And Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, saying,
Israel now meets the first kingdom standing between them and the Jordan. Moses sends messengers instead of an army, which raises two questions: why ask permission from a people already marked for judgment, and what happens when the answer is no?
Israel's first move toward Sihon was not an attack. One writer draws out the principle:
We meet people we do not want to fight, but they will not let us pass in peace. Our war is with those who hold our inheritance beyond the Jordan. If someone attacks us, we must defend ourselves; but we must not be the attackers. Israel wants to pass quietly through the land of the Amorites, but the Amorites will not allow it. So they suffer the consequences of the war they chose to make on the people of God.
Another writer asks what methods God gave Israel to use with this king:
Did He authorise Israel to force Sihon with threats of vengeance, or to win him by flattery? Did He offer him the book of the law with one hand and the sword with the other? Nothing of the sort. Look at the way the LORD treated even these enemies of Israel. "Let me pass through your land. I will go only by the road; I will turn aside neither to the right nor to the left. You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink. Only let me pass through on foot." … Israel kept the path of right and courtesy. Sihon rushed on them to his own ruin.
Not every writer reads Israel's message as faultless. One asks why they needed to ask at all:
God's original gift to Israel included the land of the Amorite. So why send messengers asking permission to pass through it, as they did to Edom? … God had given them the land of the Amorite. Was it faith to ask only for leave to pass through it? The request did bring out their hatred and their effort to stop Israel, and their destruction followed. But the question remains: should Israel not have taken possession at once?
So commentators differ: some see the path of right and courtesy, others a request that fell short of faith.
The name of this people carries a warning:
What is the character of the Amorites? Their name means "Sayer." That recalls the Lord's words about the scribes and Pharisees: "they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:3). They are those who have a form of godliness, but only know how to use their tongue to get their own way.
The king's own name points the same way, and it shapes how Israel answered him:
Sihon's name means "sweeping away," for mere talk tends to sweep away all that is good, for it is empty vanity. So when Sihon and his army attacked, Israel did not answer him with talk, but with decided action.
Sihon's "no" did not wreck God's plan. It served it:
They did not want to quarrel with the king of Heshbon, even though he was an Amorite, unless he was actually inside the holy land. But God was behind it: these Amorites, to their own ruin, would not let Israel pass through in peace. This makes Israel's case clearer still. People might have assumed that the Amorite had to be removed anyway, since God had marked that most wicked race for destruction.
One writer sees an order in the chapter, and the same order in our own lives:
As at the beginning of our chapter, so at the end, we hear the noise of conflict. Sihon had struck Moab, but now he falls before Israel. So does Og the king of Bashan, even though he was a giant, as we learn in Deuteronomy 3:11. First come the events that picture victory over the flesh within. Then comes the record of victory over the foes outside. And this is indeed the way things work in our spiritual experience.
The chapter preserves old songs and records about this territory, and they had a legal purpose:
These foreign traditions are purposely quoted with the exceptional aim of proving, from witnesses unquestionable in the eyes of their most zealous opponents, that the land in dispute, when Israel took it by conquest, did not belong to Ammon or Moab, but to the doomed races of Canaan and its neighbourhood. To the country of the former they had no just claim; that of the Amorite was handed over to them by God.
- Ask first. Israel asked for safe passage instead of threatening war — the path of right and courtesy, with no force and no flattery.
- Ask, or take? Commentators differ: was the polite request proper restraint, or a failure to claim at once what God had already given?
- Words, not deeds. "Amorite" means sayer; "Sihon" means sweeping away. Their strength was their tongue, and Israel answered it with decided action.
- The no was God's. Israel did not come looking for a fight. God was behind Sihon's refusal, and that refusal ruined him.
- Inside, then outside. Victory over the flesh within comes first, then victory over the enemies outside — the same order in a believer's experience.
Let us pass through thy land; we will not turn into the fields, or into the vineyards; we will not drink water out of the wells; on the king's road will we go until we have passed thy border.
Israel's road to the Jordan ran through the land of the Amorites, ruled by Sihon at Heshbon. The message Moses sent was a request, not a threat. So why ask permission for land God had already given? And what turned a polite request into a war?
Israel's request is narrow. They will keep to the road, touch nothing on either side, and pay for what they use. One writer asks how God taught Israel to treat even an enemy:
Look at the principles of the Lord's discipline here. Did He authorise Israel to force Sihon with threats of vengeance, or to win him by flattery? Nothing of the sort. Look at the way in which the Lord treated even these enemies of Israel. "Let me pass through your land. I will go only by the road; I will turn aside neither to the right nor to the left. You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink; only let me pass through on foot." "But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might give him into your hand." … Israel kept the path of right and courtesy. Sihon rushed on them to his own ruin.
The same restraint carries a lesson for anyone who follows God. Israel had a real war ahead of them, but this was not it:
We meet people we do not want to fight, but they will not let us pass in peace. Our war is with those who hold our inheritance beyond the Jordan. If someone attacks us, we must defend ourselves; but we must never be the one who attacks first. Israel wants to pass quietly through the land of the Amorites. The Amorites will not allow it, and they suffer the consequences of the war they had sought against the people of God.
Commentators differ here. Some read the message as plain courtesy. One writer sees a problem in it, because God had already given this land to Israel:
The land of the Amorite was part of God's original gift to Israel. So why send messengers asking permission to pass through it, as they did to Edom? The land of Edom and of Moab was no part of what God had promised Israel. God had commanded that Israel should not take it. But the land of the Amorite was given to them. Was it faith to ask only for passage through it? … The question remains: should Israel not have taken possession at once? To ask permission to pass quietly through a land God had given them — was that the obedience of faith?
