Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 20:1
When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, [and] a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God [is] with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
1. When thou goest forth to war, etc.] So Deu 21:10, cp. Deu 23:9 (10). On go forth see Deu 13:13 (14). Enemies, so Sam. LXX; Heb. enemy (but collective).
and seest horses, and chariots ] Foreign to early Israel, see on Deu 17:16 Jos 17:16, Jdg 1:19; Jdg 4:3.
and a people more than thou, thou shalt not, etc.] So Sam. LXX, Heb. omits and. On the rest see Deu 7:17 ff.
the Lord thy God is with thee ] Cp. Deu 1:30; Deu 1:42, Deu 7:21, Isa 7:14; Isa 8:8.
which brought thee up ] instead of the usual brought thee forth, Deu 7:19, etc. Was it on the strength of this verse that Josiah adventured on his fatal encounter with Pharaoh-Necoh in 612 b.c.?
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
1 9. Of War and Exemptions from Service in it
When Israel goes to war with a foe more numerous and having horses and chariots they shall not fear; Jehovah is with them (Deu 20:1). On the eve of the campaign a priest shall exhort the people (Deu 20:2-4). Officers shall discharge every man who has built a house and not dedicated it (Deu 20:5), or planted a vineyard but not completed the rites opening its fruits to common use (Deu 20:6), or betrothed a wife but not taken her (Deu 20:7); and all who are faint-hearted (Deu 20:8). This done captains shall be appointed (Deu 20:9). In the Sg. address except for Deu 20:2 a, where, however, LXX has Sg. and the Heb. Pl. is due to the attraction of the vbs in the priest’s speech to the ranks, in which the Pl. address is natural.
Thus Steuern.’s allotment of this part to his. Pl. author loses one of its reasons. His other, the use in Deu 20:2 of the people instead of Israel, common in Sg. passages, is not relevant to a quotation which besides has not the usual Pl. phrase for fearing (see on Deu 1:29); while his suggestion that Deu 20:1 is borrowed from Deu 21:10, Deu 23:9 (10), and Deu 7:17 and so editorial, is ungrounded. It is more natural to take Deu 20:2-4 as secondary (so Berth. and Marti) because of the Plurals, because they repeat Deu 20:1, and because the priest appears in them alone (Berth.: from a time when there was no king but a high-priest in Israel). Yet even this is doubtful; for (as we have seen) the Pl. in Deu 20:2 a is accidental, while the presence of a priest at the opening of a campaign, attended by sacrifices and oracles, was to be expected, and is confirmed for the time of the Judges and early Monarchy by such passages as Jdg 20:26, 1Sa 4:3 f., 1Sa 14:18 f., etc.
I see, therefore, no reason for doubting the unity and originality of the whole passage.
Exemptions from war-service are granted by most Asiatic powers, but their range varies much from time to time. In Palestine the Turks used to let an only son and widows’ sons go free, and for a time every married man. Later service was obligatory upon all except Christians and the tent-dwelling Arabs (Baldensperger PEFQ, 1906, 18). Recently Christians have been obliged to serve.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Horses, and chariots – The most formidable elements of an Oriental host, which the Canaanites possessed in great numbers; compare Jos 17:16; Jdg 4:3; 1Sa 13:5. Israel could not match these with corresponding forces (compare Deu 17:16 note and references), but, having the God of battles on its side, was not to be dismayed by them; the assumption being that the war had the sanction of God, and was consequently just.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Deu 20:1-4
When thou goest out to battle.
Righteous war
I. Undertaken to accomplish the purpose of God. In the name of our God we will set up our banners.
II. Sanctioned by the will of God.
1. Gods will is ascertained by His presence.
2. Gods will is declared by His servants.
III. Conducted by the precepts of God. (J. Wolfendale.)
Christian life a warfare
I. This warfare is against mighty enemies.
1. Great in number.
2. Terrible in equipment.
II. In this warfare right men are wanted.
1. Good leaders.
2. Good soldiers.
(1) Soldiers conscious of right.
(2) Soldiers willing to serve.
(3) Soldiers full of courage.
III. In this warfare we should not be disheartened.
1. Gods providence encourages us. Brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. There is constant reference to this deliverance most striking and instructive. History unfolds Divine providence; abounds with proofs of omnipotence, and pledges of help. Examples are cited to animate to fortitude and virtue.
2. Gods presence is with us. The Lord thy God is with thee. Not merely as commander, but goeth with you into the greatest danger. Not as a spectator, like Xerxes, who viewed the conflict from on high, but to fight for you with the determination to save you. The Lord thy God, He it is, not a common general, that doth go with thee; He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. (J. Wolfendale.)
Be not afraid.
Fear forbidden
Israel had seen little of war, only a few brushes in their journey with inferior adversaries. Things would soon become more serious. Hence alarm and need of admonition and encouragement. All Christians are soldiers, and wage a good warfare. It is a necessary and trying warfare–continues through every season and in every condition. The forces of their enemies may be superior in number, vigilance, wisdom, and might. Hence danger of alarm and need of fortitude in the warrior. None have better grounds for courage than we; not in ourselves, for then we must fail.
I. The Divine presence: For the Lord thy God is with thee. Antigonus said to his troops, dismayed at the numbers of the foe, How many do you reckon me for? But God is all-wise and almighty. They that be with us are more than they that he with them. Greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world.
II. His agency: Who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. To a Jew, this was not only a proof, but a pledge; not only showed what He could do, but was a voucher of what He would do. He is always the same, and never suffers what He has done to be undone. Strange would it have been, after opening a passage through the sea, to have drowned them in Jordan. What would have been thought of His great name, after placing Himself at their head to lead them to Canaan, if He had suffered them to be overcome by the way? He, who begins the work, is not only able to finish, but begins it for the very purpose. He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? (W. Jay.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XX
Directions concerning campaigns, 1.
The priest shall encourage the people with the assurance that
God will accompany and fight for them, 2-4.
The officers shalt dismiss from the army all who had just built
a new house, but had not dedicated it, 5.
All who had planted a vineyard, but had not yet eaten of its
fruits, 6.
All who had betrothed a wife, but had not brought her home, 7.
And all who were timid and faint-hearted, 8.
The commanders to be chosen after the timid, c., had retired, 9.
No city to be attacked till they had proclaimed conditions of
peace to it, provided it be a city beyond the bounds of the
seven Canaanitish nations if it submitted, it was to become
tributary; if not, it was to be besieged, sacked, and all the
males put to the sword; the women, children, and cattle to be
taken as booty, 19-15.
No such offers to be made to the cities of the Canaanites; of
them nothing shall be preserved, and the reason, 16-18.
In besieging a city no trees to be cut down but those which do
not bear fruit, 19, 20.
NOTES ON CHAP. XX
Verse 1. When thou goest out to battle] This refers chiefly to the battles they were to have with the Canaanites, in order to get possession of the promised land; for it cannot be considered to apply to any wars which they might have with the surrounding nations for political reasons, as the Divine assistance could not be expected in wars which were not undertaken by the Divine command.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
When thou goest out to battle, upon a just and necessary cause, as upon great provocation, or for thy own defence.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. When thou goest out to battleagainst thine enemiesIn the approaching invasion of Canaan, orin any just and defensive war, the Israelites had reason to expectthe presence and favor of God.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies,…. There were two sorts of war the Israelites were engaged in, one commanded and another permitted, as Maimonides c distinguishes; one was by the order and appointment of God, as against the seven nations of Canaan; the other was voluntary and arbitrary, which was left to their own discretion and will, as they saw fit, when they were provoked or distressed, or were invaded by their enemies, or they saw reason to go out against them, and either act the offensive or defensive part, or both; and of each of these some things are said in this chapter:
and seest horses and chariots, and a people more than thou; the Israelites had no horses, and so no chariots, their armies were all infantry; but their neighbouring nations that made war with them had a large cavalry, and multitudes of chariots, which made them very formidable; thus Shishak, king of Egypt, in the times of Rehoboam, came against Jerusalem with 1200 chariots and 60,000, horsemen, and people without number; and Zerah the Ethiopian, in the times of Asa, came against him with an host of 100,000 men, and three hundred chariots, 2Ch 12:2
be not afraid of them; because of the strength of their cavalry, the terrible approaches of their chariots, and the number of their men:
for the Lord thy God is with thee; hence, as Hezekiah says, more would be with them than with their enemies, with whom was an arm of flesh, but with them the Lord their God, 2Ch 32:7 and so the Targum of Jonathan,
“for all of them shall be reckoned as one horse and one chariot before the Lord your God;”
with whom numbers are nothing; and which adds,
“for his Word shall be your help;”
the eternal Logos, or Word of God; so Onkelos; and if God and his Word, his only begotten Son, are on the side of his people, they have nothing to fear from enemies, though ever so many and mighty:
which brought thee out of the land of Egypt; which is observed for the encouragement of their faith and confidence in him; for he that did that for them, what is it he cannot or will not do?
c Hilchot Melachim, c. 7. sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Instructions Relating to Military Service. – If the Israelites went out to battle against their foes, and saw horses and chariots, a people more numerous than they were, they were not to be afraid, because Jehovah their God was with them. Horses and chariots constituted the principal strength of the enemies round about Israel; not of the Egyptians only ( Exo 14:7), and of the Canaanites and Philistines (Jos 17:16; Jdg 4:3; 1Sa 13:5), but of the Syrians also (2Sa 8:4; 1Ch 18:4; 1Ch 19:18; cf. Psa 20:8).
Deu 20:2-4 If they were thus drawing near to war, i.e., arranging themselves for war for the purpose of being mustered and marching in order into the battle (not just as the battle was commencing), the priest was to address the warriors, and infuse courage into them by pointing to the help of the Lord. “ The priest ” is not the high priest, but the priest who accompanied the army, like Phinehas in the war against the Midianites (Num 31:6; cf. 1Sa 4:4, 1Sa 4:11; 2Ch 13:12), whom the Rabbins call (the anointed of the battle), and raise to the highest dignity next to the high priest, no doubt simply upon the ground of Num 31:6 (see Lundius, jd. Heiligth. p. 523).
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). , 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). , 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). , 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.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Directions Concerning War; Persons Excused from War. | B. C. 1451. |
1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 2 And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, 3 And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; 4 For the LORD your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. 5 And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it. 6 And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? let him also go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it. 7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her. 8 And the officers shall speak further unto the people, and they shall say, What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren’s heart faint as well as his heart. 9 And it shall be, when the officers have made an end of speaking unto the people, that they shall make captains of the armies to lead the people.
Israel was at this time to be considered rather as a camp than as a kingdom, entering upon an enemy’s country, and not yet settled in a country of their own; and, besides the war they were now entering upon in order to their settlement, even after their settlement they could neither protect nor enlarge their coast without hearing the alarms of war. It was therefore needful that they should have directions given them in their military affairs; and in these verses they are directed in managing, marshalling, and drawing up their own forces. And it is observable that the discipline of war here prescribed is so far from having any thing in it harsh or severe, as is usual in martial law, that the intent of the whole is, on the contrary, to encourage the soldiers, and to make their service easy to them.
I. Those that were disposed to fight must be encouraged and animated against their fears.
1. Moses here gives a general encouragement, which the leaders and commanders in the war must take to themselves: “Be not afraid of them, v. 1. Though the enemy have ever so much the advantage by their numbers (being more than thou), and by their cavalry (their armies being much made up of horses and chariots, which thou art not allowed to multiply), yet decline not coming to a battle with them, dread not the issue, nor doubt of success.” Two things they must encourage themselves with in their wars, provided they kept close to their God and their religion, otherwise they forfeited these encouragements:– (1.) The presence of God with them: “The Lord thy God is with thee, and therefore thou art not in danger, nor needest thou be afraid.” See Isa. xli. 10. (2.) The experience they and their fathers had had of God’s power and goodness in bringing them out of the land of Egypt, in defiance of Pharaoh and all his hosts, which was not only in general a proof of the divine omnipotence, but to them in particular a pledge of what God would do further for them. He that saved them from those greater enemies would not suffer them to be run down by those that were every way less considerable, and thus to have all he had done for them undone again.
2. This encouragement must be particularly addressed to the common soldiers by a priest appointed, and, the Jews say, anointed, for that purpose, whom they call the anointed of the war, a very proper title for our anointed Redeemer, the captain of our salvation: This priest, in God’s name, was to animate the people; and who so fit to do that as he whose office it was as priest to pray for them? For the best encouragements arise from the precious promises made to the prayer of faith. This priest must, (1.) Charge them not to be afraid (v. 3), for nothing weakens the hands so much as that which makes the heart tremble, v. 3. There is need of precept upon precept to this purport, as there is here: Let not your hearts be tender (so the word is), to receive all the impressions of fear, but let a believing confidence in the power and promise of God harden them. Fear not, and do not make haste (so the word is), for he that believeth doth not make more haste than good speed. “Do not make haste either rashly to anticipate your advantages or basely to fly off upon every disadvantage.” (2.) He must assure them of the presence of God with them, to own and plead their righteous cause, and not only to save them from their enemies, but to give them victory over them, v. 4. Note, Those have no reason to fear that have God with them. The giving of this encouragement by a priest, one of the Lord’s ministers, intimates, [1.] That it is very fit that armies should have chaplains, not only to pray for them, but to preach to them, both to reprove that which would hinder their success and to raise their hopes of it. [2.] That it is the work of Christ’s ministers to encourage his good soldiers in their spiritual conflict with the world and the flesh, and to assure them of a conquest, yea, more than a conquest, through Christ that loved us.
II. Those that were indisposed to fight must be discharged, whether the indisposition did arise,
1. From the circumstances of a man’s outward condition; as, (1.) If he had lately built or purchased a new house, and had not taken possession of it, had not dedicated it (v. 5), that is, made a solemn festival for the entertainment of his friends, that came to him to welcome him to his house; let him go home and take the comfort of that which God had blessed him with, till, by enjoying it for some time, he become less fond of it, and consequently less disturbed in the war by the thoughts of it, and more willing to lie and leave it. For this is the nature of all our worldly enjoyments, that they please us best at first; after a while we see the vanity of them. Some think that this dedication of their houses was a religious act, and that they took possession of them with prayers and praises, with a solemn devoting of themselves and all their enjoyments to the service and honour of God. David penned the 30th Psalm on such an occasion, as appears by the title. Note, He that has a house of his own should dedicate it to God by setting up and keeping up the fear and worship of God in it, that he may have a church in his house; and nothing should be suffered to divert a man from this. Or, (2.) If a man had been at a great expense to plant a vineyard, and longed to eat of the fruit of it, which for the first three years he was forbidden to do by the law (Lev. xix. 23, c.), let him go home, if he has a mind, and gratify his own humour with the fruits of it, <i>v. 6. See how indulgent God is to his people in innocent things, and how far from being a hard Master. Since we naturally covet to eat the labour of our hands, rather than an Israelite should be crossed therein, his service in war shall be dispensed with., Or, (3.) If a man had made up his mind to be married, and the marriage were not solemnized, he was at liberty to return (v. 7), as also to tarry at home for one year after marriage (ch. xxiv. 5), for the terrors of war would be disagreeable to a man who had just welcomed the soft scene of domestic attachment. And God would not be served in his wars by pressed men, that were forced into the army against their will, but they must all be perfectly volunteers. Ps. cx. 3, Thy people shall be willing. In running the Christian race, and fighting the good fight of faith, we must lay aside every weight, and all that which would clog and divert our minds and make us unwilling. The Jewish writers agree that this liberty to return was allowed only in those wars which they made voluntarily (as bishop Patrick expresses it), not those which were made by the divine command against Amalek and the Canaanites, in which every man was bound to fight.
2. If a man’s indisposition to fight arose from the weakness and timidity of his own spirit, he had leave to return from the war, v. 8. This proclamation Gideon made to his army, and it detached above two-thirds of them, Judg. vii. 3. Some make the fearfulness and faintheartedness here supposed to arise from the terrors of an evil conscience, which would make a man afraid to look death and danger in the face. It was then thought that men of loose and profligate lives would not be good soldiers, but must needs be both cowards in an army and curses to it, the shame and trouble of the camp; and therefore those who were conscious to themselves of notorious guilt were shaken off. But it seems rather to be meant of a natural fearfulness. It was partly in kindness to them that they had their discharge (for, though shamed, they were eased); but much more in kindness to the rest of the army, who were hereby freed from the incumbrance of such as were useless and unserviceable, while the danger of infection from their cowardice and flight was prevented. This is the reason here given: Lest his brethren’s heart fail as well as his heart. Fear is catching, and in an army is of most pernicious consequence. We must take heed that we fear not the fear of those that are afraid, Isa. viii. 12.
III. It is here ordered that, when all the cowards were dismissed, then captains should be nominated (v. 9), for it was in a special manner necessary that the leaders and commanders should be men of courage. That reform therefore must be made when the army was first mustered and marshalled. The soldiers of Christ have need of courage, that they may quit themselves like men, and endure hardness like good soldiers, especially the officers of his army.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
DEUTERONOMY – CHAPTER TWENTY
Verses 1-4:
Israel was not primarily a warlike people. Their law, their social structure, and their religion were all directed toward peace. However, they faced some serious conflicts in their immediate future, with nations which were stronger and more adapted to warfare than they. These nations had superior armaments, and better-trained soldiers than did Israel. In this text, Moses encourages Israel not to fear when they faced an army stronger and better equipped than they. Jehovah Elohim would be there to defend them and save them from their enemies.
“Horses and chariots,” the latest in military technology and armaments in that time. This would correspond to supersonic warplanes, missiles, and nuclear armaments today.
It was the ministry, of the priests to encourage the people to trust in Jehovah, as they faced the armies of their enemies. Military leaders could point to their armies and their equipment, as assurance of victory. But the man of God looks not to the strength of human armaments. Victory comes from God, Pro 21:31.
The strength of men is no match for the power of God, who has promised to be with His people, Psa 20:7.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1 When thou goest out to battle. This law also, which concerns their political government, is a Supplement to the First Commandment, enacting that they should carry on their wars under the auspices of God, and, trusting in His help, should follow Him as their leader. For it behoved them to give this proof of their piety, so as to look to God not less in war than in peace, and not to rest their hopes of safety on anything but the invocation of His name. Whence we gather that the worship of God should be by no means passed over in civil and earthly government; for, although its direct object is to preserve mutual equity between men, yet religion always ought to hold the first, place. The sum, therefore, is that, amidst the very clang of arms, they must not be in such confusion as not to recognize that they are under the guardianship of God, or to lose the confidence they will be safe in reliance on His power. He does not, however, encourage them rashly to engage in war, but takes it for granted that there is a legitimate cause for it; because this would be a gross abuse of God’s name, to seek a prosperous issue from Him, when we are engaged in anything contrary to His command. But He forbids them to fear, although the enemy should be superior in horses, in multitude, and in all their warlike array; and in these words He reminds them that they would not be liable to suffer defeat, because they were not supplied with abundance of chariots and horses; for we have lately seen that not even their kings were permitted to collect the forces in which the Gentile nations gloried; and therefore, lest the consciousness of their weakness should make them afraid, God declares that His strength would be a sufficient safeguard to them. And without question that passage in Psa 20:7, is taken from hence, “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the Lord our God.” On which score Isaiah reproves the people, because, refusing the waters of Shiloah, they long for great and rapid rivers; viz., as he elsewhere explains it, because they trust in the horsemen of Egypt. (Isa 8:6.) But we must observe upon what their security is to be founded, viz., because the people ought to hope that the same Divine power would be with them to the end, which their fathers had experienced when they were redeemed from Egypt.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE RECAPITULATION OF THE LAW
Deu 5:1 to Deu 26:19 record for us a recapitulation of the Law. The study of this section sets out clearly certain fundamental truths.
The Decalog is repeated with significant variations. Chapter 5, fundamental to all the laws of God is the Decalog. In Exodus, Moses delivered the same as he brought it from the tip of the fingers Divine. In Deuteronomy, the Law is given again. From the first to the tenth commandment, the very language of Exodus is employed, save in the instance of the fourth. Here, the reason assigned to the Jew for keeping the Sabbath, is strangely and significantly changed, namely, from because the Lord in six days made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh day, to Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm; therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day (Deu 5:15).
This change is so strange and so unexpected that it arrests immediate attention and demands adequate explanation. Why did God shift the reason for keeping the Sabbath from the finished creation to a completed redemption? The answer is not difficult. In the Divine plan, redemption is a far greater event than creation; the soul of man exceeds the weight of the world; for that matter, of all worlds. The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. The Law was given for Jews; the Gentiles were never in bondage to it, and above all, believing Gentiles are not bound by it. To them, the Law is not a great external or outside force created for practices of restraint. Its spirit is transcribed to their souls rather; they walk at liberty while seeking Divine precepts. This is not to inveigh against the Law. The Law is just, and true and good, but by Law no man has ever been redeemed. It is to exalt Grace, which God hath revealed through Jesus Christ, in whom men have redemption from sin. If I only love my father and mother because the Law commands it, I do not love them at all; if I refrain from making images and bowing down before them because this is the demand of the Law, my heart may yet be as full of idolatry as a heathen temple. Redemption is not by the Law; it is by Grace in Jesus Christ!
The early Church was shortly called upon to settle this question of salvation by Law or Grace, and in the Jerusalem Conference Peter rose up and said unto them,
Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Act 15:7-10).
Later he said, We believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (not by Law) we shall be saved, even as they (Act 15:7-11). Mark you, in that very sentence, Peter, the Apostle, proves his realization of the fact that the Law had failed as a savior and the very Jew himself had hope alone in grace. How strange, then, for men of the Twentieth Century to turn back to Law and proclaim the Law as though it were a redeemer, and protest that men who ignore the Jewish Saturday as the Sabbath will plunge themselves into the pit thereby, when the Law never saved! The keeping of the Sabbath was the one Law that contained in itself no ethical demand. The Law to worship, the Law to honor father and mother, the Law against killing, stealing and covetousnessthese are all questions of right and wrong; but to tithe time by the keeping of the Sabbath was a command solely in the interest of mans physical life. When, therefore, by the pen of inspiration the reason for it was shifted from a finished creation to a finished redemption, the act was lifted at once to a high spiritual level and became a symbol of the day when Christ, risen from the grave, should have completed redemptions plan. That great fortune to mankind fell out on the first day of the week, creating not so much a Christian Sabbath as making forever a memorial day for redemption itself, for the eighth day, or the first day of the week, clearly indicated the new order of things, or the new creation through Christ.
We have no sympathy whatever with secularizing each one of the seven days; but we would have the first day of the week kept in the spirit of rejoicing as redemptions memorial. On that day our Lord rose from the dead; on that day He met his disciples again and again; on that day the brethren at Troas assembled with the Apostles and broke bread; on that day the Christians laid aside their offerings; on that day they met for prayer and breaking of breadthe fellowship of the saints; on that day John was caught up in the spirit and witnessed the marvels recorded in his apocalyptic vision. Oh, what a day! No legal bondage, for what have we to do with holy days, sabbaths and new moons; but salvations memorial, a day of special service to the Son of God, our Saviour, a day for the souls rejoicing in Jesus. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
But as we pass on in the study of this section of Scripture, we find Moses defends the Decalog in character and consequence. He reminds them of the glory out of which the voice spake (Deu 5:24). He reminds them of the obligation in the words themselves (Deu 5:32). He reminds them of the relationship of the possession of the land to obedience of the precepts. He pleads with them as a father, Hear, therefore, O Israel (Deu 6:4). He anticipates the day of prophecy and begs that these words have place in their hearts (Deu 6:6), to be diligently taught to their children (Deu 6:7); bound for a sign upon their hands and frontlets between their eyes, lest they be forgotten (Deu 6:8); written upon the posts of the house and on the gates, where they could not be unobserved (Deu 6:9). Moses knew the relationship of law-keeping to national living. It is doubtful if modernists now have or will ever again entertain the same sacred reverence for Law that characterized the ancients, even the heathen of far-off days.
We cannot forget how Socrates, when he was sentenced to death and, after an imprisonment of thirty days, was to drink the juice of the hemlock, spent his time preparing for the end; friends conceived and executed plans for his escape and earnestly endeavored to prevail upon him to avail himself of the opportunity, but he answered, That would be a crime to violate the law even when the sentence is unjust. I would rather die than do evil. If a heathen philosopher could treat unjust laws with such reverence, Moses was justified in pleading with his people to regard the laws that were true and just and good, and such were the mandates of Deuteronomy.
It is easy enough for one to pick out some one of these precepts and, by detaching it from its context, create the impression that it was foolish or superficial or even utterly unjust; but when one reads the whole Book, he sees the effectual relationship of laws, general and particular, to the life Israel was leading, and for that matter, catches the supreme spiritual significance of the same as they interpret themselves in the light of New Testament teaching. There is not a warning that was not needed, nor an exhortation which, if heeded, would have failed to profit the people. It all came to one conclusion for Israel.
What doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul (Deu 10:12)?
And as there was not a law in the Old Testament but was fitted for the profit of Israel, so there is not a command in the New Testament but looks to the conquest of the Christian soul.
Among these enactments were personal and significant suggestions. They gave dietary and sanitary suggestions (Deuteronomy 14); they established the Sabbatic year (Deuteronomy 13); they fixed the time of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16); they set forth the character of the offerings (Deuteronomy 17); they determined the duties of the Levites (Deuteronomy 18); they gave direction concerning the cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 19); they determined the way of righteous warfare (chap. 20); they established a court of inquest (Deuteronomy 21); they announced the law of brotherhood (Deuteronomy 22); they descended to the minute instances of social life and regulations of the same (Deuteronomy 23); they dealt with the great and difficult question of divorce (Deuteronomy 24); they ended (Deuteronomy 23) in an almost unlimited series of regulations concerning the social life of the people knowing a wilderness experience, including the law of the first fruits (Deuteronomy 26).
It is interesting to study not alone the laws enacted here, but the penalties declared, including the blessings and curses from Ebal to Gerizim. There is about them all an innate righteousness that has been unknown to those purely human codes for which God never assumed responsibility. From the curse against bribery to the curse against brutal murder to this day the sentences are justified in the judgment of the worlds most thoughtful men.
In all they contrast the injustice and inordinately severe punishments often afflicted by godless governments. Plutarch, in writing about Solon, tells us that he repealed the laws of Draco except those concerning murder. Such was the severity of their punishments in proportion to the offense that we are amazed as we read them. If one was convicted of idleness, death was the penalty. If one stole a few apples or potherbs, he must surely die, and by as ignominious a method as did the murderer. And out of that grew the saying of Demades that Draco wrote his laws, not with ink but with blood. And when Draco was asked why such severe penalties, he answered, Small ones deserve it, and I can find no greater for the most heinous. Such were human laws in contrast to these laws Divine.
But a further study of these laws involves a third lesson.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL NOTES.Reverence for life, and that which tends to preserve it, was the motive for laws given in last chapter. The same is the basis of those in this chapter. Even in time of war, forbearance was to be exercised in respect of Israelites themselves who are levied for war (Deu. 20:1-9); in respect of the enemy (Deu. 20:10-15); Canaanitish nations alone excepted (Deu. 20:16-18); and in respect of the property of the vanquished. (Speak. Com.)
Deu. 20:1-9. Instructions for military service. Prospective in nature, but of permanent authority; not a temporary arrangement in prospect of war, but standing orders in future settlement of Israel. Horses, the chief strength of nations surrounding (Exo. 14:7; Jos. 17:6; Jdg. 4:3).
Deu. 20:2. Priest, not high priest, but one appointed; called by Rabbins the anointed of war, like Phinehas (Num. 31:6), who exhorted the people in formula (Deu. 20:3-4). Tremble, lit., make haste, as if confused.
Deu. 20:5-7. Officers, i.e., the Shoterim, roll-keepers (Exo. 5:6-10) (Sept. scribes), whose duty to muster men and announce orders of generals (2Ch. 26:11). Exemptions given. Dedicated the house on taking possession, by certain religious ceremonies (cf. Neh. 12:27; Psalms 30) (title). A yearly immunity. Eaten (Deu. 20:6), lit., made it common. When fruit trees were planted (Lev. 19:23) and vines set (Jdg. 19:24) fruit was not eaten the first four years, but set apart from common uses. Betrothed, always considerable time before marriage. Faint (Deu. 20:8), melt, or flow down, become despondent (Gen. 17:15; Jos. 7:5). Captains at the head of the people, in smaller levies (Deu. 20:10-20). Instructions concerning sieges, to prevent wanton destruction of life and property.
Deu. 20:10. If towns peaceably surrendered, armed men were not put to death. Offensive wars not encouraged. Tributaries conquered nations would become servants, yet receive the highest blessings in alliance with Israel (2Sa. 20:18-20). If besieged cities refused to capitulate, those found in arms, every male put to death. Women and children kindly treated (Deu. 20:14).
Deu. 20:15-18. With Canaanitish towns Israel was not to act thus. These people put under the ban must be exterminated. Nothing that breatheth, lit. every breath by which human beings alone are understood (cf. Jos. 10:40; Jos. 11:11, with chap Deu. 11:14). If the seige was long, trees were not cut down (Deu. 20:19). Various renderings have been given of this difficult text. The general sense seems to be that mans life depends upon the fruit of the trees, in a sense he is identified with them; their destruction would be a sort of sacrilege, and would diminish fuel and hinder military operations. Trees whose fruit not edible, cut down and used for ramparts in seige (Eze. 4:2).
RIGHTEOUS WAR.Deu. 20:1-5
Israel was not a warlike nation, but they were about to enter into serious conflict with other nations. In future years they might have to maintain their independence and defend themselves from aggression. Instructions are given to show the spirit in which war must be undertaken, carried on and finished. If war was inevitable the Providence of God would lead them into it. That would be righteous war.
I. War undertaken to accomplish the purpose of God. Israel undertook war, not of their own accord; not for selfish aggrandisement nor to realise ambitious schemes. They were commanded by God to possess the land. Fearful may be the consequences of rash and inconsiderate war In the name of our God we will set up our banners.
II. War sanctioned by the will of God. Every nation prays for its armies; but no war in which the presence of God cannot be expected is justifiable.
1. Gods will is ascertained by His presence. The Lord thy God is with thee. God may permit enterprises, but never helps them when they oppose His will. Israel rebelled, went presumptuously up into the hill; God went not with them and they were smitten by the Amorites (Deu. 1:43-44).
2. Gods will is declared by His servants. The priest shall approach and speak unto the people. They are not mere captains of the army, but ministers of God, reminding of the past and encouraging for the present. Their presence and help indicate Gods purpose. The sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with the trumpets; and they shall be to you for an ordinance for ever (Num. 10:8).
III. War conducted by the precepts of God. Here are specific directions, commands from God concerning war. War unprovoked and for unlawful conquest finds no sanction in Gods word. When it becomes a necessity to defend ourselves and punish evil doers, when it cannot justly be avoided, The belligerent nation then becomes the executioner of Divine judgments, but it must also know and confess that it is used by God for this purpose, and that it only carries on war aright when it does so with this conviction. Then only can we come before God with confidence and a good conscience, because it is His will that we have performed; and every wilfully undertaken war forbids our having free and happy access to God.Luthardt. Every purpose is established by counsel, and with good advice make war.
CHRISTIAN LIFE A WARFARE
In war, God alone was Israels confidence. Their enemies might excel in numbers and in military strength, but they were not to be afraid. God would protect and help them.
I. This warfare is against mighty enemies. Surrounding nations were often a terror to Israel. The Christian fights against powerful odds; principalities and powers in earthly and heavenly places.
1. Enemies great in number. A people more than thou. God is not always with the strongest battalions. Numbers are often ranged against Him and His people. But He counts nations as nothing and less than nothing.
2. Enemies terrible in equipment. Horses and chariots were most formidable elements of ancient nations. Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but that is confidence vain and displeasing to God. Glorious were the victories when Israel renounced trust in human strength. The horse is prepared against the day of battle, but safety (victory) is of the Lord.
II. In this warfare right men are wanted. Every soldier is not valiant. Gideons army was sifted, and many in Israel were sent away for lack of faith and enthusiasm.
