Holy War, Covenant Trust, and the Limits of Violence

Deu 20:5-7 Moreover, the shoterim, whose duty it was, as the keepers of the genealogical tables, to appoint the men who were bound to serve, were to release such of the men who had been summoned to the war as had entered into domestic relations, which would make it a harder thing for them to be exposed to death than for any of the others: for example, any man who had built a new house and had not yet consecrated it, or had planted a vineyard and not yet eaten any of the fruit of it, or was betrothed to a wife and had not yet married her, - that such persons might not die before they had enjoyed the fruits of what they had done. “ Who is the man, who, ” i.

e. , whoever, every man who. “ Consecrated the house, ” viz. , by taking possession and dwelling in it; entrance into the house was probably connected with a hospitable entertainment. According to Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 41), the enjoyment of them was to last a year (according to the analogy of Deu 24:5). The Rabbins elaborated special ceremonies, among which Jonathan in his Targum describes the fastening of slips with sentences out of the law written upon them to the door-posts, as being the most important (see at Deu 6:9 : for further details, see Selden, de Synedriis l.

iii. c. 14, 15). Cerem is hardly to be restricted to vineyards, but applied to olive-plantations as well (see at Lev 19:10). חלּל, to make common, is to be explained from the fact, that when fruit-trees were planted (Lev 19:23.) , or vines set (Jdg 19:24), the fruit was not to be eaten for the first three years, and that of the fourth year was to be consecrated to the Lord; and it was only the fruit that was gathered in the fifth year which could be applied by the owner to his own use, - in other words, could be made common.

The command to send away from the army to his own home a man who was betrothed but had not yet taken his wife, is extended still further in Deu 24:5, where it is stated that a newly married man was to be exempt for a whole year from military service and other public burdens. The intention of these instructions was neither to send away all persons who were unwilling to go into the war, and thus avoid the danger of their interfering with the readiness and courage of the rest of the army in prospect of the battle, nor to spare the lives of those persons to whom life was especially dear; but rather to avoid depriving any member of the covenant nation of his enjoyment of the good things of this life bestowed upon him by the Lord.

Deu 20:5-7 Moreover, the shoterim, whose duty it was, as the keepers of the genealogical tables, to appoint the men who were bound to serve, were to release such of the men who had been summoned to the war as had entered into domestic relations, which would make it a harder thing for them to be exposed to death than for any of the others: for example, any man who had built a new house and had not yet consecrated it, or had planted a vineyard and not yet eaten any of the fruit of it, or was betrothed to a wife and had not yet married her, - that such persons might not die before they had enjoyed the fruits of what they had done. “ Who is the man, who, ” i.

e. , whoever, every man who. “ Consecrated the house, ” viz. , by taking possession and dwelling in it; entrance into the house was probably connected with a hospitable entertainment. According to Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 41), the enjoyment of them was to last a year (according to the analogy of Deu 24:5). The Rabbins elaborated special ceremonies, among which Jonathan in his Targum describes the fastening of slips with sentences out of the law written upon them to the door-posts, as being the most important (see at Deu 6:9 : for further details, see Selden, de Synedriis l.

iii. c. 14, 15). Cerem is hardly to be restricted to vineyards, but applied to olive-plantations as well (see at Lev 19:10). חלּל, to make common, is to be explained from the fact, that when fruit-trees were planted (Lev 19:23.) , or vines set (Jdg 19:24), the fruit was not to be eaten for the first three years, and that of the fourth year was to be consecrated to the Lord; and it was only the fruit that was gathered in the fifth year which could be applied by the owner to his own use, - in other words, could be made common.

The command to send away from the army to his own home a man who was betrothed but had not yet taken his wife, is extended still further in Deu 24:5, where it is stated that a newly married man was to be exempt for a whole year from military service and other public burdens. The intention of these instructions was neither to send away all persons who were unwilling to go into the war, and thus avoid the danger of their interfering with the readiness and courage of the rest of the army in prospect of the battle, nor to spare the lives of those persons to whom life was especially dear; but rather to avoid depriving any member of the covenant nation of his enjoyment of the good things of this life bestowed upon him by the Lord.

