2:16–23 The Israelites journeyed beyond the land of Moab into the territory of Ammon. Ammonites were also related to Israel as descendants of Ben-ammi (“son of my people”; Gen. 19:38 ESV mg.), the son of Lot by one of his daughters (Gen. 19:30–38). They occupied the territory of the Zamzummim between the Rivers Arnon and Jabbok. Zamzummim appears to be an imitation of speech, a foreign tongue that sounds like buzzing. The chief town of the Ammonites was Rabbah, or Rabbath-ammon, and was remembered as the home of the sarcophagus of Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 3:11). The preservation of this trophy indicates some connection with an earlier culture. The city was located near powerful springs that are the source of the Jabbok. The Jabbok flows north, then westerly, turning due west in an increasingly deep gorge in the direction of Shechem. It enters the Jordan just north of Adam. It is about 60 miles (95 km) in distance from its sources to the Jordan and is a perennial stream known as Zarqa (“blue river”). The upper course of the river separated Ammon to the east from the kingdom of Sihon. The lower course of the river was the southern boundary of the kingdom of Og to the north.

The Israelites did not journey near the area of Philistia, even though they were not forbidden to conquer it. Moses includes it as another example of the displacement of autochthonous people by newcomers. The “Avvim” are named as living near Philistia in Joshua 13:3, but they are otherwise unknown. They may have been herdsmen like the Ishmaelites, who also lived in unprotected villages. The Philistines arrived from Caphtor (Gen. 10:14; Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7), an island or coastland in the area of the Aegean. It is often taken to be Crete, as the Philistines are called “Cherethites” or Cretans (Zeph. 2:5). The Philistines were among the Sea Peoples from the Aegean region who invaded the area east of the Mediterranean. They are first mentioned in temple inscriptions of Rameses III in the twelfth century BC.

2:24–25 Sihon was an Amorite king and is known only from the scriptural record. He ruled the territory east of Jericho from the city of Heshbon. The city guarded the northern edge of the Moabite plain, where a southern tributary to Wadi Hesban cuts down sharply toward the Jordan River about 15 miles (24 km) farther west. The kingdom of Sihon extended from the boundary of Moab on the Arnon in the south beyond the Jabbok in the north, including Gilead (Josh. 12:2–3). Its southwestern point included the way of Beth-jeshimoth, down to the slopes of Pisgah on the Dead Sea. The southern half of Sihon’s kingdom consisted of the tableland (Hb. mishor) of Moab from Heshbon to the Arnon. An Amorite war taunt against Moab in Numbers 21:27–29 tells of Sihon’s conquest of this territory. The Israelite conquest of Canaan would be launched from this territory, making possession of it critical. Israelite claim to the territory was based on its being under Amorite control at the time of the conquest. Through Moses God said, “I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite.” In Deuteronomy the conquest begins with the crossing of the Arnon into the territory of Sihon. Six imperatives emphasize the divine mandate to conquer as Moses resumes his address to Israel: Up! Move! Cross the Arnon! Begin! Occupy! Engage in battle!

God also promises to “begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven.” Dread was always part of military strategy, a common boast found in Assyrian inscriptions. The defeat of the Egyptians at the crossing of the Red Sea struck fear into the hearts of the Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, and all of Canaan (Ex. 15:14–15). The defeat of Sihon and Og would be the same. These two kingdoms were massive compared to the other city-states in the Transjordan.

The Transjordan is not included in the border description of the land of Canaan in Numbers 34:1–12. The northern and eastern boundaries correspond to the land of Canaan as defined by Egyptian treaties with the Hittites during the time of Rameses II. In the north, Kadesh on the Orontes remained under Hittite control. In Numbers 21:21–25 the conquest of Sihon is the result of Israel’s being refused passage through his territory. In Numbers 32:1–27 the Gadites and Reubenites are granted permission to settle in the territory of Sihon on condition that they participate in the conquest of Canaan. It is not part of the territory God has given them, but it is the result of somewhat conflicted negotiations to provide pasture for the herds of those tribes. Deuteronomy, however, is explicit in declaring that God has given the land of Sihon to Israel. They are mandated to occupy it and settle there. Before his death Moses declared that the territory of the Transjordan was a part of the Promised Land sworn to the fathers (Deut. 34:1–4). Deuteronomy has an expanded description of the land that belongs to Israel, and it anticipates the conquest of Canaan based on the conquest that has already begun.