1. Good leaders are wanted. Men anointed for war, as the Rabbins called the priestsmen of the stamp of Henry Havelock and Hedley Vicars. Men of undaunted courage, strong in God and prepared to lead.
2. Good soldiers are wanted. Soldiers who can endure hardness. a. Soldiers conscious of right. For if a man feels that he is in the wrong, he fears detection, disgrace and punishment. Macbeth started at the whisper of every wind. Virtue is bold, and goodness never fearful.Shakespeare. b. Soldiers willing to serve. Volunteers, not pressed men. None can be forced. Service that is forced is weakness and useless. Our hearts must be in the conflict or we fight in vain. c. Soldiers full of courage The faint-hearted injure the morale of the troops. Fear is contagious and leads to flight. Beware of this infection, neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid (Isa. 8:12).
III. In this warfare we should not be disheartened. Let not your hearts faint; fear not, and do not tremble. Why be terrified? Opponents flee before a brave man. One of you shall chase a thousand.
1. Gods providence encourages us. Brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. There is constant reference to this deliverance most striking and instructive. History unfolds Divine providence; abounds with proofs of omnipotence, and pledges of help. Examples are cited to animate to fortitude and virtue.
2. Gods presence is with us. The Lord thy God is with thee. Not merely as commander, but goeth with you into the greatest danger. Not as a spectator, like Xerxes, who viewed the conflict from on high, but to fight for you with the determination to save you. The Lord thy God, He it is, not a common general, that doth go with thee; He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
THE EXEMPTIONS IN WAR.Deu. 20:5-9
Soldiers must be as free from care and cowardice as possible. Wellington declared that the power of the greatest armies depends upon what the individual soldier is capable of doing and bearing. Four classes are here exempted:
I. Those involved in business. The soldier leaves his private business when he enlists to serve his country. The farmer leaves his plough, the mechanic his shop, and the merchant his store. In Israel those were not called to serve who, from circumstances and prospects, would feel most keenly the hardship.
1. Those engaged in dedicating a house. They must return to their house lest another dedicate it.
2. Those engaged in planting a vineyard must enjoy the fruit of it. Building and planting are good and needful for the community, but encumber the soldier.
II. Those hindered by social ties. What man hath betrothed a wife and not taken her (Deu. 20:7; Deu. 24:5). It was deemed a great hardship to leave a house unfinished, a new property half-cultivated, and a recently contracted marriage unconsummated, and the exemptions allowed in these cases were founded on the principle, that a mans heart being deeply engrossed with something at a distance, he would not be very enthusiastic in the public service. (Jamieson). In an army there should be one heart, one purpose and one desire to please the commander. In the corps of Christian soldiers there is entire obedience to the will of the Captain of our Salvation. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life: that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.
III. Those deficient in personal qualifications. The fearful and faint-hearted were not permitted to war.
1. In moral qualifications. Some think that the fear named arose from an evil conscience which makes a man afraid of danger and death. Men of loose and profligate lives are often cowards and curses to an army. Hence those conscious of guilt were to be sent away. A guilty conscience needs no accuser. Conscience makes cowards of us all.
2. In natural qualification. The allusion seems to be natural cowardice. Men reverence bravery, but cowards are objects of scorn. Wellington said of some foreigners who ran away from the field of Waterloo, Let them go; we are better without them. There must be no fear in officers or men. No cowards in the ranks lest the army flee before the enemy. Let him go and return unto his house lest his brethrens heart faint as well as his heart.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 20:1. Fear forbidden. Israel had seen little of war, only a few brushes in their journey with inferior adversaries. Things would soon become more serious. Hence alarm and need of admonition and encouragement. All Christians are soldiers and wage a good warfare. It is a necessary and trying warfarecontinues through every season and in every condition. The forces of their enemies may be superior in number, vigilance, wisdom and might. Hence danger of alarm and need of fortitude in the warrior. None have better grounds for courage than we, not in ourselves for then we must fail. First, the Divine presence: For the Lord thy God is with thee. Antigonus said to his troops, dismayed at the numbers of the foe, How many do you reckon me for? But God is all-wise and almighty. Nothing is too hard for the Lord, and if He be with us, they that be with us are more than they that be with them. Greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world. Secondly, His agency: Who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. To a Jew, this was not only a proof but a pledge; not only showed what He could do, but was a voucher of what He would do. He is always the same, and never suffers what he has done to be undone. Strange would it have been, after opening a passage through the sea, to have drowned them in Jordan. What would have been thought of His great name, after placing himself at their head to lead them to Canaan, if He had suffered them to be overcome by the way? He, who begins the work, is not only able to finish, but begins it for the very purpose. He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with him also freely give us all things?Jay.
Deu. 20:2-3. The priest helping the soldier. The priest shall approach and speak unto the people. A minister of peace an advocate of war only when war is justified. Even then only in showing how to regulate, mitigate, and direct it. Learn
1. The connection of religion with war in its sanctions and inspirations.
2. The business of the priest to caution the leaders and encourage the soldiers in a righteous contest.
Deu. 20:5. Building and dedicating a house.
1. By liberality to the poor. Festive ceremonies and entertainments were given.
2. By consecrating it to God through whose aid it had been built and by whose blessing it would prosper. There should be a family altar and a family religion. A church in the house (Psalms 30 thcompare title). This the best ornament and defence of the house.
Deu. 20:8. Faint-hearted.
1. Cowardice weakensfaint, fear, tremble and terrify (Deu. 20:3) are degrees of weakness.
2. Cowardice renders incapable of right impressions. Let not your hearts be tender to receive impressions of fear and despair. Melting hearts are like hot iron, capable of any impression. Steel your hearts.
3. Cowardice affects others. Lest his brethrens heart faint.
Deu. 20:5-9. Defective armies (churches or organizations).
1. Requiring to be sifted. The incapable and unfit sent home.
2. Requiring to be re-organized. Captains chosen fit to lead the people. Defects remedied and efficiency secured. Much to be done before the Christian Church can fight and conquer the world.
Christianity and Heroism. Christianity makes true heroes in war. Rulers in church and state should be chosen on account of spiritual or Christian character.
THE METHOD OF CONDUCTING WAR.Deu. 20:10-15
When Israel came nigh a city not belonging to the Canaanites, they were to summon it to peaceable surrender and submission (Jdg. 21:13). Moses does not encourage aggressive war. If the town resisted a regular siege was undertaken, and when captured males were slain, women and children spared, and booty appropriated to their own use.
I. Try mild measures before severe. Even in war there should be honour and justice.
1. Offer peace before war. Proclaim peace unto it. In the settlement of quarrels, be ready to give and to submit to arbitration, proposals of peace. God in mercy offers peace to sinnershas no pleasure in their destruction, but beseeches them to be reconciled to Him.
2. Make men tributary rather than exterminate them. If peace proposals were accepted, they must acknowledge the supremacy of Israel by tribute-money. They must renounce idolatry and become servants. Then their conquerors would be their protectors. If we yield to God and become His servants, we shall not only be saved from destruction, but become fellow-citizens with saints and members of Gods household.
II. Display the spirit of humanity. In most barbarous times this has often been seen. Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon were not devoid of feeling.
1. Spare property. Cities not plundered, trees not destroyed. Cattle and spoil to be appropriated to personal use.
2. Spare human lives. Helpless women and innocent children not to be touched. Here is a degree of self-control not displayed in modern Christian warfare.
A WAR OF EXTERMINATION.Deu. 20:16-18
The Canaanites were to be completely exterminated. They fell under the judicial displeasure of God and were utterly ruined, as the only means to preserve Israel from moral corruption. Learn
I. That men may become so wicked that utter ruin ensues. Of cities given to Israel no remnant of inhabitants must be spared. Canaanites must not share with Israelites in the land of promise. No terms of peace were offered them. They had filled up the measure of iniquity; had become totally averse to God; and were abandoned to there awful doom. Their punishment was not the execution of revenge upon enemies, but the result of their own wickedness, the fulfilment of a Divine sentence upon that wickedness. Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.
II. This utter ruin ensues lest the people of God should be endangered. Israel would have been corrupted by the lives and idolatry of Canaanites. Gods people are morally endangered by the pollutions and customs of the world. God is concerned for their character and preservation (Exo. 34:11-16). He loves them, and has given men for them, and people for their life (Isa. 43:4). That they teach you not to do after their abominations.
III. What a warning this utter ruin should be to all. First to Gods people. What a motive for separation from sin and the world! What an argument for obedience when the disobedient are punished so fearfully. War against sin should be one of extermination. The least evil, if spared, may ruin the character. But to the impenitent and ungodly, here is a picture of the destruction which awaits them unless found in Christ. They are reserved unto the judgment of the great day.
PRESERVATION OF FRUIT TREES.Deu. 20:19-20
In carrying on war, leaders are apt to indulge in passion and destroy everything within reach. In a long siege, Israel might use non-fruit-bearing trees, but those bearing fruit were not to be touched.
I. Gods laws are intended to check unlawful feeling and action. God is more merciful than we are. Food trees and human life have been wantonly destroyed, and military rage is often most furious. The ravages of war must be checked. A voice must be heard, above the tramp of horsemen and the command of kings. Thou shalt not.
II. Gods laws prohibit any wilful waste at all times. God ever consults our interests and economises our resources. The Jews, says Henry, understand this as a prohibition of all wilful waste upon any account whatsoever. No fruit tree is to be destroyed, unless it be barren and cumber the ground. Nay, they maintain, Whoso wilfully breaks vessels, tears clothes, stops wells, pulls down buildings, or destroys meat, transgresses this law. Thou shalt not destroy. Broken fragments must be gathered up, that nothing be lost. Every creature is good in its end, and nothing must be refused or abused.
ON SPARING FRUIT TREES
What are the lessons touching our own life which are suggested by this exemption?
1. Spare the fruit trees,Then men are to be self-controlled under the most exciting circumstances. Jews were to bear this restriction in mind at a time when most intensely excited. It was not to be remembered in moments of tranquilly, but to be sent before them, when fiercest passions were ablaze. We have been taught that all is fair in warthis law contradicts that proverbial morality. We are not to excuse wantonness by pleading excitement of circumstances. Beautiful the provision that in the keenest contest there was to be recollection of law! It should be so in our lives. In this day of fierce competition men are in danger of giving themselves up to passion, rather than judgement, and pleading the pressure of circumstances as an excuse for doing some things they would never think of doing in calmer moments. Such plea is vicious. Even in battle men are not to lose reflectiveness, in the presence of death they must remember the law of God.
2. Spare the fruit trees. Then do not force a present victory at the expense of future suffering. Victories may cost too much. What, if after conquest, we have cut off sources of supply and left ourselves without bread and water? The frequent question should be not, can I reach yonder point? but can I reach it without sacrificing obedience to divine law? You may get your own way in life, but what if you have to burn an orchard in doing so? A fruit tree standing between you and victory may appear a small thing, but that small thing represents the sources at which life renews itself. What if a man gain the whole world and loose his own soul?
3. Spare the fruit trees. Then judge all things by their highest usefulness and not by their temporary advantages. The tree might have been useful for bulwarks but there was a higher use to which it could be put, and its treatment was determined by this higher use. Things are not judged by their meanest, but by their highest possibilities. Are we living along the line of our highest capabilities, or consulting the conveniences of the passing moment? Who can find a fruit tree being cut down to help a man over a brooklet, when the meanest gate-post would have done just as well? Yet men lie in the dust, when they could exert most beneficial influence upon society. Aim high, for he who aimeth at the sky shoots higher far than he who means a tree.
4. Spare the fruit trees. Then man has it in his power to inflict great mischief upon himself and upon society. You can cut down. You have power to do mischief, but not right. A man may show strength in cutting down, but if he knew it he would show far greater strength in not doing so. Forbearance is often the last point of power. What is the Christian application of all this?
1. All in Christ Jesus are expected to bear fruit.
2. Only as Christians bear fruit will they be spared by Jesus Christ Himself.
3. Only in so far as Christians bear fruit ought they to receive toleration at the hands of society.
4. It is possible to bring forth evil fruit.
5. Fruit trees must be pruned. That ye may bring forth much fruit (Vol. III., The City Temple).
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 20:10-15. Mercy and wrath.
1. Offered mercy precedes the execution of wrath.
1. A city beseiged.
2. Summons to surrender; city not to fall by sudden surprise, or unwarned.
3. Offer of peace. II. Condign punishment follows rejected mercy. Such rebels, if permitted to escape, would raise the standard of revolt elsewhere, and strengthen the resistance of other towns. Learn
1. The gospel a message of reconciliation.
2. The gospel accepted brings peace.
3. The gospel rejected declares the eternal ruin of the rejector.Bib. Museum.
Deu. 20:19. Our interpretation of the primeval law of food is strongly confirmed by this passage and the essential wickedness of destroying the sources of human sustenance and comfort. The idea is that the tree which God planted is for all the children of men who pass by or dwell near, and need its fruit for fooda permanent supply, which no temporary exigency must be suffered to destroy. The Mahommedans to this day observe this law, and a curious story is related of the Arabian prophet, that when on one occasion in the siege of a fortress, prolonged by the access of the besieged during the night to the date palms outside its walls, he ordered some of his personal followers secretly to cut down these palm trees, his soldiers next morning remonstrated, so that Mahommed had to invent a special commission for the work, which however, he never afterwards repeated. (Temperance Com.) Fruit trees might not be destroyed. Doth God take care for trees? It was to teach us that if we bring forth fruit fit for Gods taste and relish, sanctifying God and Christ in our hearts, we shall not be destroyed.Trapp.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 20
Deu. 20:1. Battle. On the whole subject of Old Testament wars we give an extract from a paper read at the Church Congress last week (Oct. 14, 1885):The Old Testament takes man as he is, with savage, warlike instincts, and does not ignore his nature and proclaim at once the reign of peace. But the people are taught to see war in a new light. It is taken out of the hands of man and becomes Gods prerogative. Man wages war only as his vice-regent. He is fighting the battle of the Lord. There is nothing personal in the campaigns of Israelites, nothing national except so far as the cause of Israel is the cause of God. It is a great advance in civilization when men neither take the law into their own hands nor suffer a relative to be the avenger of blood, but trust to the administration of impersonal law. Revenge, which in the individual is a kind of wild justice, is then transformed into that righteous indignation which is the root of the judicial system. This was the first, the indirect blow to the war-spirit of the Jews. But they had more to learnthat God is a God of battles is only a half truth. The higher truth was dimly shadowed forth when the patriarchal conqueror did homage to the mysterious King of Peacewhen the wars of conquest were over and the chosen people established in the land their King, a man of war is forbidden to build the temple and the honour given to a man of rest. From first to last the Jews were taught that the explanation of the present is in the future, and as this kingdom becomes clearer it is revealed as a kingdom of peace. This Old Testament teaching in respect to war is propdeutic, leading men on by little and little till they could sit at the feet of Jesus: and provisional, destroyed only by being fulfilled.Rev. Aubrey L. Moore.
Deu. 20:1; Deu. 20:4. God with thee. When the Crusaders encamped before Jerusalem, a terrible struggle ensued. The Saracens, who possessed the city, bore down upon them in countless numbers, and it seemed as though all was lost to the Christian army. All at once a joyful cry rang through the ranksSt. James is with us! He fights on our side! In the excitement of the conflict some of them fancied they saw the apostle in the clouds advancing to help them! It gave them new courage. They rushed forward with an energy which could not be withstood, and the battle was won.
Deu. 20:5-9. Roman soldiers were not allowed to marry, or engage in any husbandry or trade; and they were forbidden to act as tutors to any person, or curators to any mans estate, or proctors in the cause of other men. The general principle was to exclude them from those relations, agencies, and engagements, which would divert their minds from that which was to be the sole object of pursuitA. Barnes.
Deu. 20:9. Lead. Like Hannibal, whom Livy says was first in battle and last out of it.
Deu. 20:10. Peace. When Alexander besieged a city, he sent an herald into it with burning torch in hand, to proclaim that if any man would repair and submit to him while the torch was burning, he should be saved; otherwise they might expect nothing but fire and sword. Tamerlane, when he came against any place, first hung out a white flag of grace, then a red, and lastly a black flag, to show that now there was no hope of mercy.Trapp.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
LESSON SIXTEEN Deu. 20:1-20; Deu. 21:10-14; Deu. 23:9-14
g. RULES FOR CONDUCTING THE HOLY WAR
(Deu. 20:1-20; Deu. 21:10-14; Deu. 23:9-14)
(1) ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE PRIEST (Deu. 20:1-4)
When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, thou shalt not be afraid of them; for Jehovah thy God is with thee, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 2 And it shall be, when ye draw nigh unto battle, that the priests shall approach and speak unto the people, 3 and shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye draw nigh this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your heart faint; fear not, nor tremble, neither be ye affrighted at them; 4 for Jehovah your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 20:14
330.
It is one thing to say be not afraid, it is another matter to fulfill this attitude. What element makes it possible?
331.
What was the particular job for the priest of these verses?
332.
This was truly a holy war. What so characterized it?
333.
There must be a lesson in this for other nations, What is it?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 20:14
When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and an army greater than your own, do not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, is with you.
2 And when you come near to the battle, the priest shall approach and speak to the men,
3 And shall say to them, Hear, O Israel, you draw near this day to battle against your enemies; let not your [minds and] hearts faint; fear not, and do not tremble, or be terrified (and in dread) because of them.
4 For the Lord your God is He Who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. [1Sa. 17:45.]
COMMENT 20:14
The instructions of this chapter are peculiar to Deuteronomy. As the people of God, Israel was not a warlike nation; they were rather to abstain from warfare, and as a general rule to cultivate the arts of peace. But they had before them the prospect of a serious and protracted conflict before they could occupy the land which God assigned to them; and they might in future years have to go to war to maintain their independence and repel aggression. In view of this, instructions are here given regarding military services (Pulpit).
THOU SHALT NOT BE AFRAID (Deu. 20:1)See Deu. 3:22, Deu. 7:17-24, etc. See also our remarks under Deu. 1:30.
THE PRIEST (Deu. 20:2)The Hebrew word Kohen is consistently so translated, and normally refers to that body of Levites that ministered to the Lord (Deu. 18:1, notes). If that is so here, the priest designated to accompany Israel to war would call on Jehovah for help, and also act as exhorter and inspiration to the soldiersa chaplain. This was the Lords war, fought by his people and against his enemies![38] See Num. 31:6, 1Sa. 4:3-4, Num. 10:8-9, 2Ch. 13:10-12.
[38] We see no need to give priest an abnormal meaning here. Gesenius remarks that there is a very old opinion of Hebrew writers, that Kohen also signifies prince. But the places in scripture where that definition might apply are, at best, few, and even those few are questioned. His function here was basically a religious one. . . . the field preacher, not the high priest (Lange).
It was also the custom for a sacrifice to be offered (1 Samuel 13) as a further appeal for Gods blessing in battle. And sometimes Jehovah was consulted by the high priest before war, Jdg. 20:27-28. It should be seen from all this that Israels warespecially those having to do with conquering their promised landwere Holy Wars. Because of this, Gods chosen ministers were closely involved in its progress and success.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XX.
LAWS OF WARFARE.
(1) When thou goest out to battlei.e., generally; not only in the immediate conquest of Canaan. Yet it may be observed that in the writings of Moses it is foreseen that the completion of the conquest will be gradual, and that Israel will have to go to battle many times before all enemies are overcome.
Horses and chariots.The Israelitish army was chiefly, or rather entirely, composed of infantry, in most of the great victories won by them.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Seest horses, and chariots Of the military resources of the Oriental nations, with whom the Israelites would be likely to be brought in hostile contact, cavalry constituted an important part. The Egyptians and the Syrians are especially mentioned for the abundance of their cavalry.
Be not afraid The Israelites are to call to mind their past history, when Jehovah overthrew the horse and the rider when he so triumphantly brought up his people out of Egypt.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Preparation For Battle ( Deu 20:1-9 ).
Israel was on the verge of a holy war, and instructions as to how to face up to such a fact were very necessary. They were not a warlike people, or a trained army, and what faced them would be daunting. Nor were their warleaders particularly experienced. All would have to learn as they went along (Jdg 3:2). They had, however, made a good start against the Amorite kings, Sihon and Og.
Moses, who had probably been trained in warfare in Egypt, and may well have been calling on that training, therefore felt it necessary to provide some guidance. This was given here in the form of a rallying cry to the troops rather than as instruction to the generals, which would no doubt privately be given later in more detail. He recognised that prior to any war and any battle it was always important for the troops to be gathered in order to encourage them, and strengthen their nerve. The hope was that they would then fight the better. They needed to see quite clearly what it was that they were fighting for, and to have their courage bolstered.
So here Moses began by reminding them that they must always remember that because they were fighting at Yahweh’s command He would be with them so that they did not need to fear defeat. Let them never forget that through His help they had defeated the mighty Egyptians who had sought to prevent them from leaving Egypt. They should remind themselves of this before all battles, and especially when the enemy appeared exceptionally strong. The Egyptians had appeared invincible, but let them remember what had happened to them.
Analysis partly using the words of Moses:
a When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and see horses, and chariots, and a people more than you, you shall not be afraid of them, for Yahweh your God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and it shall be that when you draw near to the battle the priest shall approach and speak to the people (Deu 20:1-2).
b And shall say to them, “Hear, O Israel, you draw near this day to battle against your enemies. Do not let your heart faint. Do not be afraid, nor tremble, nor be you frightened at them, for Yahweh your God is He who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you” (Deu 20:3-4).
c A challenge by officials to persons in who have a new house Deuteronomy 20:(5).
c A challenge to persons who have a new vineyard (Deu 20:6).
c A challenge to those who have a new betrothed (Deu 20:7).
b A challenge to cowards who are fearful and fainthearted (Deu 20:8).
a And it shall be, when the officials have made an end of speaking to the people, that they shall appoint captains of hosts at the head of the people (Deu 20:9).
Note that in ‘a’ the priest approaches to speak to the people, and in the parallel the officials make an end of speaking to the people. In ‘b’ they are exhorted not to be afraid and in the parallel the fearful are to be released. And central in ‘c’ and parallels are the threefold challenges to others which they are to keep in mind ‘lest they die’.
Deu 20:1
‘ When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and see horses, and chariots, and a people more than you, you shall not be afraid of them, for Yahweh your God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.’
In the near future they would have to go out to do battle with many enemies. But whenever the war was being fought at Yahweh’s command they need never be afraid of the size or strength of the armies that they found themselves facing, nor of their horses and chariots. They should rather remember that Yahweh their God, Who had brought them out of the land of Egypt and Who had without their help smashed the Egyptian charioteers, would be with them. They could therefore face them without fear.
But even with God on their side, he realised that the sight of the opposing army would often bring a chill to the heart, especially to the more inexperienced. For the opposing army would yell and shout out its war cries, and clash its shields, seeking to intimidate them, and it would parade its chariots. (And as far as possible they would retaliate in the same way). The thought of facing charging horses and chariots could hardly be other than totally unnerving to a people who had rarely, if ever, faced them, and had no chariots of their own. Facing an armed man was one thing, but facing a charging chariot was another, and he knew that such an experience would demand the highest courage, and the best use of the ground. At such a time they must remember his words, ‘Do not be afraid of them. Yahweh your God is fighting for you and is with you.’ Did they not have the promise that Yahweh would make the panic far worse for their enemies? Whatever they were feeling He would sow in their enemies’ hearts worse fears and dismay so that they could not stand before them (Deu 2:25; Deu 11:25; Exo 15:14-16; Jos 10:10; Jdg 4:15)
We too have to face spiritual battles on behalf of Christ, sometimes seemingly insurmountable. At such a time we also can be sure that in our spiritual lives the Enemy will make the problems we face seem as daunting as possible. Indeed if we continually look at the problems we might well be overwhelmed. But as with Israel the secret is to look to God. He will be our strength, and He will fight for us. What will the Enemy be able to do then? Let us therefore trust and not be afraid (Isa 12:2). If he yells at us with the equivalent of fiery darts, we must retaliate with words of Scripture.
Deu 20:2-4
‘ And it shall be, when you draw near to the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak to the people, and shall say to them, “Hear, O Israel, you draw near this day to battle against your enemies. Do not let your heart faint. Do not be afraid, nor tremble, nor be you frightened at them, for Yahweh your God is he who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.” ’
Thus he assured them that prior to battle the Priest himself, the very living representative of Yahweh, would come before the Israelite army and encourage them with a last minute address, guaranteeing for them that God was with them. They would know that all necessary ritual had been performed and the Urim and Thummim consulted. The presence of this great and revered man speaking with such confidence in Yahweh’s name would be a huge encouragement.
He would point out that they need not be faint-hearted in spite of the approaching battle because Yahweh was with them. Note the threefold commands, ‘Do not be afraid, nor tremble, nor be you frightened at them.’ We are possibly to see here a graduating of fears. First the feeling of apprehension, then the growing fear, and then the terror. And they would be expected to remember that that was exactly what Yahweh had promised would be how their enemies were feeling (Exo 15:14-16). But this should not happen in their case. They were rather to recognise that Yahweh was going with them, and that He would fight on their behalf. He would deliver them. When His people were in trouble they should remember that ‘Yahweh is a man of war!’ (Exo 15:3) and would be there with them. On their side was the captain of Yahweh’s host (Jos 5:14).
In the same way, once we remember that God is with us, and the words of Jesus, ‘Lo, I am with you always’ (Mat 28:20), how can we be afraid as we face the battles that lie ahead in our Christian lives?
Deu 20:5-7
‘ And the officials shall speak to the people, saying,
“What man is there who has built a new house,
And has not dedicated it?
Let him go and return to his house,
Lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it.
And what man is there who has planted a vineyard,
And has not used its fruit?
Let him go and return to his house,
Lest he die in the battle, and another man use its fruit.
And what man is there who has betrothed a wife,
And has not taken her?
Let him go and return to his house,
Lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.”
Once the priest had completed his encouragement, the officials (these were the ordnance officials not the battlefield commanders) were to question their motivation and their courage, almost certainly with stereotyped words. It was an official offer that if they really wished to do so they could withdraw. It even gave grounds for doing so. And the grounds were based on the very things that they were fighting for. Nothing could be worse for an army than to be weakened by doubters. But the verse reads like a stereotyped speech. The men would know every word that was coming. We can imagine Abraham standing before his men and saying something along similar lines to his troops.
The basic principle was that if they were stood there quivering because they were rather thinking of their new house which they had not lived in, or their new vineyard of which they had not eaten, or their new betrothed whom they had not yet made love to, let them return home, lest they die in battle and lose the opportunity, if that was what they wanted Note the threefold emphasis on ‘let him go and return to his house lest he die in the battle’. It faces all up to the possibility that lay before them, with the implication that they might be afraid. And it brands all who respond as cowards.
If this was to be taken at face value we can think of nothing more deflating for the remainder of the army than such a speech with its stress on the fact that they might die in battle. That is not the main idea that you plant in men’s minds just before a battle. Rather it was bringing home concerning each individual who departed why he was leaving, it was ‘lest he die in battle’. They would be, and would be branded as, cowards. Rather the expectancy was surely that the spirit would be such that all would respond in the same way. They would see such a death as glorious. Not a man would move. The last thing they would want their comrades to think was that they were afraid to die in battle. If the choice lay between house, vineyard and betrothed, or dying gloriously in battle, they would choose rather to die in battle, at least in front of their comrades.
So it is open to question whether this should be seen as offering serious exemptions or should simply be seen as ‘war talk’. Was it just challenging them as to whether they wanted to excuse themselves and slip away? Was it putting them on the spot as to what choice they would make? Was it saying, do you really want to put such things, which Yahweh has given you, in the way of fighting for Yahweh? Or was it rather a way of reminding them of what they were fighting for, and an attempt to rouse their courage, with the aim of making them feel at one for the battle ahead, and ready to die in battle? Was it rather saying, “Remember what you are fighting for, your homes, your fields, your families, and take courage, and do not fear death in battle.”
For they must have been very much aware that they were far more likely to lose their new house, their new vineyard or their new betrothed, or not have them at all, if they did not fight. And none would want to be the first to be seen as backing down before their fellow soldiers. But unquestionably having to face up to their nerves in this way would powerfully assist them, and give them inner confidence. And the probable aim was that all should stay.
This would seem to be confirmed by the insistence that all the men of the two and a half tribes commit themselves to crossing the Jordan and fighting with their brothers (Num 32:16-27). Had they been able to use these reasons for avoiding doing so it would have made life so simple for them. After all most of them actually were building or occupying new homes, planting new vineyards, and many would be becoming betrothed as a result of the opportunity for settling down. Most could thus have opted out on these grounds. Yet to a man they asserted their determination to leave their loved ones until the invasion had been successful (Jos 1:16-18).
Indeed the words applied particularly to them. To begin with they were the ones who had already received or built new homes. They would already have planted vineyards. They were challenged on a reality. The others would listen and recognise that that was what their comrades now had and that they were fighting for that too. For their comrades it was a reality, for them it was their dream which would gradually step by step become a reality.
The truth is that it is doubtful if the officials would expect anyone to respond to this offer. Had it been intended to be taken seriously Moses would have laid it down as an offer to be made some time previously, not on the verge of going to battle (which is specifically stated). We must remember that for a man to wait for the new fruit in his vineyard could take four years (Lev 19:23-24). Could men really be let off the fighting for four years? And while the dedication of a house might be ritually important, it would only take a short while, and could have been fitted in on an emergency basis, unless the significance of ‘dedication’ was that of living in it for a time, in which case how long a time? But could that replace the privilege of fighting for Yahweh? Presumably also the betrothal still awaiting consummation was not intended immediately to result in marriage, for provision would genuinely be made well before the battle for a newly married man not to be called up in the first year of his marriage (Deu 24:5), so that he could ensure the continuation of his house by having children. Thus these reasons appear to fall short of ones that could really be relied on. Rather they emphasised to them that some of them had houses, and vineyards, and women that had been given to them by Yahweh that they would not keep if they did not fight bravely, and to the remainder it spoke of what similarly would yet be theirs.
Those who have stood in line and have heard officers offer the opportunity of backing down from a dangerous mission would know exactly the position. All stood firm. Not one of them would even think of doing anything else. And that very fact would bind them together as comrades in arms.
And this makes sense of ‘lest you die in battle’. If it was said in such a way that it was intended to make men think seriously of the possibility it was a real flattener, but if it was said to all in a tone that indicated that they were all men of such courage that they would not even consider the question, then it would be a booster (men being what they are).
Some commentators do, however, see these as a genuine provision for exemption from fighting, given on the grounds that Yahweh could save by many or by few (1Sa 14:6). The idea then is that the opportunity of enjoying Yahweh’s inheritance should be able to be enjoyed before men had to return to arms, enjoying their new houses, their new vineyards and their new wives. They should be able to ‘enter into their rest’. After all, these things were the essence of what being in the land was all about, and the loss of these was precisely what would be the result of future disobedience (Deu 28:30). This would still leave the older, more experienced warriors available for battle. But this view would remove from the army most of the young men in their fighting prime on a permanent basis, for it was a pattern for the future. And the real question would be, how could the young men live with themselves after that, especially when the returning heroes came home?
Deu 20:8
‘ And the officials shall speak further to the people, and they shall say,
“What man is there who is fearful,
And faint-hearted?
Let him go and return to his house,
Lest his brethren’s heart melt as his heart.”
The final challenge would be to the fainthearted, following a similar pattern. Note the changes which deliberately bring home the ignominy of the challenge. The noble personal challenge has been replaced by one that brings home the cowardice lying behind any response. One can almost hear the sneer in the voice, and the suggestion that such a person might be undermining all his comrades.
This would give an opportunity to anyone who was so terrified that they could not face the battle to leave before they weakened their fellow-soldiers with their fears. If a man was so afraid that he would step forward out of the ranks before his fellow soldiers and demonstrate such a fact he would have to be in a blue funk. If that were so it was better that he withdrew before the battle lest he discourage others. But again few, if any would be expected to accept. The purpose was to give all a psychological boost by their remaining standing in line, and the sense that they were there because they had chosen to be.
