God Commands the Conquest of Sihon—Why Does Moses Offer Peace?

The command to go to war against Sihon, even though his territory lies east of the Jordan River (Deuteronomy 2:24–25), seemingly marks the beginning of the conquest of the promised land and reflects a tradition in which Moses, not Joshua, leads it. But instead, Moses asks to cross the land peacefully (vv. 26–29). The Midrash portrays this choice as disobedience that God ultimately validates. A literary critical approach highlights how Moses’s response is a redaction, an inner-biblical midrash, that reconciles different layers of the text.

Categories:

God Commands the Conquest of Sihon—Why Does Moses Offer Peace?

Do Not Attack Edom, Moab, and Ammon

In the beginning of Deuteronomy,^[1] YHWH instructs Moses that the Israelites should not instigate hostilities against three different nations when passing by or through their territories. The first is Edom, because YHWH has given it as an inheritance to the sons of Esau:

^{דברים ב:ד} וְאֶת הָעָם צַו לֵאמֹר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים בִּגְבוּל אֲחֵיכֶם בְּנֵי עֵשָׂו הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּשֵׂעִיר וְיִירְאוּ מִכֶּם וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם מְאֹד. ^ב:ה אַל תִּתְגָּרוּ בָם כִּי לֹא אֶתֵּן לָכֶם מֵאַרְצָם עַד מִדְרַךְ כַּף רָגֶל כִּי יְרֻשָּׁה לְעֵשָׂו נָתַתִּי אֶת הַר שֵׂעִיר.

^{Deut 2:4} And charge the people as follows: “You are about to pass through the territory of your kindred, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. They will be afraid of you, so be very careful ^2:5not to engage in battle with them, for I will not give you even so much as a foot’s length of their land, since I have given the hill country of Seir to Esau as a possession.”^[2]

The Israelites are told to treat Moab similarly:

^{דברים ב:ט} וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הֹוָה אֵלַי אַל תָּצַר אֶת מוֹאָב וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָּם מִלְחָמָה כִּי לֹא אֶתֵּן לְךָ מֵאַרְצוֹ יְרֻשָּׁה כִּי לִבְנֵי לוֹט נָתַתִּי אֶת עָר יְרֻשָּׁה.

^{Deut 2:9} YHWH said to me, “Do not harass Moab or engage them in battle, for I will not give you any of its land as a possession, since I have given Ar as a possession to the descendants of Lot.”

YHWH’s warning about Ammon is similar: Israel must not engage them in war because he has given that territory as an inheritance to the descendants of Lot:

^{דברים ב:יט} וְקָרַבְתָּ מוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן אַל תְּצֻרֵם וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָּם כִּי לֹא אֶתֵּן מֵאֶרֶץ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן לְךָ יְרֻשָּׁה כִּי לִבְנֵי לוֹט נְתַתִּיהָ יְרֻשָּׁה.

^{Deut 2:19} When you approach the frontier of the Ammonites, do not harass them or engage them in battle, for I will not give the land of the Ammonites to you as a possession, because I have given it to the descendants of Lot.

Attack Sihon

However, after the Israelites are to cross the Arnon river, YHWH instructs them to engage in battle and inherit the land of Sihon:

^{דברים ב:כד} קוּמוּ סְּעוּ וְעִבְרוּ אֶת נַחַל אַרְנֹן רְאֵה נָתַתִּי בְיָדְךָ אֶת סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן הָאֱמֹרִי וְאֶת אַרְצוֹ הָחֵל רָשׁ וְהִתְגָּר בּוֹ מִלְחָמָה ^ב׃כה הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אָחֵל תֵּת פַּחְדְּךָ וְיִרְאָתְךָ עַל פְּנֵי הָעַמִּים תַּחַת כׇּל הַשָּׁמָיִם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן שִׁמְעֲךָ וְרָגְזוּ וְחָלוּ מִפָּנֶיךָ.

^{Deut 2:24} Proceed on your journey and cross the Arnon river. See, I have handed over to you King Sihon the Amorite of Heshbon, and his land. Begin to take possession by engaging him in battle. ^2:25This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under heaven; when they hear report of you, they will tremble and be in anguish because of you.

These verses solemnly proclaim that the battle against Sihon marks the opening of the conquest of the promised land—even though his territory is on the east side of the Jordan.^[3] Indeed, the imperative רש (rash), “take possession,” of Sihon derives from the same root (.י.ר.ש, y.r.sh.) as ירשה (yerushah), the word for inheritance, which describes the land promised by YHWH to Israel (see, e.g., Deut 3:20; Josh 1:15; 12:6,7).^[4]

A similar expression is used in relation to Israel taking their inheritance, the promised land, elsewhere in Deuteronomy:

^{דברים א:ח} רְאֵה נָתַתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם אֶת הָאָרֶץ בֹּאוּ וּרְשׁוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְ־הֹוָה לַאֲבֹתֵיכֶם לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב לָתֵת לָהֶם וּלְזַרְעָם אַחֲרֵיהֶם.

^{Deut 1:8} See, I have set the land before you; go and take possession of the land that YHWH swore to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them and to their descendants after them.

^{דברים א:כא} רְאֵה נָתַן יְ־הֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ אֶת הָאָרֶץ עֲלֵה רֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְ־הֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֶיךָ לָךְ אַל תִּירָא וְאַל תֵּחָת.

