<p>cities of Aroer--that is, the cities round Aroer, and under its jurisdiction [GESENIUS]. So &quot;cities with their villages&quot; (Jos 15:44); &quot;Heshbon and all her cities&quot; (Jos 13:17). Aroer was near Rabbahammon, at the river of Gad, an arm of the Jabbok (Sa2 24:5), founded by the Gadites (Num 32:34).

for flocks-- (Isa 5:17).</p>

<p>no more praise-- (Isa 16:14).

in Heshbon--The foe having taken Heshbon, the chief city of Moab (Jer 48:45), in it devise evil against Moab (&quot;it&quot;) saying, Come,&quot; &amp;c. Heshbon was midway between the rivers Arnon and Jabbok; it was the residence of Sihon, king of the Amorites, and afterwards a Levitical city in Gad (Num 21:26). There is a play on words in the Hebrew, &quot;Heshbon, Hashbu.&quot; Heshbon means a place of devising or counsel. The city, heretofore called the seat of counsel, shall find other counsellors, namely, those who devise its destruction.

thou shall be cut down . . . Madmen--rather, by a play on words on the meaning of madmen (&quot;silence&quot;), Thou shalt be brought to silence, so as well to deserve thy name (Isa 15:1). Thou shalt not dare to utter a sound.</p>

<p>Gilead . . . city--probably Ramoth-gilead, metropolis of the hilly region beyond Jordan, south of the Jabbok, known as &quot;Gilead&quot; (Kg1 4:13; compare Gen 31:21-25).

work iniquity-- (Hos 12:11).

polluted with blood--&quot;marked with blood-traces&quot; [MAURER]. Referring to Gilead&#039;s complicity in the regicidal conspiracy of Pekah against Pekahiah (Kg2 15:25). See on Hos 6:1. Many homicides were there, for there were beyond Jordan more cities of refuge, in proportion to the extent of territory, than on this side of Jordan (Num 35:14; Deu 4:41-43; Jos 20:8). Ramoth-gilead was one.</p>