The Doctrine of the Sons of Ammon
1. The origins of the sons of Ammon:
a. The first thing that we need to examine is the origin of these sons of Ammon. This takes us back to Abram and his nephew Lot. Both Abram and Lot were believers whom God had blessed greatly. They separated because their tremendous herds continued to intermingle causing strife among their employees. Lot chose to go into the Valley of the Jordan River, which, at that time, was incredibly lush and perfect for large amounts of livestock and Moses went the other direction (Gen. 13).
b. Lot was in an area of concentrated degeneracy. When two angels came from God to him, manifested in the bodies of young men, the men of Sodom desired to gang rape these visitors. Lot offered to them his two young, virgin daughters instead. The purpose of the angels coming to Lot was to get him to move out of town, as God was going to destroy these cities with fire and brimstone. Lot’s wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. Lot and his daughters hid in the mountains and lived in a cave (quite a change from their previous prosperity. One night, the older daughter believing that they would never meet a man and marry, therefore being unable to carry on the family, got their father Lot drunk and each one slept with their father, the result being two children. Because of the many years of hearing this incorrectly, I have called the two sons Moab and Ammon, but they were really Moab and Ben-Ammi, meaning son of Ammi. From him came Ben-Ammon, or sons of Ammon (Gen. 19).
c. The name, sons of Ammon, means son of my father.
Therefore, when his progeny are referred to, it
is actually more accurate to call them Ben-Ammon or Ben-Ammonites rather than children of Ammon
or sons of Ammon, as I have. Since most Bibles translations speak of them as sons of Ammon rather
than the more proper Ben-Ammon (or, Bene-Ammon), I will go along with the crowd in order to
communicate.
d. The time of Abraham was circa 2166–1991 b.c.
2. Over four hundred years pass before we hear of these young men again. By Num. 21, like the sons of Abraham, they have become a nation of people and Israel. When Israel was having an unprovoked altercation with the Amorites (not related), they took a chunk of Amorite land which was bordered by the sons of Ammon. Moab was east of the southern half of the Dead Sea. Directly above Moab were the Amorites and east of the Amorites were the Ammonites, or the sons of Ammon. The land which Israel took at one time belonged to Moab and it is possible, although it is not stated here, that some of that land had also belonged to Ammon (see Num. 21:21–35 Joshua 12:2 13:10). We know from Egyptian records that this land was taken in the 14th and 13th centuries b.c. and that by destroying Sihon and the Amorites, Israel had also destroyed the primary enemy of Moab and Ammon.
3. As a side-point, I should mention that during this time, their languages (the language of the Moabites, the Ammonites and the Israelites) no doubt grew apart, but not to the point where they could not communicate. The mention of several intermarriages throughout Scripture testify to the fact that there was easy communication between the countries.
4. A month later, Moses gives a series of messages which were gathered into the book of Deuteronomy. He mentions the Ammonites in chapters 2 and 3. It is not until Deut. 2:9, 19, 37 that we first find out that during one of the times when God spoke to Moses, that he was warned not to invade Moab or Ammon, as God had given to these sons a specific piece of real estate (see also II Chron. 20:10 as well). Both Abram and Lot were believers; however, God blessed Lot a great deal based upon his kinship with Abram, and this blessing extended to his children and to the nations which came from them. When God blesses, He fully and completely blesses. I need to go off on small tangents from here:
a. The Moabites and the Ammonites, for the most part, were unbelievers. We have a specific warning to keep them out of the assembly of Israel for at least ten generations because they did not come out with food and water to Israel when Israel passed by out of Egypt, an obvious result of God’s work (Deut. 23:3). Here these people sat on a piece of land given them by God based upon the kinship between Lot and Abraham, and when the sons of Abraham pass on by, they do nothing by way of help.
b. This curse placed upon Ammon was misapplied when Israel returned to the land in Neh. 13:1–3.
c. You may wonder why on earth is that the gift of this land to the sons of Lot as well as the warning not to invade them was not mentioned back in the book of Numbers. Moses, in Exodus through Numbers concentrates on two things; he concentrates on the narrative describing his life and God taking Israel out of Egypt; and he concentrates on the important decrees of God. Although this was something which God told Moses, it was not important enough for him to record in these earlier books. Furthermore, this was something which God probably told Moses after the thirty-eight and a half years of camping in the desert. Although Num. 20–36 does have many instances of God speaking to Moses, the bulk of the material therein is narrative. Therefore, that particular mandate from God would have been less likely to work its way into that portion of the book of Numbers, which is the time period during which it was given. However, being fresh on his mind, that particular portion of God’s Word would have more naturally worked its way into what Moses had to say to the children of Israel prior to their crossing over the Jordan.
d. These warnings by God to Moses, mentioned three times in Deut. 2, will figure in greatly to the correspondence which will take place between the king of the sons of Ammon and Jephthah in Judges 11.
e. Generally speaking, mixed marriages were discouraged (between Israelites and peoples of other countries) as the Israelites tended to have their hearts turned toward other gods as a result (Lev. 18:24 Ezra 9:1, 14).
f. The time of the exodus and time spent in the desert was 40 years, generally given as between the dates of 1446–1406 b.c.
5. A slight mistranslation can change a lot of things. In Deut. 23:1–8 reads: “No one of illegitimate birth will enter
the assembly of Jehovah; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, will enter the assembly of
Jehovah. No Ammonite or Moabite will enter the assembly of Jehovah—none of their descendants, even to
the tenth generation, will ever enter the assembly of Jehovah because they did not meet you with food and
water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they [lit., he]
hired against you Balaam ben
Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. Nevertheless, Jehovah your God was not willing to listen
to Balaam, but Jehovah your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because Jehovah your God loves
you. You will not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days. You will not detest an Edomite, for he is
your brother; you will not detest an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. The sons of the third
generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of Jehovah.” Notice the bold they; actually, they
did not meet Israel with food and water, but it was he who hired Balaam ben Beor to curse Israel. Both Moab
and Ammon did not help Israel along their way into the land; however, it was strictly Moab which was involved
in the hiring of Balaam ben Beor.
6. The chief city of Ammon—essentially, its capitol—was Rabbah (or, Rabbath).
a. Rabbah means great city. Its full name is Rabbath benêy ׳Ammôwn (ן-ע י̤נ ת--ר) or Rabbah of the Children of Ammon.
b. It is located east of the Jordan River at the Wadi Amman, which becomes the Jabbok River. The primary reason that Rabbah even existed was the fact of that stream running through the desert. For this reason, it is occasionally called the city of waters (II Sam. 12:27).
c. This was where bedstead of iron for Og, the king of Bashan, was.
This is, in fact, the first mention of
Rabbah in Scripture.
d. After this, not much is said about Rabbah until the time of David (which will be covered later).
7. It is not until Joshua 13:25 where we find out the part of the land of Gad had belonged to the sons of Ammon. We don’t have details here and my thinking is that the Amorites took this portion of land from Ammon and Israel took it from the Amorites back in Num. 21 (although only Moab is mentioned has having had land taken from them by the Amorites in that passage). One of the reasons which we took a detour to study Ammon is this right here. The land of Israel which once belonged to Ammon will be a bone of contention between Israel and Ammon and it will be discussed in depth by Jephthah and the king of Ammon in Judges 11.
8. In Judges 3, we have the first recorded overtly aggressive action by Moab and Ammon against Israel. Eglon, the king of Moab, put together an army of Moabites, Ammonites and Amalekites and went to war against Israel, taking the city of palms (which is possibly Jericho). Primarily, this was a war between Israel and Moab, and, although it is never outright stated, the other two groups may have been primarily mercenaries. Circa 1375–1367 b.c.
9. In Judges 11, we have an extensive dialog by messenger between Jephthah and the king of Ammon. The primary point of contention is that the king of Ammon believed that some of the land of Israel rightfully belonged to Ammon. This would have been the land which Israel took from the Amorites (Num. 21) and is later clearly stated to have once belonged to Ammon (Joshua 13:25). Jephthah’s point is that Israel committed no acts of aggression toward Moab or Ammon during her journey along the Dead Sea to the Jordan valley and that the land which Israel took belonged to the Amorites (although it had certainly belonged before to Moab and Ammon). Although it is not stated, Israel was under no obligation to return this land to Moab or Ammon, particularly given the behavior of Moab and Ammon toward Israel when Israel passed by their countries. The text of the messages between the king of Ammon and Jephthah is found in Judges 11:12–28.
10. In our passage, Judges 10–12, we will examine an extensive war between Israel and the sons of Ammon. Jephthah will come out the victor over the king of Ammon in this war.
