Shared ground

Deuteronomy 2:26–31 presents Israel initiating contact with restraint: Moses sends a message described as “words of peace,” asking for passage on the main road, without detours, and offering to pay for food and water (explicit in vv. 26–28). Moses frames this as similar to what Edom and Moab had allowed, and he states Israel’s destination as crossing the Jordan into the land Yahweh is giving (explicit in v. 29).

The passage then explains the shift from requested transit to authorized takeover: Sihon refuses passage, and the narrator adds that Yahweh hardened Sihon’s spirit and made his heart stubborn so that Sihon would be delivered into Israel’s hand (explicit in v. 30). Yahweh tells Moses the transfer has already begun (“I have begun to give/deliver up”), and commands Israel to begin taking possession (explicit in v. 31). Deuteronomy 2:24 is the near context that already pointed toward conflict.

Where interpretation differs

How to relate Sihon’s refusal to Yahweh’s hardening. Everyone can see the text holds both together: Sihon “would not,” and Yahweh hardened him (v. 30). Some readers conclude Yahweh’s action is the decisive cause of Sihon’s refusal in a way that leaves little room for meaningful human choice. Others say the hardening language describes Yahweh confirming or strengthening a resistance Sihon already had, so the king remains responsible for his refusal even while Yahweh directs the outcome.

What “as at this day” is doing in the sentence. Some take it as Moses’ way of pointing to the current, visible result for his audience (“you can see this is how it turned out”). Others think it sounds like a later narrator’s perspective, inserted to link the explanation to Israel’s established possession of the territory.

What “I have begun to give/deliver up” implies about timing and process. Some read it as a strong statement of certainty: the outcome is fixed because Yahweh has started it. Others stress the process language: a divinely initiated handover still unfolds through subsequent events, including Israel’s military action.

Why the disagreement exists The passage itself compresses two levels of explanation into one line: (1) Sihon’s refusal as a real decision in the story, and (2) Yahweh’s purpose shaping that refusal toward a particular end (v. 30). It also uses brief, outcome-oriented phrasing (“as at this day”; “I have begun”) that can be heard either as immediate speech by Moses or as speech preserved and framed for later hearers.

What this passage clearly contributes It contributes a narrative logic for Israel’s move from peaceful request to conquest: the story presents an initial offer limited to transit and purchase, then a refusal, then a theological explanation of why the refusal served Yahweh’s larger plan, and finally a direct authorization to begin possession (vv. 26–31). It also reinforces Deuteronomy’s recurring theme that land is not merely seized; it is repeatedly described with the language of Yahweh “giving” (compare the repeated verb “give” and the repeated focus on “land”). give is central to the passage’s portrayal of outcome and authority.