people Israel, and thou wilt take possession of it (viz., the land of the Amorites).” The suffix to תּירשׁנּוּ refers to האמרי, the Amorites, i.e., their land. The construction of ירשׁ with the accusative of the people (as in Deu 2:12, Deu 2:21-22; Deu 9:1) may be explained on the simple ground, that in order to take possession of a country, it is necessary first of all to get the holders of it into your power. Jephthah then proved still further how unwarrantable the claim of the king of the Ammonites was, and said to him (Jdg 11:24), “Is it not the fact (הלא, nonne), that what thy god Chemosh gives thee for a possession, of that thou takest possession; and all that Jehovah makes ownerless before us, of that we take possession?” - an appeal the validity of which could not be disputed. For Chemosh, see at Num 21:29. The verb הורישׁ combines the three meanings: to drive out of a possession, to deprive of a possessor, and to give for a possession; inasmuch as it is impossible to give a land for a possession without driving away or exterminating its former possessor.
Verses 25-26
But not contenting himself with this conclusive deduction, Jephthah endeavoured to remove the lost appearance of right from the king's claim by a second and equally conclusive argument. “And now art thou better than Balak son of Zippor, the king of Moab? Did he strive (רוב, inf. abs. of ריב or רוּב) with Israel, or did he fight against them?” By the repetition of ועתּה (Jdg 11:25, cf. Jdg 11:23), the new argument is attached to the previous one, as a second deduction from the facts already described. Balak, the king of the Moabites, had indeed bribed Balaam to destroy Israel by his curses; but he did so not so much with the intention of depriving them of the territory of the Amorites which they had conquered, as from the fear that the powerful Israelites might also conquer his still remaining kingdom. Balak had neither made war upon Israel on account of the territory which they had conquered from the Amorites, nor had he put forward any claim to it as his own property, which he certainly might have done with some appearance of justice, as a large portion of it had formerly belonged to the Moabites (see Num 21:26 and the comm. on this passage). If therefore Balak the king of the Moabites never thought of looking upon this land as being still his property, or of asking it back from the Israelites, the king of the Ammonites had no right whatever to lay claim to the land of Gilead as belonging to him, or to take it away from the Israelites by force, especially after the lapse of 300 years. “As Israel dwells in Heshbon, ... and in all the cities by the side of the Arnon for three hundred years, why have ye