^{Deut 1:21} See, YHWH your God has given the land to you; go up, take possession, as YHWH, the God of your ancestors, has promised you; do not fear or be dismayed.

Thus, these verses (Deut 2:24–25) seemingly reflect a different tradition in which Moses,^[5] not Joshua, is commanded to begin the conquest of the promised land, whose border is not on the Jordan River, but the Arnon river.

Moses Defies YHWH’s Instructions

YHWH’s clear instructions lead us to expect a war with Sihon beginning the conquest of the promised land, but instead Moses does exactly the opposite!

^{דברים ב:כו} וָאֶשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים מִמִּדְבַּר קְדֵמוֹת אֶל סִיחוֹן מֶלֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם לֵאמֹר.

^{Deut 2:26} So I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth to King Sihon of Heshbon with terms of peace...^[6]

Moses’s terms of peace consist of merely requesting safe passage through king Sihon’s land without any intention to conquer his land, and even offering compensation for all food and water consumed along the way (v. 27-29), as he did with Edom. Nevertheless, the words “terms of peace” (דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם, dibre shalom) might evoke the laws of conquest for a place not designated as an inheritance:

^{דברים כ:י} כִּי תִקְרַב אֶל עִיר לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ וְקָרָאתָ אֵלֶיהָ לְשָׁלוֹם.

^{Deut 20:10} When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it [terms of] peace.^[7]

How are we to understand the contrast between YHWH’s command and Moses’s actions?

Disobeying God for the Sake of Peace

Already the 9^th century midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah highlights Moses’s disobedience of God’s command to conquer Sihon: The midrash begins by noting Moses’s decision to shatter the tablets of the decalogue after seeing the golden calf, and God agreeing with him,^[8] and then continues:

^{דברים רבה ה:יג} הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָמַר לוֹ שֶׁיִּלָּחֵם עִם סִיחוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְהִתְגָּר בּוֹ מִלְחָמָה" (דברים ב, כד), וְהוּא לֹא עָשָׂה כֵן, אֶלָּא: "וָאֶשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים מַלְאָכִים [מִּמִדְבַּר קְדֵמוֹת אֶל סִיחוֹן מֶלֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם]" (דברים ב, כו).

^{Deut Rabbah 5:13} The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded him to fight against Sihon, as it is said: “And engage with him in battle” (Deut 2:24), yet he did not do so, but “So I sent messengers [from the wilderness of Kedemoth to King Sihon of Heshbon with the words of peace]” (Deut 2:26).

אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ לְהִלָּחֵם עִמּוֹ, וְאַתָּה פָּתַחְתָּ לוֹ בְּשָׁלוֹם. חַיֶּיךָ, שֶׁאֲנִי מְקַיֵּם גְּזֵרָתֶךָ. כָּל מִלְחָמָה שֶׁיְּהוּ הוֹלְכִים, לֹא יְהוּ פּוֹתְחִים אֶלָּא בְּשָׁלוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כִּי תִקְרַב אֶל עִיר וְגוֹ׳" (דברים כ, י).

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: “I have commanded you to fight against him, but you approached him in peace. By your life, I herewith confirm your decision: Every war in which they (i.e., Israel) engage, they shall not approach except in peace,” as it is said: “When you draw near to a town etc. to fight against it, offer it terms of peace” (Deut 20:10ff.).^[9]

Whereas the Midrash treats the contradiction between the divine command and its fulfillment by Moses as a contradiction within reality—thus creating a drama of Moses rebelling against the divine will and teaching the ideal of peace—a literary critical approach regards the contradiction, as it is, as a contradiction within the text, that is, between different layers of the text. It suggests that Deuteronomy 2 has been redacted, and that verses 26–31 are a later insertion, or more precisely, a form of inner-biblical midrash.^[10]

A Redaction as Inner-Biblical Midrash

The redactor seeks to allay the surprise of the reader that the east side of the Jordan belongs to the promised land and that Moses begins the conquest. Thus he explains that this land was indeed eventually conquered, but only because YHWH intervened and made Sihon’s heart stubborn.^[11]

The secondary character of these verses (Deut 2:26-31) becomes even clearer when comparing Moses’s offer here to king Sihon with similar appeals to the king of Edom and king Sihon in Numbers:

^{במדבר כ:יז}‎ נַעְבְּרָה נָּא בְאַרְצֶךָ לֹא נַעֲבֹר בְּשָׂדֶה וּבְכֶרֶם וְלֹא נִשְׁתֶּה מֵי בְאֵר דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ נֵלֵךְ לֹא נִטֶּה יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול עַד אֲשֶׁר נַעֲבֹר גְּבֻלֶךָ.

^{Num 20:17} “Now let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard or drink water from any well; we will travel along the king’s road, not turning aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory.”

^{במדבר כא:כא} וַיִּשְׁלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְאָכִים אֶל סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִי לֵאמֹר ^כא:כב אֶעְבְּרָה בְאַרְצֶךָ לֹא נִטֶּה בְּשָׂדֶה וּבְכֶרֶם לֹא נִשְׁתֶּה מֵי בְאֵר בְּדֶרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ נֵלֵךְ עַד אֲשֶׁר נַעֲבֹר גְּבֻלֶךָ.

