As I was studying this passage, I was really surprised at how many current controversies this passage touches on. There are controversies on whether Moses actually wrote Deuteronomy, on politics, geography, history, Israel-centrism versus God's purposes for all nations, whether there truly were giants in the land, and even whether Israel went through Moab or went around it. I mean, Wow! You can find differing views on all these things. But if you hold to the plenary inspiration of Scripture (as I do), I think all of these controversies can be easily settled.

Review of their travel around Edom (v. 8)

And I guess I'll start with the controversy of Israel-centrism. There are some people out there who think that America needs to support anything and everything that Israel does, because Israel is supposedly "God's chosen people." But think about it: did God support anything and everything that ancient Israel did in the Old Testament when it violated God's laws in the Bible? No. Of course not. He judged them, and when they violated God's law God said that they were no different than Sodom and Gomorrah. And He claimed Gentile nations as His own - nations like Tyre during the time of David and Solomon when they put their trust in God.

In any case, there is one phrase in verse 8 that I barely touched on last week, that addresses this. Verse 8 says, "And when we passed beyond our brethren, [There's the phrase - "beyond our brethren"] the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir, away from the road of the plain, away from Elath and Ezion Geber, we turned and passed by way of the Wilderness of Moab." Last week I just mentioned that whatever "our brethren" meant in full, it at least meant that Edom and Israel were close enough that they should have trusted each other. Even after Edom rejected Israel, God later in Deuteronomy tells Israel not to reject Edom, and to seek to have good relationships with Edomites - again, because they were brethren. What in the world does that mean? In Numbers 20, Moses fully expected that Edom would let them pass through their territory - again, because they were brethren. Some people simply think this meant that they had a common descent from Isaac, they had a common language, and perhaps some common customs. But I mentioned that I personally believe that it was because they worshiped the same God and had a true faith in Jehovah, or the Hebrew pronunciation, Yehowah. And someone wanted me to expand on that a little bit more in today's sermon, because it definitely impacts how you view Israel down through history, and whether adherence to Gospel & Law is the foundational issue or whether genetics is the foundational issue. (And I won't get into the genetics of modern Israel.) But let me give some background.

In my overview of the book of Job, I gave extended evidence that Job was an Edomite king, and the three counselors were lower magistrates who were true believers, even if they had some sinful assumptions about Job.¹ Interestingly, two times in Ezekiel 14, God tells us that Job was one of the three most righteous men in human history. In verses 14 and 20 He lists those three most righteous men as being Noah, Daniel, and Job. So, Job was not only a righteous Edomite king, he was so righteous, that God says he was more righteous than David or any other Israelite person other than Daniel. That's saying something! This means that the true faith extended way beyond the people of Israel. Moses' own father-in-law was another example. He was a priest to Yehowah in Midian (Ex. 2:16; 3:1; 18:1). Well, that means he was a priest of Yehowah to other believing Midianites. That means there were many true believers outside of Israel who worshiped Yehowah.

And it makes sense: If Shem (the son of Noah) was still alive when Abraham rescued Lot (which he was on a Biblical chronology), then even Shem's godly influenced was still there. And simple logic would indicate there were true believers who descended from Shem, Ham, and Japeth in many parts of the world in the time of Moses. So even though God had a special purpose for Israel, and would make the Messiah come from Israel, it was not because God had an Israel-centric purpose in history.

Anyway, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, I am convinced that the true faith existed in Edom. And Amos 1:9 condemns Edom centuries later for breaking covenant with Israel. That's far more than simple genetics. At some point Israel and Edom were in covenant because of their common faith. I believe this is why Genesis 36 devotes an entire chapter to listing all the rulers of Edom who had descended from Esau. And since Moses was the author of the book of Job, it makes sense that Moses could assume that they should be able to pass through Edom since (as Moses worded it in verse 4), they were still brethren. Now, I don’t think that Job was king at that time. He had been king sometime earlier. But there was still true faith in Edom. That's why it is significant that Moses didn't say the same thing about Moab. Moab was not spiritually in the same camp as Edom and Ammon. So its not just genetics. In other words, Edomites were not just linguistically and genetically distantly related (like Moab was), but were likely spiritually brethren as well. After all, both Moab and Ammon were just as genetically related to Israel, but Moabites were not considered brethren. OK, enough on that.

I didn't get into this much in the last sermon. But I believe Edom's rejection of Israel's attempt to travel through was very similar to Protestant nations (like Scotland and a few German states) who rejected Protestants if they didn't believe exactly like they did. But most Protestant countries followed God's paradigm. For example, the Dutch Republic, the Swiss Cantons, England under Elizabeth I, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway were fairly generous in letting Protestants travel through or even settle in their countries. The point is, that even good Protestant countries could sometimes act like Edom did.

