Isaiah chapter 15

CHAPTER XV.

The Burden of Moab.

ISAIAH’S fifteenth and sixteenth chapters introduce “ the burden of Moab,” or “ oracle concerning Moab,” a message which not only speaks of the proximate judgment to come upon the nation, but of its latter-day policy in relation to the house of Israel.

All things are for Israel’s sake ; and the surrounding nations acquire importance in human annals only as they find place in the divine purpose to “ restore again the kingdom to Israel.” Of Moab, Ammon and the other neighbouring kingdoms to Israel the prophets often speak, and the history of Israel shews them sometimes subdued by Israel, and sometimes, on account of Israel’s iniquities, prevailing over them and bringing them into subjection—sometimes corrupting them in their faith and practice and at others repudiated by the faithful leaders of the nation, who, like Nehemiah, would tolerate no half measures in the separateness that God enjoined.

Moab and Ammon were related to Israel. Lot was the nephew of Abraham, and these his two sons by his daughters under the circumstances recorded in Gen. xix. The very names, Moab (from a father) and Ammon (Ben-ammi, son of my people), memorialize this forever. In judging of it, it has to be remem­bered that though wrong was manifestly done, as the narrative recognises, the law of those times, expressing the will of God in the matter, which is the only final standard of right and wrong, is not on record, and that, therefore, we must not be too hasty in judging of it on the basis of subsequent revelations of God’s will. Further, Lot was betrayed into the action through wine, while on the part of his daughters the motive appears to have been patriotic rather than otherwise.

Wellhausen risks the extraordinary suggestion that these last few verses of Gen. xix. are a malicious concoction of Israelitish origin. He says of “ the Israelites ” : “ With what bitterness the latter . . . were wont to speak of their hostile kinsfolk can be gathered from Gen. xix. 30, sqq.—the one trace of open malice in the story of the patriarchs, and all the more striking as it occurs in a narrative of which Lot is the hero and saint, which, therefore, in its present form is of Moabite origin, although, perhaps, it has a still older Canaanite nucleus.”

This is another example of learned fiounderings consequent on rejecting the fact that Genesis is “ Moses’ writing,” Christ being witness. In one breath the professor gives us Gen. xix. 30, sqq., as an example of the (late) bitter and malicious speeches of “ the Israelites,” and at the same time as f in its present form of Moabitish origin ’ ! Which is it ? And if “ Moabitish, ’ why, then, the “ malice ” ? Would Moabites write thus disrespectfully of the origin of their nation ? and in a writing which sought to glorify Lot their ancestor as “ a hero and a saint ” ? As the professor says, it is certainly " striking ” ! But the very name Moab testifies at once to the truth and antiquity of Gen. xix., for his descendants were a nation in the days of Moses. Professor Sayce has justified the reaction that is setting in in favour of “ the traditional view ” as against the views of the higher criticism. Loyalty to Christ, on the basis of truth and common sense, necessitates the same conclusion.

Since “ whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our leaning,” (i.e., for the learning, of course, of all genera­tions of the past who may have come after the writing), there must be some good reason why the record of the origin of Moab and Ammon has been divinely given and preserved. Repudiating the theological professor’s reckless suggestion of its being a mere malicious story (Israelitish or Moabitish, as you like it), what may be the lesson to be learned ?

The children of Israel, who in Moses’ time came to grief over the daughters of Moab, and who in subsequent genera­tions were frequently coriupted with Moabitish idolatry, would always have before them in this memorial the origin of their seducers, and the warning that under the influence of wine so ministered, even a righteous man might be moved to do things which, in his sober senses, he would not dream of.

As to those who make a stumbling-block of the narrative, and condemn the Bible for containing it, their attitude is of no great consequence (except to themselves). They had better condemn the world in which they live, and come on to the side of the Bible. Their understanding would then be enlarged, and a kingdom open up to them, into which there shall enter nothing that defileth.