Whatever the answer, Israel's right to the land was never in doubt. God had said so to Moses:
These lands were won by conquest, and won according to God's will. "Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land" (Deut. 2:31) is the Lord's word to Moses. So there can be no question about their right to the land.
One writer draws a lesson from the meaning of the Amorites' name:
When Sihon refused, Israel did not turn away, as they did from Edom. Sihon came out with an army to fight against Israel. What is the character of the Amorites? Their name means "Sayer," which reminds us of the Lord's words about the scribes and Pharisees: "they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:3). They are those who have a form of godliness, but only know how to use their tongue to get their own way.
The peaceful terms of verse 22 were not lost detail. They became Israel's legal defence long afterwards, when Ammon claimed the same land:
Israel offered to pass through the land of the Amorites on the king's highway, without drinking the water of the well. Sihon their king refused. He "gathered all his people together … and fought against Israel" (Num. 21:21-23). This was the undoing of Sihon and his people… Heshbon, the city of Sihon, once belonged to Moab. But Israel did not take it from Moab; they took it from the Amorites. About three hundred years later, Jephthah quoted this history to the king of the Ammonites. That king claimed the land Israel had taken from Sihon, king of the Amorites, as belonging to Ammon (Judges 11:12-27).
- Request — Israel asked only to use the road. They would touch no field or vineyard and would pay for their water. This was the path of right and courtesy, not force or flattery.
- Restraint — the real war lay beyond the Jordan. God's people defend themselves when attacked, but they never strike first.
- Riddle — writers differ. Was asking permission for land already given the obedience of faith, or a lack of confidence in God?
- Right — Sihon's refusal settled nothing about ownership. God's own word, "Begin to take possession," left no doubt about Israel's title.
- Record — Sihon rejected a peaceful offer. Three hundred years later, Jephthah used that fact against Ammon's claim to the land.
But Sihon would not suffer Israel to go through his border; and Sihon gathered all his people, and went out against Israel into the wilderness, and came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel.
Israel asked Sihon for safe passage through his land. His answer was an army. This verse turns a peaceful appeal into Israel's first real conquest, and it raises a hard question: why did God let the refusal happen?
Commentators note the restraint in how Israel approached this king.
In this case let us see the principles of the Lord's discipline. Did He authorise Israel to force Sihon with threats of vengeance, or to win him by flattery? … Nothing of the sort… Israel kept the path of right and courtesy. Sihon rushed on them to his own ruin; and only so did Israel strike down and drive out the king of Heshbon.
Another writer turns the same restraint into a rule for believers who meet people blocking their way:
We meet people we do not want to fight, but they will not let us pass in peace… If they attack us, we must defend ourselves. But we are not to be the aggressors. Israel wants to pass quietly through the land of the Amorites. The Amorites will not allow it. So they suffer the consequences of the war they had sought against the people of God.
Sihon's stubbornness was no accident. Writers trace it back to God's own purpose.
God Himself had ordered things so. He knew well that the presence of the Amorites on their borders would be a constant snare and evil. He allowed the Amorites to have no confidence in Israel's peaceful intentions, for the very purpose of putting Israel in possession of the land.
That purpose also clears Israel of greed or bloodlust:
What is emphasised here… is that God gave him into their hand. Even the stubbornness that refused passage to the advancing army came from Him, since the wickedness of the Amorites was now full… Neither greed for land nor love of destruction drove Israel to bring this merciless removal on Sihon and his people. The mercy was for the world, in rooting out of it a deadly evil.
Commentators differ here. Kelly and Darby see courtesy. Another writer asks whether it was faith to ask at all, since God had already given this land to Israel.
God's original gift to Israel included the land of the Amorite. So the question arises: why send messengers asking permission to pass through it, as they did to Edom? The lands of Edom and Moab were no part of Israel's promised possession, and God had commanded that they should not be driven out. The land of the Amorite was given. Was it faith to ask only to pass through it? The asking did bring out their hatred and their effort to stop Israel. Their destruction was the result. But the question remains — should Israel not have taken possession at once?
One writer finds a picture in the names themselves — the king's, his city's, and the battlefield at Jahaz.
There is not much agreement about his name… It may be, actively, "sweeping away," as pride of intellect would sweep away the things of God. He is always called king of Heshbon, where he lived. The common version only translates that word as "account," "device," or "reason." It certainly gives the thought of mental work. He comes out to meet Israel at Jahatz, which Gesenius gives, from the Arabic, as "a place trodden down" — probably a "threshing-floor."
Another writer reads the king's name the same way, and draws a lesson about answering words with deeds.
Sihon's name means "sweeping away," for mere talk tends to sweep away all that is good, since it is empty vanity. On this occasion, then, when Sihon and his army attacked, Israel did not meet him with talk but with decided action. By the grace and power of God they defeated this proud enemy and took his cities… So Israel showed something of the courage of faith before they ever entered the land of Canaan.
One writer brings this home to the Christian life. What God has given us, we still have to take hold of.
As soon as we begin to possess, opposition springs up. The old powers do not yield without a struggle. It is a hard business… It means exercise and conflict and trouble. But it is well worth it. Then comes the joy of victory — the joy of really holding a little more of what is ours by an unquestionable title, given to us by God.
- Ask first. Israel asked to pass through. They did not threaten or flatter. They struck only after Sihon attacked.
- Refusal served God. The refusal itself came from God. He used it to sweep away a people whose wickedness was full and to put Israel in the land.
- A question left open. Was it courtesy to ask permission for land God had already given, or a lack of faith? Commentators differ.
- Talk meets action. The names picture a king of words and reasoning. Israel answered him not with talk but with action.
- Possession costs conflict. You keep what God gives only through struggle. Opposition rises the moment you take hold. Then comes the joy of victory.