And all of this explains why Moses later mandated that Israel still be generous with Edom even when Edom had not been generous with them. In any case, verse 8 says,

Deut. 2:8 “And when we passed beyond our brethren, the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir, away from the road of the plain, away from Elath and Ezion Geber, we turned and passed by way of the Wilderness of Moab.

Last week we saw that if you couple this verse with other references in Numbers, it is clear that Israel went around Edom to the East. They honored Edom's insistence that they not travel through their country, even though Israel had promised to stay on the King's Highway. OK, enough on that issue of Israel-centrism. Biblically there is no good reason to support modern Israel, which persecutes Christians and holds to the anti-Christ ideas of Talmudism. For God, adherence to His Law and Gospel is what really counts on whether you can have good international relations with other nations - at least by treaty.

Warnings to respect Moab's borders (v. 9)

But let's move on to Moab. And I want to give a little bit of background information before I talk about verse 9, because there is a further hint in this verse that Moab was treated differently from Edom and Ammon, yet God still required that they not meddle with Moab's borders.

Judges 11:18 mentions in passing that Israel also requested to go through Moab. That would have been an easier route to Canaan as well. And I find that interesting because Moab was most definitely not as righteous as Edom. Moab had by this time become compromised in their faith, introducing the worship of many gods besides Yehowah. Now, history shows that they did indeed worship Yehowah, but they also worshiped other gods - much like bad kings of Israel did. They were pluralistic, like America is. And Numbers 22-25 also records that when Israel got to spot #25 on your map, Moab sinfully hired Balaam to prophesy against Israel (interestingly, in the name of Yehowah). When he wasn't successful in getting God to curse Israel, Balaam suggested that if Moab could get the Israelite men to commit harlotry with some compromised women of Moab, that God would no longer support Israel. It was a very perverted, but ingenious plan. And some of the men did sleep with those women. And it resulted in God's discipline, and in repentance. So ultimately, Moab's perverse plans did not work.

But I give that as background so that you don't think that verse 9 is treating Moab in exactly the same way that God treated Edom. Even though Moab was not faithful to the Lord, those chapters in Numbers show that they at least pretended to worship Yehowah along with other gods. So in terms of border issues that we looked at in detail last week, it is interesting that verse 9 still gives similar instructions. Anyway, verse 9 says,

Then the LORD said to me, “Do not harass Moab, nor contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land as a possession, because I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’ ”

There are four things that are repeated in terms of respecting borders.

Do not harrass Moab

First, God told them not to harass Moab. They were to seek to be friendly with Moab in hopes that Moab would be somewhat friendly with them. In terms of international relations, this suggests to me that is OK to maintain somewhat peaceful relationships with nations that aren't walking with the Lord like they once used to, or at least to not deliberately meddle with them. They couldn't have an alliance with Moab like they later did with Edom (Amos 1:9), but they were at least not to be sabre-rattling with Moab. And there is way too much sabre-rattling that America has been engaged in during the last few centuries.

Do not battle Moab

Second, they were for sure not to battle Moab. Though there will be many battles within Canaan in the years to come, Israel was not to delight in unnecessary wars. They were not to provoke people to war, like America has been doing.

Do not think you have a right to any territory in Moab

Third, they were not to infringe on Moab's borders or to think that they had any right to parts of Moab's territory. This is one of many examples in this book of a philosophy of non-interventionism in other countries outside of Israel's own borders - even if those nations are not believing nations. And that stands as a rebuke to America's constant interventionism.

The territory of Ar belongs exclusively to Moab

And then finally, verse 9 affirms that God had Himself given all the territory of Ar to Moab. There are three things to note about that last clause that are not in your notes. Verse 9 says, "because I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession."

First, unlike Edom and Ammon, God does not call the Moabites "brethren." They were ethnically just as closely related as the Ammonites were, since both Moabites and Ammonites descended from Lot. But Moab's faith had become pluralistic - giving freedom of religion to every religion. That's not Biblical, and Moab stands as a rebuke to America. We are supposed to be (as our money states) "one nation under God" - the true God; the only God. But America treats all religions the same way. It should not. God calls for a mono-cultural Christian America. We should repent of being like Moab.

So this is another proof that though Edom and Ammon still had genuine faith left within their borders, Moab had fallen from the faith. Yet God still insisted that this non-believing nation had rights to protect their borders. So this speaks to a hierarchy of relationships among nations that God takes into account. Let me explain that hierarchy. (And this also is not in your notes.)