The country of Moab was situated east of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; and its chief cities were Ar and Kir, Dibon and other places mentioned in Isaiah xv. and elsewhere. It was the territory allotted to Reuben, who, being “ unstable as water ” (Gen. xlix. 3-4), did “ not excel,” as Jacob, on his death-bed, had prophesied. Reuben does not appear to have held his portion with any great tenacity, and was among the first of the ten tribes to be carried away captive to Assyria, by Tilgath Pilneser. Situated as it was, it was inevitable that Moab should exercise great influence on Israel, and evil influence as it turned out. Of the personal history of Lot’s two sons, Moab and Ammon, we hear nothing, nor of the early history of their descendants. Between four and five hundred years elapsed between the overthrow of Sodom and the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, and their first contact with Moab. Out of this silence of centuries the descendants of Lot emerge as an idolatrous state, subject to the Amorite of the immediate north. They were now “ the people of Chemosh."

In the history of Israel’s defeat of Sihon (Num. xxi.), and occupation of Heshbon his capital, the following explanatory note is dropped in : “ For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand even unto Arnon. Wherefore they that speak in proverbs say, Come into Heshbon, let the city of Sihon be built and prepared: for there is a fire gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon : it hath consumed Ar of Moab, and the lords of the high places of Arnon. Woe to thee, Moab i thou art undone, 0 people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped and his daughters into captivity unto Sihon king of the Amorites. We have shot at them. Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah which reacheth unto Medeba.”

Besides being a valuable illustration of the parabolic speech of the scriptures, found also in Isaiah xv., Jer. xlviii., and elsewhere, this also explains to us the intimate connection between the Amorites, Moabites, Ammonites, and Midianites. We must remember that in the early scriptures we deal with fragments of history of peoples related to Israel, and that their various conquests, annexa­tions, alliances, etc., are not designed to appear in complete sequence, the historical fragments being only introduced into Israel’s history as side lights according to the divine purpose. Forgetfulness of this may lead to misconceptions and misunder­standings.

Following the account of the conquest of Sihon is that of the disastrous connection of Israel with Moab by the evil counsel of Balaam, after God had made him bless Israel instead of cursing them as Balak desired (Num. xxxi. 16; Rev. ii. 14). Balak was king of Moab at that time and sent to Mesopotamia for Balaam to curse Israel. The history of his journey to Moab and his experience and prophecies there is detailed at length in Numbers xxii.-xxiv. Upon his arrival Balak took him “ up into the high places of Baal, that thence he might see the uttermost part of the people ” (Israel).

Though a bad man, who “ loved the wages of unrighteous­ness,” the spirit of God compelled him to bless Israel, and that with increasing emphasis on every occasion. I cannot curse, said he, those whom God has not cursed. The people (Israel) shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations. “ Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like h*s. Balak, dismayed, suggested another trial from a different spot, but it only provoked the assurance that “ God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent. And further, Balaam was made to declare that Jacob as a great ISA. XV.] lion should rise up to the prey and not lie down unsatisfied. A third trial on Balak’s part only brought greater blessing still on Israel, whose king should be “higher than Agag,” and his kingdom greatly exalted. Then Balak was wroth and dismissed Balaam in anger ; whereupon Balaam, before departing, “ adver­tised ” him as to “ what this people shall do to thy people in the latter days ” (Num. xxiv. 14).

Then follows Balaam’s striking prophecy of the latter-day smiting of Moab by the Star of Jacob (Rev. xxii. 16), whom he declared he should see “ but not nigh.” Then Israel was to “ do valiantly,” for to Jacob pertained the “ dominion ” in the hands of the King of the whole earth, before whom the rival “ city ” should fall. It is probable that the fall import of Balaam’s prophecy will not be seen until he himself is before the Star of Jacob, to encounter the dreadful experience of rejection at his hands, in exemplification of his own prophetic lamentation (verse 23) : “ Alas, who shall live when God doeth this ? ”

