Deu 2:30 | KD | STEP | If Moses, notwithstanding this, sent messengers to king Sihon with words of peace (Deu 2:26.; cf. Num 21:21.), this was done to show the king of the Amorites, that it was through his own fault that his kingdom and lands and life were lost. The wish to pass through his land in a peaceable manner was quite seriously expressed; although Moses foresaw, in consequence of the divine communication, that he would reject his proposal, and meet Israel with hostilities. For Sihon’s kingdom did not form part of the land of Canaan, which God had promised to the patriarchs for their descendants; and the divine foreknowledge of the hardness of Sihon no more destroyed the freedom of his will to resolve, or the freedom of his actions, than the circumstance that in the unwillingness of Sihon is described as the effect of his being hardened by God Himself. The hardening was quite as much the production of human freedom and guilt, as the consequence of the divine decree; just as in the case of Pharaoh. On Kedemoth , see Num 21:13. בּדּרך בּדּרך, equivalent to “upon the way, and always upon the way,” i.e., upon the high road alone, as in Num 20:19. On the behaviour of the Edomites towards Israel, mentioned in , see Num 21:10. In the same way the Moabites also supplied Israel with provisions for money. This statement is not at variance with the unbrotherly conduct for which the Moabites are blamed in , viz., that they did not meet the Israelites with bread and water. For קדּם, to meet and anticipate, signifies a hospitable reception, and the offering of food and drink without reward, which is essentially different from selling for money. “ In Ar ” ( ), as in Deu 2:18. The suffix in בּו ( ) refers to the king, who is mentioned as the lord of the land, in the place of the land itself, just as in Num 20:18.

‏ Deuteronomy 2:30

If Moses, notwithstanding this, sent messengers to king Sihon with words of peace (Deu 2:26.; cf. Num 21:21.), this was done to show the king of the Amorites, that it was through his own fault that his kingdom and lands and life were lost. The wish to pass through his land in a peaceable manner was quite seriously expressed; although Moses foresaw, in consequence of the divine communication, that he would reject his proposal, and meet Israel with hostilities. For Sihon’s kingdom did not form part of the land of Canaan, which God had promised to the patriarchs for their descendants; and the divine foreknowledge of the hardness of Sihon no more destroyed the freedom of his will to resolve, or the freedom of his actions, than the circumstance that in Deu 2:30 the unwillingness of Sihon is described as the effect of his being hardened by God Himself. The hardening was quite as much the production of human freedom and guilt, as the consequence of the divine decree; just as in the case of Pharaoh. On Kedemoth, see Num 21:13. בּדּרך בּדּרך, equivalent to “upon the way, and always upon the way,” i.e., upon the high road alone, as in Num 20:19. On the behaviour of the Edomites towards Israel, mentioned in Deu 2:29, see Num 21:10. In the same way the Moabites also supplied Israel with provisions for money. This statement is not at variance with the unbrotherly conduct for which the Moabites are blamed in Deu 23:4, viz., that they did not meet the Israelites with bread and water. For קדּם, to meet and anticipate, signifies a hospitable reception, and the offering of food and drink without reward, which is essentially different from selling for money. “In Ar” (Deu 2:29), as in Deu 2:18. The suffix in בּו (Deu 2:30) refers to the king, who is mentioned as the lord of the land, in the place of the land itself, just as in Num 20:18.