2:26–30 Israel’s request to Sihon to pass through his territory interrupts the narrative, which resumes with a repeat of the command to take possession of the land (Deut. 2:31). Such resumptive repetitions are common following a digression from the narrative. The procedure with Sihon has its analogy with the exodus, in which Moses asks Pharaoh for permission to leave although he already knows that Pharaoh will not let the people go (Ex. 3:16–20; 5:1–3). The hardening of Sihon’s heart also corresponds to Pharaoh, who hardens his own heart, refusing to let the people go, so that God then further hardens his heart. In both cases divine action is in accordance with human disposition. Like the request to Pharaoh, the request made to Sihon betrays his attitude to Israel. Sihon would never allow Israelites access to his territory in order for them to launch an attack against Canaan. Sihon’s stubborn rejection leads to his own destruction. The majesty of God can then be made evident to all as he exercises judgment against the kingdom of Sihon. This in turn leads to the dread of Israel falling on the nations.

2:31–37 No detail is given in the battle report against Sihon, as may be found in the major battles in the book of Joshua. The conquest is given as an example of divine warfare. God orders the attack, urges courage, and promises victory; Israel obeys, the enemy is totally defeated, and Israel occupies the land. This is the model by which warfare is to be conducted in Israel.

There are two dimensions in this warfare: invisible divine intervention and visible human action (Deut 2:32–33). At the human level, Israel encountered Sihon at Jahaz, a city in the area of Dibon according to the inscription of Mesha king of Moab.26 At one level this is normal military action, but the success of this action is dependent upon complete obedience to the divine mandate. Victory is not achievable by military ability or strategy; if God has not ordained the battle, it will end in defeat.

The treatment of Sihon’s people and cities shows that his kingdom was considered part of the territory designated for conquest. They were “devoted to destruction” (Hb. kharam), an ancient term that has no modern equivalent.27 It is related to the term holy (qadosh), as may be seen in the matter of temple dedications in Leviticus 27:14–34. If a property, for example, is dedicated to the Lord (qadosh), its earnings go toward the support of the temple. Such property is set apart from common use and is said to be holy because it contributes to the temple. However, the owner of such property might decide to buy it back, redeeming it (gaʾal) for his own use (Lev. 27:14–15). All property went back to its owner at the Year of Jubilee. If a property was not bought back at the Year of Jubilee, it would belong perpetually to the temple (Lev. 27:16–21). It was no longer merely qadosh but then became kharam. Such property belonged to the temple perpetually. It was removed from common use for all time and could never be redeemed or used for profit by anyone.

Property dedicated in such an irrevocable manner remained in the world, but it could never be used for profane (secular) purposes. Animals so dedicated had to be killed. If a human were so dedicated, doing so would be a capital crime deserving of death (Lev. 27:29). Malachi warns of the danger that, when the Lord comes, he will claim the whole land as kherem, meaning that he will claim it entirely as his own domain (Mal. 4:6). This is precisely what happens in the book of Revelation, as God’s judgment against earth unfolds. The conquests of Canaan are the same concept as the judgments of Revelation. At the conquest, the sins of the Amorites were complete (Gen. 15:16). There is a time at which mercy ends and all that remains is judgment. This was true in Canaan and will be true in the last judgment at the end of this age.

It is no more appropriate to refer to the wars of conquest as genocide than it is to refer to the irrevocable gift of land as genocide. Armageddon is not a genocide. All of these are divine actions of judgment in which God irrevocably claims for himself that which is his own. The difference in the conquest is human involvement, but that does not make it different in concept. Israel can come under the judgment of kherem just as readily as Canaanites, as can be seen in the warnings at Jericho (Josh. 6:18). A further feature in Deuteronomy is that judgment of kherem is not carried out consistently in military action. All of Canaan is under kherem theologically, in that God is giving all the land to Israel, but actual judgment of the people is carried out only in a representative manner. The theological concept of divine judgment against all evil must be held consistently, but in practice Canaanites have opportunity to join Israel.