^{Num 21:21} Then Israel sent messengers to King Sihon of the Amorites, saying, ^21:22 “Let me pass through your land; we will not turn aside into field or vineyard; we will not drink the water of any well; we will travel along the king’s road until we have passed through your territory.”

The expression (בְּ)דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ נֵלֵךְ, (be)derek hamelek nelek, “we will travel along the king’s road” probably reflects the terminology of the Assyrian imperial administration for the description of trade routes from Damascus to the Gulf of Aqaba.^[12] The redactor of Deuteronomy appears to be adapting and reworking the language from these verses:^[13]

^{דברים ב:כו} וָאֶשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים מִמִּדְבַּר קְדֵמוֹת אֶל סִיחוֹן מֶלֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם לֵאמֹר.^ב:כז אֶעְבְּרָה בְאַרְצֶךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֵלֵךְ לֹא אָסוּר יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול.

^{Deut 2:26} So I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth to King Sihon of Heshbon with terms of peace: ^2:27 “If you let me pass through your land, I will travel only along the road; I will turn aside neither to the right nor to the left.

The classic expression (בְּ)דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ נֵלֵךְ, (be)derek hamelek nelek, “we will travel along the king’s road” is replaced with בַּדֶּרֶךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֵלֵךְ, baderek baderek ’elek, I will travel only along the road.” The repetition of בַּדֶּרֶךְ, baderek (“on the road”) to express intensification—“I will travel only along the road”—is similar to late biblical Hebrew expressions such as the common בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר, baboker baboker (“every morning”) in the priestly literature.^[14]

We also find creative use and reworking of phrases found in other biblical texts in the next verse as well:

^{דברים ב:כח} אֹכֶל בַּכֶּסֶף תַּשְׁבִּרֵנִי וְאָכַלְתִּי וּמַיִם בַּכֶּסֶף תִּתֶּן לִי וְשָׁתִיתִי רַק אֶעְבְּרָה בְרַגְלָי.

^{Deut 2:28} You shall sell me food for money, so that I may eat, and give me water for money, so that I may drink. Only allow me to pass through on foot

Aside from adjusting to the second person, this verse is copied nearly word for word from an earlier verse in which YHWH instructs Israel about Seir in the third person.^[15]

^{דברים ב:ו} אֹכֶל תִּשְׁבְּרוּ מֵאִתָּם בַּכֶּסֶף וַאֲכַלְתֶּם וְגַם מַיִם תִּכְרוּ מֵאִתָּם בַּכֶּסֶף וּשְׁתִיתֶם.

^{Deut 2:6} You shall purchase food from them for money, so that you may eat, and you shall also buy water from them for money, so that you may drink.

Our redactor replaces תִּכְרוּ (tikru), the rare word for “buy,” with the simpler, more common word תִּתֶּן (titen), “you will give.” The result is a simpler, more straightforward reading (lectio facilior), “and give me water for money.”

Israel’s Border: The Jordan, Not the Arnon

The redactor then concludes Moses’s offer to Sihon with a main significant modification.

^{דברים ב:כט} כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ לִי בְּנֵי עֵשָׂו הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּשֵׂעִיר וְהַמּוֹאָבִים הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּעָר עַד אֲשֶׁר אֶעֱבֹר אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְ־הֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ נֹתֵן לָנוּ.

^{Deut 2:29} just as the descendants of Esau who live in Seir have done for me and likewise the Moabites who live in Ar—until I cross the Jordan into the land that YHWH our God is giving us.”

Here, the Jordan—not the Arnon River—is explicitly identified as the border of the promised land of Canaan. The verb .נ.ת.ן (n.t.n.), “to give,” appears again here, but this time not in relation to Sihon’s land on the east side of the Jordan, but in relation to the land of Canaan on the west side of the Jordan.

Moses’s offer of peace (v. 26–29) thus has absolutely nothing to do with a war of conquest nor the subjugation of Sihon. It stands rather in direct contrast to the divine command (v. 24-25).

Some scholars have suggested that Moses’s offer of peace was added to the original narrative in order to align the Sihon account with the laws of war later in Deuteronomy (20:10–14).^[16] Yet, as demonstrated, Moses’s initiative constitutes a peaceful request to pass through Sihon’s land without any intention of conquest. By contrast, the “offer of peace” in the laws of war is in fact an ultimatum of surrender. Thus, the two texts share little in common beyond the use of the same word שָׁלוֹם (shalom), albeit in two different senses.

Nevertheless, the war law in Deuteronomy (20:10–14) appears to have served as an intertextual anchor for the redactor’s artificial incorporation of Moses’s ‘terms of peace’ into a narrative where war, rather than peace, would have been expected. The aim of this inner-biblical midrash (vv. 26–29), however, is to subvert the base layer by presenting Sihon’s land as lying outside the borders of the promised land that was about to be conquered.^[17]

In the end, however, the redactor has YHWH hardening Sihon’s heart, so he resists Moses’s request to transgress his land:

^{דברים ב:ל} וְלֹא אָבָה סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן הַעֲבִרֵנוּ בּוֹ כִּי הִקְשָׁה יְ־הֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת רוּחוֹ וְאִמֵּץ אֶת לְבָבוֹ לְמַעַן תִּתּוֹ בְיָדְךָ כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה.

^{Deut 2:30} But King Sihon of Heshbon was not willing to let us pass through, for YHWH your God had hardened his spirit and made his heart defiant in order to hand him over to you, as he has now done.