It is true that in Gideon’s case a large number did take advantage of such an offer. But they did it en masse. That was probably because all who took advantage of it had already agreed that really they had no chance, were resentful of Gideon’s call to arms, and as a whole were very reluctant to fight, and therefore, as one, took advantage of the anticipated offer when it came. They acted in unison. They resented Gideon’s call and had no desire to fight. Whole units withdrew together. That was a very different situation.
An example of what fearful talk among warriors could do is also found in the same context in Jdg 7:13-14. Those men were beaten even before battle began.
Deu 20:9
‘ And it shall be, when the officials have made an end of speaking to the people, that they shall appoint captains of hosts at the head of the people.’
Once the preliminary encouragements and offers had been given, and duly rejected by lack of response, duties would then be allocated. While the Israelite army was probably not a fully efficiently trained fighting force, the thought is not that they were to start from scratch deciding who would act as captains, but that the already appointed captains should be allocated their responsibilities, and set in place. Once this was done everything would be ready for battle. The placing of this arrangement last is not accidental. The point is that the actual leaders of the battle were of least importance to the outcome. What was most important was that Yahweh was with them, and then that the people were at the ready, trusting Yahweh and eager to respond to His call. In a modern army appointment of the leadership would be the priority, but here it was Yahweh’s presence with them and their faith in Him that was the priority.
In reading this passage we should call to mind the noble Uriah the Hittite. He refused to return to his house while on duties which brought him back to Jerusalem, even when offered the opportunity; he refused to go home to sleep with his wife even though the chance came; for the men of Israel were living under war conditions and he knew that he could do no other than rough it with them (2Sa 11:2-13). This was the spirit that these seeming exemptions were intended to foster.
It should be the same spirit that emboldens the soldier of Christ. We are told not to look around at the possible luxuries that could be ours but to ‘endure hardness as good soldiers of Christ’, not being entangled with the affairs of this life in order that we may please Him Who has chosen us to be soldiers (2Ti 2:3-4). We should not be saying, ‘once I have my house to rights, and my garden established, and my business booming, and have sorted out my life partner, I will be able to serve God.’ But rather, ‘we are on the Lord’s side, Saviour we are thine’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
III. REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD ( Deu 19:1 to Deu 21:9 ).
In this section the question of different ways of shedding blood is considered. Lying behind this section is the commandment, ‘you shall do no murder’. It should be noted that in some sense it continues the theme of the regulation of justice.
The shedding of the blood of men was always a prominent issue with God (compare Gen 9:5-6). It is dealt with in a number of aspects.
a). In Deuteronomy 19 the question is raised as to how to deal with deliberate murder and accidental killing through cities of refuge. And this is linked with the removal of ancient landmarks which could cause, or be brought about by, violence and death, and was doing violence to the covenant of Yahweh. The mention of it here demonstrates the seriousness of this crime. It is also linked with the need to avoid false witness which could lead to an unjust death or could bring death on the false witness.
b). In Deuteronomy 20 the question of death in warfare is dealt with, both as something to be faced by the people themselves, and then with regard to how to deal with a captured enemy, differentiating between neighbouring lands and native Canaanites. But the trees are not to be killed.
c). In Deu 21:1-9 the question is dealt with as to what to do if a slain man is found and no one knows who did it.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Deu 20:8 And the officers shall speak further unto the people, and they shall say, What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren’s heart faint as well as his heart.
Deu 20:8
Jdg 7:2-3, “And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me. Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Selection of Soldiers For a Campaign
v. 1. When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses and chariots, v. 2. And it shall be when ye are come nigh unto the battle, v. 3. and shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies; let not your hearts faint, v. 4. for the Lord, your God, is He that goeth with you to fight for you against your enemies, to save you, v. 5. And the officers, v. 6. And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it, v. 7. And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her, v. 8. And the officers shall speak further unto the people, and they shall say, What man is there that is fearful and faint-hearted? let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren’s heart faint, v. 9. And it shall be when the officers have made an end of speaking unto the people, that they shall make captains of the armies to lead the people,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
DIRECTIONS CONCERNING WARFARE IN GENERAL, AND FOR THE BESIEGING OF CITIES IN PARTICULAR.
Deu 20:1-20
The instructions in this chapter are peculiar to Deuteronomy. As the people of God, Israel was not a warlike nation; they were rather to abstain from warfare, and as a general rule to cultivate the arts of peace. But they had before them at this time the prospect of a serious and protracted conflict before they could occupy the land which God had assigned to them; and they might in future years have to go to war to maintain their independence and repel aggression. In view of this, instructions are here given regarding the conducting of military service.
Deu 20:1
When they found themselves opposed by an army more numerous than their own, and better furnished with the material of warfare, they were not to be afraid or discouraged, for Jehovah their God, who had brought them out of Egypt, would be with them to protect and help them (cf. Psa 20:7). Horses and chariots. In these, which constituted the main strength of the nations with which they would have to contend, the Israelites were deficient; and to them these were always objects of terror in war (Jos 11:4; Jos 17:16; Jdg 1:19; Jdg 4:3; 1Sa 13:5).
Deu 20:2
The priest. Not the high priest or any one of the priests, but the military priest, the priest appointed to accompany the army, “the anointed for the war;” , as the rabbins designate him (cf. Num 21:6; 1Sa 4:4; 2Ch 13:12). His business was to exhort the people, and to encourage them by reminding them that the Lord was their Leader, and would help them in the conflict. The formula of his exhortation is given in Deu 20:3, Deu 20:4.
Deu 20:5-7
The officers; the shoterim, the keepers of the genealogical tables (Deu 16:18). It belonged to them to appoint the men who were to serve, and to release those who had been summoned to the war, but whose domestic relations were such as to entitle them to exemption. If there was one who had built a house, but had not dedicated it, i.e. by taking possession of it and dwelling in it; or if there was one who had planted a vineyard and had not eaten of the fruit thereof; or if there was one who had betrothed a wife, but had not yet married her;such were to be allowed to return home, lest they should die in battle, and it be left to others to consummate what they had begun. According to Josephus, this exemption was for a year, according to the analogy of Deu 24:5. Dedicated; probably formal possession was taken of the house by some solemn ceremony, followed by a festive entertainment. Vineyard. The Hebrew word () here used designates “a field or park of the nobler plants and trees cultivated in the manner of a garden or orchard” (Ges.); so that not vineyards alone, but also olive yards and plots of the more valuable fruit trees may be intended. Hath not eaten of it; literally, hath not laid it open, made it common, i.e. begun to use it, to gather its produce for common use (cf. Deu 28:30; Jer 31:5). Trees planted for food were not to be used before the fifth year of their growth (Le 19:23, etc.; of. Deu 24:5).
Deu 20:8
The shoterim were also to allow any that were naturally timid and fainthearted to return to their homes, lest, if they remained with the host, others, infected by them, should lose courage and become unfit for service. His brethren’s heart faint; literally, flow down or melt (cf. Jos 7:5). In Deu 1:28, this verb is rendered by “discouraged.”
Deu 20:9
The next thing the shoterim had to do was to appoint captains to head the people who were going to war. The army was divided into bands or companies, and over each of these a captain was placed, whose it was to command and lead (cf. Num 31:14, Num 31:48; 1Sa 8:12; 1Sa 22:7; 2Sa 18:1). Captains of the armies. The phrase, “captain of a host” ( ), usually designates the general or commander-in-chief of the entire army (Gen 21:22; 2Sa 2:8; 1Ki 16:16, etc.); but here the phrase is used in the plural of the chiefs of the companies or detachments of which the whole was composed.
Deu 20:10-20
Directions concerning the besieging of towns. In the case of a town at a distance, not belonging to any of the Canaanitish tribes, on advancing against it they were first of all to summon the inhabitants to a peaceable surrender and submission (cf. Jdg 21:13). If this was complied with, the inhabitants were to become tributary to the Israelites and serve them; but if this was refused, the town was to be besieged, and, when taken, all the males were to be slain, and the women and children, as well as all the booty that was in the place, were to be taken as the prey of the conquerors, who were to appropriate the spoil to their own use.
Deu 20:10
Then proclaim peace unto it; i.e. invite it peaceably to surrender.
Deu 20:11
Shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee; literally, shall be to thee for tribute and service. The word rendered by “tribute” () denotes properly tribute service, service rendered as a tribute, whether for a season or in perpetuity (cf. Gen 49:15; Jdg 1:30, Jdg 1:33, Jdg 1:35; 1Ki 5:13; 1Ki 9:21; Isa 31:8 [Authorized Version, “discomfited”])
Deu 20:14
Shalt eat the spoil; consume it for thine own maintenance.
Deu 20:16-20
This was for cities at a distance; it was to be otherwise with the cities of the Canaanites. To them no offer of peaceful submission was to be made, and when the city was taken, all the inhabitants without reserve were to be destroyed. This was in accordance with God’s command to Israel (Exo 23:31-33; Exo 34:11-16; Deu 7:1-3), and as a precaution against the risk of the people being seduced into idolatry by the heathen should they be allowed to remain in the land. But whilst engaged in besieging a town, they were not to destroy the fruit trees that were outside the walls; but trees that were not for food they might cut down and use in their operations against the city.
Deu 20:19
To employ them in the siege; literally, to come, i.e. that they should come into the siege before thee, i.e. either as thine adversary or to be used by thee for the siege. For the tree of the field is man’s life. This may mean that the tree supplies food for the sustenance of man’s life. But as the words stand in the text, they can only be rendered thus: “For the man s a tree of the field.” This gives no good sense, or indeed, any sense at all; and hence it is proposed to alter the reading of the text so as to produce a meaning that shall be acceptable. From an early period the expedient has been resorted to of reading the clause interrogatively, and, instead of regarding it as parenthetical, connecting it with the following words, thus: “Is the tree of the field a man to come into siege before thee?” So the LXX; Rashi, etc. It has been thought that only a very slight change in the punctuation is required to justify this rendering ( instead of ); but more than this is acquired: the subject and object are hereby reversed, and this is more than can be allowed. From an early period also it has been proposed to read the clause as a negation, “For the tree of the field is not a man to come into siege before thee.” So the Targum of Onkelos, Abarbanel, Vulgate, etc. The sense here is substantially the same as in the preceding, and the same general objection applies to both. To both also it may be objected that by this way of taking the passage Moses is made to utter a sentiment at once puerile and irrelevant; for what need to declare formally, or in effect, that a tree is not a man? and what reason is there in this for not cutting down fruit trees any more than other trees? In the margin of the Authorized Version an alternative rendering is proposed, “O man, the tree of the field is to be employed in the siege.” But admitting this as a possible rendering, it is exposed to the objection, on the one hand, that it is improbable that in a prosaic address like this an explanatory appeal would be introduced; and on the other, that it is inconceivable that Moses would in this casual and startling way anticipate what he goes on in the next sentence to express deliberately and clearly. The passage has probably suffered at the hands of a transcriber, and the text as we have it is corrupt. The sense put upon it in the Authorized Version is that suggested by Ibn Ezra, and in the absence of anything better this may be accepted. The fruit tree is man’s life, as it furnishes that by which life is sustained, just as, in Deu 24:6, the millstone is called a man’s life, inasmuch as it supplies the means of life.
Deu 20:20
And thou shalt build bulwarks against the city until it be subdued; literally, That thou mayest build a siegehe, an instrument for besieging, a rampart, or bulwarkagainst the city, till it come down (cf. Deu 28:52).
HOMILETICS
Deu 20:1-20
Wars to be regulated by Divine precepts.
The directions given by Moses in this chapter may serve to show the spirit in which wars should, if undertaken at all, be entered on and prosecuted. We are not called upon here to moot the question whether war is under any circumstances justifiable; since the principle on which the Hebrew lawgiver proceeds is that of tolerating for a while certain socially accepted customs, mitigating whatever in them is evil, and gradually educating people out of them altogether. In order to estimate the value of this chapter, it should be compared with the war customs of the nations round about. Dr. Jameson’s “Commentary” has some valuable references thereon. Here are directions: First, as to the men who are to serve. They are to be sifted. In each of the four cases of exemption there is an obvious significance. Having been chosen, they are then to be organized. And their attitude and courage in the war were to be those of men who knew that the Lord their God was with them. Note: No war should be entered on in which the presence and help of God cannot be expected and implored. Secondly, as to the mode of carrying on or entering on war. The nations of Canaan are to be “stamped out,” that a great pollution may be driven from the world. With this exception the Hebrews are to avoid war, if possible (Deu 20:10), and are only to engage in it if forced thereto by the people by whom they were opposed. When in war, no wanton destruction was to be allowed. They were to build bulwarks against invaders, but were not to destroy the subsistence of a people by cutting down fruit trees, etc. How wonderfully humane and even tender are these regulations compared with the customs of other nations at that time! By them, in fact, the old pagan war spirit is repressed, and a war policy discouraged. The main pursuits of their life are to be found in the tillage of the soil. A standing army was unknown among them. War was not to be encouraged by an indiscriminate levy of men, nor was it to be pursued at the cost either of the industrial pursuits or of the domesticities and sanctities of life. If even in those days the war spirit was to be kept in subjection, much more should it be so now! The preacher may at appropriate times and seasons develop here from Bible principles respecting war.
1. War itself, in any form, is regarded in the Word of God as but an accompaniment of a transition state of things. It is not to last always (Psa 46:1-11.; Isa 2:1-22.; Luk 2:1-52.). Hence all should desire and pray that it may speedily come to an end.
2. Aggressive and unprovoked war for the mere purposes of conquest, finds no sanction whatever in the Word of God. Israel’s wars of conquest were to be limited within assigned bounds.
3. War should never be resorted to except in a case of stern necessity. Israel was to make the effort to avoid war, if possible.
4. Supremacy in war should never be the chief care of a people. It should at all times regard war as but an occasional and awful necessity, and should see more glory in avoiding it than in conquest.
5. When war is engaged in simply from sheer necessity, its horrors should be mitigated by a humane regard for the enemy’s welfare. There is more honor in kindly consideration for an enemy than there is in crushing him. To deprive him of the means of livelihood is a barbarity infinitely to be condemned.
6. When war becomes a stern necessity, so that it cannot righteously be avoided, it may then be invested with religious sanctions, and the blessing and help of God may be expected, asked for, and relied upon; then a people may say, “In the Name of our God we will set up our banners” (Psa 20:1-9.). For success in such a war, a united people may look up to their God, and they will find that Jehovah hears. There can be no finer instance of this than the one recorded in 2Ch 20:1-37. The prayer of Jehoshaphat is sublime. The answer came.
7. When thus a people can confidingly look up to the Most High, and in the full assurance of being right can ask his blessing, there should be no faintheartedness known among them. They may be strong and of a good courage. The Lord God goeth with their armies, and he will give them success.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Deu 20:1-5
War.
The wars of the world form a large part of its history. Savage nations delight in war, revel in its bloodshed and barbarities. Their heaven is a Valhalla. Civilized communities, while averse from having wars waged on them, are not always so averse from waging war on others. Military ambition, lust of conquest, hope of enrichment by pillage, the wiping out of old grudges, may instigate them to this course. Wherever or however waged, wars are a source of incalculable misery. It may be said of them, “It must needs be that wars come, but woe to that man by whom the war cometh!” War is not to be sought, it is to be by every legitimate means avoided, but it may become a necessity. In this case it must be bravely undertaken, and our trust placed in God for his help.
I. RELIGIOUS COURAGE NEEDED IN WAR. It is a not uncommon idea that the influence of religion is adverse to the hardier elements in character. The Christian faith in particular is thought to inculcate a meek passivity of disposition, which, if not absolutely inconsistent with patriotism, courage, and other soldierly virtues, is at least unfavorable to their development. The man of spirit and the devout man are supposed to represent two opposite and incompatible types of character. This idea is strange, when we remember how largely the images and illustrations of the Christian life in Scripture are drawn from warfare. But it is sufficiently refuted by reference to facts. The meekness and unwearied forgivingness which is to characterize the Christian in his private relations is perfectly compatible with the most unflinching heroism in the discharge of public duty, and in the service of his country in her appeal to the God of battles. Christian meekness is not softness or effeminacy. On the contrary, it is an aspect of the highest courage, and develops moral qualities which make it easier to act courageously in any circumstances in which the individual may be placed. Civil liberty has seldom fared better than in the hands of God-fearing men. Instead of being the worst, they make the best soldiers. An army of soldiers, God-fearing and thoroughly disciplined, has usually proved more than a match for vastly superior forces of the enemy: Cromwell’s Ironsides, the Scotch Covenanters, the Cameronians. As fine examples of the soldierly character, we may name Colonel Gardiner, Sir Henry Havelock, Captain Hedley Vicars. It would be the life and strength of our armies were they composed of such men from the top to the bottom of the scale.
II. WARLIKE COURAGE NEEDED IN RELIGION. We may apply the exhortations of these verses to the spiritual warfare. The gospel summons us to warfare.
1. With evil within us.
2. With the spiritual forces of evil around us.
3. With the hydra-headed incarnations of that evil in the institutions and customs, sins and follies of society.
It would be well if, in this campaign against evil, we could command in our ranks the same union, the same strict discipline, the same steadiness of action, above all, the same heroic bravery and endurance and preparedness to face the worst, which are often seen in earthly armies. Courage and readiness to sacrifice for Christ all that his cause demands, is a first condition of success in the spiritual warfare. There must be faith in the cause, devotion to the Leader, enthusiasm in his service, and the spirit of those who “love not their lives unto the death” (Rev 12:11). Instead of this, how often, when the battle approaches, do our hearts faint, fear, tremble, and are terrified because of our enemies! Victories are not thus to be gained. We forget that he who is with us is more than they who are against us. The Lord is more to those in whose midst he is than all the horses and chariots and multitudes of people that can be brought against them.J.O.
Deu 20:5-10
Exemptions.
Three classes were exempted from service in war, and one class was forbidden to take part in it. The exempted classes were:
1. He who had built a house, but had not dedicated it.
2. He who had planted a vineyard, but had not eaten of its fruit.
3. He who had betrothed a wife, but had not married her.
The class forbidden to engage in the war was the class of cowards (Deu 20:8). These regulations
I. HAD AN IMPORTANT BEARING ON THE STABILITY OF SOCIETY. War has naturally a disturbing effect on industry and commerce. It unsettles the public mind. It creates a feeling of insecurity. It prevents enterprise. These evils would be intensified in a state of society where, besides the danger of the country being overrun by hostile armies, each adult male was liable for service in the field. In such a condition of society there would obviously be a disinclination, when war was imminent, to acquire property, to institute improvements, or to enter into any new engagements. The man who built a house would not be sure that he would live to dedicate it; the man who planted a vineyard, that he would live to eat of it; the man who betrothed a wife, that he would be spared to take her. This provision of the Law was therefore calculated to have a reassuring and tranquillizing effect, and would so far counteract the tendency of warlike rumors to paralyze industry and the arrangements of domestic life.
II. WERE AN IMPORTANT ALLEVIATION OF THE EVILS OF WAR. They aimed at exempting those who, from their circumstances and prospects, would feel most keenly the hardship of a call to service. Deu 20:7 connects itself with the importance attached in ancient nations to the perpetuation of the house. “According to modern notions, a forlorn hope would naturally be composed of men who had not given hostages to fortune. Such, however, was not the light in which the matter presented itself to the Greek mind. The human plant had flowered. The continuance of the house was secure. It was therefore comparatively of little moment what befell the man whose duty to his ancestors had been fulfilled” (Renouf). The sentiment here expressed was that of ancient nations generally.
III. WERE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN SECURING EFFICIENCY IN THE ARMY. The army was plainly better without the cowards than with them. One coward may do harm to a whole company. But, besides these, it was likely that persons serving by compulsion, in a spirit of discontent at disappointed prospects, and for the sake of their prospects unwilling to part with their lives, would prove but inferior soldiers. At any rate, there was policy in recruiting the army only from those who had a fixed stake in the welfare of the nation. The man with house, wife, and vineyard was more likely to be ready to shed the last drop of his blood in defense of his treasures than one wholly unattached, or attached only in hope.
LESSONS.
1. Those entering the Christian warfare need to count the cost (Luk 14:25-34).
2. In Christ’s service there are no exemptions.
3. Nevertheless, consideration should be shown in the work of the Church for those who are peculiarly situated.
4. The danger of being entangled in spirit in Christ’s service (2Ti 2:4).
5. The faint-hearted are no strength to a cause (Jdg 7:3).
6. Numbers are not the only thing to be considered in reckoning the efficiency of a Church or of any body of spiritual warriors.J.O.
Deu 20:10-20
Forbearance and severity.
If these rules embody a severity happily rare in modern warfare, they also exhibit a forbearance which many modern nations might well learn from. We have here
I. WAR‘S HORRORS MITIGATED.
1. Peace was invariably to be offered before attack to a foreign city (Deu 20:10, Deu 20:11). It is presumed that the war was just, and undertaken with the sanction of Jehovah. If peace was accepted, no one was to be injured, but only tribute imposed. The peacemaking spirit is pleasing to God (Mat 5:9; Rom 12:18).
2. In the case of a city taken by storm, no women, children, or cattle were to be destroyed (Deu 20:14). The amount of self-restraint which this implies can only be appreciated after reading the accounts of warfare as anciently conducted. But we may get some light upon it by studying the horrors of the sack of a city, even in modern times, and under European, or even British, generalship (see histories of the Peninsular wars).
3. In the sparing of trees useful for food (Deu 20:19). War conducted on these principles, however severe in certain of its aspects, cannot be described as barbarous.
II. WAR‘S SEVERITIES EXEMPLIFIED.
1. The resisting city, if foreign, was to be punished by the slaughter of its adult males (Deu 20:13). This, which sounds so harsh, was perhaps a necessity from the circumstances of the nation. It certainly typifies the “utter destruction” which shall fall on all resisting God’s will, and placing themselves in an attitude of hostility to his kingdom on the earth.
2. The Canaanites were to be completely exterminated (Deu 20:16-18). This case differs from the other in being the execution of a judicial sentence, as well as an indispensable means to their own preservation against corruption (Deu 20:18). A general type of the fate which shall overtake the ungodly.J.O.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Deu 20:1-20
Religious wars.
We have in this chapter an instructive direction about the prosecution of a religious war. For, after all, war may be the only way of advancing the interests of nations. Disputes become so entangled, and great principles become so staked in the disputes, that war is welcomed as the one way to peace and progress. It is an awful expedient, but there are worse things than war. “Cowardice,” said Rev. F. W. Robertson, of Brighton, “is worse. And the decay of enthusiasm and manliness is worse. And it is worse than death, ay, worse than a hundred thousand deaths, when a people has gravitated down into the creed that ‘the wealth of nations’ consists, not in generous hearts’Fire in each breast, and freedom on each brow’in national virtues, and primitive simplicity, and heroic endurance, and preference of duty to life;not in men, but in silk and cotton and something that they call ‘capital.’ Peace is blessed. Peace arising out of charity. But peace springing out of the calculations of selfishness is not blessed. If the price to be paid for peace is this, that ‘wealth accumulate and men decay,’ better far that every street in every town of our once noble country should run blood!” From the directions in the chapter before us, we learn such lessons as these
I. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE CAUSE, AND NOT THE NUMBERS IN THE FIELD, IS TO BE THE FOUNDATION OF TRUST. The Jews were going into Palestine as the Lord’s host, and, even though a minority sometimes, they were sure to win. “If God be for us, who can be against us?” was to be their ground of confidence. And our Lord contemplated the victory of a minority in his illustration about calculating the cost. “Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?” (Luk 14:31). A good cause, like a good king, is worth ten thousand soldiers (2Sa 18:3). David’s great sin was trusting in numbers and not in God (2Sa 24:2, etc.).
II. A RIGHTEOUS CAUSE ADMITS OF THE WAR BEING ENTERED UPON RELIGIOUSLY. The priest was to give them an oration before the battle, showing that they were going to fight the Lord’s battles, and that he would be with them (verses 2-4). Of course, this has been imitated often by those who had not right on their side. Yet the hypocrisy of a party or people is in itself a testimony to the need for a religious spirit characterizing combatants. The most depraved feel somehow in the tremendous game of war that they are appealing to the God of battles, and should at least acknowledge him in entering the contest.
III. THE ARMY SHOULD BE WEEDED OF THE CAREFUL AND THE COWARDLY. Provision is here made for the dismissal home of those who are careworn about an undedicated habitation (verse 5), or about a newly acquired vineyard (verse 6), or about a betrothed wife (verse 7), and also for the dismissal of those who are faint-hearted (verse 8). The combatants should be as free as possible from care, and from the infection of cowardice. They might have sung, with the modem minstrels
“We want no cowards in our band,
That from their colors fly;
We cell for valiant-hearted men,
Who’re not afraid to die.”
IV. IN ORDINARY CONQUESTS, PEACEFUL PROPOSALS ARE FIRST TO BE TRIED. (Verses 10-15.) If these are entertained, well and good; if not, then the conquest will be all the surer of having shown the preliminary consideration. This was to regulate any foreign conquest into which they might be forced. When the victory was won, the male adult population were to be put to the sword, because they had forfeited their lives by rejecting the peaceful proposals; but the women and children and property were to be the prey of the invaders. We have here the suggestion of arbitration, from which much is properly hoped in mitigation of war.
V. BUT IN THE CONQUEST OF THE IDOLATROUS NATIONS OF CANAAN, EXTERMINATION WAS THE ONLY SAFETY FOR THE INVADING HOST. By their abominable idolatries they had forfeited all right to life, and their continued existence would only have been a snare to Israel. Children and women as well as adult males were to be included in the desolation. This apparently harsh decree has its counterpart still in the government of the world. A storm or pestilence does not respect children any more than men. It shows that the Great Ruler does not intend the present state of things to be final. A judgment to come is surely the logical lesson of such a feature of war and of providence. The innocent who suffer with the guilty shall get their compensation in the other life.
VI. THE RAVAGES OF WAR ARE TO BE KEPT WITHIN AS NARROW LIMITS AS POSSIBLE. This seems to be the lesson in this arrangement about the protection of fruit trees in the siege (verses 19, 20). The future peaceful and prosperous state of things is to be considered, and no more harm done by the stress of war than is absolutely unavoidable.
We have thus great principles applicable to all the warring period of human progress. Wars are still desperate remedies. A time is coming when “the war-drum shall throb no longer;” but meanwhile, let wars be prosecuted in a religious spirit and with all religious precautions, when they must be engaged in. A noble illustration of what may be done in war-time by Christian men is afforded by the “Christian Commission” in the United States. Its ‘Annals,’ written by Rev. Lemuel Moss, Home Secretary of the Commission, Philadelphia, 1868, form a handsome volume of 752 pages, which amply repay perusal. We must fight for principle, if we cannot secure its triumph by more peaceful means; but one day all will submit to it, and war be needed no longer. May God hasten the happy day!R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY D. DAVIES
Deu 20:1-9
Military service to be voluntary.
In war, forced service is worse than useless; it is a source of weaknessa cause of defeat. For successful warfare, all the skill and energy of every soldier is demanded; and unless the hearts of the warriors are in the conflict, no triumph can be anticipated.
I. TO BE LOYAL FRIENDS OF GOD, WE MUST SOMETIMES TREAT MEN AS FOES. If we are truly God’s children, we must count God’s friends to be our friends, God’s foes to be our foes. We are not our own. We cannot expend life according to our personal will We are the property of anotherthe Supreme King. Therefore we must do his work and fight his battles. Our notion of what is right and just must be made subordinate to his. Our minds are often too much biased with selfish feeling to judge what is right, if left to ourselves; but we shall not err if we closely follow the precepts of our God. The interests of God’s kingdom are to be held by us as paramount over the interests of man’s kingdom.
II. GOD‘S PRESENCE IN BATTLE OUTMATCHES ALL HUMAN FORCES. The source of conquest is not in the visible material of war. Victory is not on the side of the largest battalions. This is the creed of the infidel. If there were no God, it might be true. Mere numbers of combatants have as often hindered triumph as helped it. If God be ranged on the one side, it is a most unequal contest. The issue is a foregone event. Multiply human weapons or develop human skill as much as you please; let all the powers of arithmetic be exhausted in the computation; and still the finite is confronted by the Infinite. “Before him the inhabitants of the world are as grasshoppers.” “If God be for us,” vain is all opposition. Simple faith is the best equipment.
III. GOD‘S PRIEST IS THE INSPIRER OF TRUE COURAGE. The sanctions and the inspirations of religion may be obtained for the business of war. The true priest will not heedlessly lend his sanction to any emprise of war, nor will he withhold his benediction from a righteous contest. By virtue of his office, he is the messenger from God to the royal court, as well as to the people. If ever the oracle of the sanctuary should be consulted, it is when war is imminent. It is not the business of the priest to initiate war; but if war becomes a duty, it is the business of the priest to encourage and ‘respire the host of God’s elect. The true priest is in close accord with God. God’s heart beats within his heart; God’s will finds prompt response in him. Hence the priest’s voice is the human exponent of God’s thought. God’s strength is through hint conveyed to the mailed warriors, for he speaks with just authority.
IV. GOD WILL ACHIEVE VICTORY ONLY THROUGH THE RIGHT–HEARTED. Unless the soldier’s mind and heart and soul be in the conflict, he had better tarry by his fireside. A few earnest, ardent warriors are preferred to mere array of numbers. If any soldier found more delight in his habitation or in his vineyard than in the success of battle, he might forthwith return. With the double-minded and the half-hearted God does not work. The channel must be emptied of self if Divine energy is to pass through it. We are not to conclude that God prefers the few to the many. But he will have the right kind of agents, or he will not work through them. The thirsty man does not prefer one drop of water to ten; but he does prefer one drop of wholesome water to a gallon of poisonous beverage. God works according to wise methods, and sends help through fitting channels. The best media through which he conveys military conquest is unselfish devotion to his cause. The consecrated soldier is the predestined conqueror.
V. LEADERS IN GREAT ENTERPRISES ARE TO BE SELECTED FROM THE COURAGEOUS FEW. Men will most faithfully follow those leaders whom they have themselves chosen. As the faint-hearted were unfit to go to the battle, so were they unfit to choose captains over the host. The courageous are also the most judicious. Accurately measuring the work that has to be done, they can the better judge who are the most competent to do it. The brave heart and the clear eye go together. These captains, so appointed, would be strong in the consciousness that they enjoyed the esteem and support of the troops. Such an arrangement gives the best guarantee for efficient leaders. On the same ground, the rulers of the Church should be chosen on the ground of spiritual fitnesssolely on the ground of moral qualification.D.
Deu 20:10-20
The terrible side of human duty.
Sin has made such fatal havoc in our world, that the most severe remedies have to be applied. In the administration of these remedies God has chosen to employ men. Thus he allies himself with us and makes us partners with him in the administration of his kingdom. “Such honor have all his saints.”
I. THE AIMS OF THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED. Every aim which is formed in God’s mind is a seed of righteousness. Therefore it must grow and come to perfection. Necessity enters into its very essence. No power on earth or in hell is able to hinder its accomplishment. Who shall withstand the will of Omnipotence? Righteousness shall, sooner or later, be triumphant. All opposition to Jehovah’s will shall eventually be crushed out. He who created is able also to destroy. For the present his patient love provides other remedies; and if remedial measures fail, then fell destruction shall sweep into eternal darkness all opposition to his supreme will.
II. THE ENDS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS MAY BE ATTAINED BY PEACEABLE MEANS IF MEN WILL SUBMIT TO GOD‘S TERMS. (Deu 20:10.) Terms of peace were to be offered by the Hebrews in their wars with outlying nations. The main condition of peace and friendship was the relinquishment of idolatry. If men will fear and serve God, they shall live. To know God as our God is life eternal. If men will turn their backs upon the sun, they must dwell in shadow; so if men will sever themselves from the Source of life, they inevitably die. Not once, but often, does God offer to us reconciliation, blessing, peace. By every method of persuasion and entreaty the Father of our spirits has endeavored to win us to paths of righteous obedience. His will is our sanctification; purity or perditionhere is the alternative!