11. Archeology reveals that during the time period of Jephthah, that the Ammonites had great monolithic structures at their border. However, since their defeat will be a decisive one, Jephthah will not go into Ammon to continue the war. Circa 1134–1089 b.c.
12. There was a king of Ammon, Nahash, who began to make inroads against the eastern Israelite kingdoms. When he went against Jabesh-Gilead, the people offered to make a treaty with him. He agreed, as long as every person had their right eye gouged out. Saul was called upon to deliver them and he brought in a volunteer army which took no prisoners, soundly defeating the Ammonites (I Sam. 11). Surprisingly enough, David later enjoyed an amiable relationship with Nahash.
13. Israel noticed that many of the peoples around them, including Ammon, had kings, and therefore desired a king for themselves (I Sam. 12:12). Saul, who had recently and soundly defeated an Ammonite attack in I Sam. 11 will be named king over all Israel. Saul apparently was a great organizer and, after becoming king, organized Israel’s troops to fight against their surrounding enemies, which then included Moab and Ammon (I Sam. 14:47). Saul reigned in Israel circa 1050–1011 b.c.
14. King David carried on this tradition, defeating a great many of Israel’s enemies, which included Moab and Ammon (II Sam. 8:12). This appears to be a blanket statement which covered David’s career as king over Israel. Apparently there was one king of Ammon, Nahash, with whom David had a good relationship and when Nahash died, David sent his regards and condolences to his son. We are given only the sparsest of information concerning David and Nahash, and that after the fact. However, later on, when Absalom was pursuing David, David went to Mahanaim (we don’t know where that is, but it should be relatively close to Ammon). Shobi, who is the son of Nahash (along with others) brought David quite a few supplies for David and his men (not only did they bring food of all sorts, but livestock, beds, pottery, etc.). My thinking here, and I may be wrong, is that in general, at this time, David had a good relationship with Ammon, despite the recent battles between Israel and Ammon when Saul was leading the troops. Perhaps it was the fact that David was so different from Saul or perhaps it was because David was in opposition to Saul, to some extent, that a bond formed. Now that bond, by II Sam. 10 will be broken (that is the next point); but soon thereafter will follow the incident involving the kindness of Shobi towards David, indicating that David’s behavior of II Sam. 10 was not misinterpreted by all. This also reveals another aspect of David’s character which some miss—he did not go to war just for the sake of going to war and enriching the coffers of Israel. He went to war against those who were enemies of Israel, and if a nation chose not to go to war with Israel, then David did not force the issue. David ruled in Israel circa 1011–971 b.c.
15. II Sam. 10 and I Chron. 19 tell of when David send an embassy with his regards to the king of Ammon, a son of a king with whom David had a good relationship, the advisors to this new king misjudged David’s character and intentions and these ambassadors were returned to Israel humiliated. This sparked a sudden war between Ammon and Israel. Joab was commander-in-chief of this operation and Ammon had hired Syrian mercenaries to assist them. Another skirmish broke out between David and the Syrians which caused the Syrians to completely rethink their policy of allying themselves with the sons of Ammon. These various campaigns, by the way, are afforded much more explanation in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible; ©1976; Vol. 1, pp. 134–140.
16. Joab was sent to complete the war with Ammon in II Sam. 11, during which time David hooked up with Bathsheba. David, upon realizing that he had impregnated Bathsheba, sent her husband, Uriah the Hittite, to fight in the hottest part of the battle against the Ammonites, where he lost his life.
17. The war with Ammon continued, and many of the Ammonites were eventually placed into slavery (II Sam. 12:26–31). In this passage, Rabbah, the capitol of Ammon, is referred to as the city of waters (much like many of our cities have the second name River City.
18. Despite the fact that there was a curse placed upon the Ammonites with regards to the Sacred Tent; and regardless of the fact that Ammon went from protected nation status to outright enemies of Israel, this does not across the board exclude the Ammonites from salvation. It does not matter that a nation as a whole is cursed; as this does not apply to each and every individual in that nation. The key is positive volition toward Jesus Christ and then positive volition toward the Word of God. Among David’s thirty great men, we have Zelek the Ammonite, revealing that anyone during the times of Israel could come to God (II Sam. 23:37 I Chron. 11:39). The mother of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, was a Ammonitess (I Kings 14:21, 31 II Chron. 12:13).
19. Later on, as mentioned before, Absalom, David’s son, rebelled against David as the ruler of Israel and put David on the run. While David and his men were in Mahanaim, a son of Nahash of Ammon, Shobi, brought David and his men an inordinately large number of supplies (II Sam. 17:27–29). Although we do not know exactly the background here, but one possible explanation is that when David went to war against Ammon, his hand having been forced to by Hanun, a son of Nahash, that David put a different son of Nahash in charge—Shobi, a son who understood and apparently witnessed that David had a good relationship with his father. Again, the relationship between David and Nahash is only mentioned or implied after the fact. A second possibility is the wars between David and Ammon actually took place after this and that this is the kindness which Nahash had shown to David. This would put II Samuel way out of wack chronologically speaking. However, it is not abnormal for the historical literature of the Israelites to be handled topically rather than chronologically.
20. After that, we do not hear much about Ammon. Solomon, David’s son, during a period of apostasy, built a sanctuary for Chemosh, an idol of Moab, and for Molech, an idol of Ammon (I Kings 11:6–7). In fact, it was because of this idolatry, to which Solomon apparently bowed, that caused God to divide the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 11:33–35). Solomon’s reign: 971–931 b.c.
21. The impression is that after Joab and David’s sound defeat of Ammon, that, although they appeared to continue to exist as a nation, they were no longer the vigorous nation which could take a stand individually against Israel. In II Kings 24:2, we have bands of various peoples, including Moab and Ammon, come out and fight against Israel. The impression given is that, together, they caused Israel great difficulties, but apart, they do not appear to have been a threat to the nation Israel (although they were certainly still a serious irritant).
22. During the time of Jehoshaphat, we have an allied invasion by Moab, Ammon and Menuites (don’t ask), and Jehoshaphat complains to God that here these people are invading Israel for the land which God gave to the sons of Abraham and tells God that He specifically disallowed Israel from attacking these people when they left Egypt (II Chron. 20:10–12). God did answer Jehoshaphat’s prayer and the allied invasion mistakenly turned on one another (II Chron. 20:20–25). The rule of Jehoshaphat: circa 870–848 b.c.
23. In roughly 800 b.c., Zabad and Jehozabad, both of them sons of an Ammonitess, conspired to slay Joash,
the king of Judah (II Chron. 14:26).
24. The Ammonites paid tribute to Uzziah, king of Judah (II Chron. 26:8). Uzziah circa 792–767 b.c.
25. The Ammonites continued to plague Israel when Jotham was king of Judah. However, he defeated the Ammonites and they had to pay tribute to Israel (II Chron. 27:5). Circa 740–732 b.c.
26. King Josiah finally tore down these idols built by Solomon in II Kings 23:13–15 (if these are in fact the same idols mentioned in a previous point). Josiah’s reign: 640–608 b.c.
27. Amos prophesies against the Ammonites in Amos 1:13–15, as does Zephaniah in Zeph. 2:8–9. ZPEB: By
the time of Amos, the city [of Rabbah] was again an independent capital of the Ammonite kingdom which was
expanding its boundaries up into Gilead. Because of the ultra-brutal ruthlessness of this military conquest,
Amos predicted the destruction of Rabbah.
Amos dates to the late 700’s and Zephaniah to the early
600’s b.c.
28. ZPEB: As the power of Assyria began to wane at the end of the 7th century (c. 630–615 b.c.), rebellious Arab
tribes of the Syrian Desert began to harass Ammonite Borders. After the fall of Nineveh, the Assyrian capital,
in 612 b.c., it would seem that the Ammonites moved into territory formerly held by the kingdom of Israel (cf.
Jer. 49:1–6; Zeph. 2:8–11), in particular cities which had once belonged to the tribe of Gad.
29. When Jeremiah began to teach, God’s Word from him was to be taken to the kings of Edom, Moab and
Ammon, as well as to the kings of Tyre and Sidon (Jer. 27:3). 626–580 b.c.
During the same period of time,
the archeological evidence suggests that Ammon was a vital and significant political entity.
30. God promised through Jeremiah that there would come a time when He would punish all those who are uncircumcised of heart, and the nations listed are Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Israel (Jer. 9:25–26). We have another general, and longer curse found in Jer. 25:12–29, which, of course, includes the Ammonites.