The Canaanites were so far gone that God was completely done with them, and Israel warred with them. Though the Moabites would be disciplined by God in Numbers 25 for their compromises, God still had a place for that nation in His economy. God is very patient with nations. Ammon is a step better. It still had God's favor - perhaps more based on their forefathers than on their own faith, though some believe that their current faith was still fairly strong. But Edom was closer to God. So long as Edom maintained its faith, Amos 1:9 says that Israel could covenant with them. In other words, they could have a political alliance. But Israel was most dear to God's heart. So there seems to be a hierarchy of God's favor (or disfavor) with other nations.

And I think even today we can judge nations in a similar hierarchy of relationships. And Lord willing, Kevin Swanson is going to be writing about this in his future book. We should be able to trust some nations, just like Moses trusted Edom at that time - not later, but at least at that time. Other nations can still have free trade with a Christian nation, and even have potential alliances. Others (like Moab) could be treated respectfully, but should be considered with great caution. And still others (like the kingdoms of Canaan, the Amorites, and the kingdom of Bashan) can be conquered if they mess with you. I won't be dogmatic on that hierarchy, but God definitely treats Moab somewhat differently than Edom.

The second thing that I notice from that verse is what God says about the fortress city of Ar, which was on the border of Moab and Ammon, and after which the river Arnon was named.² Ar was a fortress city that was owned by the nation. When he says, "I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession," He is indicating that this fortified city on the border was a possession of the nation as a whole (made up of many people, not just the king). There was discussion after last week's sermon on whether a nation (as a nation) can own anything (like borders), or whether it is only an individual that can own some piece of property. Well, this is one of several Scriptures which show that a group of people (in this case descendants) can own something. In Scripture, nations are a kind of corporate entity (in other words a corporation is treated sort of like a person) that can indeed own cities, fortresses, borders, armies, munitions, and regions. The corporate entity has a head, it is true, but the things that are said to be possessed are attributed to both the head and the whole nation. Thus, several Scriptures speak of "the army of Israel," and "their army," interchangeably with the "army of the king." Likewise it can speak of a border as being "his border," "their border" (as being jointly owned), and "the border of Israel" (or of some other nation). So nations can indeed own and protect the property of borders and of fortresses. I think this reinforces what I said about border control last week. And that corporate property can be passed on from generation to generation of descendants (plural).

The last thing to note from that verse is that these belonged to the descendants of Lot. Lot had two children, with one child being the ancestor of Moab and the other child being the ancestor of Ammon, who will come up later in the chapter. And the true faith was passed on for quite a few centuries to both of those nations. And this sets up the context for why verses 10-15 is an encouragement to Israel to trust God to dispossess the incredible armies of Canaan just like Moab and Ammon had done.

Encouragements that the coming conquest of Canaan was possible (vv. 10-12)

So let's look at some of the encouragements that the coming conquest of Canaan was indeed possible.

The Moabites to dispossessed the Emim giants (v. 10a)

The first encouragement was that the Moabites had previously dispossessed the Emim giants - giants who were similar in stature to the Anakim whom Israel had previously feared so much. But as we will see, there is a hint that Moab did not dispossess those giants in faith. They had simply done so in their own strength - which itself stands as a rebuke to Israel. Let's read verses 10-11.

"The Emim had dwelt there in times past, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. 11 They were also regarded as giants, like the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim."

I want you to notice four things that are not in your notes.

The most obvious is that the Moabites had indeed dispossessed the Emim giants. But what is less obvious is that, unlike Edom and Ammon, there is no mention of them doing so in dependence upon God. In contrast, verses 9 and 22 go out of the way to emphasize the fact that Esau's descendants destroyed the Horites by God's assistance. Likewise, verses 21-23 explicitly mentions that Yehowah had destroyed the giants that formerly inhabited the land of Ammon from before the Ammonites. But here it does not mention the LORD. That may be coincidental (so I'm not going to be dogmatic on that), but given the faith that both the Edomites and the Ammonites had, and the compromises that the Moabites had, I do not think it is accidental.

Second, there really were giants in the land. This is the next controversy that I want to address. And I want to spend a fair bit of time on proofs that there really were giants in the olden days because this has been so often attacked by unbelievers who make the Bible out to be filled with fairy tales - like giants and dragons - ha, ha, ha. Well, they have been discovering that dragons and other kinds of dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with humans. Just as one example, human fossilized footprints mixed in with dinosaur footprints. But I'm not going to get into dragons attacking humans - something that history definitely talks about. I'll only deal with the issue of giants today. That's controversial enough.

Liberals have tried to downplay the idea of giants by saying that compared to Israelites, who were perhaps only five feet tall (and by the way, that is a demonstrably false supposition - just based on skeletons - but they insist that compared to a 5 foot tall person), a 6'6" person might be considered to be a giant. But a long Answers in Genesis article on giants shows that liberals are not taking the Scripture seriously at all when they dismiss giantism in this way.³

Let me start with the most mocked passage on giants. It is Amos 2:9-10. That passage spoke of the Amorites (that Israel was going to be fighting with) this way:

Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was as strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath. Also it was I who brought you up from the land of Egypt, and led you forty years through the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite.