III. THE EXECUTORS OF JEHOVAH‘S WILL, SHALL BE AMPLY REWARDED. “All the spoil thereof shalt thou take unto thyself” (Deu 20:14). The harder the work, the more abundant shall be the reward. God’s remuneration is ever ample and munificent. Most carefully does he weigh every hardship we endure for him. Our every tear he puts into his bottle. Blind unbelief may count him an “austere Master,” who requires irksome and painful work; but the man of filial temper will run on most difficult errands, and his language is uniformly this, “I do always the things that please him;” “They who suffer with their Lord now shall be glorified by-and-by together.”
IV. EXCESSIVE WICKEDNESS INVOLVES MEN IN COMPLETE DESTRUCTION. Terms of peace were offered to less guilty nations lying in Israel’s vicinity, but for the inhabitants of Canaansuch was their moral rottennessthere was no alternative but destruction. “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth” (Deu 20:16). It is well for us to learn that there is a stage in our moral disease when the remedy of mercy ceases to take effect. It becomes “a savor of death unto death.” “With the breath of his mouth shall he slay the wicked.” When the heart has become identified with rebellion, when all feeling is averse from God, when total depravity has set in,then God abandons the man to his inevitable doom. “Israel would have none of him so he gave them up to their own hearts’ lust.” This is man’s blackest doom. Yet this is mercy for others.
V. THE WORK OF DESTRUCTION SHOULD BE BLENDED WITH PRUDENT KINDNESS. In laying siege against a city, not an axe was to be laid upon any fruit tree. Here we have a sample of’ God’s thoughtful and generous love for men! Whatever can minister to the need and comfort of his servants shall be secured to them. Though engaged in the awful work of destruction, he does not forget mercy; he is planning all the while for his servants’ good. Though a frown is upon his face, tenderest love is active within his heart. More careful is he for us than we are for ourselves. Not a want, however minute, is by him overlooked. The desolating flood is upon the earth, but an ark is provided for Noah. The rain of fire is consuming Sodom, but Lot is safe in Zoar. “Even the hairs of your head are all numbered.”D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Ver. 1. And chariots See Jdg 4:3. These chariots were of iron, and sometimes armed with scythes, which rendered them very formidable.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The Sixth Command
Deu 19:1 to Deu 21:9
Deu 19:1-21
1When the Lord thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land the Lord thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, [possessest them (their land)] and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses; 2Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it. 3Thou shalt prepare [restore, put in good condition] thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every 4slayer may flee thither. And this is the case [word] of the slayer [what avails for him] which shall flee thither, that he may live [and live, remain]: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;1 5As when a man [And (indeed) whoever] goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head [iron] slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon [striketh]2 his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of these cities, and live: 6Lest the avenger3 of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him;4 whereas he was not worthy [there is not to him judgment] of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. 7Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee. 8And if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised 9[spake] to give unto thy fathers; If thou shalt keep all these commandments [this whole commandment] to do them [it] which I command thee this day, to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three: 10That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee. 11But [And] if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally [to the life] that [and] he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: 12Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch [take] him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that [and] he may die. 13Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.5 14Thou shalt not remove thy neighbours land-mark, which they of old time [thy forefathers] have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee 15to possess it. One witness [only] shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter [word] be established. 16If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him, that which is wrong [a falling away, apostasy]; 17Then both the men between whom the controversy is shall stand before the Lord, before the priests 18and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil [word] among you. 21And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Deu 20:1 to Deu 20:1.When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 2And it shall be when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, 3And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint [be weak, soft]6 fear not, and do not7 tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; 4For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. 5And the officers [shoterim] shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? let him go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it. 6And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten8 of it [taken into use]? let him also go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it. 7And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her. 8And the officers [shoterim] shall speak further unto the people, and they shall say, What man is there that is fearful and faint-hearted? let him go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest his brethrens heart faint [melt, flow down] as well as his heart. 9And it shall be, when the officers [shoterim] have made an end of speaking unto the people, that they shall make captains of the armies9 to lead the people. 10When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein, shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. 12And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war [battle] against thee, then thou shalt besiege it [close, enclose it]: 13And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof 14with the edge of the sword: But [only] the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take [spoil, plunder] unto thyself: and thou shalt eat [enjoy] the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. 15Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which 16are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But [Only] of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17But thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: 18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations which they [do] have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God. 19When thou shalt besiege a city a long time in making war against it to take it [conquer it] thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them; for thou mayest eat of them: and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is mans life) to employ them in the siege [for O man, the tree of the field is there to go before thee (through thee) (in the) siege].10 20Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat [fruit trees] thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until [its fall] it be subdued.
Deu 21:1 to Deu 9:1. If one be found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying [fallen] in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: 2Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: 3And it shall be that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer which hath not [yet] been wrought with, and which hath not [yet] drawn in the yoke; 4And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley [a perennial brook]11 which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off 5[break] the heifers neck there in the valley; And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near, (for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord,) and by their word [mouth] shall every controversy and every stroke be tried; 6And all the elders of that city that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded [whose neck is broken] in the valley: 7And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not 8shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful [Forgive] O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israels charge [into the midst of thy people Israel]. And the blood shall be forgiven them.12 9So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. Deu 19:1-13. With chap. 19 the discourse passes unquestionably to the sixth commandment. Other commands are alluded to only as they may be connected with this. Deu 19:1. Comp. Deu 12:29; Deu 17:14. Deu 19:2 refers undoubtedly to Canaan. Comp. upon Deu 4:41 sq. [The three East Jordan cities had been already named. Moses now gives direction for the three West of Jordan.A. G.]. Deu 19:3 directs that the way to the cities of refuge (collectively) should be put into a proper condition, and kept in it, so that there should be no hindrance in this respect. According to tradition, the way must be level, thirty-two cubits broad, and marked by fingerposts, bearing the words Refuge, Refuge Herxheimer. [The same tradition tells us that the magistrates were to send out surveyors and repair these ways annually on the 15th of the month Adar; that every obstacle must be removed, and no stream left unbridged.A. G.]. The direction, Num 35:14, was carried out, through the threefold division of Canaan, with reference to the point in view. The there prescribed three refuge cities in Canaan are placed now one each, in the smaller parts, equally near to all sides, and thus the way first becomes practical. Thee, as Deu 19:2, brings out the personal use and obligation in regard to the designed preservation of life, and prevention of bloodshed in Israel. Comp. further upon Deu 1:38; (Deu 3:28; Deu 12:10) Deu 4:42. Deu 19:4, as Deu 15:3. Comp. upon Deu 4:42. Deu 19:5 illustrates by example the more general statement in Deu 19:4. Compare Num 35:22 sq. wood for burning or building, 7:1, casts out, here used intransitively, falls off. Others (transitively) and the iron is drawn from the wooda piece which hits. At its close Deu 19:6 discloses the object of the arrangement. is the redeemer who both on account of some possession belonging to the family is a member interested, and in a special sense, on account of blood kindred, has to save, redeem, avenge the bloodshed of the family according to the divine, as according to the human and natural right of retaliation. This private justice, as is very natural, must be somewhat restrained both on account of the personal feelings of the subject, and from the first heat of grief and anger. The refuge offers its convenient situation to the pursued generally, but especially to those overtaken, (Deu 14:24). , the prominence of life, for whose sacredness it is here provided, and to which the succeeding words whereas he was not worthy of death, Schroeder, literally, and there is not to him the right of death, correspond, i.e., death does not belong to him as a right, as a legal right, or the judgment of death, death penalty, or the case is no legal case of life and death, no breach worthy of death. Deu 19:7. The more emphatic statement with regard to the three cities in Canaan, while the three East of Jordan, as set apart, and arranged by Moses, are not again alluded to. Deu 19:8 connects itself with Deu 19:7, but passes on to that which is still wider, and in a way to recall Deu 11:24; Deu 1:7. Comp. Deu 12:20 (Gen 15:18). The method of the discourse, Deu 19:9 (Deu 4:6; Deu 5:1; Deu 6:5; Deu 8:6; Deu 11:22.) also forbids us to hold with Hengstenberg that the three cities more are the three cities in Canaan, mentioned, Deu 19:2, beside these three described, Deu 4:41 sq. Neither is it true that the three new cities (Knobel) are those West of the Jordan, and the three East of the Jordan those spoken of in Deu 19:2. The three cities here are rather in the prospect of the promised future, which prospect was obscured by the failure to fulfil the conditions with which it was connected. (If thou shalt keep, sq.). There remain thus only six (instead of the nine, to which the prospect here enlarges) of which the discourse treats. Schultz rightly emphasizes the wider horizon of Deuteronomy in this regard as Mosaic. [It is obvious that such a passage as this could not have been penned in the times to which rationalist critics assign Deut. No one living in those times would think of treating as a future contingency (If the Lord thy God enlarge, sq.) an extension of territory which at the date in question had in fact taken place long ago, and been subsequently forfeited. Bib. Com.A. G.], Deu 19:10 resumes now the thread broken off at Deu 19:7; Deu 19:8-9, being regarded as a parenthesis. Innocent blood was that of the slayer, upon whom death is visited, not with judgment or right, (Deu 19:6). Comp. Deu 19:3. In such cases, if there were no refuge, blood, i.e., the guilt of blood would be upon Israel. Deu 19:11-13. Insert the contrast. Comp. Gen 4:8; Exo 21:14; Num 35:16 sq. Private justice must follow upon, be connected with, and subordinated to public justice. The elders form the fitting mediation for this purpose, partly as they are the (more revered) fathers, corresponding to the domestic element in the blood-revenger, partly as the city magistrates who represent in general the executive power of the State, and from whom also, as from the priests and Levites the judges were to be chosen (Deu 16:18). Thus the still ruling custom among the Arabians, of blood-revenge, was legally bounded and civilized, just as out of the predominant family life by and by the orderly state springs. Deu 19:13, as Deu 7:16; Deu 13:9; Deu 13:6; Deu 5:30 (Deu 15:16). Comp. Num 35:31 sq.
2. Deu 19:14. It is characteristic for the Mosaic view of the wife as a possession, that the discourse passes over the seventh command, and in Deu 19:14 comes on the contrary to speak of the eighth command, from the point of view of the sixth command, i.e., of the earthly life. Thus light is thrown upon the eighth command from the application of the sixth; significant both for Deut. and for the total view of the law.Each district, as it comes into your inheritance, with thy neighbors as with thine own, is thus connected with the family life, and comprises its livelihood; the lessening or disturbance of these limits is simply a question of existence therefore. The possession, particularly the landed, is the ground which yields to man its produce for his support. Thus it shares in the sacredness of life, which is preserved by it; entirely like Deu 20:19-20. The penalty of the offence is hinted, Deu 27:17. They of old. Schroder, predecessors. Either in time, and thus also in succession, or in honor, the leaders. What the first possessors, the fathers, Joshua and the renowned elders, determined, should be observed down to the most distant future. Comp. still upon Deu 19:3 and Intro., 4, I. 17. [They of old time, is an unfortunate rendering, as it seems to imply a long residence in Canaan, when this direction was given. The original contains no such intimation. It is the heads, chiefs. Vulg., priores. The immediately following clauses make it clear that the direction was given while the land was not yet in possession.A. G.].
3. Deu 19:15-21. A similar illumination of the ninth command from the sixth. In the first place, the importance of the witnesses before the court, in regard to the life of a neighbor, is established by this, that the testimony of one was not sufficient for condemnation. Num 35:30. Deu 19:15. perverseness, wrong, guilt; as sin is a deviation from the right, from the law. denotes the reference generally. the concrete case. Comp. Deu 17:6. In the second place, in the special case of false witness, Moses places life for life, in any case the like punishment. Deu 19:16. Treats a peculiar case; a witness of violence, who will do violence to his neighbor by his testimony, designates both the beginning and the reply in conversation, hence; to answer before the court in regard to any falling away (comp. Deu 13:6; Deu 17:7) from God, or the law. The suspicion against the witness has been proven in the lower court, as the Talmud understands of a case which was far off from the witness, strange to him, since he cannot prove his presence at it. Deu 19:17. Comp. Deu 17:8 sq., an example of the causes which were difficult or hard. [Both the men, the parties to the original suit. Before Jehovah cannot be, as Knobel, the lower court. The false witness was borne in the court below, and now comes before the supreme court at the sanctuary.A. G.]. Deu 19:18 as Deu 13:15. Deu 19:20. Comp. upon Deu 13:12 (Deu 17:13). It is not the punishment as such, which is the means of alarm, but that before Jehovah the purpose, is as the deed (Deu 19:19) and generally the decided earnestness of the lextalionis, as it is solemnly and impressively announced in Deu 19:21. (Exo 21:23 sq.; Lev 24:19 sq.). The rest as in Deu 19:13.
4. Deu 20:1-9. Out of the sacredness which attaches to human life, light is thrown upon the warfare (chap. 20) which Israel even in the occupation of Canaan (Intro., 4, I. 17) could not avoid. Israel should rejoice especially in the protection of God, to whom the life of man among his people is of such value. [Bib. Com.: Reverence for human life was to show itself with respect to the Israelites levied for war, Deu 20:1-9; to the enemy (1015) the Canaanites excepted, (Deu 20:16-18) and in respect to the property of the vanquished, 19, 20.A. G.]. Deu 20:1. Horses and chariots. These forces are those which would strike the eye of Israel, not equipped in a like way (Deu 17:16), and make the impression of superior power on the part of the enemy, (Deu 7:17); at the same time are characteristic of the Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines (Jos 17:16; Jdg 4:3; 1Sa 13:5) and Syrians (2Sa 8:4). With thee was illustrated and proved historically. Deu 20:2. As they are now, having departed from their homes, drawn up in order, to advance to the battle. The priest is the one commissioned for the purpose, according to the Talmud one anointed for the war, as Phinehas, Num 31:6; the field preacher, not the high-priest. (Num 10:8-9). The Lords servants, give to His people a more definite, solemn, and formal expression of the duty of fearlessness out of regard to Him (Deu 20:1). Deu 20:3, (Deu 1:21; Deu 1:29; Deu 7:21). Israel its name of honor, Isa 41:8; Isa 41:14 (Gen 32:28). Deu 20:4, (Deu 3:21) comp. Deu 1:30. Represented by the taking of the ark of the covenant, 1Sa 4:3. Save, to rescue you, and generally to insure the victory. Schultz lays undue force upon the expression. Religious encouragement follows the worldly conduct, as it appears in the actual relations (Deu 20:5-7), and in the personal deportment in the case (Deu 20:8). Officers, Shoterim: Comp. upon Deu 1:15. These officers might have the genealogies and tribal rolls. (Comp. Hengstenberg: The Books of Moses, p. 90.) How truly the idea of the sixth command is the animating idea here, appears in the statement of the independent human life in the three beginnings: house building as the first foundation; the planting of the vineyard as the first enlargement of the relations of life; the betrothal as the first completion of the independent position in life. may also signify whoever the man is, who, sq., thus: whoever, any one. He shall (not barely may) go. Every one in Israelthere were no involuntary levies hereif he had made efforts for life, should first rejoice in the result of his efforts. It was as humane as prudent. Such a depletion of the host not merely prevented the disheartening of the others through a homesick soldier, but testified on the part of God in this actual way, His high estimate of the value of life, so that it might inspire confidence in the timid, and increase the courage of the brave. to fit, thus to arrange, to occupy, Keil and Schultz, remind us of a consecration, and by a transfer from the temple, (1Ki 8:63) of a solemnity, at least a feast, for which there is no occasion other than the fancies of the Rabbins. The three times repeated lest he die brings out clearly the purpose in view. Deu 20:6. is any field of noble plants; an olive, or fruit garden. according to Gesen. refers to common use in the fifth year, since in the fourth year it was sanctified to the Lord (Lev 19:23 sq.). According to others, with the same reference, it is to release. Knobel: To open, to enter upon. (Perhaps also to cut, to take the clusters). Deu 20:7 completes Deu 24:5. For the whole, comp. Deu 28:30, and perhaps also Luk 14:18 sq. Deu 20:8 introduces the other class, who in like manner are to be dismissed with this distinction, that here the reference to the other soldiers comes into view, and indeed as the object, (lest his brethren, sq.). The faintness of heart may be explained as fearfulness, as natural weakness, and not so much moral cowardice, or as Deu 1:28. Deu 20:9. to inquire, inspect, to muster, and so it may be rendered: and thus the captains of the host shall hold a muster. The distinction between and the Shoterim (officers) which indeed is obvious, may somewhat account for the absence of the article which Keil so misses. But the Shoterim have scarcely finished speaking, the doing may still follow, and according to Num 3:10 (although the there is wanting here) and Deu 4:27, the meaning is, to take order for a still closer inspection. The mustering also actually occurs after the dismissal of those previously mentioned. Schultz: The captains of the host should lead, carry out the command, which is not demonstrable, rather: should have the oversight. The captains of the host are the chiefs of particular bands, which the Shoterim are not named, so much as they are simply appointed under charge of the Supreme Head (Jos 1:10 sq.; Deu 3:2 sq.), so that upon them rests the obligation to secure the preparedness for war.
5. Deu 20:10-20. The required dismissal of the two classes in Israel, Deu 20:5 sq., applies, the importance of human life in relation to God, as it was shown in war, to the advantage of his neighbor, namely, in Israel itself. Deu 20:10 sq. now makes this reference availing over against the enemy, first with regard to his person, then as to his property. They are summoned by heralds to the walls, in order to bring about a peaceful surrender and subjection. The first case is that of a corresponding answer and conduct. Deu 20:11. tax, tribute, thus an obligatory tribute, and that indeed of personal service. Thus a sparing of life. In the second case, ver 12 may be viewed altogether as the antecedent: And thou shalt besiege it, and the Lord thy God hath delivered, sq.the destruction, Deu 20:13, is simply of the males (Deu 13:16) who would otherwise threaten Israel with death; on the other hand the others might contribute to his enjoyment of life, and were therefore to be spared. Deu 20:14. The following limitation shows that the previous two cases could only occur with enemies, not Canaanites. Deu 20:15. For the third case: Canaan Deu 20:16, the curse rules. Deu 20:17 : Comp. Deu 7:1 sq. all living, i.e., all men (Jos 10:40; Jos 11:11; Jos 11:14). Deu 20:18. Comp. still Deu 12:31; Deu 18:9. Eternal life is of more value than the temporal. Mat 16:26.Nevertheless (comp. Deu 14:21) the fruit trees are to be spared because, and so far as, they are useful to life. Deu 20:19 presupposes the more comprehensive directions for the siege, and hence the temptation to use even the fruit trees for the purpose (Schultz). Comp. Deu 19:5. Since denotes the fruit trees in the gardens and orchards of the cities, it is clear that is used with reference to the wild trees in the region around, the field in the wider sense, which is made more definite in Deu 20:20. Other renderings: for (the life) of man is the tree of the field (synonymous with ) thou mayest eat thereof, for the life of man is preserved through the tree, thou mayest not cut it down. Schultz: For man is connected with (depends upon) the tree of the field, Deu 24:6. Knobel and Keil: For is the tree of the field a man, to come before thee in the siege? using the interrogative. Thus: thou mayest besiege men, but trees are not thy enemies; thou mayest rather eat of them, they are useful in thy purpose with the city in the work of the siege and destruction. Others still render it in the vocative: for O man the tree of the field cannot offer resistance, sq., or: it is there for this purpose, namely, your support, that it (the city) may be besieged by you. Some regard as a parenthesis and connect with : thou shalt not cut down the tree that it may serve in the works of the siege. The last clause is also explained: that the tree of the field go from thy face (be destroyed) in the siege; or: must go from before thee (be saved) in the fortifications. Deu 20:20. until it be overthrown, cast down, Deu 28:52. Others: Until thou hast subdued it. [While there is this variety in the renderings, in order to meet the necessities of the text, the sense is clear and substantially the same whichever construction may be adopted. The contrast between Deu 20:19-20, as to the trees alluded to, makes it clear that the trees in Deu 20:19 are fruit trees, and that they were to be spared in the siege. The rendering in our version accords well with the original text, and brings the sense out clearly, and is therefore to be preferred. See further Bib. Com.A. G.].
6. Chap. 21. Deu 21:1-9. Closes the treatment of the sixth command, with a ceremony impressively symbolizing the sacred worth of human life. Deu 21:1. comp. upon Deu 5:16. The case is that of unknown murder. Hence Deu 21:2, beside the elders of Israel (19, 12) i.e. those supposed especially to have knowledge in the case, judges also come into view, both probably from the neighboring cities. The elders of the city, ascertained by these as nearest to the dead, are laid under obligation and indeed as its civil representatives. Not that the murderer was probably from that city (Knobel), nor because it has maintained so poor a police (Schultz), but because blood-guiltiness was upon Israel generally (Deu 19:10), so especially upon the places in the neighborhood of the murder. Hence the transaction with the young heifer, like the institution of the cities of refuge, is to be viewed as a solemnity expressing the abhorrence in Israel, at the shedding of innocent blood. Deu 21:8-9 show that in the nature of the heifer, the sacrificial qualities are near at hand. Comp. upon Deu 15:19, and Num 19:2. The reference of the requisites in Deu 21:3 to the not enfeebling of the vital force by toil (Keil), is too remote, in any case the necessary thought of a peculiar sanctification for the end in view lies nearer, since the thought of life is symbolized, both in the age, and in the female (life-bearing) sex. To this sanctity of the victim corresponds the locality to which it is to be led, Deu 21:4, the common (Deu 5:13 sq.) toil of men (as Deu 21:3) can neither plough nor sow there; generally a waste valley where nothing fruitful is done, where there was no arable ground for seed; it can at the same time represent the absence of any human participation and knowledge in the murder (Deu 21:7) and give a vivid representation of the shedding of the blood of the fallen unknown man. For that there, in the bottom of that valley, untouched by men, the heifers neck was to be broken, plainly states the assassin-like manner in which the one found fallen back wards was killed. The elders by their acts, partly express for their city, that as it lies nearest it comes into account with respect to the murdered one, partly announce their abhorrence as to what has occurred (Exo 13:13; Isa 66:3); not so much that they may symbolically execute the punishment due to the murderer, (Keil), nor even testify in act as much as in them lies, that they are pure from any participation in the guilt, as they have devoted to death something of their own, from which they have not enjoyed any gain, all its profit being still in anticipation (Schultz). The latter ideas scarcely entered into the truly profoundly thoughtful, and yet simple rite. The abhorrence of the murder, as it is directly announced in the mode of the victims death, has clearly the object, on the part of the city, represented by its elders, of removing in the most formal and solemn manner the guilt of blood. According to the form the valley must be , i.e. a brook-valley (wady) which has everflowing (from firm, strong, enduring) water (Psa 74:15; Exo 14:27) which may take away for ever the shed blood of the heifer, in resemblance of the murder, (comp. Deu 21:6). [There is no incongruity between the rendering rough valley and perennial stream, since the narrowest gorge would be skirted by some barren, rocky strips which could not be ploughed or sown.A. G.]. We may either render with Johlson: hard, rocky ground, which is the positive side, of which the following expressions are the negative, or with Herxheimer: the firm ground, which designates very little the firm administration of justice by the judge, which does not come into view here, but rather the firmness of the elders in their abhorrence of the deed. The idea of life in the warding off of death, the thought of the living water (Knobel) indeed upon the lasting verdure (Schultz), must have been derived from Num 19:17; Lev 14:5. The presence of the priests, who could be brought from the nearest Levitical cities, (comp. Intro. 4, I. 22, and upon Deu 10:8; Deu 18:5; Deu 17:8-12) is in entire accordance with the ceremony. They appear with respect to the transaction itself, its religious and symbolical character, as well as with respect to the ethical and legal case to which the transaction refers. As to the first, it is apparent from the close approach to a sacrificial act; they represent in some sense the sanctuary. Comp. Num 19:3-4. The further ceremony, the washing of the hand with water from the brook in the valley, a symbolical declaration of innocence (Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13; Mat 27:24), is performed, by the elders of the nearest city, with reference to its participation in the guilt, over the heifer, which had been treated like the murdered man, and with direct reference to him. But the solemnity of the whole ceremony culminates in the prayer which follows, and in which the explanation of the washing of the hands appears. Deu 21:7. Answer (Deu 19:16) to the question to them contained in the murder, i.e., the accusation, or, they mutually speak, the elders, Deu 21:7, and the priests, Deu 21:8 (Deu 27:14). They neither did the crime, nor knew of it. This blood, as it was represented in that of the heifer, which would otherwise be laid upon them as a capital crime, as if they would say, we know not the murderer, so that we can meet his guilt with a corresponding punishment, Deu 21:8., to cover, conceal, here; the blood, the guilt of it, i.e., to forgive. The essential significance of the ceremony is thus apparent. It represents on one hand what was done by the murderer to the murdered, and on the other hand expresses in the most solemn form the abhorrence of the crime, and the innocence of the city called to account for it. The nature of the act was expiatory, not because the heifer was the substitute of the murderer, but because the city most concerned substituted it for the share of the guilt cleaving to it. Hence the prayer, out of the very nature of the transaction, grounds itself in the redemption from Egypt, whose import with regard to expiation in Israel, for the whole sacrificial service down to its fulfillment in Christ, is thus made apparent. (Comp.Deu 15:15) either with most, lay not the guilt and punishment of innocent blood upon Israel, or, literally, let not such blood appear further in Israel. The result is the actual expiation in every case of the specified crime. The granting of the request cannot be assured. There will ever be innocent blood in its midst, but Deu 21:9, Israel as far as possible should put it away (Deu 19:13) if not through an expiation upon the murderer, still through the prescribed expiatory act, either, because it should do right, sq. or: when it will do right, sq. (Deu 12:25-28). The latter interpretation opens, at the same time, a view as to all the consequences.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Since the refuge cities are expressly cities of the Levites (Num 35:6) they share in the significance of the dispersion of the Levites among Israel; that they may be a great but divided place of testimony: (Bahr II. 51) i.e. they may afford in particular places what the dwelling of Jehovah, the altar, affords generally. (1Ki 1:50 sq.; Deu 2:28 sq.; Exo 21:14). As knowing the law, and truly as judges, the priests and Levites are brought into view; they knew whether it was murder or a mere casual killing. The separation of these cities of refuge 1) reminds us of the distinction between wilful and unintentional sins, and also of a distinction as to the punishment of sins. Piscator. The O. T. city of refuge is no asylum for the murderer, still less for the insolvent debtor, or the fugitive slave as among the Greeks and Romans; neither was it merely to secure the manslayer from the avenger of blood, for if he left the city before the high-priests death (Num 35:26 sq.) he was exposed to the avenger, but held over him an exile, which was merely an expiation of his deed. (The separation of the cities 2) is a type of our wretched condition, and of our redemption through Christ our High-Priest. Piscator.
2. Since the discourse takes this occasion to treat of war, under the sixth command, the objections against war drawn from this command are without force. The word of God takes the world, as it lies in wickedness, and so regards war as a necessary evil for the present. It speaks to the individual and aids him to peace, it holds out firmly the final prospect of peace generally, only however through crises and wars, which cannot endure. What is possible and what ought to be are different things, Rom 12:18. There are unrighteous wars, which grow out of hatred, selfishness, lust of power, etc. But wars of conquest may also be carried on in the service of a great idea, and rightly become destructive. The war against Canaan (Deu 20:16 sq.) was a sacred war. Comp. Doct. and Eth. upon Deu 1:6; Deu 4:40; par. 9, and upon chap. 7. par. 2. Was it a war expressly commanded by God, Exo 17:14 sq.; Num 24:20; Num 31:2 sq.; Deu 25:17, then it is not merely permitted as the Rabbins distinguish, to make war. It is a duty to make war if there is no possible deliverance otherwise. Defensive wars are necessary. Offensive wars may become obligatory. The so-called blood-letting carried on under the plea of political advantage, the most demoralizing civil wars, should be prevented, but viewed in their higher relations, they have their missionary character, even civilization and Christianity follow them. What does not Christendom, as to its spread in the world, owe to those dialectical popular movements, which are wars, leaving out of view even the fact that war has its destination, to reveal the finite nature of all things, to raise the world to greater piety, and to help it to the knowledge of the one thing needful. (Marheineke theol. moral, p. 329). [The wars of Israel generally though not always were wars of the Lord. Their enemies were His since they were His people. But the war with the Canaanites was peculiarly a war of the Lord. These nations had filled up the measure of their iniquities. The time of judgment had come, and Israel was called to execute that judgment. The command to kill everything that breathed was a judicial sentence. There is nothing in such a command more difficult to explain than in any of the judicial providences of God. And this character of the war must be borne in mind when we are considering the unwonted severity which marked it.A. G.].
3. Moses insists as little as any other writer upon ordinary courage. The O. T. indeed has not cultivated that idea. It puts confidence in God generally in its room; and in the room of warlike courage more definitely confidence in God, who regards human life as sacred and valuable, and therefore preserves it. It corresponds alone also with its religious peculiarity, by virtue of which it was not fitted to cultivate the usual warlike virtues as such, but truly the other less conspicuous but doubtless higher virtues. The rules of war which chap. 20 contains, bear a decided religious stamp upon the ground of the sacredness of life, do not spring from the lower sources of prudence, but from the high, sacred fountain in God.Schultz.
4. The following commands spring especially from two fundamental thoughts 1) Israel is the people of God, and carries on war therefore only in His name; therefore it should not trust to an arm of flesh, but release from duty in war, every one who either had formed a new relation, or even only whose faint-heartedness had taken away that courage of faith which is the strength of the hosts of the Lord. 2). Peace should be dearer to the people of God than war. It never needed to yield to the lust of conquest, and with the exception therefore of the righteous punishments, which as a trust of the Lord it must execute, it must offer peace constantly, and even spare the fruit trees in the fortification and siege.V. Gerlach.
5. Since all expiation in Israel is connected with a sacrifice (Lev 17:11), the expiatory rite, chap. 21 must have a sacrificial character. But as Baumgarten remarks it cannot possibly be literally a propitiatory sacrifice since then it might easily mislead to the idea that a murder could be expiated by a sacrifice. The guilt also is only indirect and relative. It is therefore on the other hand correct to regard the ceremony (Deu 21:5) as belonging to the sphere of law and justice into which the murderer has fallen.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. Chap. 19 Deu 19:3. Starke: Thus God prepares the way by His word and Spirit, and by His servants, to His refuge, His Saviour, that nothing may prove a hindrance in the way; as he did through John the Baptist, Mat 3:3. But Christ is equally near all His servants, Mat 11:28; Joh 6:37. Berl. Bib: How excellent is the refuge which tempted and troubled sinners have in Him, in whom is the whole fulness of the Godhead; so that no sin, no law, curse, nor Satan, death or hell, can reach them ! The finger posts point to Him. Joh 1:29. But whoever will have safety in Him must forsake father, mother and all. Psa 45:10; Luk 14:26. Wurth. Bib., Deu 19:10 : Magistrates ought not only to punish the guilty, but protect and save the innocent, Deu 19:1-13. The place of refuge in Israel a security, but no protection for sin. Deu 19:14. Piscator: God cares not only for the body and life of our neighbor, but for all that is necessary for his abode, and purposes that no one shall injure another in this respect. Baumgarten: With these directions the prohibition as to the landmark is so far connected, as it also has its deepest ground in the character of the land as the possession of Jehovah. Hence Moses returns immediately to the judicial investigation of the murder. Berl. Bib.: In Deu 19:14 to prevent civil wars among His people, God forbids any alteration of the limits, once fixed by lot in the division of the land. Each family and tribe should keep within its inheritance. Osiander, Deu 19:20. If the magistrates cannot see the heart, they may prevent the crime from becoming common.