Deu 20:8 The first intention only existed in the case of the timid (the soft-hearted or despondent). ימּס ולא, that the heart of thy brethren “ may not flow away ,” i.e., may not become despondent (as in Gen 17:15, etc.).

Deu 20:9 When this was finished, the shoterim were to appoint captains at the head of the people (of war). פּקד, to inspect, to muster, then to give the oversight, to set a person over anything (Num 3:10; Num 4:27). The meaning “to lead the command” ( Schultz ) cannot be sustained; and if “captains of the armies” were the subject, and reference were made to the commanders in the war, the article would not be omitted.

If the shoterim had to raise men for the war and organize the army, the division of the men into hosts ( Zebaoth ) and the appointment of the leaders would also form part of the duties of their office. Instructions Concerning Sieges. - Deu 20:10, Deu 20:11. On advancing against a town to attack it, they were “ to call to it for peace ,” i. e. , to summon it to make a peaceable surrender and submission (cf.

Jdg 21:13). “ If it answered peace ,” i. e. , returned an answer conducing to peace, and “ opened ” (sc. , its gates), the whole of its inhabitants were to become tributary to Israel, and serve it; consequently even those who were armed were not to be put to death, for Israel was not to shed blood unnecessarily. מס does not mean feudal service , but a feudal slave (see at Exo 1:11).

Deu 20:12-14 If the hostile town, however, did not make peace, but prepared for war, the Israelites were to besiege it; and if Jehovah gave it into their hands, they were to slay all the men in it without reserve (“with the edge of the sword,” see at Gen 34:26); but the women and children and all that was in the city, all its spoil, they were to take as prey for themselves, and to consume (eat) the spoil, i.e., to make use of it for their own maintenance.

Deu 20:12-14 If the hostile town, however, did not make peace, but prepared for war, the Israelites were to besiege it; and if Jehovah gave it into their hands, they were to slay all the men in it without reserve (“with the edge of the sword,” see at Gen 34:26); but the women and children and all that was in the city, all its spoil, they were to take as prey for themselves, and to consume (eat) the spoil, i.e., to make use of it for their own maintenance.

Deu 20:12-14 If the hostile town, however, did not make peace, but prepared for war, the Israelites were to besiege it; and if Jehovah gave it into their hands, they were to slay all the men in it without reserve (“with the edge of the sword,” see at Gen 34:26); but the women and children and all that was in the city, all its spoil, they were to take as prey for themselves, and to consume (eat) the spoil, i.e., to make use of it for their own maintenance.

Deu 20:15-18 It was in this way that Israel was to act with towns that were far off; but not with the towns of the Canaanites (“ these nations ”), which Jehovah gave them for an inheritance. In these no soul was to be left alive; but these nations were to be laid under the ban, i. e. , altogether exterminated, that they might not teach the Israelites their abominations and sins (cf.

Deu 7:1-4; Deu 12:31). כּל־נשׁמה, lit. , every breath, i. e. , everything living, by which, however, human beings alone are to be understood (comp. Jos 10:40; Jos 11:11, with Deu 11:14).

Deu 20:15-18 It was in this way that Israel was to act with towns that were far off; but not with the towns of the Canaanites (“ these nations ”), which Jehovah gave them for an inheritance. In these no soul was to be left alive; but these nations were to be laid under the ban, i. e. , altogether exterminated, that they might not teach the Israelites their abominations and sins (cf.

Deu 7:1-4; Deu 12:31). כּל־נשׁמה, lit. , every breath, i. e. , everything living, by which, however, human beings alone are to be understood (comp. Jos 10:40; Jos 11:11, with Deu 11:14).

Deu 20:15-18 It was in this way that Israel was to act with towns that were far off; but not with the towns of the Canaanites (“ these nations ”), which Jehovah gave them for an inheritance. In these no soul was to be left alive; but these nations were to be laid under the ban, i. e. , altogether exterminated, that they might not teach the Israelites their abominations and sins (cf.