Now keep in mind that all of the Amorites were giants, yet I will point out in a bit that some giants were believers. And some giants were in covenant with Abraham. I think this disproves the Nephilim theory that makes all the Biblical giants as being half-demon and half human. There were believing giants.

But if Amorites were as tall as cedars and as strong as oaks, it indicates that they were well-proportioned, not skinny and tall. This was not a disease that produces too much growth hormone. These giants were very well-proportioned. And they passed on that giantism from generation to generation - something that cannot be said of the genetic defect that modern so-called giants usually have.

Anyway, back to Amos 2, some people just cannot believe that any human could possibly be as tall as any kind of cedar. Forget the fact that the fossil record shows proportionally similar giantism among animals (that nobody can deny - animal giantism is crystal clear), they still dismiss out of hand that any human giants could be just as proportionally large as those fossil animals. But why can animals be giants, but not humans?

Anyway, the most common objection is that Amos 2 is just poetic hyperbole - especially since the Cedars in that region were 40-60 feet tall when mature. Western Red Cedars are 40-50 feet tall and Mediterranean Cedars are in the 40-60 foot tall when mature. That seems so impossible to even conservatives, that some conservatives have supposed that Amos is only referring to more immature cedars - perhaps 20-30 feet tall. But even that seems unbelievable to some people. So they suggest that Amos is using poetic hyperbole to describe 6'6" people. Really? If the giants were only 6'6" tall, then there would be no need for poetic hyperbole.

Second, it is noteworthy that when the spies reported the huge size of the Anakim giants in Numbers 13, and when they said that they felt like grasshoppers in size by comparison (in verse 33), Joshua did not contradict their description of the size of those giants. He didn't say, "No. You are grossly exaggerating." He just insisted that by God's grace they could take them on. And would they have felt intimidated by people who were just 9 inches to a foot taller? I doubt it.

So those are two references that might show that giants were indeed gigantic - maybe twenty to thirty feet tall. But because both of those references could possibly be poetic hyperbole, let's look at some other hints in Scripture.

If the size of cedars is the upward description of their size, what is the lowest figure that the Bible would allow us to posit as being the size of these Rephaim giants? Well, let's look at a huge man who was not called a giant, but who was still pretty tall. The Egyptian that Beniah killed in 1 Chronicles 11:23 was considered to be a large man, but he was not a considered to be a giant. He was just called a magnificently large man. And he wasn't a Rephaim, Nephalim, Emil, or Anakim; he was just called an Egyptian. Yet that Egyptian was five cubits tall. Depending on whether you use a standard cubit or a royal cubit, he was 7' 6" tall or 8' 5" tall. Let's stick with the smaller cubit. Seven and a half feet is pretty tall for a non-giant. That's a hint that true giants had to be significantly taller than seven and a half feet tall.

Let's look next at Goliath. There is debate on whether the Goliath that David killed as a youth in 1 Samuel 17 was the same Goliath who was mentioned in 2 Samuel 21. To believe that, you really are forced to believe that the text of Hebrew Scripture was lost - something that Jesus denied when He said that till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle of the Hebrew would pass away. And I fault the NKJV for adding in words that are not in the Hebrew there. In any case, the Goliath and his family who were killed decades later were a family of giants. So, many (like myself) insist that it is an entirely different Goliath, killed at an entirely different time, and killed by an entirely different person with a different name.⁴ I won't settle that debate this morning. But I will pu my explanation on the web in a footnote. In any case, the Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 was 9'9" tall. If he wasn't a giant, then Og would be the smallest giant in the Bible. If he was the same Goliath as in 2 Samuel 21, then Goliath is the smallest giant in the Bible at 9'9" tall. And he must have been very well proportioned, because excluding his helmet, leg armor, spear, and sword, just his torso armor alone weighed 125 pounds and his spear tip was 15 lbs. The spear handle itself was said to be massive. Here is a replica made by the Creation Museum based on the Bible's description of that spear. [Show picture from Creation Museum.] That would be a useless weapon in an ordinary man's hand because it would be too heavy to handle. So Goliath was a truly huge person, whether he was a giant or not. It is my contention that he was never described as a giant.

