4 [W]hen the Ammonites made war on Israel, 5 the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah . . . 6 “Come,” they said, “be our commander, so we can fight the Ammonites . . . 12 Then Jephthah sent messengers to the Ammonite king with the question: “What do you have against us that you have attacked our country?” 13 The king of the Ammonites answered . . . “When Israel came up out of Egypt, they took away my land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, all the way to the Jordan . . .” 14 Jephthah sent back messengers . . . 15 saying: “ . . . Israel did not take the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites . . . 27 I have not wronged you, but you are doing me wrong by waging war against me. Let the LORD, the Judge, decide the dispute this day . . .”

Judges 11:4-6, 12-15, 27 (NIV)

The victim mentality reigns in the world today—hence, rampant personal-injury litigation. From coffee burns to airport-screening indignities to slips on icy sidewalks, people are finding occasions to sue. And while there are genuine grievances to redress, much legal action stems from hypersensitivity or greed. Furthermore, the specter of “false memory” is haunting the courts. Some plaintiffs are so eager to excuse their own failings or to reap riches that they succeed in imagining past wrongs and pressing others to compensate them for fictions. Nations as well as individuals can play the victim card illegitimately. The Ammonites are a case in point.

Hearing the Ammonites’ complaint (v. 13), Jephthah, Israel’s judge, set the record straight. First, Israel had always been careful to respect the territorial integrity of its neighbors east of the Jordan, including Ammonite territory (11:14-18). Second, the land under dispute had never belonged to the Ammonites anyway, but to another group called the Amorites. Moreover, Israel had seized the contested territory from those Amorites when the latter attacked Israel, not the other way around (11:19-23). Besides, the Ammonites themselves had formerly lived under Amorite oppression, from which Israel had delivered them (cf. Num. 21:21-30). Third, three hundred years had now elapsed since all these things had come to pass (11:26). Why had the matter never been brought up before? Why this sudden belligerency for a forgotten offense?

The Ammonites, in short, were engaged in an exercise of historical revisionism, a practice that consists in treating old events with new theories through the lens of a “fresh interpretation.” Thanks to Jephthah’s military response, of course, the Ammonites failed to enforce their claims. Their historical revisionism brought upon them “a very great slaughter” (11:33 KJV).

The Ammonite Ideology seems ever to be with us. It may be described as attempting to remedy ancient historical injustices—real or alleged—by taking action against the descendents of those who are accused of the injustice. Thus, the past is never regarded as “settled.” Nonetheless, it is a settled lesson of history that human efforts to “correct” the injustices of the distant past generally produce only more injustice in the future, even leading to war.

The Ammonite Ideology can work its way into church disputes or embroil church members in political strife outside the church. When pastors see this unfortunate phenomenon at play, they need look no further than these verses in Judges for a convicting sermon illustration or a sobering example to be raised in discussion. Thereby, they offer the counsel of humility, of mercy where needed, and of trust in the sovereignty of God rather than the feverish work of bitter men.

article adapted from Kairos Jouranl

First Baptist Church of Perryville is located at 4800 W. Pulaski Hwy., Perryville, MD across from the Principio Health Center.