A Wiederaufnahme

Sihon’s hostile response allows the conquest to go forward even though his territory is not part of the promised land:

^{דברים ב:לא} וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הֹוָה אֵלַי רְאֵה הַחִלֹּתִי תֵּת לְפָנֶיךָ אֶת סִיחֹן וְאֶת אַרְצוֹ הָחֵל רָשׁ לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת אַרְצוֹ.

^{Deut 2:31} YHWH said to me, “See, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin now to take possession of his land.”

Here we have a case of resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme), which marks the end of the inserted material.^[18] As is often the case, the redactor’s secondary addition is integrated into the text by restating the content of the original verses^[19] in chiastic (reversed) order.^[20]

^{דברים ב:כד} קוּמוּ סְּעוּ וְעִבְרוּ אֶת נַחַל אַרְנֹן רְאֵה נָתַתִּי בְיָדְךָ אֶת סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן הָאֱמֹרִי וְאֶת אַרְצוֹ הָחֵל רָשׁ וְהִתְגָּר בּוֹ מִלְחָמָה.^ב:כה הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אָחֵל תֵּת פַּחְדְּךָ וְיִרְאָתְךָ עַל פְּנֵי הָעַמִּים תַּחַת כׇּל הַשָּׁמָיִם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן שִׁמְעֲךָ וְרָגְזוּ וְחָלוּ מִפָּנֶיךָ.

^{Deut 2:24} Proceed on your journey and cross the Arnon river. See, I have handed over to you King Sihon the Amorite of Heshbon, and his land. Begin to take possession by engaging him in battle. ^2:25This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under heaven; when they hear report of you, they will tremble and be in anguish because of you.

But instead of the words “Begin to take possession by engaging him in battle,” verse 31 says: “Begin now to take possession of his land.” The command to engage Sihon in battle is no longer necessary after the intervention of YHWH. Nevertheless, the somewhat redundant phrase הָחֵל רָשׁ לָרֶשֶׁת, (hakhel rash lareshet) “Begin now to take possession” still preserves an echo of the original formulation of the command in v. 24.

The Conquest of Sihon Happens Only Because of a Failed Peace Initiative

In sum, the redaction in Deuteronomy 2:26–31 functions as an inner-biblical midrash that reinterprets the divine command to conquer Sihon’s land (v. 24-25) in light of the story’s outcome. The redactor reshapes the base layer by presenting Moses’s original offer of genuine peace as divinely predetermined to fail, since YHWH hardens Sihon’s heart^[21] and thus compels him to initiate war:

^{דברים ב:לב} וַיֵּצֵא סִיחֹן לִקְרָאתֵנוּ הוּא וְכׇל עַמּוֹ לַמִּלְחָמָה יָהְצָה. ^ב:לג וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ יְ־הֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ לְפָנֵינוּ וַנַּךְ אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָו וְאֶת כׇּל עַמּוֹ.

^{Deut 2:32} Sihon with all his troops took the field against us at Jahaz, ^2:33 and our God YHWH delivered him to us and we defeated him and his sons and all his troops.^[22]

In this way, the inner-biblical midrash both justifies the outbreak of hostilities and redefines the territorial extent of the promised land that is about to be conquered.

The secondary expansions in the biblical text should be viewed as inner-biblical midrashim and explored for their theological message. Sometimes, as is the case here, the exegetical methods of inner-biblical midrashim are most easily recognized through these postbiblical midrashim.^[23]

Appendix

The Far-Reaching Influence of the Inner-Biblical Midrash on Moses’s Disobedience of God’s Command

The inner-biblical midrash inserted in this chapter of Deuteronomy (2:24–31), which begins as a literary strategy, sets in motion a long exegetical trajectory with theological, narrative, and halakhic consequences.

Already in the biblical corpus, it appears that the inner-biblical midrash portraying Moses as a peace-seeker—even in defiance of a divine command to wage war—has a similar parallel regarding Joshua.^[24] In contrast to the absolute ban (חֵרֶם, herem) against all the Canaanite nations, a redactorial comment in Joshua (11:19–20), surprisingly, suggests that the Canaanites were given the opportunity to make peace—though they rejected it:

^{יהושע יא:יט} לֹא הָיְתָה עִיר אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁלִימָה אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְתִּי הַחִוִּי יֹשְׁבֵי גִבְעוֹן אֶת הַכֹּל לָקְחוּ בַמִּלְחָמָה. ^יא:כ כִּי מֵאֵת יְ־הֹוָה הָיְתָה לְחַזֵּק אֶת לִבָּם לִקְרַאת הַמִּלְחָמָה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַעַן הַחֲרִימָם לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לָהֶם תְּחִנָּה כִּי לְמַעַן הַשְׁמִידָם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְ־הֹוָה אֶת מֹשֶׁה.

^{Josh 11:19} There was not a town that made peace with the Israelites except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all were taken in battle. ^11:20For it was YHWH’s doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed and receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the YHWH had commanded Moses.

It is as if the redactional comment in Joshua says: No, it is not that “there was no town we didn’t destroy”, but rather the opposite: “There was no town to which we did not first offer peace”!