But Og, King of Bashan, is explicitly called one of the remnant of the giants in Deuteronomy 3:11. It says that he had an iron bedstead that was 9 standard cubits long and 4 standard cubits wide. So that would be 13'6" tall and 5'8" wide. That's not the size of cedars, but it is still pretty tall. If you stood that bed on end, it would be twice the height of a 6' 9" person, or two king sized beds stacked on end. In other words, Og was almost four feet taller than Goliath. This means that Og was about twice the height of King Saul. And based on the bed, he was not a tall and skinny person, but was likely a very well-proportioned person. So it seems that the smallest description of any giant in the Bible was either Goliath at 9'9" (if you believe the Hebrew text was lost) or Og at 13'6". So even if you were to discount the description of the giants as being as tall as Cedars and to discount the spies assertions that they were like grasshoppers in comparison to the Anakim, you still have to account for the likelihood that these giants could have been thirteen and a half feet tall and/or taller.

And by the way, not all giants were evil. Genesis 14:13 speaks of Mamre the Amorite and his two brothers, all three of whom were allies with Abraham with their respective families. They were believers. The next chapter says that even of the rest of the Amorites (whom the Bible describes as being a tribe of giants), would be a few generations before the iniquity of the Amorites would be full. Yet all of them were giants. So don't think of all giants as evil. I don't agree with the theory that the Nephilim were half angel and half human - though many conservatives do.

In any case, the Answers in Genesis article that I referenced earlier proves from the fossil record that giantism existed in all kinds of animals from the past. For example, it documents spiders with a 12-inch leg span, dragonflies with a 2.5' wing span, rats estimated to be 750 pounds. And if you see a reconstruction of a man standing next to that rat, the rat head is almost as high as the man. And yet it was clearly a rat. It documents beavers 7.5' long, and scorpions 8 feet long. Oooph!! I'd hate to meet an eight foot long poisonous scorpion! Can you imagine? And yet the evidence shows that it is just a giant form of one of the modern family of scorpions. It demonstrates that there were armadillos 13 feet long, turtles 16 feet long (that's much longer than the one in your outline), crocodiles 40 feet long, octopuses with 100 foot long tentacles, etc. If humans had similar giantism, it is very possible that the human giants could have been anywhere from 14 to 30 feet tall (or taller). The Answers in Genesis article concludes,

The fact that scientists have discovered animals with body sizes far greater than those observed today suggests, at least in theory, the possibility of there having also been giant humans in the past, as recorded in the Bible.

Many modern scholars scoff at the idea that there could have been giant warriors [as described in the Bible]... However, the biblical data about these people can be trusted because it is in the Word of God. [And I say, "Amen!" The article goes on:] Furthermore, other ancient sources describe giants, and the Anakim [mentioned in those other ancient sources] are even mentioned as dwelling in the land of Canaan.

...Nearly every place around the world has legends of giants dwelling in the land...

Undoubtedly, many of these stories contain exaggerations of the giants’ prodigious height and strength. But is it reasonable to automatically reject every one of these traditions, or, like tales of dragons? Is there possibly some truth behind the legends, as is often the case?

So were all of these giants just people who developed gigantism? Although gigantism may account for some of the ancient giants, this proposed solution falls short of explaining many of the biblical accounts.

Modern gigantism is often caused by abnormalities that lead to excessive production of growth hormone. It is highly unlikely that Goliath, the nephilim, Anakim, or most of the other Old Testament giants suffered from such a condition since they were often described as warriors or “mighty men,” while modern “giants” are usually awkward, uncoordinated, and endure several physical ailments. There have been some rare cases where the person could accurately be described as a “mighty man.”

Furthermore, modern gigantism is not hereditary, whereas the Bible often describes giants as being the offspring of other giants (e.g., Deuteronomy 9:2; 1 Chronicles 20:6). So the groups known as giants were not simply made up of individuals with the modern form of gigantism.

And the article goes on to show how the square-cube law used to debunk giants in the Bible (because the weight that the square-cube law requires would have crushed their bones), does not work when applied to biology. It absolutely does not work. For example, it does not work when applied to the cat family and extrapolating from a house cat to a tiger. It's a very interesting article, and while he is skeptical that the giants reached 20-30 feet tall, he does not completely rule it out - especially when animals were proportionally that gigantic. The bottom line is that fossil, archaelogical, historical, and even biological studies have vindicated the testimony of Scripture. But we don't trust the Bible because science vindicates it. We trust the Bible because it is the very Word of God. And just based on God's Word I am confident that there were many giants living in Canaan. Well, enough said on that controversy.

These Emim giants were just like the Anakim of Canaan (v. 10b)

But verse 10 goes on to say, "a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim." Why does he insert that comparison to the Anakim of Canaan? I believe it was because the previous generation of Israelites had refused to go into the land precisely because of the presence of the Anakim - in other words the Amorites. And here is the point: even though you can see why the previous generation had been intimidated by giants between 14 and 30 feet tall, God says in effect, "Hey. The Moabites dispossessed the same kind of giants in their land, and they did it without faith. Since you are a people of faith in God, there is no reason why you cannot take on the Anakim since you have My power standing behind you." I believe that's the logic of God's argument.