Deu 20:1. Richter. This is not the mere natural encouragement of the war songs. Baumgarten: As the heathen occupy all the land, Israel must enter through contest; but its peaceful and happy life, in its most sensitive points, is not disturbed by war. Deu 20:2-3. Piscator. Example and form of a live field preacher and sermon; is the cause good, are they contending for the word of God and the fatherland, God is present with them and assures the victory. [So especially with Christs soldiers, and in His cause.A. G.]. Starke: Although Gods hand is in wars displeasing to Him, still He is only to be looked for in His gracious presence, in righteous wars. Osiander: If it is not every mans duty to accustom himself to wars, it is every Christians duty to carry on continual warfare with the devil, etc. These rules for natural wars are also for the spiritual; they are in force in the wars of the Lord and will be practically shown in the believer. Deu 20:4. Schultz: The Lord will do the work, His people reap the fruits. How are wars victorious: when in the soldiers there is no other fear than the fear of God, when there is no other trust in weapons than trust in God; when above all the Lord is the captain of the host. Deu 20:5 sq., Richter: God chooses and will have no constrained soldier, Psa 110:3. There is in Deu 20:5-7 at the same time a full estimate of earthly joys which charm the heart only at the beginning, but whose vanity is soon recognized. Deu 20:8, comp. Rev 21:8 and also Jdg 7:3 sq. Deu 20:10. Schultz: Israel, although conquering and transforming the world (Deu 2:25) is a peaceful people. Its final destination, great end, not destruction, but from the beginning the mediator of blessings. Gen 12:3, (Isa 45:14; Isa 49:23) Mat 10:12-13. Deu 20:11-12. Berl. Bib.: Has the Lord for so long a time in his patience invited us to peace! But we choose peace in the flesh. He offers that only through righteousness. Isa 32:17. Let us receive it while there is time. For the Jews who reject Him there remains nothing but the sword, Deu 20:18. Here only tolerance is injurious and blameworthy. Deu 20:19. May be spiritually explained that we should not contend against those who are for us and not against us. Baumgarten: The primitive destination of the fruit tree. Gen 1:29; Gen 2:9; Gen 2:16 sq.; Deu 3:2; Deu 3:22. Israel a tree, Exo 15:17. Humanity even to its extremest limits a charge for Israel. The kingdom of the world is later presented as animal, the kingdom of Israel as a kingdom of men.
Deu 21:2. Piscator. The public highways should be safe. The organic connection in Israel must appear prominently, precisely when a member has been broken off. God lays the duty upon men, does not refer to the lot, to discover the murderer; he should let himself be recognized, or make himself known, to which the ceremony in its publicity and solemnity might contribute. God is the God of order. The extraordinary interventions of God are kept back, behind the order of salvation for the individual and the world, at the same time behind the order of the magistrates for all. Deu 21:3 sq. Lange: For the rest we learn here how we may deal with the sins of others, but should not be partakers in them. Rom 1:32; 2Jn 1:11. Deu 21:6. Calvin: As if they placed the corpse of the dead before God. Deu 21:9. Berl. Bib.: We learn among other things that we should from the heart ask God to pardon our unknown sins of spiritual murder against our neighbor, 1Jn 3:15, and even against ourselves, Eph 4:17-19 (Psa 90:8), for the sake of the blood of Christ, which was poured out in the deep valley of humiliation and in the great thirst of the forsaking of His heart; that God would not impute to us our blood-guiltiness, but be gracious to us for the sake of His dear Son, and forgive our sin.
Footnotes:
[1]Deu 19:4. Margin literally; from yesterday, the third day, or the day before yesterday.A. G.].
[2]Deu 19:5. Literally: findeth.A. G.].
[3]Deu 19:6. Heb. goel.A. G.].
[4]Deu 19:6. Smite him, in life, as the margin, or: to the life, mortally.A. G.].
[5]Deu 19:13. Literally: and good to thee.A. G.].
[6]Deu 20:3. Margin: be tender.]
[7]Deu 20:3. Heb.: make haste.]
[8]Deu 20:6. Make common from laying it open for common use, which was not allowed for the first three years.A. G.].
[9]Deu 20:9. Literally: In the head of the people.A. G.].
[10]Deu 20:19. Literally: for man the tree of the field to come from thy fare in the siege. For the variety of renderings and the plausibility of each, see the Exegesis. Perhaps that chosen by our translationusing the parenthesiswill commend itself as the best.A. G.].
[11]Deu 21:4. The literal rendering is that of Schrder, but the other part of the verse seems to require that of our version, and the Hebrew admits of it.A. G.].
[12][Deu 21:8. Shall be covered to them, atoned for, in this way.A. G.].
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter relates to the military government of Israel among those who were more immediately appointed to fight the LORD’S battles. Here are directions for their conduct, inspiring them with courage and making provision for those whose hearts failed them. While this chapter may be read with much profit, if considered with an eye to our spiritual foes in the cause of GOD, soldiers, and those whose profession in arms calls them to warfare, may derive under the HOLY GHOST’S teaching, much to animate them in their conflicts, while fighting under the captain of their salvation, CHRIST JESUS.
Deu 20:1
Observe the two great arguments made use of in this verse to give confidence to the people, the presence of their GOD and the past experience the people had had of his power, exercised towards them in their deliverance from Egypt. Let the Reader consider this in a spiritual sense, and beg for grace to make use of it in all the circumstances of his warfare. If I have JESUS with me that’s all I need, and if I can look back and behold his deliverance in past extremities, that becomes a sure pledge for all future occasions. See that sweet scripture: Isa 33:20-22 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Faintheartedness
Deu 20:8
In order to see the full beauty and meaning of this charge we must read the words which lead up to it. Arrangements are being made in view of possible battle. It is well in life always to be prepared for war even whilst we are praying for peace. The question might arise in the minds of the children of Israel, What shall we do in the day of battle? Instructions having distinct reference to that inquiry are given in this chapter.
“When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt” ( Deu 20:1 ).
There is an exhortation: “Be not afraid of them.” Following the exhortation is the reason upon which it is founded: “For the Lord thy God is with thee.” No matter what the number of the enemy; it is of no consequence how many horses he has, and how their necks are clothed with thunder: there is One who maketh the mountains smoke before him; thy God is the Almighty and Eternal God, and he will see that the battle ends on the side of right. This verse calls us to take the religious view of every engagement in life. We must be sure that we start aright, that is to say, that our cause is good at the core just, wise, reasonable, and generous. The cause being right, everything in the universe that is right is of necessity on its side: the stars of heaven fight for righteousness. Whatever may be the nature of accidental or temporary circumstances, the issue is perfectly certain: he shall come and reign, whose right it is. Ever the right comes uppermost. Acting upon this conviction, how calm is the man whose conscience approves him! He knows that the waves can only come to a certain line; he says, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” “The Lord reigneth;” the God of heaven is the God who battles on the side of right. This exhortation does not apply only to national wars, but to all the controversies which constitute the action and the tragedy of life. Every man is called to battle in some way, at some place, at some time. Life itself is a battle: we wrestle not against flesh and blood, it may be, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world the invisible host banded in a common oath to destroy the kingdom of truth. “Take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” This is the foundation upon which all further instruction given in this chapter is based. The battle puts our religion to the test: we do not know whether we are religious or not, in the profound sense of the term, until we come to battle. It is easy to sing at midsummer, when all visible nature challenges us in gracious tones to lift up our voice in solemn praise. There is no strain upon a man to thank God when he sits under his own blossoming trees and hears the birds trilling their incoherent hymn. That is not piety: it is selfishness of the vilest kind the selfishness which electroplates itself with piety: the mean, personal consideration which cloaks itself with a sentiment thin as a morning cloud. See what men are when they are under stress when the storm pours upon the roof, when the enemy thunders at the door, when death takes away the delight of the eyes, when every room in the house is a sick-chamber, when business is unprosperous, and all things seem to conspire in a desperate confederacy against the progress of life; it is then we know whether our religion is solid, healthy, rational, and built upon eternal foundations.
The officers were commanded to order off certain people:
“What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it” ( Deu 20:5 ).
“And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? let him also go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it” ( Deu 20:6 ).
“And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her” ( Deu 20:7 ).
Having ordered off all these people, the officers proceeded still further to weed the army:
“What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren’s heart faint as well as his heart” ( Deu 20:8 ).
The army might thus be greatly reduced; we must remember, however, that reduction may mean increase. We do not conquer by number but by quality. One hero is worth ten thousand cowards. Caesar is in himself more than all his legions. Quality counts for everything in the greatest battles and the most strenuous moments of life. Given the right quality, and the issue is certain. Quality never gives in: quality is never beaten; quality flutters a challenge in its dying moments, and seems to say, I will rise again and continue the fight from the other side. So the army was reduced, and yet the army was increased in the very process of reduction. To-day the great speech is made over again: “What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren’s heart faint as well as his heart.”
We cannot deny the fact that most Christian professors are fainthearted; they are not heroic souls. The great proportion of Christian professors are people who are “not well.” The number of invalids in the Church would surprise the imagination of the most audacious dreamer. This is not a world for the fainthearted it is a world of strife, wear and tear, conflict, tumult, trial by fire, and temptation by the chief intellect of hell; it is a rough world; it has well been described as being out of joint. Those who would take hold of the world aright must be inured to hardship: they must “endure hardship as good soldiers of Christ.” We are not speaking of the weak, but of the fainthearted; not of men inflicted with an infirmity, but of hearts that have lost if ever they had the heroic nerve. The Church is now the most timid of all influences in the world. Granting that there are sections of the great Christian Church marked by marvellous energy for which we thank God yet, speaking of the Church as a whole, it is suffering from faintheartedness, timidity, fear: that spirit which cannot live in the society of love, that gruesome, dark-faced thing that dare not look at love: for love would slay it with light. What is the explanation of faintheartedness? Want of conviction. Given a convinced Church, and a heroic Church is the consequence; given a Church uncertain, unconvinced, and you have a Church that any atmosphere can affect and any charlatan can impose upon. We must, therefore, return to foundations, to central principles, to primary realities; and having made sure of these the rest will arrange itself. Where is conviction? There may be a good deal of concession: there may be a strong indisposition to object to, or to deny, or to bring into discredit, theological problems and religious usages, but what is needed is something more: clear, well-reasoned, strongly-grounded conviction; and where this rules the mind every faculty is called into service, and the battle of life is conducted with heroic decision and chivalrous self-forgetfulness.
It was well understood in Israel that the fainthearted man does more harm than he supposes he does. It is the same all the world over and all time through. The timid man says, I will sit behind. Does his retirement behind mean simply one man has gone from the front? It means infinitely more: it is a loss of influence, a loss of sympathy, a loss of leadership. A Christian professor is not at liberty to say he will abide in the shade: he will allow the claims of others: any place, how obscure soever, will do for him. Have no patience with men who tell such lies! They have no right to be behind: their mission should be to find the best place, and to wake up every energy to stir up the gift that is in them; and every man should feel that the battle depends upon him. The discouraging influence of faintheartedness it is impossible to describe in words. Better have a congregation of six souls of light, and fire, and love, than have a great crowd without conviction, easy-going, flaccid in sentiment and thought, without central realities and foundations that can be relied upon. “What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go” he is not a loss: his going is the gain of all who are left behind: he made other people cold, he discouraged the young, he threw a gloom and a frown upon all that was proceeding in the Church: he disliked passion and music and beauty and brightness; no genial word ever came out of his lips; his hands never grasped the hand of soldier with heroic firmness; he must go, and we will send no blessing after him, for he would have no capacity to receive it. The great work of weeding the Church army must be carried out. It must be carried out in the ministry. There are men, unquestionably, in every ministry who have no right to be there respectable, pedantic, literal, self-considering, afraid of giving offence, so prudent as to be imprudent, so wise as to become foolish. The ministry must be rid of them: they are not created in heaven, and they have no right to be in this position upon earth. So with all ranks, classes, and stations in the Church. The one man we must get rid of is the fainthearted man the timid, cowering, self-considering professor, who is thankful when all is over without any accident having occurred, a fear-ridden soul, a fear-darkened mind; he must be exhorted unhappily for his destination to return to his own house, probably because no other house would receive him. Let him go: the pulpit will be the better for his absence, the Church will be the warmer for his retirement, the young will then lift up their voices and be glad. Who has not seen the saddest of all pictures a child beginning to dance and sing the moment the father has left the house? That is a scene to make the soul sad. The child should never dance and sing so much as when his father comes back: and the father should dance and sing with the child, and be the child, and thus gladness should sound in every room of the house.
How marvellously faintheartedness shows itself! In one case it is fear of heresy. We hear of certain young people throwing off old habits and ways, and thereupon we become fainthearted, forgetting that there is a time in life when cleverness is the little imp that tempts men to their own destruction, forgetting that there is a very critical period in life when the boy is too tall for a jacket and too young for a coat! We should bring into our view all the intermediate periods of life, and all transitional processes, assured that outside the Church there is nothing but a mighty famine, swine-feeding, and the bitterness of soul will send the young wanderer back again. In another case it is fear of criticism. What will the people next door say? What will the adjoining Church think? What will other men declare their judgment? The false and cowardly speech runs thus: I have no wish myself about the matter: personally I should say nothing to obstruct the suggestion; but I am afraid it will be misunderstood, and that others will form an improper or inaccurate opinion about it. A man talking so representing other people! A man assuming a penetration like that ought to have had a courage equal to his genius. In another case it is fear of sensation. Our ministry has been wrecked in many instances by cold-hearted and mean-spirited men who ought never to have had the influence associated with official promotion. We must not advertise, because some people might misunderstand it; we must not have too much music, because there are persons unable to follow the mystery of praise; we must not have anything unusual. To have such fainthearted men in the Church is the bitterest trial that Christ has now to undergo. As for his enemies, he will rule them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel; but the fainthearted and the timid those who have no conviction or daring or chivalry they wear out the life of the true minister, and they curse the home where they live. There is another faintness which is rather to the credit of the man who experiences it a faintness arising from great service, long-continued effort, and noble sacrificial consecration. When a man pours out his life for the cause he may well be faint now and then. A beautiful sentiment in Scripture describes his condition: “faint, yet pursuing” putting out the arm in the right direction, looking along the right road, and saying in mute eloquence, Give me breathing time, and I will join you again; let me rest awhile; do not take my sword away: in a day or two at most I will be at the front of the fight. That is a faintness which may be the beginning of great strength. So God is gracious to us: having no sympathy with timidity and fear and cowardliness, he has infinite compassion upon those who, having worn themselves out in service, need space and time for breathing. This exhortation comes back in a great trumpet-blast: “What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? let him go and return into his house, lest his brethren’s heart faint as well as his heart.” It is difficult to stand against discouragement: it is awfully, awfully hard to keep warm in the presence of an iceberg. Not only is the man himself a coward: he is making cowards of others. So with regard to the pulpit and to every department of Christian service, this word must sound out more and more clearly: if any man wants money, let him go and return unto his house; if any man wants ease; if any man would be exempt from criticism and hardship; if any man is seeking to abound with the decaying and withering tributes of life; if any man is ambitious for mere applause, let him go and return unto his own house. Christ can do without him: he is hindered by him.
Prayer
Almighty God, thou spreadest our table in the sight of our enemies; our cup runneth over; goodness and mercy have followed us all the days of our life. When we went into a far country and there felt the pains of hunger, we were moved to return again, saying, In our Father’s house there is bread enough and to spare. Lord, evermore give us this bread! This is the true bread that cometh down from heaven, of which, if a man eat, he shall hunger no more. Lord, evermore give us this bread! We have thought to satisfy ourselves with the stones of the field, and, behold, we have become more and more an hungered. Give us the true bread which cometh down from heaven. May we eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ thy Son, and thus have life abiding in us, even eternal life. We have followed the way of evil, and have been stung by disappointments beyond all number; but now we return to our Father’s house, where the feast is spread, where hospitality is offered to the poorest and the meanest; and we would sit down here at thy bidding, King of the feast, Master of assemblies, and eat and drink abundantly of the wisdom and grace and love of the Triune God. We have longed for this mystery: we have become weary with things we can handle and understand and measure and set back in our contempt: we have longed for the tabernacle in the wilderness, for the shekinah-cloud, for the trumpet of convocation, for the descending Deity. Having come into thine house, may we enter into the mystery of its grandeur and the deeper mystery of its peace; here may we enjoy conscious pardon through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ: may we arise from this attitude of prostration into a pasture of triumph, release, joy, through the Holy Ghost, and go out to do life’s duty with new strength, new hope, immortal courage. We are in the Lord’s banqueting-house; we are not in the wilderness, we are not in stony places, we are not exiles; but, through the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of man, Son of God, we are children at home. Let our hearts be glad and let our eyes lift themselves up to the heavens, and see how much there is yet to begin, and what spaces have to be covered, and what possible services may have to be rendered. Thus may we bring the power of an endless life to bear upon the concerns, the burdens, the pains of the passing hour. Speak comfortably to those whose hearts are sore with a bitterness they cannot explain, and come thou, as thou only canst come, to hearts that are bowed down in self-distrust, in utter penitence and contrition, and are crying for the rest that can only come through pardon. Send messages, sweet singing gospels, to our loved ones at home, whether well or ill, but with special tenderness to those who are shutup in the chamber where they must soon die. The Lord comfort those who are weak, and when heart and flesh do fail be thou more than ever to the faith that has hung upon thee in simple love. Double the joy of those who are drinking deep of gladness today, but chasten their delight lest they become presumptuous and forget God. Lead, kindly Light go before us, Spirit of Peace, make us quiet with thine own security, make us strong with thine own power. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
(See the Deuteronomy Book Comments for Introductory content and Homiletic suggestions).
XIII
SECOND GREAT ORATION, PART 2
Deuteronomy 12-26
This section is on the second part of the second great oration of Moses, as embodied in Deuteronomy 12-26 inclusive, of the book of Deuteronomy. If you have carefully read all this section, it will be easier for me to emphasize in the brief limits of this chapter the most salient points and easier for you to grasp and retain them. By the grouping of correlated matters under specific heads, the important distinction between many statutes and the constitutional principle from which they are logically derived will become manifest. A constitution is a relatively brief document of great principles, but legislative enactments developing and enlarging them become a library, which continually enlarges, as new conditions require new statement and application.
Yet again you must note that while one discussion arranges in order many statutes, it necessarily leaves out much of the homiletical value of each special statute. Each one of them may be made a text for a profitable sermon. Indeed these fifteen chapters constitute a gold mine of texts for the attentive preacher.
First of all, it should be noted that Moses is speaking here to the whole people as a national unit and concerning the future national life in the Promised Land which they are about to occupy. He carefully puts before them the national ideal of a people belonging to Jehovah separated from other nations and devoted to a special mission. Because addressing the whole people he recalls the history and law in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers much more particularly than the special legislation of Leviticus relating mainly to the official duties of a single tribe.
Secondly, when he touches the tribe of Levi in Deuteronomy, it is as a part of the nation rather than about their specific duties as priests and Levites. On this account Deuteronomy is called the people’s code and Leviticus the priest’s code. This fact will help us much to understand tithing in Deuteronomy when compared with tithing in the preceding books. Note carefully this point.
While it is difficult to classify satisfactorily such a multitude of topics and laws, we may profitably group the whole section under the following heads:
I. Unity in the Place of National Worship, Deu 12:5
In their pilgrimage history the cloud and the ark, shifting from place to place according to the exigency of travel, designated day by day the central place of worship. But the people are here admonished that when they conquer the land and become a settled people, God himself will designate one fixed locality as the center of national unity and one permanent place of national worship. In Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and I Samuel, when we get to those books, we shall find only a temporary central place, and occasionally, more than one at the same time, the land not yet all conquered, the people not yet all settled, but in David’s time everything prescribed about the central place of worship is fulfilled, Jerusalem is the place thenceforward throughout their history until Jesus, that prophet like unto Moses, comes and says to the woman of Samaria, “Believe me, the hour cometh when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father. Ye worship that which ye know not; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth.”
To this place, that is, the central place of worship, three times a year must the tribes come in national assembly to keep the great festivals of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, and as a nation they must observe the great day of atonement. In this connection observe particularly that the tithing in Deuteronomy, to which we have before referred, is not the first tithe of the other books, which was the Lord’s inheritance and devoted to the general support of the great festivals, in which indeed the Levites share as a part of the people. Hence the Levites’ share of this tithe does not correspond to their title to the whole of the first tithe, and hence the third year’s provision in Deuteronomy for the poor is unlike any provision of the first tithe. If you have that point fixed in your minds, you are able to answer one of the gravest objections ever brought against Deuteronomy, that is, that it contradicts, on the question of tithes, what had been previously said in other books.
The marvelous effect of this one fixed place of national worship, and of these great festivals, on national unity, on the preservation of a pure worship, appears in all their subsequent history and becomes the theme of psalm, song, and elegy. When we get over into the Psalms and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we will see backward references to this central place of worship. It is in the light of this law that we discover the sin in the later migration of the Danites and their setting up a new place of worship (Jdg 18 , particularly verses Jdg 18:27-31 ); the sin of Jeroboam (1Ki 12:26-33 ); the sin of the Samaritans later, and the sin of a temple in Egypt. That is the first thought, the unity in national worship. For an account of the Samaritan Temple see Josephus, “Antiquities,” Book XI, chapter 8, and for the Egyptian Temple see “Antiquities,” Book XIII, chapter 3.
2. Unity in the Object of Worship
The second thought in this oration is unity in the object of worship, the exclusive worship of Jehovah. Under this head the section prescribes the death penalty on the following:
(1) The false prophet, who however attested by signs and wonders, shall seek to divert the people to the worship of some other god.
(2) Any member of a family, however near and dear the tie of kindred, who sought to induce the rest of the family to turn away from the worship of Jehovah to worship another god, that member of the family had to die.
(3) Any city that turned aside as a municipality to other worship, that city must be placed under the ban and blotted out. If you have been much of a student of classic literature, you must have noticed how each city stresses the worship of some particular patron divinity, as Minerva at Athens, Diana in the City of Ephesus and Venus at Corinth. Now, this law teaches that any city, in its municipal life, turning aside from the worship of Jehovah to worship a false god for local advantage shall be blotted off the face of the map. The underlying principle here is of immense importance in our times. Cities are tempted continually to sacrifice the paramount spiritual and moral interests of the community in order to promote material interests. So in their annual fairs which bring local advantage in commercial affairs, they lose sight of God and handicap what is commendable in these enterprises by overloading them with poisonous and corrupting attachments, and count any man an enemy to his home place, however much he may approve the good, if he protest against the bad. See the striking examples and illustrations in the cases at Philippi and Ephesus (Act 16:19 ).
(4) To show more emphatically that Jehovah alone is God and must be worshiped, the death penalty was assessed on any necromancer, soothsayer or wizard who sought by illicit ways to understand and interpret the future. To Jehovah alone must the people come to know secret things. What he chose to reveal was for them and their children. What he withheld must remain hidden. All prurient curiosity into Jehovah’s domain of revelation must be rebuked; all seeking unto the dead, all fortunetelling and divinations were mortal sins and punishable by death in every case.
(5) All persons guilty of crimes against nature; the nature of the subject forbids me to specify. They were such outrageous violations of the dignity of man made in God’s image, and indicated such disregard for Jehovah that capital punishment alone would meet the requirements of the case.
(6) Every breaker of the covenant must be put to death. If any had knowledge that another had violated the covenant, it became his duty to investigate the case and bring the attention of the magistrates to it. There is a reference to that in the letter to the Hebrews, where it is said, “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God [offense against the Father], and hath counted the blood of the everlasting covenant an unholy thing [sin against the Son], and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace [sin against the Holy Spirit, and an unpardonable sin]?” (Heb 10:28-29 ).
(7) To impress still more this thought of the exclusive worship of Jehovah: There must be no borrowing from other religions in bewailing the dead; Jehovah’s law alone was the one exclusive standard. The custom of cutting themselves, and disfiguring themselves in the days of their mourning as practiced in other religions, finds here a positive prohibition. I stop to say, Oh, what a pity that so soon after apostolic times, in the great apostasy which Paul predicted and which took place in the Roman Catholic development, there was borrowing old robes of every religion in the world.
3. All Administrations of Law Subject to Jehovah
Whether ceremonial law, moral or civil and criminal law, all administration of law was subject to Jehovah. The government was a theocracy pure and simple, no matter whether it remained a republic or became a kingdom, as it did in the days of Saul, it was a theocracy, God was the only real King and governed all officers himself, whether executive, judicial, or religious.
(1) They were representatives of Jehovah and must first of all consider his honor, justice, and mercy. This fact determined the prescribed character and qualifications of every prince, ruler, elder, judge, sheriff and scribe. These officers must be God-fearing men, hating covetousness, impartial and fearing not the face of any man.
(2) They must in judging hear all evidence fairly.
(3) They must not convict except upon adequate testimony.
(4) It took two good witnesses to prove any point.
(5) They must justify the innocent and condemn the guilty without any regard for age, sex, social position, or financial position. Even and exact justice must be administered to all.
(6) Decision when given must be enforced speedily.
(7) If the case was too hard for them, they must appeal to Jehovah and no other for light. A provision was made by which Jehovah would give the right answer in every such case of appeal. What a pity we have not that kind of a supreme court!
(8) The conduct of all their wars must be under the laws prescribed by Jehovah. War must not be declared against any nation except upon his direction. Their later history furnishes many examples of referring the declaration of war to Jehovah, and it furnishes many examples of disaster befalling them when they went to war in their own wisdom and strength. The regulations touching war covered all material points, such as sanitary measures in camp, treatment of prisoners, conducting sieges, and sparing fruit trees when besieging a city. The boasted progress of modern civilization falls far short of the Mosaic code in ameliorating the sufferings and horrors of war. A great Federal general of the War Between the States well said, in view of his own practice in conducting it, “War is hell!”
(9) On account of this subordination to Jehovah, note the remarkable paragraph Deu 21:1-9 , touching civic responsibility in a case of murder where the offender is unknown. In my prohibition speech in the last prohibition contest in Waco, I used that paragraph as a principle upon which prohibition is based. If you will look at the passage in your Bible and mark it, you will notice that the case is this: A man is found murdered and it is not known who killed him; the nearest city thereto is determined by measurement and must purge itself of responsibility for the crime. The municipal officers in that city must come in the presence of that dead body, hold up their hands before God and swear that they are innocent of the blood.
In my speech I recalled the case of the County Attorney of Tarrant County who was shot down on the streets of Fort Worth, his murderer also being killed; nobody could be held directly responsible for the murder. I said, “Suppose the mayor, the city council, and all the other city officers had been required to place their hands on that dead body and swear that no negligence on their part was resposnible for that murder. They could not have taken the oath. Every one would have been convicted, because they were responsible for the conditions that not only made that particular murder possible, but made murder in some cases certain.”
(10) The numerous statutes concerning charities, mercy, and humanity constrain the people to imitate Jehovah himself in dealing with the poor and with the unfortunate. Indeed some of the most beautiful and pathetic of these laws relating to treatment of the lower creatures embody principles capable of application in a wider range of higher things. They reprobate all cruelty and the infliction of all unnecessary suffering as hateful to Jehovah, for example: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn”; and “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.”
Once in Waco a young man whom I had known when he was a little fellow came to me bringing a letter purporting to be from his father, commending this young man to me and asking me to help him in any way I could. When he next came and asked me to endorse a paper for thirty dollars, I endorsed it. When it matured, I had to pay it. I wrote to the father about it and he replied that his son had forged that letter, and that is was only one case out of many. That son had broken him up. The boy was arrested on a similar case at Corsicana and sent to the penitentiary. When it was suggested that I testify against him, I would not, because of this scripture, “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” The only way I could help to convict that boy would be to submit his father’s testimony to prove that he was a forger.
(11) In like manner all laws regulating business, such as weights and measures. Once I called upon a man whose name I will not give, and asked him why, when he bought goods, he weighed on one scale and when he sold goods he sold by another. He said. “They are all right.” I said, “No, sir, you have loaded the one you sell by and whoever buys from you does not get full weight.” All laws touching business, such as weights and measures, the restraints on exacting pledges for debt, the withholding of wages for day laborers which they have fairly earned, the limitations on usury and the like are but expressions of divine mercy and justice and tended to build up an honest and righteous people, not forgetful of mercy.
(12) The social laws concerning marriage, slavery, parental power over children, while far from the highest expression of God’s will, do yet in every particular prohibit many current evils freely practiced in other nations. Our Lord himself explains that on account of their hardness of heart and low order of development imperfect laws were suffered. “The people but recently were a nation of slaves, with much more of the slave spirit remaining. It cannot be denied that even the civil and criminal codes on these points were far superior to the codes of other nations. The sanctity of human life, the sanctity of the home, and the sanctity of the family are marvelously safeguarded in these laws. And wherever this code touched an evil custom, it never approved the evil but limited the power and scope of the evil, as far as the unprepared people were able to bear it.
(13) Restrictions on entering the covenant, Deu 23:1-7 , constitute a paragraph very few people understand. This applied to proselytes from other nations. The body politic must not be corrupted by alien additions that could not be easily assimilated. On that line our own nation is gravely troubled by loose naturalization laws that permit the scum and offscourings of other nations to be absorbed into our national life and so fearfully endanger the perpetuity of free institutions and make our great cities cesspools of iniquity. An orator once prayed, “O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and Europe!” The Pacific Slope seems also praying ,”O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and the Orient!”
(14) The governing Jehovah idea appears in an emphatic way in the paragraph Deu 24:1-11 , where by an offering of a basket of firstfruits the Israelite must confess Jehovah’s absolute ownership over his products and his own unworthy derivation. The oration concludes with his general result: “Thou hast avouched Jehovah this day to be thy God, and that thou wouldest walk in his ways and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his ordinances, and hearken unto his voice: and Jehovah hath avouched thee this day to be a people for his own possession, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments, etc.”
QUESTIONS
1. What the importance of grouping correlated matters under specific needs and what is a constitution?
2. What the homiletic value of these fifteen chapters?
3. What two things especially noted concerning the second part of Oration Two?
4. Under what three heads does the author group all the material of these fifteen chapters?
5. Under the first head, when was the central place of worship to be established; when, where and by whom actually established; how long continued?
6. How often and at what festivals must the nation assemble at this central place of worship?
7. What bearing has this fact on the tithing question of Deuteronomy?
8. What the marvelous effects of this one fixed place of national worship?
9. Give examples of the violation of this law, and what their particular sin?
10. Under the second head, what cases of violation called for capital punishment?
11. What underlying principle governing the cities is of great importance in our times? Illustrate.
12. What reference to the covenant breaker in the New Testament, and what the threefold sin therein described?
13. Which of these prohibitions are Romanists most guilty of violating?
14. Under the third head (1) What must be the qualifications of all officers? (2) What their several duties? (3) If the case was too hard for them what were they to do? What the provision for Jehovah’s answer? (4) What prescriptions concerning war? (5) How determine civic responsibility in the case of murder where the murderer was unknown? Present day application and illustrate. (6) What laws relating to the poor and to lower animals? (7) What laws regulating business? (8) What social laws? (9) What the restrictions on entering the covenant and the present day application? (10) How does the governing Jehovah idea appear emphatically
15. How does the oration conclude?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Deu 20:1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, [and] a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God [is] with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Ver. 1. When thou goest out to battle. ] It is not unlawful, therefore, to go to war, as Lactantius and some others held; whether it be pro religione vel pro regione: only because it is easier to stir strife than to stop and stint it, – non enim in eiusdem potestate est initium belli, eiusque finis, a – war is not rashly to be undertaken, lest it befall men as in the battle between the dragon and the elephant. The dragon sucketh out the blood of the elephant, and the weight of the falling elephant oppresseth the dragon, and so both perish. b St Augustine would never pray for such as had willfully and voluntarily thrust themselves into unnecessary wars. c
For the Lord thy God is with thee.
a Salust., in Jugurth.
b Plin., lib. viii. cap. 12.
c Possid., in Vit. Aug.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 20:1-9
1When you go out to battle against your enemies and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the LORD your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, is with you. 2When you are approaching the battle, the priest shall come near and speak to the people. 3He shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel, you are approaching the battle against your enemies today. Do not be fainthearted. Do not be afraid, or panic, or tremble before them, 4for the LORD your God is the one who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.’ 5The officers also shall speak to the people, saying, ‘Who is the man that has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would dedicate it. 6Who is the man that has planted a vineyard and has not begun to use its fruit? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would begin to use its fruit. 7And who is the man that is engaged to a woman and has not married her? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would marry her.’ 8Then the officers shall speak further to the people and say, ‘Who is the man that is afraid and fainthearted? Let him depart and return to his house, so that he might not make his brothers’ hearts melt like his heart.’ 9When the officers have finished speaking to the people, they shall appoint commanders of armies at the head of the people.