The next chapter in Numbers (ch. xxv.) tells of Israel’s committing whoredom and idolatry with the daughters of Moab, which a later chapter explains was by “ the counsel of Balaam.” The resulting plague from God was only stayed by the “ extreme ” action of Phinehas, who slew a Prince of Israel and a Princess of Moab with his own hand, after 24,000 had died of the plague. Afterwards, we learn (Num. xxxi.) how God commanded Moses to avenge Israel of the Midianites, and how Moses deputed Phinehas to conduct the expedition with 12,000 Israelites, and how they slew the Kings of Midian, and also “ Balaam, the son of Beor, they slew with the sword ” (v. 8). Balaam in Moabitish intrigue against the way of God in Israel, is a type (Rev. ii. 14); and ^is end in the war against Midian of the 12,000, who came through without the loss of a man (Num. xx;. *9). is also typical of what may be expected in the days of vengeance coming, when the Star of Jacob and his 144,000 (Rev. xiv.) carry judgment into the land of the enemy “ as in the day of Midian.”

It was in “ the plains of Moab, by Jordan, near Jericho ” that the second census of Israel was taken at God’s command by Moses, disclosing the dreadful fact that in thirty-eight years the number of the effective men of war in Israel had decreased by 1,820 men, and that not a man had survived from the first census save Caleb and Joshua.

It was upon the mountains of Moab that Moses, bv God’s commandment, went up to die after viewing the Land of Promise, into which he was not permitted to lead Israel because of his trespass at the waters of Meribah Kadesh. “ So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab according to the word of the Lord And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth Peor; but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day ” (Deut. xxxiv. 5). Brief, solemn, majestic record. How superhuman ! Coupled with the vision upon the Mount of Transfiguration, what memories it wakes ! What glorious hopes, coupled with fears and tremblings, it arouses !

Joshua brought Israel into the Land; and after Joshua came the Judges, in whose days Moab arises in dominion over Israel because of transgression. “ The children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord ; and the Lord strengthened Eglon, the King of Moab, against Israel, because they had done evil in the sight of the Lord. And he gathered unto him the children of Ammon and Amalek, and went and smote Israel, and possessed the city of palm trees. So the children of Israel served Eglon, the King of Moab, eighteen vears ” (Judges iii. 12-14). From this servitude they were delivered by Ehud, the Benjamite, whom God raised up to deliver them when they cried unto Him. After this the land enjoyed eighty years rest.

But Israel afterwards, in the davs of Jephthah the Gileadite, had relapsed into the old Moabitish and Ammonitish idolatry (Judges x. xi.). At this time the message from God was : Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen, let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation ” (Judges x. 14). But “ the gods of Moab ” were of no avail in such a case, and Israel the burden of moab. 

ISA. XV-confessed their sins, and, putting them away, “served the Lord” who was “grieved for the misery of Israel.” He then raised up Jephthah, whose diplomatic communications with the . • of Ammon (who desired the peaceable restoration of the Moabite and Ammonite territories) introduced a factor little considered in modern diplomacy, namely, the wall of the God of Israel concerning His nation’s possession of the Land of Promise.

The main line of Jephthah’s argument was this :  “ Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon.” They simply desired a peaceable passage through ; but when they were refused and Sihon declared war against them, God delivered them into their hand. “ So nowr the Lord God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before His people Israel, and shouldest thou possess it ? Wilt thou not possess that which Chemosh thy God giveth thee to possess ? So whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess ” (Judges xi.). And Jephthah committed the issue to God, wdth the result, as the chapter shows, of discrediting Chemosh and sub­duing his people. This is an illustration of one of many such issues created in the history of Israel, and throws light on the prophecies concerning Moab that found fulfilment in later times, being made to know God by the judgment that He wall execute.

Like a gem among rubbish, there next appears to us, in our glance over the history of Moab, the figure of Ruth the Moabitess. Israel in apostasy had served the gods of Moab, and Moab’s daughters had corrupted them; but here was a bright exception, “ Thy sister-in-law is gone back unto her people and unto her gods ; return thou,” said Naomi to her. “ But Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee : for whither thou goest I will go : and where thou lodgest I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.” And so this Moabitish woman came into Israel and obtained the blessing of Boaz: “ The Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.” Some of the recompense and reward appears already in the history, for Ruth was united Boaz in marriage, and her son Obed was the grandfather f David; and thus Ruth the Moabitess finds mention in the genealogy of Messiah (Matt. i. 5). When the Lord ** brin® again the captivity of Moab ” in the latter days, the fulness of Ruth’s “ recompense of the reward ” will doubtless appear Her history is a great encouragement for all Gentile women who in after times have come to “ trust in the Lord God of Israel.”

After this Saul conquered Moab and Ammon (1 Sam. xiv 47). A little later David, in distress before Saul, secured pro­tection from the king of Moab for his father and mother, who dwelt in Moab all the time he was in the cave of Adullam. Afterwards David subdued Moab among the other nations (2 Sam. viii.) and left the kingdom of Israel at last to Solomon. In Solomon history repeats itself, for when he was old his many wives, Moabitish and other, turned away his heart. Undeterred by the command of God not to intermarry with these nations, and uninstructed by the history of Israel before him, “ even Solomon ” built an high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon (1 Kings xi.). The terrible impartiality of the Scriptures, which do not hesitate to overcloud the greatest king of Israel (but one) in the zenith of the kingdom s glory, must appeal to every reflecting mind. Also the greatness of the folly of contracting alien marriages. When God says:   Surely they will turn away your heart,” we ought to believe Him.

After Solomon, because of his apostasy, comes the division of the kingdom into Judah and Israel, under Rehoboam and Jeroboam. When Israel was faithful, the surrounding antago­nistic nations were subdued, and subject to them. When they apostatized, these arose and prevailed against them. So, after Solomon, Moab arises again. But, as we have unexpectedly learned in the latter days from a Moabitish source, it was again subjugated by Omri, the father of Ahab, though, as the Bible tells us (2 Kings i. 1), “ Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab.”

What is called “ The Moabite Stone,” is one of the many mpntal evidences that have borne witness to the truth of ®0nUBibie in recent years. It was found at Dibon (Dibhin), •the land of Moab, in 1868, and contains an inscription of “ha king of Moab, the “ sheepmaster ” mentioned in the second f k of Kings. It is now in the Louvre, Paris ; but a facsimile • be seen in the British Museum. The inscription is so interesting, that, for the sake of many who may not have read it, it is here transcribed.

The Moabite Stone.

“ I am Mesha, the son of Chemosh-melek, the King of Moab, the man of Dibhon • my father reigned over Moab for thirty years, and I sat on the throne after my father. I built a high place for Chemosh in Korha, a place of salvation for Mesha, for he hath delivered me from all monarchs, and he hath let me look with scorn upon all mine enemies. Now Omn was king over Israel, and he oppressed Moab for many days, for that Chemosh’was wroth with the land. His son reigned in his stead, and he said, • Now will I oppress Moab.’ Thus spake he even in my days ; but I have gained the victory over him and over his house, and Israel is laid ivaste for ever. Omri took possession of the land of Medeba, and he dwelt therein in his own days and somewhile in the days of his son, even forty years. But in my time, Chemosh gave back the land unto me. Then did I build Baal-Meon, and I have made ... and I built Kiryathavim.

The people of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of old ;  and the King of Israel built the city of Ataroth. I assaulted the city,

and I took it, and I slew all the people thereof in the sight of Chemosh and Moab ; and I carried away the Ariel[1] of David, and I dragged it on the ground before the face of Chemosh at Kerioth. And I carried away the people of Saron and the people of ... And Chemosh said unto me.

“ Go carry Nebo over Israel.’ And I  went up by night, and I fought against the city from dawn even until noon, and I took it, and I slew every man, even seven thousand men, and children, and women, and maidens, and slaves, and I dedicated them unto Ishtar-Chemosh. And I carried away from thence the A riels of Jehovah, and I dragged them on the ground before the face of Chemosh. And the King of Israel built Yahas and dwelt therein after he had fought against me; but Chemosh drove him forth before me. I led forth two hundred of the men of Moab, I led them up to Yahas, and I took it, that I might join it unto Dibhon. I built Korha, and the forest wall, and the .  .               . wall, I built the doors and the towers thereof. I built the royal palace, and I digged the sluices for the water cisterns in the city. There was no well in the city of Korha, therefore I said unto all the people, ‘ Let every man dig him a well in his own house ; and I digged the water-courses even unto Korha by the hands of the captives (?) of Israel. I built Aroer, I made the road unto Arnon. I built again Beth-Bamoth, which was ruined. I built Bosor. ... I added one hundred cities unto the land of Moab. I built Medeba and Beth-Baal-Meon. . . . And Chemosh said unto me : ‘ Go down and fight against Horonayim,’ and 1 went down and fought against it. . . .”

Such is Mesha’s account of the doings of Moab in the days of Omri and Ahab, some two thousand eight hundred years ago This was something like two hundred years before Isaiah’s prophecy, and upon comparison it will be seen how many of the places mentioned by Mesha are referred to by the prophet in ch. xv. xvi. Mesha’s attributing Moab’s misfortunes to the “ wrath of Chemosh ” is a good example of Moabitish turning of things upside down : while his complacent estimate that by his victories “ Israel is laid waste for ever ” is being falsified before our eyes as the prophets of Israel declared : “ I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not for ever.”

In the days of Jehoram, King of Israel, he formed a coalition with Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, and the King of Edom ; and God for Judah’s sake, wrought the miracle of sending water without wind or rain, and filling the valley that the thirsty host perished not for lack of water (2 Kings iii.). How this is regarded by some of the learned is manifest from the following comment by Wellhausen : “ Elisha’s miracle in Wadi-’l-Asha is explained by the locality; Asha means a sandy ground, with moist subsoil, where, by digging trenches, water is always obtainable.” But from personal experience of such digging, many can testify with the writer that it does not at all fit the description of the narrative of the book of Kings, which says (v. 20), " Behold there came water by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water.” Against this the professor can only pit his opinion that that is merely a drawing of the long bow. Some, however, will prefer the unmutilated record of Scripture, and maintain that it will neVer yield up its secrets to such an “ evil heart of unbelief.” God delivered Moab into the hands of the allies at that time ; and the King of Moab’s offering of his son as a burnt offering in his extremity availed him nothing.*

The foregoing remarks indicate most of the leading features of Moab’s origin and history in its bearing on the history of Israel, as delineated in the historical books of the Old Testament. The prophets have a good deal to say about Moab. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, all mention Moab at greater or less length, and with reference to past and future developments in his land. They speak in the name of the Lord of the ground of the national responsi­bility, of the judgments that should come upon the people, of the interesting relation of the people occupying that territory in the latter days to the ancient people of Israel, and of the bringing again of the captivity of Moab, and its final subjugation to the throne of David in the hands of the Lord Jesus. Thus we have glanced over the historical outlines as given in the scriptures before looking at what the prophets have to say of Moab’s history that lay before them in the future.

The reference of the Authorised Version would connect this with the denunciation of Amos ii. 1, which speaks of “ the burning of the bones of the King of Edom ” but that is evidently another matter. The history in Kings evidently speaks of the King of Moab's son, and the account is so paraphrased by Josephus (Antiquities, Book ix., chap, iii.) 

[1] The Ariel appears to have been an altar of burnt-offering. Art is a lion, and bl is God; and in Ezek. xliii. 15-16, the term is applied to the altar is in harmony with  the fact that the Lion of God, even “the Lion of the tribe of Judah,” is the altar (Heb. xiii. 10) prefigured in the Mosaic ritual, and memor­ialized in the restitution of all things that Ezekiel foresaw. In Isaiah xxix., there is a Play on the word; “ Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt add ye year to year ; let them kill sacrifices. Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow; and it shall be unto me as (an) Ariel” "altar for burnt-offering. And so it came to pass, when in the judgment of"