God had helped the Edomites disposses the Horites (v. 12a)

Then in verse 12, Moses reverts back to the Edomites in His discussion of this brief historical interlude, and he says in verse 12, "The Horites formerly dwelt in Seir, but the descendants of Esau dispossessed them and destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their place, just as Israel did to the land of their possession which the LORD gave them." Note the "just as" language. Just as the the Lord would help Israel to dispossess the inhabitants of Canaan (and we will look at the grammar of that phrase in a moment), the Edomites dispossessed the Horites before them. The “just as” seems to indicate that Edomites dispossessed the Horites by faith.

There are various theories of who these Horites were. Some think they were a tribe of giants as well, while F.F. Bruce identifies them with Hurrians.⁵ I don't think I need to settle that dispute. The key issue was that since their cup of iniquity was full, and since God used the Edomites to displace them, Israel can have faith that no inhabitants of Canaan could successfully keep Israel from God's promise. And by way of further application, no nation (including America) can rebel against the Lord forever. There does come a time of reckoning, and God can use any other nation (believing or not) to displace a rebel nation in His timing.

Using the past tense (to show certainty) the Edomites dwelt in Seir just like Israel would dwell in Canaan (v. 12b)

But God uses one more technique to try to stir up faith in these Israelites. Notice that He uses the past tense in the second part of verse 12: "just as Israel did to the land of their possession which the LORD gave them." Liberals love to use this verse as one of their arguments that Moses could not have written the book of Deuteronomy (as the Scripture claims).⁶ But there are two explanations conservative scholars have given that do not necessitate a late composition of the entire book. First, Moses may have written this explanatory note after Israel had possessed the Transjordan area that King Og occupied, and this may be referring to that part of the conquest, while Moses was still alive.⁷ Second, some conservatives point out that this could be one of numerous examples of what is called "the perfective of confidence" that is used to speak of a future event as being as good as done in God's plan.⁸ Either way, it was an encouragement that Israel would most certainly be able to take all of Canaan.

James Coffman points out that by injecting all of this parenthetical history of the past, God (through Moses) was hinting that the land they were about to conquer could only remain theirs as long as they were faithful to obey His Word. If Israel strayed from God's laws as earlier nations did, Israel too would be dispossessed. Coffman says,

In the light of what is visible here, it is clear enough why Moses injected this information into his final discourses. It was his way of trying to enlighten Israel as to just how long “their land” would be theirs, and it was clear enough from what Moses here said that Israel would, if they rebelled against God and became grossly evil, be displaced in keeping with the principles that God has always followed in his rule over the nations. Many suppose that God no longer rules over men, but he most assuredly does. “The Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will” (Dan. 4:25).⁹

Steps of faith (vv. 13-18)

But now God very quickly calls them to immediately take some steps of faith based on His previous assurances.

Faith founded on God's command to cross the Wadi portion of the River Zered River, or east of the River (v. 13a)

First, faith must be founded on God's Word. Let me read the text, and then comment on it. Verse 13 says, "Now rise and cross over the Valley of the Zered." Some people use this to say that Israel went through Moab. But that explicitly contradicts Numbers. So, before I apply this, let me explain why this supposed contradiction is very easily explained. The Hebrew word for "valley" is literally "wadi." A wadi is a dry valley, channel, or riverbed that is usually dry except during periods of heavy rain, when it can temporarily carry water from upstream. Conservative commentaries point out that the use of the word "wadi" clearly places the movement from spot #19 on your map to spot #20 east of the actual river Zered. They weren't crossing water, but were crossing the wadi or valley of Zered. While the Zered River was the southern border of Moab, where they crossed over the Wadi Zared constituted the Eastern border of Moab. So the map in your outline is absolutely correct that they skirted Edom's border and skirted Moab's border.

But why do I say that this required faith? Geographically God was boxing them in to one option of faith - to move forward toward the land of the giants. The only other option was faithless retreat. They have already gone around Edom. Ammon was to their east, and God forbad them from messing with or entering Ammon. Moab was to their West, and God providentially made it impossible to go through Moab and thereby avoid the giants. So there was only one way forward: to travel the no-man's land between those two countries across this wadi, and across the next wadi, the Wadi of the River Arnon, and into the land of the giants. So providentially God was testing their faith to obey His command to move forward.

Faith results in action even if we don't know the outcome (v. 13b)

But they do pass that test, and they crossed that wadi, even though it made them even more boxed in and vulnerable because they were now on the border of three nations. So the next point says, faith results in action even if we don't know the outcome. So verse 13 goes on to say, "So we crossed over the Valley of the Zered." James says that faith without action is a dead faith.