Deu 7:1-4; Deu 12:31). כּל־נשׁמה, lit. , every breath, i. e. , everything living, by which, however, human beings alone are to be understood (comp. Jos 10:40; Jos 11:11, with Deu 11:14).

Deu 20:15-18 It was in this way that Israel was to act with towns that were far off; but not with the towns of the Canaanites (“ these nations ”), which Jehovah gave them for an inheritance. In these no soul was to be left alive; but these nations were to be laid under the ban, i. e. , altogether exterminated, that they might not teach the Israelites their abominations and sins (cf.

Deu 7:1-4; Deu 12:31). כּל־נשׁמה, lit. , every breath, i. e. , everything living, by which, however, human beings alone are to be understood (comp. Jos 10:40; Jos 11:11, with Deu 11:14).

Deu 20:19-20 When they besieged a town a long time to conquer it, they were not to destroy its trees, to swing the axe upon them. That we are to understand by עצהּ the fruit-trees in the environs and gardens of the town, is evident from the motive appended: “ for of them (ממּנּוּ refers to עץ as a collective) thou eatest, and thou shalt not hew them down . ” The meaning is: thou mayest suppress and destroy the men, but not the trees which supply thee with food.

“ For is the tree of the field a man, that it should come into siege before thee? ” This is evidently the only suitable interpretation of the difficult words השּׂדה עץ האדם כּי, and the one which has been expressed by all the older commentators, though in different ways. But it is one which can only be sustained grammatically by adopting the view propounded by Clericus and others: viz.

, by pointing the noun האדם with ה interrog . , instead of האדם, and taking אדם as the object, which its position in the sentence fully warrants (cf. Ewald , §324, b . and 306, b .) The Masoretic punctuation is founded upon the explanation given by Aben Ezra , “Man is a tree of the field, i. e. , lives upon and is fed by the fruits of the trees,” which Schultz expresses in this way, “Man is bound up with the tree of the field, i.

e. , has his life in, or from, the tree of the field,” - an explanation, however, which cannot be defended by appealing to Deu 24:6; Ecc 12:13; Eze 12:10, as these three passages are of a different kind. In no way whatever can האדם be taken as the subject of the sentence, as this would not give any rational meaning. And if it were rendered as the object, in such sense as this, The tree of the field is a thing or affair of man, it would hardly have the article.

Deu 20:19-20 When they besieged a town a long time to conquer it, they were not to destroy its trees, to swing the axe upon them. That we are to understand by עצהּ the fruit-trees in the environs and gardens of the town, is evident from the motive appended: “ for of them (ממּנּוּ refers to עץ as a collective) thou eatest, and thou shalt not hew them down . ” The meaning is: thou mayest suppress and destroy the men, but not the trees which supply thee with food.

“ For is the tree of the field a man, that it should come into siege before thee? ” This is evidently the only suitable interpretation of the difficult words השּׂדה עץ האדם כּי, and the one which has been expressed by all the older commentators, though in different ways. But it is one which can only be sustained grammatically by adopting the view propounded by Clericus and others: viz.

, by pointing the noun האדם with ה interrog . , instead of האדם, and taking אדם as the object, which its position in the sentence fully warrants (cf. Ewald , §324, b . and 306, b .) The Masoretic punctuation is founded upon the explanation given by Aben Ezra , “Man is a tree of the field, i. e. , lives upon and is fed by the fruits of the trees,” which Schultz expresses in this way, “Man is bound up with the tree of the field, i.

e. , has his life in, or from, the tree of the field,” - an explanation, however, which cannot be defended by appealing to Deu 24:6; Ecc 12:13; Eze 12:10, as these three passages are of a different kind. In no way whatever can האדם be taken as the subject of the sentence, as this would not give any rational meaning. And if it were rendered as the object, in such sense as this, The tree of the field is a thing or affair of man, it would hardly have the article.