This editorial summary in Joshua reflects a similar theological pattern as the inner-biblical midrash in Deuteronomy: the Canaanites are depicted as having received an opportunity to make peace, only for YHWH to harden their hearts and compel them toward destruction. This mirrors our passage in Deuteronomy, where Sihon’s rejection of peace (Deut 2:30) is attributed to divine hardening. The formulation in Joshua thus represents a creative reuse of the same redactional motif.

The formulation in Joshua (v. 19, “There was not a town that made peace with the Israelites”) seems to react to and invert the phrasing of Deuteronomy:

^{דברים ג:ג} וַיִּתֵּן יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּיָדֵנוּ גַּם אֶת עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן וְאֶת כׇּל עַמּוֹ וַנַּכֵּהוּ עַד בִּלְתִּי הִשְׁאִיר לוֹ שָׂרִיד.^ג:ד וַנִּלְכֹּד אֶת כׇּל עָרָיו בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֹא הָיְתָה קִרְיָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא לָקַחְנוּ מֵאִתָּם...

^{Deut 3:3} So YHWH our God also handed over to us King Og of Bashan and all his people. We struck him down until not a single survivor was left. ^3:4 At that time we captured all his towns; there was no citadel that we did not take from them

In rabbinic interpretation, this novel concept of conquest was elaborated further. Midrashim portray Joshua as systematically offering three options to the nations of Canaan: to evacuate, to make peace, or to go to war (e.g. Bereshit Rabba 44:10; Tosefta Sota, 8:1; Jerusalem Talmud, Sheviit 6:1). Here, the Deuteronomic motif becomes generalized into a new concept of conquest redefining the theology and practice of חֵרֶם (herem): Israel, even when divinely commanded to destroy, is nevertheless imagined as first seeking for alternatives.

It is in Maimonides’s codification, however, that the trajectory reaches its most far-reaching form. Drawing upon this exegetical tradition, Maimonides transforms the narrative motif into a categorical legal obligation:

^{משנה תורה, הלכות מלכים ומלחמות ו:א} אֵין עוֹשִׂין מִלְחָמָה עִם אָדָם בָּעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁקּוֹרְאִין לוֹ שָׁלוֹם

^{Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 6:1} One does not wage war against anyone in the world until one first offers them peace.

In one manuscript and in some early printed editions, Maimonides even cites Moses’s initiative toward Sihon explicitly, though in a form aligned with the law of war in Deuteronomy (20:10–18)—as an ultimatum of surrender rather than a mere peaceful request to traverse his land. This shift demonstrates how the tension between Moses’s offer of peace to Sihon (Deut 2:26–29) and the Deuteronomic law of war (20:10–18) was resolved halakhically by assimilating Moses’s action to the legal model (as even some modern scholars recently did, as shown before):^[25]

^{משנה תורה, הלכות מלכים ומלחמות ו:א} וכן מצינו במשה רבנו שהשלים עם סיחון, שנאמר: "ואשלח מלאכים ממדבר קדמות אל סיחון מלך חשבון דברי שלום לאמור". אילו קיבל – לא היה נהרג אלא היה למס עובד.

^{Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 6:1} So too we find with Moses our teacher, who made peace with Sihon, as it is said: ‘And I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying’ (Deut 2:26). Had he accepted [the offer], he would not have been killed but would have become a tributary.

Thus, this redactional move depicting Moses as seeking a peaceful passage through Sihon (Deut 2:24–31) generated a far-reaching trajectory. In the biblical text itself, it led to reinterpreted conquest narratives (Josh 11:19–20). In rabbinic midrash, it was expanded into a universal theological principle (commenting on Deut 2:24-31), and into a redefinition of the concept of conquest and חֵרֶם (Josh 11:19-20). Finally, in Maimonides’s halakhic codification, this exegetical tradition was transformed into binding law: “One does not wage war against anyone in the world until one first offers them peace.”^[26] What began as an interpretive attempt to subvert a divine command of war ultimately became a categorical legal norm.

TheTorah.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

Published

Last Updated

September 14, 2025

Previous in the Series

Next in the Series

Before you continue...

Thank you to all our readers who offered their year-end support.
Please help TheTorah.com get off to a strong start in 2025.

Donate Today

Footnotes

View Footnotes

Published

Last Updated

September 14, 2025

[1] My thanks go to Ken Brown for translating and editing this article from my German paper: ‘Die Midrasch-Exegese im Dienst der Literarkritik. Zum Beispiel: Krieg und Frieden in Dtn 2,24–32’, Congress Volume Munich (2013), SVT (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 163, 111-124.

[2] Biblical translations follow NRSV with modifications.

[3] Outside of Deuteronomy, territories in the Transjordan (the east side of the Jordan) are generally not considered part of the promised land. For example, Numbers 32-34 and Joshua 1-4 consider the boundary of the promised land to be the Jordan River. See the discussion in Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, AB 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 173-178, and Angela Roksop Erisman, “Viewing the Promised Land, Moses Looks Even at the Transjordan,” TheTorah (2019). Zev Farber, “The Opening of Devarim: A Recounting or Different Version of the Wilderness Experience?” TheTorah (2013), discusses numerous other cases where the details of the wilderness experience recounted by Moses in Deuteronomy 1-4 differ from the accounts in Exodus and Numbers.

[4] In the German translation by Buber and Rosenzweig this imperative is rendered with the openly invented German verb “erbnehmen” (“to take inheritance”). See Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, Die fünf Bücher der Weisung, Vol. 1 of Die Schrift, 10th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992), 481.

[5] Elsewhere in Deuteronomy (Deut 1:37, 3:26, and 32:50–52), reference is made to Moses’s being forbidden from entering the promised land. This tradition is also found in Numbers. The reasons for the punishment vary: In Deut 32:50–52 (as in Num 20:12), it is Moses’s own sin, and in Deut 1:37 and Deut 3:26, Moses is punished together with the Israelites for their sin.

[6] The term דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם is also commonly rendered as “words of peace” and “message of peace.” Against harmonizing exegesis it must be emphasized that Moses’s message of peace is neither presented as a cunning provocation to the instigation of war, nor as a commencement of negotiations for surrender in the sense of Deut 20:10ff. Moshe Weinfeld for instance describes the offer of peace as a “mere pretext aimed at provoking war” (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 171). Raik Heckl, Moses Vermächtnis. Kohärenz, literarische Intention und Funktion von Dtn 1–3, ABIG 9 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004), 270 ff., even views v. 26ff. as a direct “Kriegseröffnung” (initiation of war), which he sees indicated in the word שָׁלוֹם as its negation. By contrast, interpretations which take Deut 20:10ff. as their point of departure assume a peaceful intent: “Wiewohl im Rate Gottes der Krieg bereits beschlossen war, sollte doch nach dem Völkerrechte verfahren werden” (Although war had already been decided by God’s counsel, one should nevertheless proceed according to international law”), judged David Zwi Hoffmann, Das Buch Deuteronomium I: Deut. I–XX, 9 (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1913), 37; followed by Eduard König, Das Deuteronomium, KAT 3 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1917), 74. Similarly, Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11: Erster Teilband: 1,1–4,43, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2012), 457, affirms that Moses is here shown to be law-abiding according to Deut 20 and “vom Vorwurf befreit, einen Angriffskrieg geführt zu haben” (exempted from the charge of having waged an offensive war). See also Josef G. Plöger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium, BBB 26 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1967), 59, and Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, ITC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), 44.

[7] In contrast to the towns that YHWH has designated as an inheritance and need to be wiped out, the populations of these towns, if they agree to the terms of peace, will be subject to forced labor.

[8] The text reads:

^{דברים רבה ה:יג} אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי: כָּל מַה שֶּׁגָּזַר מֹשֶה הִסְכִּים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עִמּוֹ. כֵּיצַד? לאֹ אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לִשְׁבּוֹר אֶת הַלּוּחוֹת. הָלַךְ מֹשֶה וְשִׁבְּרָן מֵעַצְמּוֹ וּמִּנַיִן שֶׁהִסְכִּים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עִמּוֹ? דִּכְתִיב: "אֲשֶׁר שִׁבַּרְתָּ" (שמות ל״ד, א) – יִישַׁר כֹּחֲךָ שֶׁשִּׁבָּרְתָּ

^{Deut Rabbah 5:13} R. Joshua of Siknin said in the name of R. Levi: The Holy One, blessed be He, approved of whatever Moses decided. How (is this to be understood)? The Holy One, blessed be He, did not command him to break the Tablets. Moses, (however,) went out and broke them on his account. And whence (do we know) that He approved of (his action)? For it is written: “Which (asher) thou didst break (Ex 34:1)” – it was right that you broke them.

Text according to the edition by Moshe Aryeh Mirkin, Debarim rabbah, Vol. 11 of Midrash Rabbah (Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1967) with minor adaptations. All midrash translations are the author’s own.

[9] According to this midrash YHWH not only accepts Moses’s disobedience, but he even transforms his peace initiative in Deut 2 into a generally applicable law in Deut 20. Other Midrashim describe Joshua as offering an option of peace to the nations of Canaan. See the appendix for more on this.

Another discussion of our passage is found in Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:28. The text is according to the edition by Saul Lieberman, Midrash Debarim Rabbah: edited for the first time from the Oxford MS, No. 147 with an introduction and notes, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1964) with minor adaptations.

^{דברים רבה א:כח} אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה: "הָחֵל רָשׁ [וְהִתְגָּר בּוֹ מִלְחָמָה]" (דברים ב, כד), מֹשֶׁה לֹא עָשָׂה כֵן אֶלָא: "וָאֶשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים" (דברים ב, כו). אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ: לֵך עֲשֵׂה מִלְחָמָה – בִּקֵּשׁ שָׁלוֹם, שֶׁכֵּן כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: "כִּי תִקְרַב אֶל עִיר לְהִלָּחֵם וְגוֹ׳" (דברים כ, י). לָכֵן שָׁלַח אֶל סִיחוֹן דִבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם, שֶנֶאֱמַר: "וָאֶשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים מִמִּדְבַּר קְדֵמוֹת" (דברים ב, כו) – מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁקָּדְמוּ לַתּוֹרָה מִדְּבָרָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: "דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם" (שם).

^{Deut Rabbah 1:28} Although the Holy One, blessed be He, instructed Moses “Begin to possess (Deut 2:24),” Moses did not so do, but rather “So I sent messengers (Deut 2:26)”. Although He told him “Go, make war,” he sought peace! [He did so,] because thus it is written in the Torah: “When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace.” (Deut 20:10). That is why he sent words of peace to Sihon, for it is said “So I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth (Deut 2:26),” because of words that preceded the Torah, because of the words of the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore it is said “words of peace.”

In this midrash, Moses disobeys YHWH’s command by grounding his peace initiative in the law of Deut 20. In this imaginative picture, the entire Torah is already given, and Moses acts not as a prophet receiving YHWH’s direct word and command to be carried out, but rather as an interpreter of Torah, who has the hermeneutical authority to reverse the divine command, transforming war into peace.

A third explanation for Moses’s response is found in a midrash to the parallel narrative in Numbers 21, from Numbers Rabbah (text according to the Vilna edition with minor adaptations):

^{במדבר רבה יט:כז} "וַיִּשְׁלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְאָכִים" (במדבר כ״א, כא) – זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב: "בְּטַח בַּה׳ וַעֲשֵׂה טוֹב שְׁכָן אֶרֶץ וּרְעֵה אֱמוּנָה" (תהלים ל״ז, ג). וְאוֹמֵר: "סוּר מֵרָע וַעֲשֵׂה טוֹב בַּקֵּשׁ שָׁלוֹם וְרָדְפֵהוּ" (תהלים ל״ד, טו) וְלאֹ קָפְדָה הַתּוֹרָה לִרְדּוֹף אַחַר הַמִּצְוֹת, אֶלָּא "כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר" (דברים כ״ב, ו), "כִּי תִּפְגַּע" (שמות כ״ג, ד), "כִּי תִרְאֶה חֲמוֹר" (שמות כ״ג, ה), "כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ" (דברים כ״ד, כ), "כִּי תִּבְצוֹר כַּרְמְךָ" (דברים כ״ד, כא) "כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ" (דברים כ״ג, כה). אִם בָּאוּ לְיָדְךָ, אַתְּ מְצֻוֶּה עֲלֵיהֶם, וְלאֹ לִרְדּוֹף אַחֲרֵיהֶם. אֲבָל הַשָּׁלוֹם – "בַּקֵּשׁ שָׁלוֹם" בִּמְקוֹמְךָ, "וְרָדְפֵהוּ" בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר (תהלים ל״ד, טו). וְכֵן עָשׂוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: "הָחֵל רָשׁ וְהִתְגָּר בּוֹ מִלְחָמָה" (דברים ב, כד) – רָדְפוּ אֶת הַשָּׁלוֹם: "וַיִּשְׁלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְאָכִים אֶל סִיחוֹן" (במדבר כ״א, כא).

^{Numbers Rabbah 19:27} “Then Israel sent messengers” (Num 21:21) – This bears on what scripture says: “Trust in YHWH, and do good; so you will live in the land, and enjoy security (Ps 37:3).” It also says, “Depart from evil, and do good, seek peace, and pursue it (Ps 34:15).” Now the Torah did not insist that we should actually go in pursuit of the commandments, but (said): “If you come on a bird’s nest (Deut 22:6);” “If you come upon (your enemy’s ox) (Ex 23:4);” “If you see (the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden) (Ex 23:5);” “If you beat your olive trees (Deut 24:20);” “If you gather the grapes of your vineyard (Deut 24:21);” “If you go into your neighbor’s vineyard (Deut 23:25).” If they (i.e., the commandments) come your way you are obliged by them, but you need not go in pursuit of them. But (concerning) peace – “seek peace” wherever you happen to be, “and pursue it” if it is elsewhere. Israel in fact acted in this way. Although the Holy One, blessed be He, had said to them: “Begin to possess it, and engage him in battle (Deut 2:24),” they pursued peace: “Then Israel sent messengers to Sihon (Num 21:21).”

From a selectively and tendentiously chosen list of casuistic laws this midrash infers very broadly that one need not pursue the laws of the Torah. Only the search for peace must truly be pursued, since peace is the guiding principle for our lives. In this regard, a verse from the Psalms serves as an inspiring reference to the principle of peace, to which even the laws of the Torah must be subordinated. On the basis of this principle Israel had had the freedom—indeed even the obligation—to send messengers of peace to Sihon, despite YHWH’s command for war. In this way, the midrash reads Num 21 against the background of Deut 2 and concludes that in Num 21 Israel is disobedient to the divine command to Moses in Deut 2.

Although these midrashim deal with the biblical text very freely, they show a remarkable awareness of the tensions in Deut 2. The midrashim do not attempt to harmonize these tensions. Likewise, the midrashim recognize the intertextual relations that also underlie the inner-biblical midrash in Deut 2, such as the relation of the secondary text in Deut 2 to the law in Deut 20.

[10] Deut 2:24b–31 is absent from the Shapira Scrolls, a manuscript of Deuteronomy long regarded by many scholars as a forgery. Recently, however, Idan Dershowitz has presented convincing arguments that these scrolls should instead be considered a proto-biblical composition (see Idan Dershowitz, The Valediction of Moses, FAT 145 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021), 49. The absence of these verses in the manuscript provides empirical support for the literary-critical analysis advanced here, since it would be implausible to assume that a later author—or even a forger—would deliberately shorten the text by omitting precisely those verses identified as a secondary insertion.

[11] Many interpreters explain the tension between v. 24-25 and v. 26-31 by viewing v. 24-25 as secondary. The most important literary critical criterion for this opinion is the change in number in v. 24 (the redactional layer would thus begin at רְאֵה); furthermore, v. 24 “anticipates” v. 31. Cf. Karl Marti, “Das Fünfte Buch Moses oder Deuteronomium,” in HSAT 1, Mose bis Ezechiel, edited by Alfred Bertholet, 4th ed. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1922), 264: “Zu dem auffallenden Singular kommt hier noch die Wiederkehr derselben Worte in V. 31” (In addition to the conspicuous singular there is as well the recurrence of the same words in v. 31). Carl Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium, HK 1,3,1. 2nd, rev. ed (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 58, calls verses 24–25 a “vorgreifende Dublette” (anticipatory doublet). In more recent times, this standpoint is represented by Lothar Perlitt, Deuteronomium, 1, Teilband: Deuteronomium 1–6*, BKAT V/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2013), 199-202; Timo Veijola, Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium, Kapitel 1,1–16,17, ATD 8,1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 65–66; and Udo Rüterswörden, Das Buch Deuteronomium, NSK.AT 4 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2006), 37.

[12] Cf. Albertus H. van Zyl, The Moabites, POS 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 60–62; Bustenay Oded, “Observations on Methods of Assyrian Rule in Transjordania after the Palestinian Campaign of Tiglat-Pileser III,” JNES 29 (1970): 177–86.

[13] Regarding the question of the direction of dependence between Num 21:21ff. and Deut 2:24ff., cf. the discussion between John Van Seters, “The Conquest of Sihon´s Kingdom. A Literary Examination,” JBL 91 (1972): 182–97, and John R. Bartlett, “The Conquest of Sihon´s Kingdom. A Literary Re-Examination,” JBL 97 (1978): 347–51. Van Seters, “Conquest of Sihon´s Kingdom,” sees Num 21 as dependent on Deut 2 and Jud 11. Bartlett, “Conquest of Sihon´s Kingdom,” argues for the opposite thesis. Cf. also John van Seters, “Once Again. The Conquest of Sihon´s Kingdom,” JBL 99 (1980): 117–19. Reinhard Achenbach defends a complex relation between the texts, cf. Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 341, 358 (esp. n. 100), who sees at least Num 21:21–25 as pre-Deuteronomistic.

[14] Cf., e.g., Exod 16:21; 30:7; 36:3; Lev 6:5; see also Ezek 46:13–15. Another example is in Jud 16:20, צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף, tsedeq tsedeq tirdof, “Only justice you shall pursue.”

[15] Instead of תִּשְׁבְּרוּ מֵאִתָּם (tishberu me’itam), “you shall purchase from them” Moses says תַּשְׁבִּרֵנִי (tashbireni), “you shall sell [to] me” and instead of תִּכְרוּ מֵאִתָּם (tikru me’itam) “you shall buy from them” he says תִּתֶּן־לִי (titen li), “you will give me.”

[16] See Dershowitz, Valediction, 51-52 and the references quoted there.

[17] For a discussion of the far-reaching impact this inner-biblical midrash has had, both on other biblical conquest narratives and on later rabbinic thought regarding rules of warfare, see the appendix.

[18] This kind of resumptive repetition is commonly found at the conclusion of inserted content, signaling a return to the main story. See Zev Farber, “The Resumptive Repetition (Wiederaufnahme),” TheTorah (2013).

[19] The interpretation of v. 31 as a Wiederaufnahme of v. 24 stands thereby in contradiction to the interpretation that it is v. 24-25 that are secondary, and that v. 24 is a premature “anticipation” of v. 31.

[20] On the use of inner biblical quotes in chiastic order, see Moshe Seidel, “Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms,” Sinai 38 (1955): 149-172, 229-240, 272-280, 335-355 [Hebrew]. For a discussion of examples, see Hava Shalom Guy, “Nehemiah 9: The First Historical Survey in the Bible to Mention Sinai and Torah,” TheTorah (2018).

[21] Likely influenced by the account of God hardening Pharaoh’s hear in the Exodus narrative (see, e.g. Exod 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1; 10:20, 27)

[22] The Shapira manuscript reads here: ונצא לקראת סיחן יהצה....

This wording fits perfectly and flows smoothly with the original narrative layer, since, as expected, Moses here fulfills YHWH’s command in Deut 2:24, while the later inner-biblical midrash is absent in this manuscript. See footnote 10 and Dershowitz, Valediction, 49.

[23] In most recent research, the midrash and the ancient translations do indeed sometimes serve as a means of uncovering inner-biblical midrashim or additions and expansions by later editors/redactors, as Alexander Rofé has shown this in a series of works. See, e..g. Alexander Rofé, “From Tradition to Criticism: Jewish Sources as an Aid to the Critical Study of the Hebrew Bible,” in Congress Volume Cambridge 1995, ed. John A. Emerton, VT.S 66 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 235–47; Rofé, “Biblical Antecedents of the Targumic Solution of Metaphors (Ps 89:41–42; Ezek 22:25–28; Gen 49:8–9,14–15),” in The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia, ed. Jože Krašovec, JSOT.S 289 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 333–38; idem, “Elisha at Dothan (2 Kings 6:8–23): Historico-literary Criticism Sustained by the Midrash,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, ed. Robert L. Chazan et al. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 345–53. Eckart Otto has also been inspired by the idea of midrash in his new Deuteronomy commentary. Cf. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 451–52, 456–57.

[24] It is hard to know whether this editorial work in Deuteronomy and in Joshua was carried out by the same editors, or whether the work on Joshua may even have preceded that on Deuteronomy.

[25] See note 17.

[26] Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 6:1.