Judges 11 25

Judges 11:25 kjv

And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? did he ever strive against Israel, or did he ever fight against them,

Judges 11:25 nkjv

And now, are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever strive against Israel? Did he ever fight against them?

Judges 11:25 niv

Are you any better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever quarrel with Israel or fight with them?

Judges 11:25 esv

Now are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever contend against Israel, or did he ever go to war with them?

Judges 11:25 nlt

Are you any better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he try to make a case against Israel for disputed land? Did he go to war against them?

Judges 11 verses

Judges 11 25 Meaning

Judges 11:25 serves as a rhetorical question posed by Jephthah, the leader of Israel, to the king of the Ammonites. Jephthah challenges the Ammonite king's legitimacy in claiming Israelite territory by drawing a parallel to Balak, the ancient king of Moab. The implication is that even Balak, a powerful historical enemy who encountered Israel during their wilderness wanderings, did not succeed in contending for or fighting to take Israel's land. Therefore, the Ammonite king, who faces a divinely established and long-held possession, has even less justification or power to assert such a claim. This verse underscores Israel's secure possession of the land, attributed to divine grant rather than human conquest alone.

Judges 11 25 Context

Judges 11 recounts Jephthah's leadership against the Ammonites. Earlier in the chapter, the Ammonites were oppressing Israel. The elders of Gilead approached Jephthah, an outcast, to lead them. Before engaging in battle, Jephthah attempts diplomacy with the Ammonite king (vv. 12-28). His long, detailed message is a historical and theological argument for Israel's legitimate claim to the land. Jephthah meticulously recaps the events of the Exodus, the journey through Transjordan, and the conquest of the Amorite king Sihon (not Moab or Ammon) as the means by which Israel acquired the disputed territory. Verse 25 fits squarely within this diplomatic exchange. Jephthah appeals to ancient history, demonstrating that even Balak of Moab did not successfully fight for or conquer this land, underscoring the baselessness of the Ammonite king's current claim. This challenge highlights that Israel's possession was divinely sanctioned and enduring.

Judges 11 25 Word analysis

• Now (Hebrew: עַתָּה, attah): This serves as a transition word, meaning "at this time," "then," or "therefore." It signals that what follows is a direct application or logical continuation of the preceding historical argument about Israel's passage through Transjordan and the conquest of Sihon. It sets up a critical rhetorical shift in Jephthah's address.

• are you any better (Hebrew: הֲטוֹב֙ אַתָּ֣ה, hă·ṭō·wḇ ’at·tāh): This is a direct rhetorical question meaning "Are you superior?" or "Are you more effective?" The implied answer is a resounding "No." טוֹב (tov) here carries the sense of being "better" or "more powerful/successful." Jephthah challenges the Ammonite king's capability and authority to succeed where a previous adversary failed.

• than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab? (Hebrew: מִבָּלָ֤ק בֶּן־צִפּוֹר֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ מוֹאָ֔ב, mib·bā·lāq ben-ṣip·pōwr me·leḵ mow·’āḇ): Balak was the king of Moab who famously tried to induce Balaam to curse Israel as they passed through his region (Numbers 22-24). His name and title explicitly anchor Jephthah's argument in well-known biblical history. Balak's significance lies not in a military conquest against Israel over land, but in his failure to oppose them effectively through supernatural means, implying that direct military confrontation would also have failed. This historical precedent undermines the Ammonite claim.

• Did he ever contend against Israel, or did he ever fight against them? (Hebrew: הֶֽהֶעָרֵ֥ב הִֽתְעָרֵ֖ב עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אוֹ־הֶֽלָחַם֙ לָחַ֣ם בָּֽם׃, he·he·‘ā·rêḇ hiṯ·‘ā·rêḇ ‘im-yiś·rā·’êl ’ōw-he·lā·ḥam lā·ḥam bām)

  • contend (Hebrew: הִתְעָרֵ֖ב, hit‘arev from עָרַב, ʿarav): This verb suggests engaging in a contest, mixing oneself up in battle, or being a challenger. Jephthah uses it to imply that Balak never actually mounted a direct, aggressive military challenge over this territory. Balak's approach was through curses, not land-seizing warfare.
  • fight (Hebrew: לָחַ֣ם, laḥam): This verb specifically means "to wage war, do battle." Jephthah uses this double phrasing (contend... fight) for emphasis. He is highlighting Balak's fundamental lack of success or even direct military engagement to forcibly remove Israel from this land, or claim it, despite Balak's clear animosity towards Israel.

• Word Group: "Now are you any better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab?": This rhetorical question establishes a comparative framework. It directly challenges the Ammonite king's self-perception of strength or rightful claim. By invoking Balak, a formidable (though ultimately unsuccessful) adversary from the distant past, Jephthah positions the Ammonite king as acting in opposition to divine decree, and effectively warns him that his attempts will be no more fruitful than Balak's were. It implicitly questions the Ammonite king's wisdom and even historical knowledge.

• Word Group: "Did he ever contend against Israel, or did he ever fight against them?": This double rhetorical question serves to emphatically underscore the lack of military success from a historical opponent concerning land claims. It reminds the Ammonite king that Balak’s opposition was overcome by God without Israel having to fight for the land against Moab directly in a territorial conflict. This specific framing distinguishes Balak's general animosity from a territorial war over the land. Jephthah points out that even an ancient, powerful, and hostile king like Balak never made a successful military land-claim over this region, strengthening Israel's 300-year occupation.

Judges 11 25 Bonus section

• Jephthah's detailed historical exposition (vv. 15-26), culminating in verse 25, reveals his strong grasp of Israel's national identity rooted in God's actions and the Law of Moses. He wasn't just a military leader, but a defender of Israel's divinely given rights.
• This verse contains a subtle polemic against the Ammonite god Chemosh (mentioned in v. 24). Jephthah contrasts the ineffectiveness of Balak (and by extension, the gods he might have served to his human and supernatural means) with the unwavering faithfulness and power of YHWH, who consistently grants and secures Israel's land. If Chemosh could grant land, why had Ammon not successfully challenged Israel's possession previously, and why could Balak not achieve what this Ammonite king now desires?
• The fact that Balak's primary method was spiritual/magical (through Balaam) rather than direct military confrontation against Israel over this specific territory makes Jephthah's point even stronger. Balak effectively outsourced his war, which failed, making a physical war now appear even more futile for the Ammonites.
• The historical event Jephthah cites also emphasizes that the land was taken from the Amorites (Sihon), not the Ammonites or Moabites directly, as clarified in earlier verses (vv. 21-23). This distinction is crucial to Jephthah's argument of lawful possession.

Judges 11 25 Commentary

Judges 11:25 encapsulates Jephthah's powerful appeal to history and divine precedent in his diplomatic overture to the Ammonite king. He strategically contrasts the Ammonite king's belligerent claim with the actions of Balak of Moab. Balak, though deeply hostile to Israel, never waged a direct territorial war for this particular land; his efforts were confined to supernatural attempts to curse Israel, which were thwarted by the God of Israel Himself. Jephthah highlights that if Balak, under far less provocation (Israel merely passing through) and with potent, though ultimately futile, magical assistance, failed to dislodge Israel or seize this land, then the Ammonite king's current aggression, after 300 years of Israelite occupation, is not only baseless but presumptuous. This argument solidifies Israel's claim based on God's sovereignty over the land and its longstanding peaceful, divinely-sanctioned possession. It serves as a stern warning rooted in the demonstrable power of YHWH in Israel's history.