Deu 21:1-2 Expiation of a Murder Committed by an Unknown Hand. - Deu 21:1 and Deu 21:2. If any one was found lying in a field in the land of Israel (נפל fallen, then lying, Jdg 3:25; Jdg 4:22), having been put to death without its being known who had killed him (וגו נודע לא, a circumstantial clause, attached without a copula, see Ewald , §341, b . 3), the elders and judges, sc.

, of the neighbouring towns, - the former as representatives of the communities, the latter as administrators of right, - were to go out and measure to the towns which lay round about the slain man, i. e. , measure the distance of the body from the towns that were lying round about, to ascertain first of all which was the nearest town.

Deu 21:1-2 Expiation of a Murder Committed by an Unknown Hand. - Deu 21:1 and Deu 21:2. If any one was found lying in a field in the land of Israel (נפל fallen, then lying, Jdg 3:25; Jdg 4:22), having been put to death without its being known who had killed him (וגו נודע לא, a circumstantial clause, attached without a copula, see Ewald , §341, b . 3), the elders and judges, sc.

, of the neighbouring towns, - the former as representatives of the communities, the latter as administrators of right, - were to go out and measure to the towns which lay round about the slain man, i. e. , measure the distance of the body from the towns that were lying round about, to ascertain first of all which was the nearest town.

Deu 21:3-4 This nearest town was then required to expiate the blood-guiltiness, not only because the suspicion of the crime or of participation in the crime fell soonest upon it, but because the guilt connected with the shedding of innocent blood rested as a burden upon it before all others. To this end the elders were to take a heifer (young cow), with which no work had ever been done, and which had not yet drawn in the yoke, i.

e. , whose vital force had not been diminished by labour (see at Num 19:2), and bring it down into a brook-valley with water constantly flowing, and there break its neck. The expression, “ it shall be that the city ,” is more fully defined by “ the elders of the city shall take . ” The elders were to perform the act of expiation in the name of the city. As the murderer was not to be found, an animal was to be put to death in his stead, and suffer the punishment of the murderer.

The slaying of the animal was not an expiatory sacrifice, and consequently there was no slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood; but, as the mode of death, viz. , breaking the neck (vid. , Exo 13:13), clearly shows, it was a symbolical infliction of the punishment that should have been borne by the murderer, upon the animal which was substituted for him. To be able to take the guilt upon itself and bear it, the animal was to be in the full and undiminished possession of its vital powers.

The slaying was to take place in a איתן נחל, a valley with water constantly flowing through it, which was not worked (cultivated) and sown. This regulation as to the locality in which the act of expiation was to be performed was probably founded upon the idea, that the water of the brook-valley would suck in the blood and clean it away, and that the blood sucked in by the earth would not be brought to light again by the ploughing and working of the soil.

Deu 21:3-4 This nearest town was then required to expiate the blood-guiltiness, not only because the suspicion of the crime or of participation in the crime fell soonest upon it, but because the guilt connected with the shedding of innocent blood rested as a burden upon it before all others. To this end the elders were to take a heifer (young cow), with which no work had ever been done, and which had not yet drawn in the yoke, i.

e. , whose vital force had not been diminished by labour (see at Num 19:2), and bring it down into a brook-valley with water constantly flowing, and there break its neck. The expression, “ it shall be that the city ,” is more fully defined by “ the elders of the city shall take . ” The elders were to perform the act of expiation in the name of the city. As the murderer was not to be found, an animal was to be put to death in his stead, and suffer the punishment of the murderer.

The slaying of the animal was not an expiatory sacrifice, and consequently there was no slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood; but, as the mode of death, viz. , breaking the neck (vid. , Exo 13:13), clearly shows, it was a symbolical infliction of the punishment that should have been borne by the murderer, upon the animal which was substituted for him. To be able to take the guilt upon itself and bear it, the animal was to be in the full and undiminished possession of its vital powers.

The slaying was to take place in a איתן נחל, a valley with water constantly flowing through it, which was not worked (cultivated) and sown. This regulation as to the locality in which the act of expiation was to be performed was probably founded upon the idea, that the water of the brook-valley would suck in the blood and clean it away, and that the blood sucked in by the earth would not be brought to light again by the ploughing and working of the soil.