Faith contrasted with unbelief (vv. 14-15)

Next, we see faith contrasted with unbelief in order to stir up real faith. They are going to be faced with further tests of their faith with lack of water at spot #21 on your map, a wasteland at point #22, the attack of Sihon, king of the Amorites at spot #23, and Og, king of Bashan at point #24, but also Satan's temptations of Israelite men at spot #25, where the immoral women of Moab would try to get the men of Israel to compromise via adultery, and thus to lose God's favor, His presence, and His power. It's an interesting story in Numbers 22-25. So it is not only the giants, who will be a test of faith, but there will be other tests of faith as well. So (here’s the point) God prepares them for these tests by recounting the history of the unbelief of the previous generation. God always removes any excuses for our disobedience.

Unbelief led to 38 years since Kadesh - no small thing (v. 14a)

In verse 14 He points out that unbelief led to 38 years of wandering since they left Kadesh. "And the time we took to come from Kadesh Barnea until we crossed over the Valley of the Zered was thirty-eight years..." Last week we saw that this is a critical piece of information needed for having a complete chronology of all the events in Numbers and Deuteronomy. God's Word is complete. But the warning of what had happened before was also a way of stirring up renewed faith.

Unbelief led to a generation being bypassed (v. 14b)

Next, he pointed out that unbelief led to an entire generation being bypassed. "until all the generation of the men of war was consumed from the midst of the camp."

Unbelief led to God's oath against the previous generation (v. 14c)

Next, He pointed out that unbelief led to God's oath against the previous generation: "just as the LORD had sworn to them." Our God can be counted on to always be faithful to do what He has sworn to do. So both the negative and the positive examples of Scripture are designed to stir up faith in His Word.

Unbelief led to God's hand being against the previous generation (v. 15a)

Next he pointed out that unbelief led to God's hand being against the previous generation: "For indeed the hand of the LORD was against them..." The previous generation had feared that the hand of the Canaanites would be against them, and ignored the alternative - that God's hand would be against them. So Moses points out that God's opposition is far more important to be concerned about than man's opposition. Faith evaluates those two kinds of opposition and chooses rightly.

Unbelief led to the previous generation being destroyed (v. 15b)

Next, he reminds them that unbelief led to the previous generation being destroyed. They had worried that the Canaanites would destroy them. But God reminds them that true faith is concerned more about what God can destroy than what man can destroy.

Unbelief led to antithesis with the second generation (v. 15c-16 - "from the midst of the camp")

Next, He reminded them that the unbelief of the previous generation stood in strong antithesis with the belief of this generation: "to destroy them from the midst of the camp until they were consumed. So it was, when all the men of war had finally perished from among the people..." God winnowed unbelief out of the camp. God wants the camp of His people to be filled with faithful people, and He knows how to winnow false believers from true believers. And if God is committed to such antithesis, so should His people. God's camp must be committed to faithful action.

Faith exercised again

So this results in faith being exercised once again.

Based on a command, not presumption (v. 17)

And this action of faith was again based on God’s command, not on presumption. Verse 17 says, "that the LORD spoke to me, saying..." If God speaks, we can always respond in faith. And He speaks to us now through the Bible - God's 100% completed revelation, giving us everything we need for life and godliness.

Crossing the Wadi portion of the Arnon River boxed them in further, and forced them to either disobey God's admonitions regarding Moab and Ammon or to faithfully move into the land of the giants (v. 18)

The last step of faith is given in verse 18. "This day you are to cross over at Ar, the boundary of Moab." This might require some explanation, as it might once again seem like they went through Moab. But they didn't. In fact, some translate it, "This day you are to skirt the boundary of Moab at Ar." And "skirt" is one of the meanings of the Hebrew word. And in terms of Hebrew word order, I think that is a bit clearer (and a bit more literal of a) translation.¹⁰ But with either translation, they didn't go into Moab. And where the city Ar is located proves it.

Just as they crossed the wadi portion of the River Zered in verse 13 (east of Moab), they crossed the wadi portion of the River of Ar, or Arnon, at point #20.¹¹ And as I've already pointed out, the fortress of Ar was right on that border, and the River Arnon was named after that fortress city of Ar. If they were to obey God's instructions, it would box them into one (and only one) scary option. John Currid's commentary describes this geography, saying,

He now commands Israel to cross into the land of Sihon, the Amorite king who is ruling from Heshbon... Sihon’s land is bordered by the Dead Sea and the Jordan River on the west, the Wadi Jabbok on the north, Ammon to the east and the Wadi Arnon on the south.

This crossing is the beginning of the occupation of the promised land, at least the Transjordanian part of it. It is territory that is later allotted to the tribes of Gad and Reuben (Josh. 13:8–28).¹²

So let me summarize that verse. Because both Edom and Moab had closed their borders, and because God would make it clear in verses 19 and following that they were not to go into Ammon,¹³ there was only one way they could move to Canaan - and that was by going north from spot #20 to spot #21 into the land of the giants. Thus God pushed them into exactly the same test of faith with the giant Amorites that the previous generation had failed on. Would they be willing to face giants? Interestingly, God did give Sihon, the king of Hesbon, a way out of conflict - to let Israel pass through. But Scripture says that God deliberately hardened Sihon's heart because His intent was for Israel to get the whole Transjordan region. But this was a test of obedience to God's Word in the face of the potentially fearful giants of Heshbon and Bashan. In any case, true faith obeys God even in the face of apparent impossibilities.

Two final applications of verses 8-18

There are two additional applications that can be made from this whole passage. And because Andrew Stewart states these two applications so well, I will just read His comments. He says,

Godly parents and grandparents leave a legacy that brings blessing to their descendants for many generations. [And he is referring to how Edom, Ammon, and even to some extent Moab were not dispossessed - in part because of faithful ancestors. He continues:] Even after those children have turned away from God, many common blessings remain as a testimony to God’s goodness to those who love him. That legacy can be seen even amongst those who have abandoned the faith of their parents or grandparents, but who continue to enjoy remarkable natural talents and material blessings. History records many instances of ‘sons of the manse’ who went on to make their mark in the fields of politics, science or sport because of the disciplines which they learned from godly parents. On a wider canvas, history also records how nations with a Christian heritage develop habits of honesty, diligence and respect for the law which then establish the conditions necessary for higher than average levels of peace and prosperity. These are blessings from God which even the ungodly enjoy. Sadly, many people who enjoy these blessings give no thought to the God who has blessed them.

I think that is exactly the state that America is in. Like Moab, we continue to have peace and prosperity, and to some degree, we continue to have God's blessings. But these blessings are on borrowed time, and the time for blessings may run out. Stewart then moves to the second application. He says,

Another principle illustrated in these verses is that of God’s sovereignty over all the earth. The Lord warned Israel not to seek conflict with the Edomites (2:5), the Moabites (2:9) or the Ammonites (2:19), not because these nations were too strong for him, but because God had allocated their lands to them. God could easily have conquered all of these nations and given their land to Israel. Already God had taken these lands from other nations and given them to the Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites (see 2:10–12, 20–23). One of these nations, the Rephaites (see 2:11, 20), was reputed to be giants. ‘They were a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites.’ However, ‘The LORD destroyed them.’

For his own purposes the Lord chose to cast out the Emites and give their land to the Moabites (2:10–11). Likewise he cast out the Horites in favour of the Edomites (2:12, 22), and the Zamzummites in favour of the Ammonites (2:20–21). All this land belonged to Jehovah and he chose to give it to the Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites as their possession or inheritance. ‘I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own … I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession … I have given it as a possession to the descendants of Lot’ (2:5, 9, 19). ‘Possession’ comes from a word family which is commonly used in Deuteronomy to describe Israel’s exclusive enjoyment of the land as a gift from God (see 2:12; 3:20). Yet here it describes the land given to the Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites. In 2:23 Moses refers to others who were dispossessed of their land: ‘And as for the Avvites who lived in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorites coming out from Caphtor destroyed them and settled in their place.’ Afterwards the Caphtorites were removed from this land so that the Israelites might possess it.

The lesson which Moses wanted the Israelites to learn was that all the earth belongs to Jehovah. It does not belong to the people who happen to possess it at any given time. It did not belong to the Edomites, nor even to the Israelites or to any other nation. It belongs to Jehovah and he apportions it to whomsoever he will. He takes from one nation and gives to another. He establishes the boundaries between nations. Moses will make this point more explicitly in Deuteronomy 32:8: ‘When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples’. This prerogative does not belong to any other god. The gods of the Canaanites had not given those nations their land. The God of Israel had given it to them, and he would take it from them when he saw fit.

This is a reminder to us all that the God who gives good things is also the God who takes them away. The God of Israel had the authority to remove the Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites from their possession whenever he saw fit. In due time he did remove them! More ominously, the Lord could equally well remove the Israelites from the land which he had given them as a possession. This is the warning of the covenant to which Moses will return later in Deuteronomy.¹⁴

I thought that was beautifully stated. And it should be a motivation for us to not assume that life will go on nicely in America without repentance. We Christians have opportunities to speak into state and federal policies. I have asked Daniel to distribute a letter that I received from a friend that gives an opportunity to influence Federal Policy. During the next few days, the Federal Government would like feedback of support for their desire to make it illegal for doctors to perform sex-change surgeries on minors. Let's support the Federal Government on that. Let's be salt and light and speak up in our communities against the evils that are there. It may be that God will use us to help bring repentance to the land, and continued blessings from the Lord's hand. May it be so, Lord Jesus. Amen.