Deu 20:1 horses and chariots The Canaanites had many horses and chariots (i.e., the ultimate military weapon of that time and place); the Israelis had none (cf. Jos 11:4; Jos 17:16; Isa 31:1-3; Hos 14:3). The Israelites must trust in YHWH to provide the victory, not better weaponry (cf. Isa 30:15-17; Isa 31:1-9). See Special Topic: Chariots .
do not be afraid of them This VERB (BDB 431, KB 4387, Qal IMPERFECT) is a recurrent theme in holy war contexts (cf. Deu 1:21; Deu 1:29; Deu 3:2; Deu 3:22; Deu 7:18; Deu 20:1; Deu 20:3; Deu 31:6; Deu 31:8). They were not to fear the power or number of their Canaanite enemies, but they were to fear YHWH (cf. Deu 4:10; Deu 5:29; Deu 6:2; Deu 6:13; Deu 6:24; Deu 10:12; Deu 10:20; Deu 13:4; Deu 14:23; Deu 17:19; Deu 28:58; Deu 31:12-13), because He is an awesome God (same Hebrew term, cf. Deu 7:21; Deu 10:17; Deu 28:58).
for the LORD your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt See Exo 14:26-28 for a reference to God’s deliverance of His people from Pharaoh. Israel’s trust was based on:
1. previous revelation to the Patriarchs
2. miraculous Egyptian deliverance
3. miraculous wilderness wandering provisions
4. victories on the eastern bank of Jordan
Deu 20:2 the priest shall come near and speak to the people The rabbis called this person the anointed priest of battle. Before battle, the priest admonished them to be brave because God was with them. Even if some died in battle, God would still take care of them and their families.
Deu 20:3-4 Notice the series of admonitions (hear BDB 1033, KB 1570, Qal IMPERATIVE) of the priest in Deu 20:3 :
1. do not be fainthearted – BDB 939, KB 1236, Qal IMPERFECT, but JUSSIVE in meaning, cf. Isa 7:4; Jer 51:46
2. do not be afraid – BDB 431, KB 432, Qal IMPERFECT, but JUSSIVE in meaning, see note at Deu 20:1
3. do not panic – BDB 342, KB 339, Qal IMPERFECT, but JUSSIVE in meaning, cf Job 40:23 (examples: 1Sa 23:26; 2Ki 7:15; Psa 48:5)
4. do not tremble before them – BDB 791, KB 888, Qal IMPERFECT, but JUSSIVE in meaning, cf. Deu 1:29; Deu 7:21; Deu 31:6; Jos 1:9
The reason for the confidence is stated in Deu 20:4 :
1. the Lord your God is the one who goes with you – BDB 229, KB 246, Qal ACTIVE PARTICIPLE
2. to fight for you – BDB 535, KB 526, Niphal INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT
3. to save you – BDB 446, KB 448, Hiphil INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT
Deu 20:5-8 The officers This is a special Hebrew word (BDB 1009) sometimes used in conjunction with the local judges or military leaders. It means the representatives from each tribe (cf. Deu 1:15; Deu 29:10; Deu 31:28). The officers made the judgment on any exemptions.
Here is a list of exemptions that allowed an Israelite man to not go into battle:
1. One who built a new house and had not dedicated it, Deu 20:5 (obviously a future event; there is no record of the nature or purpose of this procedure recorded in the OT, but the term is the same as the one used for dedicating the temple, BDB 335 II).
2. One who has planted a vineyard and has not begun to use its fruit, Deu 20:6 (obviously a future event, vineyard took three years to produce fruit, cf. Lev 19:23-25).
3. One who is engaged, but has not married yet, Deu 20:7, cf. Deu 24:5.
4. One who is afraid or fainthearted, Deu 20:8, because it may cause others to be afraid, cf. Jdg 7:3; 1Ma 3:56.
Numbers 1, 2, , 3 are related to inheritance issues. But they may also be seen in light of Deu 28:30. These very things are mentioned as being results of covenant disobedience.
Let him depart and return to his house This phrase is made up of the VERBS:
1. depart – BDB 229, KB 246, Qal IMPERFECT used as a JUSSIVE
2. return – BDB 996, KB 1427, Qal JUSSIVE
It is repeated with each possible exemption listed (cf. Deu 20:5-8). It was not the size of Israel’s army, but the power of Israel’s God that made the difference! The smaller and less equipped the army, the more it magnified God’s victory (cf. Judges 7).
enemies. Hebrew text has singular, but some codices, with Samaritan Pentateuch, Targum of Onkelos, Syriac, and Vulgate, read the plural, as Authorized Version.
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4.
Chapter 20
Now when they went to war, [chapter twenty] against your enemies, and you see the horses, and chariots, don’t be afraid: for the LORD is with you, who brought you out of Egypt ( Deu 20:1 ).
Now there was among these people they were, remember, just slaves and they did have fears; fears of battle. They weren’t trained fighting men. And in those days the children of Israel did not have any horses for battle, neither did they have chariots. And having a chariot was like having a tank against infantry in modern warfare. And thus, when they’d see these chariots and these horses and prancing horses and all pulling these chariots towards them it would strike fear into their hearts. Now the Lord said, “Don’t be afraid when you see those because I’m going to be with you”. David said, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil for thou art with me”( Psa 23:4 ).
You know, the conscienceness of the presence of God is one of the most fear dispensing things in the world. It’s so glorious to realize God is with me when there are frightening situations that I’m facing. I oftentimes forget that God is with me and that’s when I really get scared. But it’s always a comfort when you’re faced with some difficult situation to remember, “Oh well, God is with us because if God be for us, who can be against us?”
Now they’re to go out to the men as they’re getting ready to fight.
And you are to say unto the troops: don’t let your hearts faint, don’t fear, do not tremble, don’t be terrified; For the LORD your God is going before you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. And the officers are to speak to the people, and say, If any man built a new house yet and… hasn’t had a chance to live in it? Then that fellow can go home ( Deu 20:3-5 ).
He wouldn’t have to fight because if he were killed in battle then it would mean he built a house and someone else lived in it and he never got a chance to live in it, so he was to be excused from battle.
How many of you have planted vineyards and you haven’t picked the grapes yet? You can all go home ( Deu 20:6 ).
Because it wouldn’t be fair for you to do all the work of planting a vineyard and perhaps be killed in battle and never be able to eat of your vineyard. So those that had built new houses and not lived.
How many of have been engaged to a wife, betrothed and you haven’t yet fulfilled that time of betrothal and the marriage haven’t yet taken place? ( Deu 20:7 )
Those who were engaged to be married were dismissed from battle and were able to go home.
[and finally] how many of you are afraid to fight? You can go on home too ( Deu 20:8 ).
So by the time you were left with your army you had a pretty good group of really fighting men. You know, they weren’t afraid and they were ready to go and they didn’t have any, you know, distractions like some girlfriend that they were engaged to and looking forward to the wedding or these kinds of things. The fellows that remained to fight were those that were really ready to go.
Now the idea, and it was a very good idea, of sending home those that were fearful is that in the midst of the battle because they are afraid they might panic and start to run and that has a kind of an infecting effect upon the other troops. And so those that were fearful were sent home. They didn’t want fellows there who were apt to panic in the midst of the battle, and thus, create a panic among the troops. So it was a very wise kind of a move indeed. It left you with just really quality fighting men.
Now when you come to a city to take it, first of all proclaim peace upon the city. And if they open their gates and surrender then fine, take over the city. But if they fight against you, then go in, kill all the men and leave all the women and children alive and then you can use the women and children as servants, and this cattle and the spoil you may take for your own to eat of it.
And thus you shall do to all of the cities that are far off, but those cities that are in the land where the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites; are dwelling: then these nations you’re to utterly destroy ( Deu 20:15-17 ).
Not to make any peace treaties, you’re to wipe these people out completely.
That they teach you not to do after their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against Jehovah your God. When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees of it ( Deu 20:18-19 ).
Now the purpose of the total eradication of these nations was the horrible lascivious practices that were going on in these nations, lest they would pollute you. Now the people did not obey the Lord in this. They did save some of the cities, and thus became polluted and ultimately were driven out of the land themselves because of the pollutions that they practiced after the manner of the nations that they were to have destroyed.
Again, you must see it from God’s standpoint to understand it because people always have difficulty when God has ordered the total eradication of a city, of a people. People have a difficult understanding of God’s command of a total eradication, wiping out everything, everybody. The reason why God commanded this is the vile, horrible practices of these people. It would not be proper in mixed company to tell you of some of the normal practices of these people, especially in their worship.
They were-well, they were beyond help. So vile, so low, there was no recovery. By their very practices they would be, in time, eradicating themselves by the incestuous practices, be the bestiality, and all of these things that they were practicing. They would have soon just become a group of idiotic kinds of people and would have destroyed themselves. Thus God ordered their destruction lest by their being alive they would pollute His people and thus bring these polluting, destructive practices among His own people.
It would be much like you being a guard at a school watching over the kindergartners. And seeing them out there in the playground and observing a little dog running up the street with foam coming out of his mouth yipping and nipping at everything. And you immediately recognize the symptoms of this dog, its actions. You know that it has hydrophobia, rabies. Now, would you be justified in killing that little rabid dog before it could get on the school grounds? Or should you just sit there and say, “Oh, look at that dog. I think it has rabies. Look at it biting all of the children. My, that isn’t nice. Little dog shouldn’t bite children like that.” Man I’d fire you so fast. The dog is rabid. It’s going to die; it can’t live if it’s got rabies. It’s doomed to die. But if you don’t protect those children, many of those innocent, little children will also die because they’ll be infected by that rabid dog. Therefore you would be totally justified in killing that rabid dog.
In fact, you would be at fault if you didn’t kill that rabid dog. You would be responsible if you allowed that dog to bite the children. You would be responsible for the children’s death. Therefore, for the sake of the innocent children, your obligation is to kill the rabid dog lest it infect the children.
Now, these people were like rabid dogs in that their practices were self-destructive. They were destroying themselves and would have destroyed themselves. Yet the practices, because of their nature were infectious and there was a danger if God’s people would come in and see these vile, abominable practices that they too might enter into some of these practices, and thus become infected with this deadly sin by which God would have to then judge and eradicate his own children. So God was seeking to protect his innocent children from these destructive practices of these people, and thus He ordered their eradications.
Where the nations weren’t involved so deeply, God didn’t order that kind of eradication. It was only among these people where these vial, horrible practices were going on. Thus God was protecting his innocent children trying to keep them from being infected by these deadly practices of the nation that inhabited this land.
So, God tells them when they are besieging a city, they are not to cut down any fruit trees to use as a bulwark against the city. Just cut down the trees that don’t bear fruit to use, you know, to build your bulwarks and so forth. Cut down the eucalyptus and the oak and trees like that but don’t cut down the olive trees or the apricot trees or those that bear fruit, because they will be food for you in time to come. “
It is necessary to bear in mind that these people were being led into the land not merely to find a possession for themselves as an established nation, but first as the scourge of God against a corrupt and corrupting people. In view of this fact war was inevitable, and therefore particular instructions were now given for the people’s guidance in war.
First, they were charged to keep before them the vision of God, which alone would enable them to be free from fear in the presence of the foe. Before they went into battle it was ordained that the priest should authoritatively announce the presence of the authority and power of God.
Then the army itself was to be sifted. Men whose hearts were for the time being set on other things, houses, or vineyards, or wives, were not to go into the fighting line. Moreover, those who failed to see the vision of God and therefore were fainthearted were to be refused.
Before attacking fardistant cities, an offering of peace was to be made. Where there was submission, a certain measure of leniency was to follow. In the case of the cities which the Lord gave them as an inheritance, the war was to be one of extermination. The reasons for this already have been revealed.
In connection with these commands occurs one of those remarkable evidences of the divine attention to the smallest matters. No trees were to be cut down which were of value to the sustenance of the people.
16. Concerning Future Wars
CHAPTER 20
1. Words of encouragement (Deu 20:1-4)
2. The fearful and faint-hearted (Deu 20:5-9)
3. Concerning seiges (Deu 20:10-20)
In the appointed warfare there was no need to fear the enemies. The priest was commissioned to speak words of encouragement not to fear, nor to tremble, nor to be terrified by the horses and chariots. The divine assurance was threefold: Jehovah goeth with you, to fight for you, to save you. This presupposes their obedience. If they were obedient, they had nothing to fear. Victory was on their side. And we too need to fear nothing in our warfare with the wicked spirits (Eph. 6). The Lord is on our side and if we resist the devil he will flee from us.
But if Israel was disobedient and departed from the Lord, He fought against them and their enemies overcame them. See also Zec 14:3 about the time when Jehovah will overcome the nations who gather against Jerusalem at the close of the age. The faint-hearted and the fearful as well as those who might hanker after their possessions and become homesick were not to go into the battlefield. They were unfit for warfare, because they did not wholly trust in Jehovah. There was a most merciful arrangement, which consisted in an offer of peace to a besieged city. (The cities of the Canaanitish nations are not included.) Peace was the first thing proclaimed. If the offer was accepted the lives of the inhabitants were saved. If not and the people resisted the proclamation of peace and therefore showed the wickedness of their hearts, resisting God, the city was besieged. All the males were to be smitten with the sword, but the women and little ones were saved. It was different with the wicked inhabitants of the land. Their utter destruction was demanded. The reason for this is again stated in verse 18. The fruit trees during a siege were not to be cut down, for they sustained life.
goest out: Deu 3:21, Deu 3:22, Deu 7:1
horses: Jos 10:5-8, Jos 11:4-6, Jos 11:9, Jdg 4:3-9, 2Ch 14:11, 2Ch 20:12, Psa 20:7, Psa 33:16, Psa 33:17, Isa 31:1, Isa 37:24, Isa 37:25
the Lord: Deu 2:7, Deu 31:6, Deu 31:8, Gen 26:3, Num 23:21, Jos 1:5, Jos 1:9, Jdg 6:12, 2Ch 32:7, 2Ch 32:8, Psa 46:7, Psa 46:11, Psa 118:6, Isa 7:14, Isa 8:9, Isa 8:10, Isa 43:2, Rom 8:31
Reciprocal: Exo 18:19 – God shall Num 14:9 – the Lord Deu 1:21 – fear not Deu 1:30 – he shall Jos 10:8 – General Jos 17:18 – for thou shalt 1Sa 10:7 – God 1Sa 17:32 – Let 1Ki 8:44 – go out to battle 1Ki 20:1 – and horses 2Ki 19:6 – Be not afraid 2Ch 6:34 – thy people 2Ch 15:2 – The Lord 2Ch 20:15 – Be not afraid Ecc 8:8 – discharge Isa 41:10 – Fear Zec 10:5 – because
Deu 20:1. When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies The land of Canaan being to be gained by conquest, in a war of Gods special appointment; and the Israelites, after their settlement in it, being likely to be exposed to invasions from, or quarrels with the neighbouring nations, Moses judged it necessary to leave them some standing rules for their conduct in both these kinds of war. The first and great rule was, to commit their cause to God, depending with entire confidence upon that divine power which had so often and so wonderfully delivered them, without the least fear or discouragement at the superior force or terrible appearance of their enemies. And seest horses and chariots The armies of the Israelites consisted wholly of foot, and their law seems to have obliged them to continue so, in order that their reliance might be entirely on God, Deu 17:16. But the Egyptians, Canaanites, and other nations, had the advantage of horses and chariots, in which they placed their confidence. Thus the psalmist: Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we will remember the name of the Lord our God. These chariots were sometimes armed with scythes, to rush in among the foot, and cut them down like grass, which made them very formidable. These are the chariots of iron, mentioned Jdg 4:3.
Deu 20:5. Hath not dedicated it. David composed the xxxth Psalm for the dedication of his new palace. Good men warmed a new house by devotion.
Deu 20:9. The officersshall make captains. The sense of this verse is difficult to gather. The readings vary; but Le Clercs translation is to be preferred. When the heralds have made an end of speaking, the officers in front of the army shall number the troops. The original word is rendered number in 1Sa 13:15; and muster in Isa 13:4.
Deu 20:10. Proclaim peace to it. In the Jugurthine war, Sallust names a city of Africa that had but two hours notice of the approach of the Roman armies, and they put every soul to the sword. While Sallust blushes to relate this, he palliates the carnage by saying, it was for the good of the Roman people! This cruelty is common enough in many wars; but the Hebrew lawgiver could not endure it. If the city refused the terms, then the war was placed on equal ground. Yet the spirit of the Messiahs kingdom is evidently, according to all the prophets, a spirit of concord and peace. Isaiah 9. Micah 4. Zechariah 9. Its aim is to make the earth one family, and Messiah the universal king.
Deu 20:19. The tree of the field is mans life, and must not be destroyed. Alexander the Great restrained his army from hurting trees and houses by saying, they are your own property.
REFLECTIONS.
The encouragement afforded to Israel, in this chapter, is equally encouraging to the church of God. They were not to be afraid of their enemies who should exceed them in number, in chariots, and in horses; for the covenant presence of God would ensure success. So if the Lord be for us, what have we to fear from the multitude of our foes? The frowns and smiles of the world, the incitements of the flesh, and the temptations of Satan shall try us in vain, while we retain the Lord on our right hand.
The Israelites, having God for their defence, had no need of severity in raising the levies of war. The heralds, on addressing the army, were to request those to retire who had built a house, and not consecrated it; who had betrothed a wife, as we elsewhere find, and not consummated the marriage; or had planted a vineyard, and had not eaten of its fruits. The fearful and fainthearted were next requested to withdraw; for the man who had not a martial soul was not fit to be intrusted with the defence of his country. In those heralds, ministers of the gospel may learn the duty of exhorting believers to courage and constancy in religion. Let those who love house or land, wife or children more than Christ, keep within the shade of worldly prudence. The man who is not willing, through the strength of grace, to devote his life to God, is not worthy to bear the banner of the cross, and to be intrusted with the honour and glory of the Saviours cause.
The nation or host assembled in arms, was next to be enlightened concerning the equity of the war; for God is on the side of equity. A nation may indeed allege equity in the cause of war, and yet be deeply guilty in other views; or it may be the design of providence to suffer a weak people to be for awhile oppressed by the mighty. Be that as it may, those who commence a war should be cautious that their claims are just, and that all amicable endeavours to adjust the disputes have failed before recourse is had to arms. War must in all cases be the dernier resort, or it is hateful to God.
However aggravating the aggressions may be which provoke a nation to vengeance, the war must nevertheless be conducted with humanity. The city when approached must be summoned to surrender: then if the armed men preferred a siege to submission, the contest became life for life: and if the city was taken by assault, the casting away of arms, the bending of knees, the most piercing cries for mercy would have no effect on the furious assailants: they would put them all to the sword, and spare only the women and children. Such are the bitter laws of war, when the contest comes to extremities. In like manner, all daring sinners who despise the overtures of grace, may see the sad situation to which they will shortly be reduced. While they are proceeding in a course of dissipation and insolence against heaven, the God of vengeance approaches, and death is in his train. But his ministers first blow the gospel trumpet; they expostulate; they offer pardon and privilege; they pray and beseech the enemy in Christs stead to be reconciled to God. But all overtures of grace are rejected, religion is hooted, and the terrors of justice are despised. Alas, only a small number listen to the gospel, and imbibe its spirit. Well, God is neither weak in power, nor intimidated by the multitude of his foes. He resolutely besieges the wicked by terror of conscience, by affliction of body, and the menaces of future judgment; and if the longsuffering of God which leadeth to repentance be still despised, his arrows shall strike through the heart of his enemies; and because they despised his counsel, and would have none of his reproof, he also will laugh at their calamity, and mock when their fear cometh. Then, in a spiritual view, shall be realized the horrors of a city taken by assault. God will avenge the quarrel of his covenant, and the dissipation of an ungodly age shall end in tragedy of the most instructive kind.
Deuteronomy 20
“When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And it shall be when ye are come nigh unto the battle that priest shall approach, and speak unto the people, and shall say, unto them, Hear, O Israel; ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies let not your hearts faint; fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them for the Lord your God is he that goeth with you to fight for you against your enemies, to save you (Vers. 1-4.)
How wonderful to think of the Lord as a Man of war! Think of His fighting against people! Some find it very hard to take in the idea – to understand how a benevolent Being could act in such a character. But the difficulty arises mainly from not distinguishing between the different dispensations. It was just as consistent with the character of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to fight against His enemies, as it is with the character of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to forgive them. And inasmuch as it is the revealed character of God that furnishes the model on which His people are to be found – the standard by which they are to act, it was quite as consistent for Israel to cut their enemies in pieces, as it is for us to love them, pray for them, and do them good.
If this very simple Principle were borne in mind, it would remove a quantity of misunderstanding, and save a vast amount of unintelligent discussion. No doubt it is thoroughly wrong for the church of God to go to war. No one can read the New Testament, with a mind free from bias, and not see this. We are positively commanded to love our enemies, to do good to them that hate us, and to pray for them that despitefully use us. “Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword.” And again, in another gospel, “Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” Again, our Lord says to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight” – it would be perfectly consistent them so to do. “But now is my kingdom not from hence” – and therefore it would be wholly out of character utterly inconsistent, thoroughly wrong for them to fight.
Ah this is so plain that we need only say, “How readest thou?” Our blessed Lord did not fight; He meekly and patiently submitted to all manner of abuse and ill-treatment, and in so doing He left us an example that we should follow His steps. If we only honestly ask ourselves the question, “What would Jesus do?” it would close all discussion on this point as well as on a thousand other points besides. There is really no use in reasoning, no need of it. If the words and ways of our blessed Lord, and the distinct teaching of His Spirit, by His holy apostles, be not sufficient for our guidance, all discussion is utterly vain.
And, if we be asked, What does the Holy Ghost teach on this great practical point? Hear His precious clear and pointed words. “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves; but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12.)
These are the lovely ethics of the church of God: the principles of that heavenly kingdom to which all true Christians belong. Would they have suited Israel of old? Certainly not. Only conceive Joshua. acting toward the Canaanites on the principles of Romans 12! It would have been as flagrant an inconsistency as for us to act on the principle of Deuteronomy 20. How is this? Simply because, in Joshua’s day, God was executing judgement in righteousness; whereas, now, He is dealing in unqualified grace. This makes all the difference. The principle of divine action is the grand moral regulator for God’s people in all ages. If this be seen, all difficulty is removed, all discussion definitively closed.
But then if any feel disposed to ask, “What about the world? How could it get on upon the principle of grace? Could it act on the doctrine of Romans 12: 20?” Not for a moment. The idea is simply absurd. To attempt to amalgamate the principles of grace with the law of nations, or to infuse the spirit of the New Testament into the framework of political economy would instantly plunge civilized society into hopeless confusion. And here is just where many most excellent and well-meaning people are astray. They want to press the nations of the world into the adoption of a principle which would be destructive of their national existence. The time is not come yet for nations to beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and learn war no more. That blessed time will come, thank God, when this groaning earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. But to seek to get nations, now to act upon peace principles is simply to ask them to cease to be; in a word, it is thoroughly hopeless, unintelligent labour. It cannot be. We are not called upon to regulate the world, but to pass through it, as pilgrims and strangers. Jesus did not come to set the world right. He came to seek and to save that which was lost; and as to the world, He testified of it that its deeds were evil. He will, ere long come to set things right. He will take to Himself His great power and reign. The kingdoms of this world shall, most assuredly, become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. He will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity. All this is most blessedly true: but we must wait His time. It can be of no possible use for us, by our ignorant efforts, to seek to bring about a condition of things which all scripture goes to prove can only be introduced by the personal presence and rule of our beloved and adorable Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
But we must proceed with our chapter.
Israel were called to fight the Lord’s battles. The moment they put their foot upon the land of it was war to the knife with the doomed inhabitants. “Of the cities of these people which the Lord God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou save alive nothing that breatheth.” This was distinct and emphatic. The seed of Abraham were not only to possess the land of Canaan, but they were to be God’s instruments in executing His just judgement upon the guilty inhabitants, whose sins had risen up to heaven, and become absolutely intolerable.
Does any one feel called upon to apologise for the divine actings towards the seven nations of Canaan. If so, let him be well assured of this that his labour is perfectly gratuitous, entirely uncalled for. What folly for any poor worm of the earth to think of entering upon such work! And what folly, too for any one to require an apology or an explanation. It was a high honour put upon Israel to exterminate those guilty nations – an honour of which they proved themselves utterly unworthy, inasmuch as they failed to do as they were commanded. They left alive many of those who ought to have been utterly destroyed; they spared them to be the wretched instruments of their own ultimate ruin, by leading them into the self-same sins which had so loudly called for divine judgement.
But let us look, for a moment, at the qualifications which were necessary for those who would fight the Lord’s battles. We shall find the opening paragraph of our chapter full of most precious instruction for ourselves in the spiritual warfare which we are called to wage.
The reader will observe that the people, on approaching to the battle, were to be addressed, first, by the priest, and secondly, by the officers. This order is very beautiful. The priest came forward to unfold to the people their high privileges; the officers came to remind them of their holy responsibilities. Such is the divine order here. Privilege comes first, and then responsibility. “The priest shall approach, and speak unto the people, and shall say unto them, Hear O Israel; ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies; let not your hearts faint, fear not and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; for the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you”.
What blessed words are these! How full of comfort and encouragement! How eminently calculated to banish all fear and depression, and to infuse courage and confidence into the most sinking fainting heart! The priest was the very expression of the grace of God; his ministry a stream of most precious consolation flowing from the loving heart of the God of Israel to each individual warrior. His loving words were designed and fitted to gird up the loins of the mind, and nerve the feeblest arm for fight. He assures them of the divine presence with them. There is no question, no condition, no “if,” no “but.” It is an unqualified statement. Jehovah Elohim was with them. This surely was enough. It mattered not, in the smallest degree how many, how powerful, or how formidable were their enemies; they would all prove to be as chaff before the whirlwind, in the presence of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel.
But then the officer had to be heard as well as the priest. “And the officers shall speak unto the people; saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it let him go return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it. And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? let him also go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it. And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her. And the officers shall speak further unto the people, and they shall say, What man is there that In fearful and fainthearted? let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren’s heart faint as well as his heart. And it shall be that when the officers have made an end of speaking unto the people, that they shall make captains of the armies to lead the people.” (vers. 5-9.)
Thus we learn that there were two things absolutely essential to all who would fight the Lord’s battles, namely, a heart thoroughly disentangled from the things of nature and of earth; and a bold unclouded confidence in God. “No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.” There is a very material difference between being engaged in the affairs of this life, and being entangled by them. A man might have had a house, a vineyard, and a wife, and yet have been fit for the battle. These things were not, in themselves, a hindrance; but it was having them under such conditions as rendered them an entanglement that unfitted a man for the conflict.
It is well to bear this in mind. We, as Christians, are called to carry on a constant spiritual warfare. We have to fight for every inch of heavenly ground. What the Canaanites were to Israel, the wicked spirits in the heavenlies are to us. We are not called to fight for eternal life; we have gotten that as God’s free gift, before we begin. We are not called to fight for salvation; we are saved before we enter upon the conflict. It is most needful to know what it is that we have to fight for, and whom we are to fight with. The object for which we fight is make good, maintain, and carry out, practically, our heavenly position and character, in the midst of scenes and circumstances of ordinary human life, from day to day. And then as to our spiritual foes they are wicked spirits who, during this present time, are permitted to occupy the heavenlies. “We wrestle not against flesh and blood” – as Israel had to do in Canaan – “but against principalities, against powers, against the world-rulers [kosmokratoras] of this darkness, against wicked spirits in the heavenlies.”
Now, the question is, what do we want in carrying on such a conflict as this? Must we abandon our lawful earthly callings? Must we detach ourselves from those relationships founded on nature and sanctioned of God? Is it needful to become an ascetic, a mystic or a monk, in order to carry on the spiritual warfare to which We are called? By no means; indeed for a Christian to do any one of these things would, in itself, be a proof that he had completely mistaken his calling, or that he had, at the very outset, fallen in the battle. We are imperatively called upon to work with our hands the thing is good, that we may have to give to him that needeth. And not only so, but we have the ample guidance, in the pages of the New Testament as to how we are to carry ourselves in the varied natural relationships which God Himself has established, and to which He has affixed the seal of His approval. Hence it is perfectly plain that earthly callings and natural relationships are, in themselves no hindrance to our waging a successful spiritual warfare.
What then is needed by the Christian warrior? A heart thoroughly disentangled from things earthly and natural; and an unclouded confidence in God. But how are these things to be maintained? Hear the divine reply. “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day,” – that is the whole time from the cross to the coming of Christ – and, having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness and your feet shod with the Preparation of the gospel of peace! above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.” (Eph 6.)
Reader, mark the qualification of a Christian warrior as here set forth: by the Holy Ghost. It is not the question of a house, a vineyard or a wife, but of having the inward man governed by “truth;” the outward conduct characterised by real practical “righteousness;” the moral habits and ways marked by the sweet “peace” of the gospel; the whole man covered by the impenetrable shield of “faith;” the seat of the understanding guarded by the full assurance of “salvation; and the heart continually sustained and strengthened by persevering prayer and supplication; and led forth in earnest intercession for all saints, and specially for the Lord’s beloved workmen and their blessed work. This is the way in which the spiritual Israel of God are to be furnished for the warfare which they are called to wage with wicked spirits in the heavenlies. May the Lord, in His infinite goodness, make all these things very real in our souls’ experience, and in our practical career, from day to day!
The close of our chapter contains the principles which were to govern Israel in their warfare. They were most carefully to discriminate between the cities which were very far off from them, and those that pertained to the seven judged nations. To the former they were, in the first place, to make overtures of peace. With the latter, on the contrary, they were to make no terms whatever. “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it” – a marvellous method of fighting! – “And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it; and when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof” – as expressing the positive energy of evil – “with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof” – all that was capable of being turned to account, in the service of God, and of His people- thou shalt take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which not of the cities of these nations.”
Indiscriminate slaughter and wholesale destruction formed no part of Israel’s business. If any cities were disposed to accept the proffered terms of peace, they were to have the privilege of becoming tributaries to the people of God; and, in reference to those cities which would make no peace, all within their walls which could be made use of was to be reserved.
There are things in nature and things of earth which are capable of being used for God, they are sanctified by the word of God and prayer. We are told to make to ourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when we fail, they may receive us into everlasting habitations; which simply means that if this world’s riches come into the Christian’s hands, he should diligently and faithfully use them in the service of Christ; he should freely distribute them to the poor, and to all the Lord’s needy workmen; in short, he should make them available, in every right and prudent way, for the furtherance of the lord’s work in every department. In this way, the very riches which else might crumble into dust in their hands, or prove to be as rust on their souls, shall produce precious fruit that shall serve to minister an abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Many seem to find considerable difficulty in Luke 16: 9; but its teaching is as clear and forcible as it is practically important. We find very similar instruction in 1 Timothy 6 “charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, laying up in store for themselves a Good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.”* There is not a fraction which we spend, directly and simply, for Christ which will not be before us by and-by. The thought of this, though it should not, by any means, be a motive spring, may well encourage us to devote all we have, and all we are, to the service of our blessed Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
{*It may interest the reader to know that the four leading authorities agree in reading ontos instead of aioniou, in 1 Timothy 6: 19. Thus the passage would be, “That they may lay hold on life in earnest” or in reality. The only real life is to live for Christ; to live in the light of eternity; to use all we possess for the promotion of God’s glory, and with an eye to the everlasting mansions. This, and only this, is life in earnest.}
Such is the plain teaching of Luke 16 and 1 Timothy 6; let us see that we understand it. The expression, “That they may receive you into everlasting habitations” simply means that what is spent for Christ will be rewarded in the day that is coming. Even a cup of cold water given in His precious Name shall have its sure reward in His everlasting kingdom. Oh! to spend and be spent for Him!