31. Some of those who were dispersed lived among the sons of Ammon (Jer. 40:1).
32. Ammon is specifically prophesied against by Jeremiah in Jer. 49:1–6.
33. Ezekiel also prophesied against the Ammonites (Ezek. 21:20, 28). He therein promises that the king of
Babylon would capture Rabbah during the same campaign where that king would destroy Jerusalem.
However, Rabbah would not be destroyed in that attack. In a more lengthy discourse on Ammon, God
promises, through Ezekiel, that Ammon would fall into the hands of the Arabs of the desert and become a
place for cattle to graze, and their capital city will be a pasture for camels (Ezek. 25:1–7). As ZPEB explains
it: [The complete annihilation of Rabbah] would come later...at the hands of the Arabs of the desert...It was
Rabbah’s control over these desert tribes of the Wadi Sirhan, who traded also with the Arabs, that had made
Rabbah wealthy throughout many years. Ezekiel predicted that the Ammonite kingdom would return to desert
pasture land through military conquest by the same desert tribes.
The end result will be that the sons of
Ammon will no longer be remembered among the nations (Ezek. 25:10–11). 593–570 b.c.
34. Daniel has an interesting end-time prophecy about the last great battle of the tribulation. The king of the north will enter into Israel, but he will not destroy Edom, Moab or part of Ammon. This does not mean that these nations will survive until that time (see the previous point); it means that he will not devastate the land that they once occupied or the peoples therein. Circa 604–535 b.c.
35. In 586 b.c., Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, marched into Jerusalem and took the sacred city. He also appeared to have used groups of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites and Ammonites against Israel (II Kings 24:1–2.
36. However, Nebuchadnezzar later went into Rabbah, the capital city of Ammon, and deported many of the Ammonites. Arabs from the east then began to raid Ammon (it is unclear whether they were used by Nebuchadnezzar or not).
37. Ammon ceased to exist as an antonymous nation around 530 b.c. when Persia assumed control over it and
other former Babylonian provinces in the west.
38. After Israel had been dispersed the first time, God allowed them to return to the land. Two officials in cabinet
of Artaxerxes (or governors under him) were displeased with this, and one of them was an Ammonite
(Neh. 2:10, 19). The Ammonites in general were displeased with the return of the Jews to repair the walls
of Israel (Neh. 4:7) and their governor, Tobiah, hindered the building of the walls by Nehemiah
(Neh. 2:10,
19 4:3, 7). Circa 445 b.c.
39. Inter-testament History of Ammon and its capitol Rabbah:
a. The New Bible Dictionary: The Ammonites survived into the second century bc. Important graves, seals,
and inscribed statues from the seventh and sixth centuries bc suggest vitality and political significance.
The Tobiad family persisted till the second century bc, as important archaeological evidence from
Transjordan and Egypt shows...and Judas Maccabæus fought the Ammonites in his day (I Macc. v. 6).
b. Following the close of the Old Testament canon, Ptolemy Philadelphus, who ruled over Egypt, captured the capitol city of Ammon and renamed it Philadelphia in his own honor (this would have been the mid to late 3rd century b.c.). Rabbah kept the name Philadelphia throughout the Roman period, with an occasional mention of its old name.
c. The city of Philadelphia (Rabbah) changed hands a couple times until it became part of the Roman empire when Pompey captured Palestine in 63 b.c.
d. The Nabatæans occupied the city of Philadelphia for most of the 1st century b.c. (they are not mentioned
in the Old or New Testaments).
Herod the Great conquered this city in 30 b.c. and it became one of
the cities of the Decapolis (the southernmost city of the ten). During the time of Rome, this city had
baths, a theater and an odeum, which is a roofed building where musical concerts were given. Outside
the city in the valley were several large private masonry tombs.
During this time period, the Ammonites
themselves disappeared from history.
e. It is unlikely that anything from the time of Ammon is above ground today. More than likely, it is all buried and because the cost of the land and the ancient structures upon it, precious little archeological work will ever be done.
f. Today, Philadelphia is the city Amman, which is the capital of Jordan.
40. Ammon, like Israel, had the same potential for blessing, despite its ignominious beginnings. God blessed it with a particular piece of land which He protected for several centuries. Since Ammon did not recognize what God did on their behalf, they lost their freedom and eventually were assimilated until they no longer had an identifiable national identify.
41. By the time we get to the New Testament, we no longer hear anything about the nation or the people of Ammon. Philadelphia is mentioned in Rev. 3:7–13, but by that time, it is strictly a Roman city.