Judges 11:23

Jdg 11:23 So now the LORD God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and shouldest thou possess it?

Ver. 23. So now the Lord God of Israel hath dispossessed.] He argueth that the land in question is Israel’s out of all question, by a threefold right: (1.) Of conquest; (2.) Of divine donation; (3.) Of prescription. {Jdg 11:25}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jdg 11:23. So now the Lord, &c. — God, the sovereign Lord of all lands, hath given us this land; this he adds, as a further and convincing reason; because otherwise it might have been alleged against the former argument, that they could gain no more right to that land from Sihon, than Sihon himself had. And shouldest thou possess it? — It was absurd to think that they should take pains to conquer it, and God should give it to them, only that they might reinstate the Moabites or Ammonites in the possession of it, with whom they had no alliance.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 23. 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, Jdg 11:26.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(23) Shouldest thou possess it?—Is it likely that Israel would fight battles solely to benefit Ammon and Moab?

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?.... Chemosh was the idol of the Moabites, see Num 21:29, which has led some to think, that the present king of Ammon was also king of Moab, and who insisted on that part of the country, which formerly belonged to Moab, to be delivered to him, as well as that which had belonged to Ammon. Now since the land, which they now inhabited, as well as what they had lost, they had taken away from others, Deu 2:10, having conquered them, and which they ascribed to the help and assistance they had from their idol, and possessed as his gift; Jephthah argues with them "ad hominem", from the less to the greater:

so whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess; we have surely as good a claim to what the Lord our God gives to us in a way of conquest, as you have, or can think you have, to what your idol, as you suppose, has given you: however, what we have got, or get this way, we are determined to possess, and keep possession of.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

His land, which the Amorrhite had first conquered, and which God took from him to give to Israel. It was clear that this country was not then considered as the property of the sons of Lot, since God expressly forbad his people to molest them. (Haydock) --- Jephte produces the right of conquest, the grant of God, and the possession of 300 years, to prove that the country belonged to the Israelites. All acknowledge that the right of conquest, in a just war, give a good title. (Grotius, Jur. iii. 6, 7.) --- The children of Lot had lost all hopes of recovering what Sehon had taken from them. (Calmet) --- He could not be proved to be a thief or an usurper, but was in peaceable possession when the war with Israel commenced, in which he lost all his dominions. (Haydock) --- By the same right, David kept what he had taken from the Amalecite plunderers, (1 Kings xxx. 20,) and Abraham might have retained the spoils which had been carried off from Sodom, Genesis xiv. 21. The Roman and Grecian histories are full of such examples; and this right was admitted by all as the law of nations, Quæ ex hostibus, jure gentium, statim capientium fiunt. (Caius. J. C.) --- The second argument of Jepthe is unanswerable, since God may undoubtedly transfer the property of one to another. But as the Ammonites might reply that they did not admit the God of Israel, he observes that the latter might at least have the same privilege as their Chamos, ver. 24. Prescription of so long a time, with good faith, was the third argument, as the Amorrhites being destroyed, and the Moabites disheartened, could not pretend to reclaim the conquered country. There would never be an end of disputes among men, if the undisturbed possession of a country for such a length of time did not confirm their right to it. These principles establish the tranquillity of families and of states. (Calmet; Grotius, Jur. ii. 4.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

God, the sovereign Lord of all lands, hath given us this land: this he adds, as a further and a convincing reason; because otherwise it might have been alleged against the former argument, that they could gain no more right to that land from Sihon than Sihon himself had, and he had but an unjust claim to it.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23. Shouldest thou possess it — Is it right for thee to seize upon possessions which our God has so signally given to us?

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

So the Lord - God, the sovereign Lord of all lands, hath given us this land; this he adds, as a farther and convincing reason; because otherwise it might have been alledged against the former argument, that they could gain no more right to that land from Sihon, than Sihon himself had.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

General Information:

Jephthah's messengers continue to speak.

should you now take possession of their land?

Jephthah is rebuking the king of the Ammonites with this rhetorical question. The word "their" refers to the Israel. This question can be translated as a statement. AT: "therefore, you should not take possession of their land." (See: Rhetorical Question)

Will you not take over the land that Chemosh, your god, gives you?

Jephthah is rebuking the king of the Ammonites with a rhetorical question. This question can be translated as a statement. AT: "You should only take over the land that Chemosh, your god, gives you." (See: Rhetorical Question)

take over

This is an idiom which means to take control of something. AT: "take control of" or "take possession of" (See: Idiom)

Chemosh

This is the name of a false god. (See: How to Translate Names)

Now are you really better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab?

Jephthah is rebuking the king of the Ammonites with a rhetorical question. This question can be translated as a statement. AT: "You are not better than Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab." (See: Rhetorical Question)

Balak ... Zippor

These are the names of men. (See: How to Translate Names)

Did he dare to have an argument with Israel?

Jephthah is rebuking the king of the Ammonites with a rhetorical question. This question can be translated with a statement. AT: "Yet he did not dare to have an argument with Israel." (See: Rhetorical Question)

Did he ever wage war against them?

Jephthah is rebuking the king of the Ammonites with a rhetorical question. This question can be translated with a statement. AT: "Nor did he ever wage war against them." (See: Rhetorical Question)

translationWords

Yahweh

God

Israel

Amorite

possess

false god

Moab

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.