But we muse close this section by quoting the few last lines of our chapter, in which we have a very beautiful illustration of the way in which our God looks after the smallest matters, and His gracious care that nothing should be lost or injured. “When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them; for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege; only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.” (Vers. 19, 20.)
“Let nothing be lost,” is the Master’s own word to us – a word which should ever he kept in remembrance. “Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused.” We should carefully guard against all reckless waste of ought that can be made available for human use. Those who occupy the place of domestic servants should give their special attention to this matter. It is painful, at times, to witness the sinful waste of human food. Many a thing is flung out as offal which might supply a welcome meal for a needy family. If a Christian servant should read these lines, we would earnestly entreat him or her to weigh this subject in the divine presence, and never to practise or sanction the waste of the smallest atom that is capable of being turned to account for human use. We may depend upon it that to waste any creature of God is displeasing in His sight. Let us remember that His eye is upon us; and may it be our earnest desire to be agreeable to Him in all our ways.
Deuteronomy 20. Laws to be Observed during War.Peculiar to cf. Deu 21:10-14 (which some attach immediately to ch. 20) and Deu 23:9-14, Deu 24:5 (see remarks prefixed to Deu 19:14 ff.). The general effect of these laws is to soften the barbarities of war, though in some respects (Deu 20:13-18) they perpetuate its grossest cruelties. What were the wars which suggested these regulations?
Deu 20:1. horses, and Chariots: Deu 17:16. The Assyrians and Egyptians were rich in these, and Israel had great fear of them (Jos 17:16, Jdg 1:19). Palestine was unsuitable for both on account of its mountains; Israel is to trust in Yahweh (Hos 14:3, Isa 2:7; Isa 31:1, Psa 20:7; Psa 33:16 f; Psa 147:10).
Deu 20:2. the priest: these wars were, as those of early Islam, religious ones; cf. the phrase to consecrate a war (Mic 3:5). i.e. to begin it with sacrifice (pp. 99, 114). Why is the king not mentioned? Had the monarchy ceased, this war code being then, like Ezekiel 40-48, an ideal programme?
Deu 20:5-9. Men to be excused from the war.
Deu 20:10-18 reminds one of the early wars of Islam.
Deu 20:17. utterly destroy: Deu 2:34*. This drastic treatment is reserved for the Canaanites alone.
Deu 20:19. This law is infringed in 2Ki 3:19; 2Ki 3:25.
WARFARE REGULATED BY GOD
(vs.1-19)
God certainly never did approve the saying, “All’s fair in love and war.” Rather, God gave explicit instructions to Israel as to how to conduct their warfare. But first, he insists that no matter how strong the enemy appears to be, Israel was to have no fear of going to battle against them, for these were the enemies of God who was with Israel, and who was requiring Israel to drive them from the land (v.1).
As a battle was to take place, the priest (the high priest) was first to address the people, telling them to have no fear of the enemy, for the Lord was with them to fight for them and save them from defeat (vs.3-4). Let us remember that believers today are called to fight, not against flesh and blood, but against the deceit of satanic enmity that seeks to keep us from enjoying our heavenly inheritance (Eph 6:12). This conflict involves our learning and standing for the truth of the Word of God in the face of many attempts to undermine or degrade it.
After the priest had delivered his message, then the military officers were to exempt from service men for various reasons. If one had built a house, not having dedicated it to live in, he was to be excused, or if one had planted a vineyard and had not reaped its fruits as yet (vs.5-6). These two exemptions would not apply to any in Israel at the time Moses spoke this, for Israel was not yet in their land, but they would apply when in the land.
Also one who was engaged to be married was to be excused, lest he should die in battle and therefore never be married (v.7). These three cases show us that attachment to the present things of life will unfit us in some measure for the spiritual warfare that is attached to heaven. Today, it is possible for us to put the things of God first even when having to deal with questions of property, food and human relationships. In fact, it is not only possible, but it is spiritually moral.
But another test was to be taken, one not likely to be copied by any another nation. The officers were to ask if any man was fearful or fainthearted. If so he was told to return home, lest this fearfulness would infect other men too (v.8). To show fear before the enemy will only mean defeat. Most of us must admit that we do have fears, but courage will enable us not to show fear, for the Lord is greater than our fears. Confidence in the Lord will give courage to overcome fear.
The officers were then to appoint captains, thus organizing the army in an orderly way. When they approached a city to attack it, they were to proclaim an offer of peace to the city, and if the city received this offer, then the city was to be placed under tribute to Israel. If the offer was refused, God would give the city into the hands of Israel, who were told to kill every man in the city, but they keep the women alive, the children and livestock, and all would be considered as plunder for Israel (vs.13-14).
However, this applied only to cities far from the land of Canaan, not to any of the cities of the land. As to these, God had before commanded that men, women, children and livestock should all be killed (vs.16-17). The reason for this we have already seen. These nations had sold themselves to the service of demonism and idolatry: their cup of iniquity was full, and none were to be spared (Deu 18:9-12). God knew that if they were allowed to live they would teach Israel the same evils to which these idolaters had become accustomed (v.18).
In besieging a city, no fruit trees were to be cut down for use in the attack (v.19). Tree that did not bear fruit could be used for this (v.20). Fruit trees are for man’s nourishment, not for judgment. So, in the Word of God there are truths for nourishing and building up. But there are other truths that require the pulling down of strongholds (2Co 10:4). It is important that we use the truth for the purpose that God intends, not to misuse it.
20:1 When {a} thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, [and] a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God [is] with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
(a) Meaning, upon just occasion: for God does not permit his people to fight every time it seems good to them.
War ch. 20
These instructions deal with how Israel was to come into possession of the Promised Land (cf. Num 33:50-56). They are in the context of civil legislation because Israel did not have a standing army. Soldiers volunteered to go into battle as needed. Warfare and its prosecution are relevant to the subject of killing and thus to the sixth commandment. This section provided a "manual of warfare" for the Israelites outlining their attitude and approach to national enemies. [Note: Merrill, Deuteronomy, p. 282.]
"Because Yahweh was God not only of Israel but also of all the earth, these interests [of warfare] extended far beyond Israel’s narrow concerns. He was, however, Israel’s God in a special way, and as such He would lead His people in battle as the divine warrior (Deu 20:4)." [Note: Idem, "A Theology . . .," p. 82.]
In all wars Israel was to remember that God was with her and to rely on His help with confidence regardless of the enemy’s strength (Deu 20:1-4). Christians too should recall God’s past faithfulness when we encounter adversity and gain courage from His promises that He will be with us (Mat 28:20; Heb 13:5-6; et al.). The priest (Deu 20:2) was not necessarily the high priest but the priest who accompanied the army in battle (as Phinehas did in Num 31:6).
"In the ancient world, priests and interpreters of omens were regular members of military staffs (cf. Num 10:8-9; Num 31:6; 1Sa 7:9 ff.). The function of the Israelite priest was not analogous to that of a modern army chaplain. He rather represented the sanctuary in the name of which the Israelite host advanced; he consecrated the battle to the glory of the Lord of hosts and of his covenant kingdom." [Note: Kline, "Deuteronomy," p. 183.]
All soldiers with new responsibilities that would have distracted them from concentrating on their work as warriors (Deu 20:5-7), as well as fearful soldiers (Deu 20:8), did not have to participate in a given battle.
"Beginnings were important in the Semitic mind and hence also in Israel. Since death in battle would deprive certain groups of men from commencing particular enterprises, exemptions were made." [Note: Thompson, p. 220.]
"It is a well-attested fact that fear or preoccupation in the midst of conflict can endanger the life not only of the person afflicted by it but also the person’s compatriots. . . .
"In each of these instances death in war resulted in the dispossession of blessing and its appropriation by someone else who otherwise had no just claim to it. Mixed with the demand for compulsory military service, then, was a leaven of compassion that made possible to all men the enjoyment of that which constitutes life in its fullest-home, sustenance, and family love." [Note: Merrill, Deuteronomy, pp. 283, 284.]
God’s purpose was to use only the best soldiers, those who were confident of God’s promise of victory. Israel did not need a large army since God would fight for her.
The cities far from the Promised Land, contrasted with Canaanite cities (Deu 20:10-15), were evidently not as degenerate as the Canaanite towns. Aramean women adopted the religions of their husbands, which is why Abraham insisted that his servant get a wife for Isaac from the Aramean culture rather than from among the Canaanites (Genesis 24). Thus the women and children of these more remote lands did not have to die. King Ahab later married a Canaanite woman, Jezebel, who did not adopt her husband’s faith but imported Baalism into Israel.
The Israelite commanders were to offer terms of peace to each city they attacked outside the Promised Land (Deu 20:15-16). Israel was not to shed blood unnecessarily. If the city accepted the terms, the population would serve the Israelites (cf. Jos 9:3-27). If it refused, the Israelites would kill all the males but spare the females, animals, and spoil. The Israelites were to destroy completely the people within the Promised Land (Deu 20:16-18). [Note: See also Peter C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament, pp. 46-47; and Kaiser, pp. 172-80.]
"The central purpose of these instructions is to emphasize that Israel’s warfare was not intended for foreign aggression or personal wealth (cf Gen 14:21-24)." [Note: Sailhamer, p. 458.]
The law guarding fruit trees seems intended for application in all sieges whether against the Canaanites or others (Deu 20:19-20). Fruit trees were part of God’s provision of food for His people. Other ancient nations wreaked total havoc in the territories they conquered. [Note: Craigie, The Book . . ., p. 276.] However, Israel was not to destroy the important natural resource of fruit trees, but they could use other trees to make implements of warfare (Deu 20:20).
God’s people should conduct their spiritual warfare confident in God’s presence, power, and ultimate victory (cf. 2Co 10:3-4; Eph 6:10-17; Col 2:15).
THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF ISRAELITE LIFE
IT has often and justly been said that the life of Israel is so entirely founded on the grace and favor of God that no distinction is made between the secular and the religious laws. Whatever their origin may have been, whether they had been part of the tribal constitution before Moses day or not, they were all regarded as Divinely given. They had been accepted as fit building stones for the great edifice of that national life in which God was to reveal Himself to all mankind, and behind them all was the same Divine authority. That being so, it is not wonderful, in times like these, when the air is full of plans and theories for the reconstruction of society in the interest of the toiling masses of men, that believers in the Scriptures should turn with hope to the legislation of the Old Testament. In the present state of things the material conditions of life are far more deadening and demoralizing for the multitude in civilized countries than they are in many uncivilized lands. That this should be so is intolerable to all who think and feel; and men turn with hope to a scene where God is teaching and training men, not merely in regard to their individual life, as in the New Testament, but also in regard to national life. It is seen, too, that the tone and feeling of these laws are sympathetic for the poor as no other code has ever been; and many maintain that, if we would only return to the provisions of these laws, the social crisis which is as yet only in its beginning, and which threatens to darken and overshadow all lands, would be at once and wholly averted. Men consequently are diligently inquiring what the land tenure of ancient Israel was, what its trade laws were, how the poor were dealt with, and how and to what extent pauperism was averted or provided for. Many say, If God has spoken in and by this people, so that their first steps in religion and morals have been the starting-point for the highest life of humanity, may we not expect that their first steps in political and social life will have the same abiding value, if rightly understood? Now the main thing in regard to which the economical arrangements of a nation are important is land. In modern times there may be some exceptionally situated communities, such as the British people, among whom commerce and manufactures are more important than agriculture; but in ancient times no such case could arise. In every community the land and the land tenure were the fundamentally important things.
Now the fundamental thing concerning it was that Yahweh, being the King of Israel, who had formed and was guiding this people as His instrument for saving the world, and who had bestowed their country upon them, was regarded as the sole owner of the soil. It is not necessary to quote texts to prove this, since it is the fundamental assumption throughout the Old Testament Scriptures that the Israelite title to their land was the gift of Yahweh. He had promised it to the fathers. He had driven out the Canaanite nations before Israel. He had by His mighty hand and His stretched-out arm established His chosen people in the place which He had chosen, and He had granted them the use and enjoyment of it so long as they proved faithful to Him. Consequently, in a quite real and palpable sense, there was no owner of land in Israel save Yahweh. And this thought was not without practical consequences of great moment. It was not a mere religious sentiment, it was a hard and palpable fact, that Yahweh ruled. Absolute proprietorship could never be built up on that basis, and never, as a matter of fact, was acknowledged in Israel. All were tenants, who held their places only so long as they obeyed the statutes of Yahweh. The sale in perpetuity of that which had been portioned out to tribes and families was consequently entirely prohibited. As against other nations, indeed, Israel was to possess this land, so that no heathen could be permitted to buy and possess even a scrap of it; but as against Yahweh and the purposes for which He had chosen Israel, all were equally strangers and sojourners, practically tenants at will, who could neither give nor take their holdings as if they were absolutely theirs. Yet, relatively, the land was given to the community as a whole, and according to Jos 13:7 sqq. (a passage generally assigned to the Deuteronomic editor) it was parceled out by lot to the various tribes just before Joshuas death, according to their respective numbers. Then within the tribal domain the families in the wider sense had their portion, and within these family domains again the individual households. In this way the Israelite tenure of land occupies a middle point between the theories of Socialism and the high doctrine of private property in land which declares that the individual owner can do what he will with his own. The nation as a whole claimed rights over all the land, but it did not attempt to manage the public estate for the common good. It delegated its powers to the tribes. But not even they undertook the burdens of proprietorship. Under them the families undertook a general superintendence; but the true proprietary rights, the cultivation of the soil, and the drawing of profit from it, subject only to deductions made by the larger bodies, the families, the tribes, and the nation, were exercised only by individuals. The nation took care that none of its territory should be sold to foreigners, lest the national inheritance should be diminished, and the tribes did the same for the tribal heritage, as we see from the narrative concerning the daughters of Zelophehad. It was only within limits, therefore, and the individual proprietor was free; and though the rights of property were respected, the corresponding duties of property were set forth with irresistible clearness. The community, in fact, never abandoned its claims upon the common heritage, any more than Israels Divine King did, and consequently the field within which proprietary rights were exercised was more restricted here than in any modern state.
Further, besides the prohibition of absolute sale which flowed from the recognition of Yahwehs ownership, and the limitations which tribal and family claims involved, there were distinct provisions in which the national ownership under Yahweh was plainly asserted. For example, it is enacted Deu 23:24 -“When thou comest into thy neighbors vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. When thou comest into thy neighbors standing corn, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbors standing corn.” Allied to these were the provisions (Lev 19:9 ff; Lev 23:10) concerning gleaning, and not reaping the corners of the field. It will be observed that, though these latter may be discounted as intended for the relief of the poor alone, the former provision was for all, and that consequently it may be regarded as an undoubted assertion of the common ownership, or common usufruct, which, though latent, was always held to be a fact. In other ways also the same hint is given. The provisions for letting the land lie fallow in the seventh year and in the jubilee year, and for securing the use of what grew in the field for all who chose to take it, were interferences with the free-will of the individual owners or occupiers, which find their justification only in the fact that the general ownership was never suffered entirely to fall into the background.
To sum up then: this system aimed at securing the advantages both of the socialist view and of the individualistic view while avoiding the evils of both. Private enterprise was encouraged, by the individual being guaranteed possession of his land against any other individual; while public spirit and a regard for general interests were promoted by the restrictions which limited the private ownership. Further, and more important still, the whole relation of the nation and of the individual to the land was raised out of the merely sordid region of material gain into the spiritual and moral region, by the principle that Yahweh their God alone had full proprietary rights over the soil. All were “sojourners” with Him. He had promised this land to their fathers as the place wherein He should specially reveal Himself to them. Here, communion with Him was to be established, and to each household there had been assigned by Yahweh a special portion of it, which it would be equally a sin and an unspeakable loss to part with. Compulsion alone could justify such a surrender; and the completed legislation, whatever its date, and even if it remained always an unrealized ideal, shows how determined the effort was to secure the perpetuity of the tenure in the original hands. The ideal of Israelite life was consequently that the land should remain in the hands of the hereditary owners, and that the main support of all the people should be agricultural labor.
The hypothesis that this was the case is strengthened to a certainty by the manner in which commerce, one of the other main sources of wealth, is dealt with in the Israelite law. There is but little sympathy expressed with it, and some of the regulations issued are such as to render trade on any very large scale within Palestine itself impossible. From the use of the word “Canaanite” in the Old Testament {el. Job 41:6 Pro 31:24 Zep 1:2 Eze 17:4, and Isa 23:8} it is clear that, even in the later periods of Israelite history, the merchants were so prevailingly Canaanites that the two words are synonymous. Nay, more; there can be no doubt that the commercial career was looked down upon. Even as early as the prophet Hosea the Canaanite name is connected with false weights and vulgar commercial cheating, {Hos 12:7} and it is looked upon as a last degradation that Ephraim should take delight in similar pursuits. In all that we read of merchants in the Old Testament we seem to hear the expression of a feeling that commerce, with its necessary wanderings, its temptations to dishonesty, its constant contact with heathen peoples, was an occupation that was unworthy of a son of Israel. Even Solomons success as a royal merchant would not seem to have overcome this feeling, nor did the later commercial successes of kings like Jehoshaphat. In fact the ordinary Israelite had the home-staying farmers contempt and suspicion of these far-wandering commercial people, so much more nimble-witted than himself, who were therefore to be regarded with half-admiring wariness.
But the very sinews of extensive commerce were cut by the law against the taking of interest from a brother Israelite. Without credit, or the lending of money, or what is called sleeping partnership (and all these are bound up with receiving interest), it is impossible to have extensive trade. Without them every merchant would have to limit his operations to cash transactions and to his own immediate capital, and the great combinations which especially bring wealth would be impossible. Now we do not need at present to discuss the wisdom of prohibiting the taking of interest, nor the still more debated question whether that ancient prohibition would be wise or advantageous now. It is enough for our purpose that usury in its literal sense was actually forbidden among Israelites, and that they were thus shut out from the developed commercial life of the surrounding nations. As a result trade remained in a merely embryonic condition.
But in still other ways the Sinaitic legislation interfered with its development. The inculcation of ceremonial purity, especially in food, and the effort to make Israel a peculiar people unto Yahweh, which distinguishes even the earlier forms of the law, made intercourse with foreigners and living abroad always difficult and under some circumstances impossible. Consequently all the legislation that can possibly be considered commercial was of a very rudimentary character. From every point of view it is clear that ancient Israel was not a commercial people, and that the Divine law was intended to restrain them from commercial pursuits. They could not have been the holy and peculiar people they were meant to be, had they become a nation of traffickers.
With regard to manufacturing industries the case was not essentially different. Such pursuits were, it is true, more honored than commerce was, for skill in all arts, whether agricultural or industrial, was regarded as a special gift of the Almighty. But so far as the records go, there is no evidence that a manufacturing industry existed, beyond what the very limited needs of the nation itself demanded. From the fact that, according Pro 31:24, which was probably written late in the history of Israel, the manufacturing of linen garments for sale and of girdles for the Canaanites was the business of the thrifty and virtuous housewife, we may gather that systematic wholesale manufacture of such things was unknown. Probably the case was not otherwise in regard to all branches of industry. There are no traces of trade castes, nor of manufacturing towns; so that the manufacturing industries, so far as they existed, had no other place than that of handmaids to agriculture, by which the nation really lived.
According to the Old Testament, then, the ideal state of things for a people like Israel was that every household should be settled upon the land, that permanent eviction from or even alienation of the holdings should be impossible, and that the whole population should have a common interest in agriculture, that most honorable and fundamental of all human pursuits.
There were, of course, some men in Israel more prominent than others, and some richer, but there was to be no impassable barrier between classes such as we find in Eastern countries where caste prevails, or in Western countries where the aristocratic principle has drawn a deep dividing line between those of good blood and all others. So far as is known, there were no class barriers to intermarriage. From the highest to the lowest, all were servants of Yahweh, and were consequently equal. The conditions of the land tenure were such that it was impossible, if they were respected, that large estates should accumulate in the hands of individuals, and a landless proletariate could not arise. The very rich and the very poor were alike legislated out of existence, and a sufficient provision for all was that which was aimed at. By the cycle of Sabbatic periods (the weekly Sabbath, the Sabbatic year, and the year of jubilee) ample rest for the land and its inhabitants was secured; and in the limits set upon the period for which a Hebrew slave might be retained, in the release, whatever that was, which the seventh year brought to the debtor, and in the restoration of land to the impoverished owner in the year of jubilee, such a series of breakwaters were erected against the inrushing flood of pauperism, that, had they been maintained, the world would have seen for the first time a fairly civilized community in which even moderate ill-desert in a man could not bring irretrievable ruin upon his posterity. The prodigal was hindered from selling his heritage; he could only sell the use of it for a number of years. He could not ruin himself by borrowing at extravagant rates of interest, for no one was tempted to lend him, and usury was forbidden. He might indeed run into debt and be sold into slavery along with his family, but that could only be for a few years, and then they all resumed their former position. In this very land where the fact, Divinely impressed upon human life, that the sins of the fathers were visited on the children was most unflinchingly taught, the most elaborate precautions were taken to mitigate the severity of this necessary law. From the first the ideal was that there should be no son or daughter of Israel oppressed or impoverished permanently; and whatever the stages of advance in Israelite law may have been, and whatever the date of particular ordinances may be, there is an admirable consistency of aim throughout. Even should it be proved that the Sabbatic ordinances remained mere generous aspirations, which never entered into the practical life of the people at all, that fact would only emphasize the earnestness and persistency with which the inspired legislators pursued their generous aim. No change in circumstances turned them aside. The glitter of the wealth acquired by Solomon and other kings by commerce never seduced them. No ideal but that early one of every man sitting under his own vine and his own fig-tree, with none to make him afraid, which is witnessed to before the Exile, {Mic 4:4} in the Exile, {1Ki 4:25} and after the Exile, {Zec 3:10} was ever cherished by them; and the whole economic legislation is entirely consistent with what we know of the earliest time. And the deepest roots of it all were religious. The Biblical writers have no doubt at all that the ideal economic state can be reached only by a people attuned by religion to self-sacrifice, to pity, and to justice. In this they differ radically from the socialists or semi-socialists of today. These imagine that man needs only a favorable environment to become good; whereas the Scriptural writers know that to use well the best environment is a task which, more than anything, puts strain upon the moral and spiritual nature. For to deal in a supremely wise fashion with great opportunities is the part only of a nature perfectly moralized. Consequently all the social laws of Israel are made to have their root in the relation of the people to their God.
There was only one power that could secure that this admirable machinery would move, and keep it moving. That was the love and fear of God. The conduct prescribed was the conduct befitting the true Israelite, the man who was faithful in all his ways. The laws marked out the paths wherein he should walk if he willed to do Gods will. They were, therefore, ideal in all their highest prescriptions, and could never; become real except where the true religion had had its perfect work. In that respect the Sermon on the Mount resembles the Israelite law. It presupposes a completely Christian society, just as the old law presupposes a completely Yahwistic society, i.e., a society made up of men who made devotion to their God the chief motive of their lives. In such a community there would have been no difficulty in entirely realizing the state of things aimed at here, just as in a community penetrated by the love of Christ the Sermon on the Mount would be not only practicable but natural. But without that supreme motive much that the enactments of both the Old Testament and the new demand must remain mere aspiration. Just in proportion as Israel was true to Yahweh was the law realized, and the demands of the law always acted as a spur to the better part of the people to enter into fuller sympathy and communion with Him in order that they might respond to them. The law and the religion of the people acted and reacted upon one another, but the greater of these two elements was religion.
It was not wonderful, therefore, that to a large extent this legislation failed, as men measure failure. The religious state of the nation never was what it should have been; and the law, though it was held to be Divine, was never wholly observed. In the Northern Kingdom, by the time of the Syrian wars, the old constitution of Israel had broken up. The hardy yeomanry had been ruined and dispersed. Their lands had been seized or bought by the rich, and every law that had been made to ensure restoration was habitually disregarded. As Robertson Smith states it: “The unhappy Syrian wars sapped the strength of the country, and gradually destroyed the old peasant proprietors who were the best hope of the nation. The gap between the many poor and the few rich became wider and wider. The landless classes were ground down by usury and oppression, for in that state of society the landless man had no career in trade, and was at the mercy of the landholding capitalist.” And in Judah the state of things, though not so bad, was similar. In the days of Zedekiah we know that Hebrew slaves were held for life, instead of being released in the seventh year. {Cf. Jer 34:8 ff.} The properties of those compelled to sell were never returned to the owners, and all the laws that were meant to secure the welfare and prosperity of the masses of Israel were contemptuously disregarded. In short, the worst features of a purely competitive civilization, with materialism eating into its soul, became glaringly manifest. All the canonical prophets without exception denounce the vices and tyrannies of the rich. {Cf. Amo 2:6 ff.} As far as can be learned, moreover, the year of release and the Sabbatic year were not regularly or generally observed, while the jubilee year would seem never to have been kept after the Exile. The laws regarding taking interest were also evaded. {Neh 5:1 seq.}
Nevertheless it would be a great error to suppose that these Divinely given social laws should be branded as a failure. They were not lived up to, and it is not improbable that the corruption of the peoples life was in a degree intensified by the reaction from so high an ideal. But the axiom which is current now in all the newspapers, that laws too far above the general level of the national conscience cannot be enforced, and becoming a dead letter tend to produce lawlessness, does not apply to such codes as those of Israel. These, as has more than once been pointed out, were not of the same character as our legal codes are. Among us, laws are meant to be observed with minute and careful diligence, and any breach of them is punished by the courts, which, on the whole, can be easily set in motion. Ancient religious codes are never of that kind. They do contain laws of that character, but the bulk of the provisions are not laws which the executive is to enforce, but ideals of conduct which the true worshipper of God ought to strive to attain to. It is, therefore, of their very essence that they should be far above the average national conscience. Nations whose ideals soar no higher than the possible attainment of the average man as he is, have virtually no ideals at all, and are cut off from all enduring upward impulses. Those, on the contrary, who have a vision of the perfect life, are certain to be both humbler, and at the same time more sure to persist in the painful path of moral discipline. As “a mans reach should exceed his grasp,” so also should a nations; and though it is almost always forgotten, it is precisely Israels glory that she set up for herself and exhibited to the world an ideal of brotherhood, of love to God and man, to which she could not attain. Great as the practical failure in Israel was, therefore, no fault can be found in the legislation. It molded the characters of men who were sensitive to the influences coming from God, so that they became fit instruments of inspiration; and it made their lives examples of the highest virtue that the ancient world knew. Further, it gave shape to the hopes and aspirations of the people, especially where it was not realized. The year of jubilee, for example, is the groundwork of that great and affecting promise contained in Isa 61:1-11 : “The Spirit of the Lord Yahweh is upon me, because Yahweh hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; He hath sent me to bind tip the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty (deror) to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of Yahweh and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.” That which was unattainable here, amid the greeds and lusts of an unspiritual generation, gave color to the Messianic future; and men were taught to look and wait for a kingdom of God in which a peace and truth that could not as yet be reached would be the certain possession of all.
When we turn to modern times and modern circumstances, it is not easy to see how this ancient law can be applicable to them. In the first place, much of it was made binding upon Israel only because of its peculiar character as the people to whom the true religion was revealed. As custodians of that, they were justified in keeping up walls of partition between themselves and the world, which if universally accepted would only be hurtful to the highest interests of mankind. On the contrary, the development of the true religion having been completed by the coming of Christ, it is the duty of those nations which enjoy the light to spread abroad the “good news” of God which they have received, and to exhibit its power among all the nations of the earth. The highest and most Divine call which can now come to any people must, therefore, be radically different in some chief aspects from that of Israel. In the second place, the civilization and culture of the great nations of today are far more complicated than any ancient civilization ever was, and the general level is fixed by an action and reaction extending over the whole civilized world. No successes can be achieved, no blunders can be committed, in any part of the world which do not affect almost immediately the farthest ends of the earth. Moreover the intimate and universal correlation of interest makes interference with any piece of the complicated whole an exceedingly perilous matter. Any proposal that this law, as being Divinely given, ought in its economic aspect to be made universally binding, should therefore be met by a demand for a careful inquiry into possible differences between ancient life and modern, which might make guidance Divinely given to the one inapplicable to the other. It is not necessarily true that because Israel by Divine command established every household upon the soil, forbade interest, and did nothing to encourage trade and manufactures, we should do these things. Take, for instance, the case of interest. In our day, and in civilizations of a high type, lending money to a person not in distress at all, but who sees an opportunity of making enough by the use of borrowed money to pay the interest and make a profit, is often a most praiseworthy and charitable act.
But if the Israelite legislation in regard to interest cannot justly be taken as a law for all time, still less can any great modern state neglect or discourage commerce and manufactures. The merely embryonic character of commercial legislation, and the contempt for the merchant which did in ancient days exist, would be exceedingly out of place now. There is no career more honorable than that of the merchant of our day when he carries on his business in a high-minded fashion, nor is there any member of the community whose calling is more beneficent than his. So long as he looks for gain to himself in ways which, taken on the great scale, bring benefit both to producer and consumer, his activity is purely beneficial. There is absolutely no reason why commercial life should not be as honest, as sound, as much in accord with the mind of God, in itself, as any other manner of life. For in many ways it has been a civilizing agent of the highest power. Of course, if the charges brought against merchants by Ruskin, for example, who seizes upon and believes every story which involves charges of fraud against modern commerce, were true; if it were impossible, as he says it is, for an honest man to prosper in trade, then we might have some ground for condemning this branch of human activity. But happily only a confirmed and incorrigible pessimist can believe that. In our time some of the noblest men of whom we have any knowledge have been merchants, and among no class has so much princely generosity been exhibited. If mercantile help had been withdrawn from the poor, if the time, the money, the organizing skill which merchants have freely expended upon charities were suddenly to fail them, the case against our modern civilization would be indefinitely stronger than it is. Moreover the immense expansion of credit which is at once the glory and the danger of modern commerce, is itself a proof that such wholesale condemnation as we have spoken of is unwarrantable. The bulk of commerce must, after all, be fairly sound, otherwise it could not continue and spread as it does. And, as against the evils which affect it in common with all human activities, we must put the fact that it brings the produce of all lands to the door even of the poor, and by the constant contact between nations which it causes it is influencing the thought as well as the lives of men. Human brotherhood is being furthered by it, slowly, it is true, but surely, and the barriers which separate the nations are being sapped by its influence. These are indispensable services for the future progress of mankind, and make commerce now as much the necessary handmaid of the highest life as it would have been a hindrance to it in the case of the chosen people, before they had assimilated the truths of which they were to be the bearers to the world. That commerce, and trade in general, need to be purified goes without saying. That it may, of late years, have deteriorated, as the general decay of faith and the pursuit of luxury have weakened the sanctions of morality, is not improbable. But in itself it is not only a legitimate human activity; it is also an admirable instrument for bringing home to the consciences of men the truth that they are all their brothers keepers. It presses home as nothing else could do the great truth proclaimed by St. Paul in regard to the Church, as true also of the world, that if one member suffers all the body suffers with it. Every day through this channel men are receiving lessons, which they cannot choose but hear, to the effect that no permanent benefit can come from the loss and suffering of men in any part of the world; that peace and righteousness and good faith are things which have supreme value even in the mercantile sense; and that, conversely, the merchants pursuit of wealth, if carried on in accord with the fundamental truths of morality, inevitably becomes a potent factor in that advance to a world-wide knowledge of the Lord, which gleamed before the eyes of prophets and seers as the
“Far-off Divine event,
To which the whole creation moves.”
