joshua 13:21

Bible study online

Joshua 13:21

King James Version (KJV)

“In our prayers we talk to God, in our Bible study God talks to us, and we had better let God do most of the talking.”

— D.L. Moody
Joshua 13:21
Verse 21 of 33

Scripture focus

And all the cities of the plain, and all the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, which reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses smote with the princes of Midian, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, [which were] dukes of Sihon, dwelling in the country.

Joshua 13:21KJV

Commentary

Commentary on Joshua 13:21

Theological / Devotional

With the princes. The preposition “with” is not in the original. The Hebrew does not say that Moses smote them at the same time he smote Sihon, but only that they were smitten, as well as Sihon.

Dukes of Sihon. Also called princes in this same verse. In Num. 31:8 they are called “kings.” However, in the sacred writings a “king” may be no more than a petty chieftain, perhaps himself subject to some more powerful ruler. In this verse they are called “dukes,” or princes, of Sihon, because they were subject and tributaries to Sihon and assisted him in war. It is probable that when Sihon destroyed the Moabites who dwelt in these parts, he found some of the nomad Midianites living there, placed them under subjection, and forced them to pay tribute. For this reason they may here be called “dukes of Sihon.” The conquest of the Midianites by Israel is recorded in Num. 31. The orders were given to “avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites” (Num. 31:2), because the Midianites had tempted Israel to idolatry and immorality. This verse supplies us with a further reason for hostilities between them and Israel. They were a part of Sihon’s government. In order for the subjugation of Sihon’s territory to be completed, it was necessary to remove Sihon’s dukes or princes. The connection between the Midianites and the Moabites is seen in earlier Israelitic history (see Num. 22:4). An existing relationship between Midian and Moab, which is implied but not explained in Num. 31, is attested by the incidental remark here. It is another example of historical agreement between the book of Joshua and the Pentateuch.

By SdaBc