Deuteronomy 2 explained: Passing Relatives, Fighting a King

Turning north past Edom (vv. 1-7)

After long years circling the hill country of Seir, the LORD tells Moses to head north past Edom, whose people descended from Jacob's brother Esau. Israel must not exploit Edom's fear or take any land, and must pay for every bit of food and water, since God had provided for them all along.

Moab and its earlier peoples (vv. 8-12)

Moab, descended from Abraham's nephew Lot, is also off limits because the LORD had given them their land. The bracketed aside notes that tall, strong peoples once lived in these lands and were driven out, a reminder that land often changed hands and that feared giants could be overcome.

A whole generation gone (vv. 13-15)

Crossing the Zered Valley marks thirty-eight years since Kadesh Barnea, where the people had refused to enter the promised land. By now every adult fighting man of that generation had died, and the text says plainly that the LORD's hand was against them.

Ammon left in peace (vv. 16-23)

The Ammonites, also descended from Lot, are not to be disturbed either. Another aside lists more peoples who displaced earlier ones, including the Caphtorites, probably the Philistines, who most scholars think came from Crete.

Sihon refuses passage (vv. 24-31)

Moses sends a peaceful offer to Sihon, an Amorite king east of the Jordan, asking only to march through on the main road and pay for supplies. Sihon refuses, and the text says God made him stubborn so that he would be defeated, presenting his refusal as part of God's plan.

Total destruction at Jahaz (vv. 32-37)

Israel defeats Sihon and, by the text's own account, kills every person in his towns, women and children included, while keeping the animals and goods. This reflects an ancient war practice of destroying a conquered people as something devoted to a god, and scholars debate how literally such war reports were meant.

Key verse: Deuteronomy 2:7

Where Christians differ

Christians differ on how to read the destruction of Sihon's towns: some see it as a literal and just judgment, some as exaggerated ancient war language, and others as a limited human view of God that later scripture moves beyond.

Something to think about

When a story praises careful restraint toward some neighbors and total violence toward others, what do you think shaped where that line was drawn?