But if we cannot make the Old Testament our law in regard to commerce, we must ask whether the legislation in regard to land has for us any binding force? Viewing it with this question in our minds, I think we must be struck by one fact, this namely, that the universal possession of land which was provided for in Israel and so anxiously maintained is the only provision known against the growth of a wage-earning class largely, if not entirely, at the mercy of the employer. In Greece and Rome the population at first were all settled on their own lands, and it was only when by money-lending the small properties were bought up and turned into huge farms, worked by farm-bailiffs and slaves, that misery began to invade all parts of the social fabric. In mediaeval and feudal England, on the other hand, and indeed wherever the feudal system existed, the cultivators, even when they were serfs, had an inalienable right to the land. They could not be evicted if they rendered certain not very burdensome services to the lord. “As long as these dues were satisfied, it is plain the tenant was secure from dispossession,” says Professor Thorold Rogers (“Six Centuries,” etc., p. 44). But in time that system was broken down; and ever since, until within the last half-century, the course of things with the laboring classes in England has been one long descent. So long as the people were attached to the soil, and so long as all alike practiced agriculture, as in Palestine under the Mosaic law, Englishmen lived in rough plenty, and were for the most part content. The fifteenth century was the golden age of mediaeval agriculture; but a change for the worse came in with the seventeenth, and it continued.
Two measures-the introduction of competitive rents with its corollary, eviction, and the enclosure of the common lands-worked gradually on until they have entirely divorced the workman from the soil, and Professor Cairnes has told us clearly what that means. “In a contest between vast bodies of people so circumstanced and the owners of the soil the negotiation could have but one issue, that of transferring to the owners of the soil the whole produce, minus what was sufficient to maintain in the lowest state of existence the race of cultivators. This is what has happened wherever the owners of the soil, discarding all considerations but those dictated by self-interest, have really availed themselves of the full strength of their position. It is what has happened under rapacious governments in Asia; it is what has happened under rapacious landlords in Ireland; it is what now happens under the bourgeois proprietors of Flanders; it is, in short, the inevitable result which cannot but happen in the great majority of all societies now existing on earth where land is given up to be dealt with on commercial principles unqualified by public opinion, custom, or law.” The result is that the laborers have only their daily wages to depend upon. “They have no means of productive home industry; they have not even a home from which they cannot be ejected at any moment on failure to pay the weekly rent; they have no land, garden, or domestic animals, the produce of which might support them till fresh work could be obtained.”
We need not wonder that this question of the occupancy of land as the only visible remedy for the hideous social state of the most highly civilized nations of the world is gradually becoming the question of our time. A great reaction against the purely commercial theory of land tenure has taken place. The land legislation in Ireland has been based on the doctrines that the nation cannot permit absolute property in land, and that there is no hope for any permanent improvement in the condition of the poor until laborers have land of their own. Now these are precisely the principles of the Scriptural land legislation. Under it landlords with absolute rights over land were impossible, and the rise of a proletariate at the mercy of the capitalist was also impossible. It is not so strange, therefore, as it might at first sight appear, that the demands of advanced land reformers, as they are voiced in Mr. Wallaces book (p. 192) are mutatis mutandis, identical with the provisions of the Israelite law. He demands
(1) that landlordism shall be superseded by occupying ownership;
(2) that the tenure of the holders of land must be made secure and permanent;
(3) that arrangements must be made by which every British subject may secure a portion of land for personal occupation at its fair agricultural value; and
(4) that in order that these conditions be rendered permanent subletting must be absolutely prohibited, and mortgages strictly limited.
This essential oneness of view in the modern land reformer and in the ancient law is all the more remarkable that, so far as can be gathered from his book, Mr. Wallace has never regarded the Old Testament from this point of view. He never quotes it, and is apparently quite unconscious that the plan which experience of present evils, and acute and disinterested reflection on them, has suggested to him, was set forth thousands of years ago as the only righteous one.
But this is not by any means the end of the matter. Even if the social reformers of our day could restore society to the conditions set forth so emphatically and so long ago in Israel, history proves that nothing more than a temporary improvement might be accomplished. In Israel, as we have seen, with the decay of religion came the decay of this righteous social state. Human selfishness then shook off the curb of religion, and gave itself without restraint to the oppression of the poor. Have we any reason to believe that now human selfishness would do less? There appears little ground to think so; and though we may believe that without the acceptance of Deuteronomic principles in modern life we cannot restrain the growth of poverty, even with Deuteronomic principles embodied in our Jaws nothing will be done if the people turn their backs upon religion, make selfish enjoyment their highest good, and the comforts and pleasures of a merely material life their only heart-warming aspiration. In that fact we have an indication of the true functions of the Church and of religious teachers in the social and political life of our time and of times to come. As individuals, religious men should certainly be found always among the advocates of all laws and plans which tend to justice and mercy, and to the raising of the toilers everywhere to a higher standard of living. Further, at no time should the Church be found committed to a purely conservative policy, of retaining things as they are. The undeniable facts as to the condition of the poor are so utterly unjustifiable, that to leave things as they are is to fall into the treason of despair in regard to the future of our race, and into scarcely veiled disbelief of the essential truth of Christianity. No Church whose heart has not been corrupted by worldliness can think for a moment that the present state of things in all highly civilized communities is even tolerable. It cannot last, and it ought not to last; the Church that timidly supports it, lest worst things should come, is named and known thereby for recreant to Christ and to the highest hopes of His Gospel. But, on the other hand, it is only in very exceptional circumstances, and for short intervals, that the Churches and their ministers can ever be called upon to make the external, material condition of the people their first and chief care. They have a place of their own to fill, a function of their own to discharge; and upon their efficiency and diligence in these the stability and permanence of all that politicians and publicists can accomplish ultimately depends. They must keep alive and nourish the religious life, as that life has been shaped and constituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. Their province is to witness, in season and out of season, for a life of purity and love, for the Divine and ideal sides of things, for the necessity, for mans highest well-being, of a life hid with Christ in God. If they do not keep up this testimony, no others will; and if it be dropped out of sight, then the social agony and struggle, the patriotic and humanitarian strivings of all the reformers, will lack their final sanction. Men will inevitably come to think that mans life does consist in the abundance of the things that he possesses, the leisure, the amusement, the culture which by combining material resources he may attain to. But it is to deny and denounce that view that the Church exists in the world. It was to lift men out of it, to set them above it forever, that Christ died. It is finally only by abandoning it that the highest social condition can be reached and made permanent for the multitudes of men. In no way therefore can the Church so dangerously betray the cause of the poor and the oppressed as by plunging into the heat of the social and political struggle. She has to witness to higher things than that involves, and her silence in the ideal region which would certainly follow her devotion to material interests, however unselfish, would be but ill compensated for by any imaginable success she might attain.
JUSTICE IN ISRAEL
AMONG the nations of the modern world one of the most vital distinctions is the degree in which just judgment is estimated and provided for. Indeed, according to modern ideas, life is tolerable only where all men are equal before the law; where all are judged by statutes which are known, or at least may be known, by all; where corruption or animus in a judge is as rare as it is held to be dishonorable. But we cannot forget that in the majority of even the more advanced countries of the world these three conditions are not yet found, and that where they do exist they are only recent acquirements. In the latest born, and in many respects the most advanced of the great commonwealths, in the United States of America, the corruption of a number of the inferior courts is undeniable, and is tolerated with a most disappointing patience by the people. In England Judge Jeffries is no very remote memory, and Lord Bacons acceptance of presents from litigants in his court has only been made more certain by recent investigations. An absolutely honest intention to give even-handed justice to all is, therefore, even in England, only a recent attainment, and in no country is the honest intention always successful in realizing itself. But if this be so among the civilized nations of the West, we may say that in Oriental countries there has been little of systematic and continuous effort to give even-handed justice at all. Yet nowhere has the sinfulness and the destructiveness of corruption in judgment been more impassionedly and more frequently set forth by the highest authorities in religion and morals, than in the East. Tupper, our most recent authority, in writing of “Our Indian Protectorate,” p. 289, describes the Indian attitude to law thus: “There was not that reverence for law which in Europe is in all probability very largely due to the influence of the Roman law, and to the teaching of the Roman Catholic and other Christian Churches. So far as there was a germ out of which the respect for law ought to have grown, it was to be found in dislike to actions plainly opposed to custom and tradition. There was a deeply rooted and widespread conviction that there could be no rule to which exceptions could not be made, if agreeable to the discretion of the chief or any of his delegates. The chief was set above the law; it did not limit his authority by any constitution. There was no legislation for the improvement of law. The administration of justice was extremely imperfect.” The same writer describes the result of such a state of mind in his picture of Mahratta rule (p. 247). “There was,” he says, “no prescribed form of trial. Men were seized on slight suspicions. Presumptions of guilt were freely made. Torture was employed to compel confession. Prisoners for theft were often whipped at intervals to make them discover where the stolen property was hidden. Ordinarily no law was referred to except in cases affecting religion.” That there were both Hindu codes and Mohammedan codes in existence which claimed and were believed to have Divine authority made no difference in India. Nor does it make any in Persia today.
Now, in coming to the consideration of the views of justice embodied in Old Testament law, and the quality of the judiciary in ancient Israel, we must take not Western but Eastern ideas as our standard. Judging from that point of view, it should create no prejudice in our minds if we find on the first glance that all men were not equal before the ancient law of Israel; that for a considerable period, if not during the whole political existence of Israel, there was no very extensive written law; and that arbitrary and corrupt judgment was only too common at all times. For none of these defects would indicate in ancient Israel the same evils as similar defects in nations of our time would indicate. They are rather defects in the process of being overcome, than defects arising from feeble or vitiated life. If there was a constant movement towards the highest state of things, that is all we can demand or expect to find.
Now there does seem to have been that. As has been well pointed out by Dr. Oort, in the tribes which became Israel justice must have been administered by the heads of the various bodies which went to make these up. The household was ruled even in matters of life and death solely, by the father; the family, in the wider sense, was judged by its own heads; the tribes by the elders of the tribes, and there probably was no appeal from one tribunal to another. Each tribunal was final in its own domain. It may be, also, that the judicial function was in all these bodies exercised in the lax and timid fashion common among Bedouin tribes today. In all cases, too, it is probable that in the pre-Mosaic time the standard of judgment was customary law. Only with this very great modification can Oorts epigrammatic description of the situation-“There was no law, but there were givers of legal decisions”-be accepted. So far as can be ascertained, the customs according to which men were expected to live were perfectly well known, and within certain narrow limits of variation were extraordinarily table. How stable customary law may be made, even in the midst of a society governed in the main according to written law in its strictest sense, may be seen in the execration which any breach of the Ulster custom of tenant right met with, before that custom was embodied in any statutes. And in antiquity the stringency of custom can hardly be exaggerated. Under it, when thoroughly established, there was, in all the cases covered by it, only this one way of acting lot: all, both men and women, who were fit for society at all. Any alternative course was probably inconceivable in the tribal stage of the Israelites existence.
But a change would doubtless be wrought whenever the appointment of a king took place. Then national law would appear, in embryo at least; and at first, until custom had grown up in this region also, it would largely be an expression of the will of the king, and of the royal officers instructed and trained by the king. But it would have free and unchallenged course only when it claimed authority in matters lying outside of the family and tribal jurisdictions. Wherever it attempted to interfere with tribal or family rights, danger to the kingship of the most acute kind would be sure to arise. In all probability, it was disregard of this axiomatic truth which made Solomons reign so burdensome to the people and tore the kingdom asunder under Rehoboam. Ahab too fell a victim to his disregard of it. Lastly, the introduction of elaborate written codes of law would, if it came as the crown of such a development, depose custom from its supremacy, though it would not abolish it; and would substitute for it as the main element in all judicial matters the written prescription, which is the necessary presupposition of a fully organized judiciary of the modern type, with a regulated and definite power of appeal.
But in the case of ancient Israel there is a distinguishing element which has to be fitted into this ordinary scheme of progression, and that is the Divine revelation to Moses. Taken up at the tribal stage by the Mosaic revelation, the Israelite tribes were touched and welded into coherence, if not quite as a nation, at least as the people of Yahweh, so that during all the distracting days of the Judges they kept up in essentials their social and religious unity. And with the religious union there must have come administrative uniformity to some considerable extent. The jurisdiction of the heads of households, of heads of families, and of the tribal elders would be as little interfered with as possible; but, as we have seen, all customs and rights had to be reviewed from the point of view of the new religion, and appeal to Moses as the prophet of it must have often been unavoidable. Just as his first followers were continually coming to Mohammed, to ask whether this or that ancient custom could be followed by professors of Islam, so there must have been constant appeals to Moses. So long as he lived, therefore, he, and after him Joshua and Moses fellow-tribesmen the sons of Levi, as being specially zealous for the religion of Yahweh, must have been constantly called in to assist the customary judges; and so the habit of appeal must have grown in Israel long before there was any king. Thus also a common standard of judgment would be established. That standard must necessarily have been the law of Yahweh, i.e., the new Yahwistic principles and all that might prima facie be deduced from them, together with so much of custom and tradition as had been accepted as compatible with these principles. We have stated the reasons for holding that the Decalogue was Mosaic, and the Book of the Covenant may be taken also to represent what the current law in Mosaic or sub-Mosaic time was held to be. As Oort well says (loc. cit.), when we know that the Hittites about the middle of the fourteenth century B.C. concluded a treaty with Rameses II of Egypt the terms of which were written upon a silver plate, “why may there not also have been written statements regarding the mutual rights and duties of the people of a town, engraved upon stone or metal, and set forth openly for inspection?” What he confines to mere town business and refers to the time of the Judges, we may without risk extend to a general fundamental law like the Decalogue, or even to the Book of the Covenant, and date it in the time of Moses. Writing was so common an accomplishment in Canaan before the Exodus, that such a supposition is not in the least improbable. These written laws formed the crown of the law of Yahweh, and by them all the rest was raised to a higher level and transformed.
As new men, new times, and new difficulties arose, the priest became the special organ of Divine direction. It may be that the priestly Torah was largely the result of the sacred lot; but the questions that were put, and the manner in which they were put, would be decided ultimately by the conception the priest had of the truth about God. The teaching of the Decalogue would therefore be the dominant and formative power in all that was spoken by the priest and for Yahweh. In the disorganized state into which Israel fell during the time of the Judges, when, as Deuteronomy takes for granted, and as 1Ki 3:2-3 asserts, the legitimate worship of Yahweh was carried on at many centers, the substantial sameness of the tradition as to the history of Israel, in all the varied forms in which we encounter it, is proof sufficient that at each of the great sanctuaries (which were certainly in the hands of Levitical priests) the treasure of ancient knowledge, both in law and history, was carefully and accurately preserved. New decisions would be given, but they came through men penetrated with the high thoughts of God, and of His peoples destiny, which Moses had so fruitfully set forth. This was the element in the life of the people which all the higher minds strove to perpetuate, and, being spiritual, it spiritualized and raised all accessory things. Consequently there was, long before the kingship, what was equivalent to a national feeling of the highest kind, and the conception of justice and its administration corresponded to that.
In the Book of the Covenant, which in this matter represents so early a period that there is no mention of “judges,” only of Pelilim, i.e., arbitrators, {Exo 21:22} so that the tribal and family heads can alone have exercised judicial functions, we find the most solemn warnings against any legal perversion of right to gain popularity, against yielding to the vulgar temptation to oppress the poor, or to the subtler and, for generous minds, more insidious temptation, to give an unjust judgment out of pity for the poor. Israel was, moreover, to keep far from bribery, “which blindeth them that have sight, and perverteth righteous causes.” In no way was the law to be used for criminal or oppressive purposes. From the very first, therefore, in Israel the higher principles of faith and life set themselves to combat doutrance the tendency to unjust judgment, which seems now, at least, quite ineradicable in the East, save among the Bedouin.
A still higher note is struck in the repetition of the law in the Book of Deuteronomy. In chapter 1, originally part of a historic introduction to the book proper, we read: “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; ye shall hear the small and the great alike; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment (i.e., the whole judicial process and function) is Gods; and the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring unto me (Moses), and I will hear it.” Yes, the judgment is Gods. Just as the whole of moral duty towards man was raised by the Decalogue to a new and more intimate relation with God, so here justice, the fundamental necessity of a sound and stable political state, is lifted out of the conflict of mean and selfish motives, in which it must eventually go down, and is set on high as a matter in which the righteous God is supremely concerned. In this, as in all things, Israel was called to a lonely eminence of ideal perfection by the character of the God whom they were bound to serve. Therefore it strikes us with no surprise that justice is insisted upon almost with passion in Deu 4:1 : “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue after, that thou mayest live and possess the land which Yahweh thy God giveth thee”; or that it is made one of the conditions of Israels permanence as a nation. In Deu 24:17 we read, “Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take the widows raiment to pledge”; in Deu 25:1-2, “If there be a plea between men, then they (i.e., the judges) shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.” For any other course of conduct would bring guilt upon the nation in the sight of Yahweh; and how jealously that was guarded against is seen in the sacrifice and ritual imposed for the purification of the people from the guilt of a murder the perpetrator of which was unknown. {Deu 21:1-9} Unatoned for and disregarded, such a crime brought disturbance into those relations between Israel and their God upon which their very existence as a nation depended; and the disregard of justice, where wrongs were committed by known persons and were left unpunished, was of course more deadly. So the author of Deuteronomy looked upon it; and the prophets, from the first of them to the last brand unjust judgment, the perverting the course of legal justice, as the most alarming sign of national decay. The righteous God, with whom there was no respect of persons, could not permanently favor a people whose judges and rulers disregarded righteousness; and when destruction actually came upon this people, it was proclaimed to be Gods doing, “because there was no truth nor justice nor knowledge of God in the land.” Nowhere in the world, therefore, has the demand for justice been made more central than here, and nowhere has injustice been more passionately fought against. Nor have the sanctions binding to a pursuit of justice been at any period more nobly or more vividly conceived. In this main point, therefore, Israels law stands irreproachable-marvelously so, considering its great antiquity. But we have still to inquire whether any really adequate provision was made for the general and inexpensive administration of justice. To take the latter first, law was in old Israel probably as cheap as it would be in the primitive East today, if bribery were to be stopped. To advise as to the sacred law, to plead for justice according to it, did not then, and does not now in similar circumstances, belong to any special professional class who live by it. The priest could be appealed to freely by all; and the heads of fathers houses, as well as the tribal heads, were, by the very fact that they were such, bound to give judgment among their people, and to appear for and take responsibility for them when they had a cause with persons beyond the limits of the particular families and tribes. Justice, consequently, was in ordinary circumstances perfectly free to all. And from a very early time earnest efforts were made to make it equally accessible. At first, when the people were in one army or train, before they came to Sinai, an overwhelming burden was laid upon Moses. As the prophet of the new dispensation all difficulties were brought to him. But at Jethros suggestion, as JE tells us in Exo 18:13 ff., and as Deuteronomy repeats in Deu 1:16, he chose men of each tribe, or took the heads of each tribe, and set them as captains of thousands and hundreds and fifties and tens. Not improbably this was primarily a military organization, but to these captains was committed also jurisdiction over those under them. In all ordinary cases they judged them and their families in the spirit of Yahwism, as well as commanded them; and in this way, as has already been pointed out, the customary law was revised in accordance with Yahwistic principles. Justice too was brought to every mans door. The only question that suggests itself is whether these captain-judges were the ordinary family and tribal heads, organized for this purpose by Moses. On the whole this would seem to have been so, and it may well be that Jethros suggestion had in view the danger of ignoring them, as well as the burden which Moses sole judgeship laid upon him. But with the advance to the conquest of Canaan a new situation emerged, and the probability is that more and more, as the tribes fell into entire or semi-isolation, the tribal organization in its natural shape would come to the front again. Deuteronomy, however, tells us little if anything of this. In the main passage regarding this matter, {Deu 17:8-13} where provision is made for an appeal to a central court, the legislation is entirely for a period much later than Moses. Like the law regarding sacrifice at one altar, the judicial provisions of Deuteronomy seem all to be bound up with the place which Yahweh shall choose, viz. the Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem.
We may consequently conclude that the judicial arrangements to which Deuteronomy alludes existed only after the Israelite kingship had been for some time established at Jerusalem. We have no distinct evidence for the existence of a central high court in Davids days; and from the story of Absaloms rebellion we should gather that the old, simple Oriental method still prevailed, according to which the king, like the heads of tribes, families, etc., judged every one who came to him, personally, at the gate of the royal city. But Samuel is said in 1Sa 7:16 to have annually gone on circuit to Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah. According to the school of Wellhausen, nearly the whole of this chapter is the work of a Deuteronomic writer about the year 600. In that case, of course, it would be difficult to prove that the arrangement attributed to Samuel was not a mere echo of what was done in Josiahs day; though, if the Deuteronomic prescriptions were carried out then, there would be no need for such a system. On the other hand, if Budde and Cornill be right in tracing the chapter back to JE, this habit of going on circuit must have been an ancient one, possibly dating from Samuels time. That this latter vicar is the correct one is in a degree confirmed by the statement in 1Sa 8:1-2 that Samuels sons were installed by him as judges in Israel, at Beersheba. This belongs to E, and it would seem to indicate the beginnings of such a system as Deuteronomy presupposes.
But it is only in the days of Jehoshaphat (873-849 B.C.) that an arrangement like that in Deuteronomy is mentioned. From 2Ch 19:5 ff. we learn that “he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city. Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the priests, and of the heads of the fathers houses, for the judgment of Yahweh and for controversies.” Further, it is stated that Amariah the chief priest was set over the judges in Jerusalem in all Yahwehs matters, i.e., in all religious questions, and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael the prince of the house of Judah in all the kings matters, i.e., in all secular affairs. Of course few advanced critics will admit that the Books of Chronicles are reliable in such matters. But that judgment is altogether too sweeping, and here we would seem to have a well-authenticated record of what Jehoshaphat actually did.
For it will be observed, that when we take up the various notices in regard to the administration of justice, we have a well-defined progress from Moses to Jehoshaphat. Moses was chief judge and committed ordinary cases to the tribal and family heads who were chosen as military leaders, each judging his own detachment. After passing the Jordan, the whole matter would seem to have fallen back into the hands of the tribal heads, with the occasional help of the heroes who delivered and judged Israel. At the end of this period Samuel, as head of the State, went on circuit, and appointed his sons judges in Beersheba, thus initiating a new system, which, had it been successful, might have superseded the tribal and family heads altogether. But it was a failure, and was not repeated. With the rise of the kingship the courts received further organization. If the Chronicler can be trusted, Levites to the number of six thousand were appointed to be judges and Shoterim. The number seems excessive: but the appointment of Levites to act as assessors with the tribal and other heads would be a natural-expedient for a king like David to have recourse to, if he desired to secure uniformity of judgment, and to bring the courts under his personal influence. The next step would naturally be that which is attributed to Jehoshaphat, and it is precisely that which Deuteronomy points to as being already at work in his time. We have, consequently, more than the late authority of the Chronicler for Jehoshaphats high court. The probabilities of the case point so strongly to the rise of some such judicial system about that period, that it would require some positive proof, not mere negative suspicion, to lead us to reject the narrative. In any case this must have been the system in Josiahs day, and afterwards. For when Jeremiah was arraigned for prophesying destruction to the Temple and to Jerusalem, the process against him was conducted on similar lines to those laid down in Deuteronomy. The princes judged, the priests (curiously enough along with the false prophets) made the charge, i.e., stated that the prophets conduct was worthy of death, and the princes acquitted. During the Exile it is probable that the “elders” of the people were permitted to judge them in all ordinary cases, but we have no certain proof that this was so. After the return from Babylon, however, the local courts were re-established, probably in the very form in which they appear in the New Testament. {Mat 5:22; Mat 10:17 Mar 13:9 Luk 12:14-58}
Throughout the whole history of Israel, therefore, courts of justice were easily accessible to every man, whether he were rich or poor. No doubt the free, open-air, Eastern manner of administering justice was favorable to that; but from the days of Moses onward we have fairly conclusive proof that the leaders of the people made it their continual care that wherever a wrong was suffered there should be some court to which an appeal for redress could be made.
The justice aimed at in Israel was, therefore, impartial and accessible. We have still to inquire whether it was merciful or cruel in its infliction of punishment. Dr. Oort says it was a hard law in this respect, but one is at a loss to see how that view can be sustained. There is no mention of torture in connection with legal proceedings, either in the history or in the legislation. Nor is there any instance mentioned in which an accused person was imprisoned until he confessed. Indeed imprisonment would not appear to have been a legal punishment in Israel, nor in any antique state. The idea of providing maintenance for those who had offended against the law was one which could never have occurred to any one in antiquity. Prisons are, of course, frequently mentioned in Scripture; but they were used, up to the time of Ezra, only for the safekeeping of persons charged with crime till they could be brought before the judges. Sometimes, as in the case of the prophets, men were imprisoned to prevent them from stirring up the people; but this procedure was nowhere sanctioned by law. Further, the crimes for which the punishment prescribed in the ancient law was death were few. Idolatry, adultery, unnatural lust, sorcery, and murder or manslaughter, together with striking or cursing parents and kidnapping-these were all. Considering that idolatry and sorcery were high treason in its worst form, so far as this people was concerned, and that impurity threatened the family in a much more direct and immediate fashion then than it does now, while the people were naturally inclined to it, one must wonder that the list of capital crimes is so short. Contrast this with Blackstones statement in regard to England (quoted “Ency. Brit.,” 4., p. 589): “Among the variety of actions which men are daily liable to commit, no less than one hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of Parliament to be felonies without benefit of clergy, or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death.” It is only in comparatively recent years that the punishment of death has been practically restricted to murder in England. Yet that is almost the case in the ancient Jewish law; for the exceptions are such as would reappear in England if it were more sparsely populated and manners were rougher. In Australia, for example, highway robbery under arms and violence to women are capital crimes, just because the country is sparsely inhabited and the households unprotected. Nor were the modes of death inflicted cruel. Only three-viz, impalement, and burning, and stoning-appear to be so. But it may be believed that in the cases contemplated by the law death in some less painful manner had preceded the two former, as is certainly the case in Jos 7:15; Jos 7:25, and in Deu 21:22. As for the latter, it must have been horrible to look upon, but in all probability the criminals agony was rarely a prolonged one. The other method of execution, by the sword namely, was humane enough. Dr. Oort tells us that mutilations were common; but his proof is only this, that in the treaty between the Hittite king and Rameses II we read, concerning inhabitants of Egypt who have fled to the land of the Hittites and have been returned, “His mother shall not be put to death; he shall not be punished in his eyes, nor on his mouth, nor on the soles of his feet.” The same provision is made for Hittite fugitives. From this evidence of the custom of surrounding peoples, and from the fact that the jus talionis is announced in the Scriptures by the familiar formula, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” Dr. Oort draws this conclusion. But he appears to forget that the jus talionis was common to almost all the peoples of the ancient world, and is referred to in the Pentateuch, not as a new principle, but as a custom coming down from immemorial time. Consequently, though there must once have been a time in which it was carried out in its literal form, that time probably was past when the laws referring to it were written. In Rome, and probably in other lands where this custom existed, it early gave place to the custom of giving and receiving money payments. Most probably this was the case in Israel, at least from the time of the Exodus. For the new religion introduced by Moses was merciful. But these references to the principle of retaliation tell us nothing as to the frequency or otherwise of mutilation as a punishment. No instance of mutilation being inflicted either as a retaliation or as a punishment occurs in the Old Testament, and the probability is that cases were never numerous. Apart from retaliation they are never mentioned; and we may, I think, set it down as one of the distinctive merits of the Israelite law that it never was betrayed into sanctioning the cutting off of hands or feet or ears or noses as general punishment for crime. But so far as the principle of the lex talionis was retained, its effect was wholesome. It was a continual reminder that all free Israelites were equals in the sight of Yahweh. And not only so, it enforced as well as asserted equality. Any poor man mutilated by a rich man could demand the infliction of the same wound upon his oppressor. He could reject his excuses, and refuse his money, and bring home to him the truth that they had equal rights and duties.
In this way this seemingly harsh law helped to lay the foundation for our modern conception of humanity, which regards all men as brethren. For the teaching of our Lord, which fulfilled all that the polity and religion of ancient Israel had foreshadowed of good, broke down the walls of partition between Jew and Gentile, and made all men brethren by revealing to them a common Father. It surely is strange and sad that those who specially make liberty, equality, and fraternity their watchwords, have received so false an impression of the religion of both the Old and New Testaments, that they pride themselves on rejecting both. When all is said, the leveling of barriers which the crushing weight of Roman power brought about, and the common methods and elements of thought which the Greek conquest had spread all over the civilized world, would never have made the brotherhood of man the universally accepted doctrine it is. The truths which made it credible came from the revelation given by God to His chosen people, and its final and conclusive impulse was given to it by the lips of Christ.
In face of that cardinal fact it is vain to point out as one of the defects of this law that all men were not equal before it. Women were not equal with men, nor were foreigners nor slaves equal with freeborn Israelites; but the seed of all that later times were to bring was already there. The principles which at the long end of the day have abolished slavery, raised women to the equal position they now occupy, and made peace with foreigners increasingly the desire of all nations, had their first hold upon men given them here. In all these directions the Mosaic law was epoch-making. In the fifth commandment, as well as in the legislation regarding the punishment of a rebellious son, the mother is put upon the same level as the father. However subordinate womans position in the larger public life might be, within the home she was to be respected. There, in her true domain, she was mans equal, and was acknowledged to have an equal claim to reverence from her children.
In precisely the same way the “stranger” was freed from disability and protected. In the earliest days, when the Israelite community was still being formed, whole groups of strangers were received into it and obtained full rights, as for example the Kenites and Kenizzites. But though this was a promise of what Israel was ultimately to be to the world, the necessities of the situation, the need to keep intact the treasure of higher religion which was committed to this people, compelled the adoption of a more separatist policy. Yet “in no other nation of antiquity were strangers received and treated with such liberality and humanity as in Israel.” They were freely afforded the protection of the law; they were, in short, received as “a kind of half-citizens, with definite rights and duties.”
Further, though the ger was not bound to all the religious practices and rites of the Israelite, yet he was permitted, and in some cases commanded, to take part in their religious, worship. If he consented to circumcise all his house he might even share in the Passover feast. All oppression of such a one was also rigorously forbidden, and to a large extent the stranger shared in the benefits conferred by the provision for the poor of the land which the law made compulsory.
Nor was the case otherwise with slaves. Equality there was not, and could not be; but in the provisions for the emancipation of the Israelite slave and the introduction of penalties for undue harshness, it began to be recognized that the slave stood, in some degree at least, on the same level as his master-he too was a man.
Taking it as a whole, therefore, the ancient world will be searched in vain for any legislation equal to this in the “promise and the potency” of its fundamental ideas as to justice. Here, as nowhere else, we can see the radical principles which should dominate in the administration of justice laying hold upon mankind, and that there was a living will and power behind these principles is shown in the steady movement toward something higher which characterized Israelite law. In the pursuit of impartiality, accessibility, and humanity, the teachers of Israel were untiring, and the sanctions by which they surrounded and guarded all that tended to make the administration of justice effective in the high sense were unusually solemn and powerful. The result has been most remarkable. All the ages of civilized men since have been the heirs of Israel in this matter. Roman influence and the influence of the Christian Church have no doubt been powerful, and the manifold exigencies of life have drawn out and made explicit much which was only implicit in the ancient days. But the higher qualities of our modern administration of justice can be traced back step by step to Biblical principles, and the course of development laid bare. When that is done, it is seen that the almost ideal purity and impartiality of the best modern tribunals is the completion of what the Israelite law and methods began. In this one instance at least the great Mosaic principles have come to fruition; and from the security and peace, the contentment and the confidence, with which impartial justice has filled the minds of men, we can estimate how potent to cure the ills of our social and moral state the realization of the other great Mosaic ideals would be. It should be a source of encouragement to all who look for a time when “the kingdoms of, this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ” that something like the ideal of justice has so far been realized. It has no doubt been a weary time in coming, and it has as yet but a narrow and perhaps precarious footing in the world. But it is here, with its healing and beneficent activity; and in that fact we may well see a pledge that all the rest of the Divinely given ideals for the Kingdom of God will one day be realized also. Such a consummation, however remote it may seem to our human impatience, however devious and winding the paths by which alone it can draw near, will come most surely, and in our approach to the ideal in our judicial system we may well see the first fruits of a richer and more plentiful harvest.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary