Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 20:19
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:
19. besiege a long time ] From this and build bulwarks in Deu 20:19, we see that Israel were already familiar with siege-operations and did not depend on carrying a city by immediate storm, as the nomad Semites were obliged to do or retire.
in making war against it to take it ] Curiously redundant.
by wielding an axe against them ] The vb as in Deu 19:5.
for thou mayest ] Or, but. Even here a utilitarian reason is given.
for is the tree of the field man ?] or human. So according to LXX and other versions. The Heb. pointing, which omits the interrogative, gives no sense.
that it should be besieged of thee ] Lit. that it should come into siege before thee: the technical phrase, 2Ki 24:10; 2Ki 25:2. Cp. our state of siege.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Deu 20:19
Thou shalt not destroy the trees.
Cutting down fruit trees
It will be observed that this instruction is given to the Jews in the event of their going to war against any city. No question of mere horticulture arises in connection with this injunction. It is wantonness that is forbidden; it is not art that is decried. Trees that did not bear fruit were of course available for war, but trees that could be used for purposes of sustaining human life were to be regarded as in a sense sacred and inviolable. A prohibition of this kind is charged with lofty moral significance. When men go to war they are in hot blood; everything seems to go down before the determination to repulse the enemy and to establish a great victory. But here men in their keenest excitement are to discriminate between one thing and another, and are not to permit themselves to turn the exigencies of war into an excuse for wantonness or for the destruction of property that bears an intimate relation to human sustenance. Dropping all that is merely incidental in the instruction, the moral appeal to ourselves is perfect in completeness and dignity. Civilisation has turned human life into a daily war. We live in the midst of contentions, rivalries, oppositions, and fierce conflicts of every kind, and God puts down His law in the very midst of our life, and calls upon us to regulate everything by its sacredness. God has not left human life in a state of chaos; His boundaries are round about it; His written and unwritten laws constitute its restraints, its rewards, and its penalties; and even war in its most violent form is not to blind our eyes to the claims of God. Men say that all is fair in love and war, but this proverbial morality has no sanction in Holy Scripture. We are too apt to plead the exigency of circumstances in extenuation of acts that would not have otherwise been committed. It is evident that there are points in life at which circumstances must triumph or law must be maintained. Thus an appeal is made to reason and conscience nearly every day. When the human or the Divine must go down, the Christian ought to have no hesitation as to his choice. Victories maybe bought at too high a price. He who gives fruit-bearing trees in exchange for his triumphs may be said to have paid his soul for the prizes of this world. The young life, boastful of its energy, insists upon having its pleasures, cost what they may, and the old man is left to ruminate that in his youth he won his victories by cutting down his fruit trees. Two views may be taken of the circumstances and objects by which we are surrounded; the one is the highest view of their possible uses, and the other the low view which contents itself with immediate advantages. The wood of the fruit tree might be as useful as any other wood for keeping back an enemy or serving as a defence; but the fruit tree was never meant for that purpose, and to apply it in that direction is to oppose the intention of God. We are to look at the highest uses of all things–a fruit tree for fruit; a flower for beauty; a bird for music; a rock for building. Power and right are not co-equal terms. We have the power to cut down fruit trees, but not the right; we have the power to mislead the blind, but not the right; we have the power to prostitute our talents, but not the right. The right is often the more difficult course as to its process, but the difficulty of the process is forgotten in the heaven of its issue. To have the power of cutting down fruit trees is to have the power of inflicting great mischief upon society. A man may show great power in cutting down a fruit tree, but he may show still greater power in refusing to do so. The first power is merely physical, the second power is of the nature of Gods omnipotence. Forbearance is often the last point of power. To love an enemy is to show greater strength than could possibly be shown by burning up himself and his house, and leaving nothing behind but the smoking ashes. There are times when even fruit trees are to be cut down. Perhaps this is hardly clear on the first putting of it. The meaning is that fruit tree may cease to be a fruit tree. When Jesus came to the fig tree and found on it nothing but leaves, He doomed it to perpetual barrenness, and it withered away. Even the husbandman pleaded that if the fruit tree did not bear fruit after one more trial it should be cut down as a cumberer of the ground. Fruit trees are not to be kept in the ground simply because in years long past they did bear fruit. Trees are only available according to the fruit which they bear today. Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Fruit or timber
A fruit tree may be used for timber, or it may be kept for fruit. In the legislation of Moses there is a command which directs the Hebrews to spare the fruit trees of the Promised Land. Moses knew that the land would be occupied by conquest. The Hebrews would have to besiege many of its towns and cities before they could enter them. For the siege they would require timber, and would be apt to destroy the groves of olives and palms and oranges, which have always been the wealth of Palestine. Inasmuch as they were expecting to find their homes in these conquered towns and cities, it was very important that the fruit trees should be preserved.
1. Lifes opportunities and institutions are our fruit trees. They may be used for timber, or they may be preserved for fruit. It is possible to exhaust their power and vitality now, or they may be protected and developed, and made to yield fruit from generation to generation. The law of Moses–and his words here, or elsewhere, are confirmed by other portions of Holy Scripture–commands men to regard the future. Lifes advantages are designed for those who shall come after us, as well as for those who now enjoy them. We are only stewards. Our interest is but a life interest. The future most not be sacrificed to the present.
2. Yet how often this sacrifice is witnessed! When I see a man who is making a fortune by dishonest practices, I feel that he is converting fruit trees into timber; when I see a young Christian, who is absorbed in all the gaieties of social life, eager for the dance and the card party and the race, I feel that he is turning his fruit trees into timber; when I see a schoolboy who refuses the education which his father offers him, I feel that he is raising an axe against the fruit trees; when I hear a man say that his business will be ruined if he becomes a Christian, I look about me to see what he is building with the timber of his fruit trees; when I meet with individuals who are neglecting the salvation of their souls for the sake of worldly pleasure, I tremble for the fruit trees; when I hear distant nations calling in vain for the Gospel, and then realise that the Church has wealth and influence, I wonder if the fruit trees are used for timber.
3. There are many ways of violating this law. The axe is busy all the time. Our fruit trees are constantly sacrificed. For men too often prefer a present gratification to a future good; and they try and gain the whole world, even at the risk of losing their immortal souls. The rich man of the parable did so, and Lazarus did not. And by and by the one was comforted and the other was tormented.
4. In our regard for the Sabbath this principle has place and importance. The Sabbath is a fruit tree. It may be converted into timber. If you have a journey to make, you can use the Sabbath; if yon have any work to accomplish, you can employ the hours of holy time; if you wish to live for pleasure, you can count the days of pleasure in a week seven instead of six. A present and temporary advantage may thus be gained. But how about the future? Is it right or wise to break in upon the sanctity of the Sabbath? Can we prosper, can the nation prosper, without this holy day? Yet if we secularise the day now, there will soon be no Sabbath left; and when the Sabbath disappears, will not freedom disappear also, and will not the comfort of our happy homes be gone? (H. M. Booth.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 19. (For the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege] The original is exceedingly obscure, and has been variously translated, ki haadam ets hassadeh labo mippaneycha bammatsor. The following are the chief versions: For, O man, the trees of the field are for thee to employ THEM in the siege – or, For it is man, and the tree of the field, that must go before thee for a bulwark – or, For it is a tree, and not men, to increase the number of those who come against thee to the siege – or, lastly, The tree of the field (is as) a man, to go before thy face for a bulwark. The sense is sufficiently clear, though the strict grammatical meaning of the words cannot be easily ascertained: it was a merciful provision to spare all fruit-bearing trees, because they yielded the fruit which supported man’s life; and it was sound policy also, for even the conquerors must perish if the means of life were cut off.
It is diabolic cruelty to add to the miseries of war the horrors of famine; and this is done where the trees of the field are cut down, the dykes broken to drown the land, the villages burnt, and the crops wilfully spoiled. O execrable war! subversive of all the charities of life!
THERE are several curious particulars in these verses:
1. The people had the most positive assurances from God that their enemies should not be able to prevail against them by strength, numbers, nor stratagem, because God should go with them to lead and direct them, and should fight for them; and against his might none could prevail.
2. All such interferences were standing proofs of the being of God, of his especial providence, and of the truth of their religion.
3. Though God promised them such protection, yet they were to expect it in the diligent use of their own prudence and industry. The priests, the officers, and the people, had their respective parts to act in this business; if they did their duty respectively, God would take care that they should be successful. Those who will not help themselves with the strength which God has already given them, shall not have any farther assistance from him. In all such cases, the parable of the talents affords an accurate rule.
4. Their going to war against their enemies must not deprive them of mercy and tenderness towards their brethren. He who had built a house and had not yet dwelt in it, who had planted a vineyard and had not eaten of its fruits, who had betrothed a wife and had not yet taken her to his house, was not obliged to go to battle, lest he should fall in the war, and the fruits of his industry and affection be enjoyed by others. He who was faint-hearted was also permitted to return, lest he should give way in the heat of battle, and his example have a fatal influence on others.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The trees thereof, to wit, the fruit trees, as appears from the following words; which is to be understood of a general destruction of them, not of the cutting down of some few of them, as the conveniency of the siege might require.
Mans life, i.e. the sustenance or support of his life, as life is taken Deu 24:6. But this place may be otherwise translated, as it is in the margin of our English Bibles: For, O man, (the Hebrew letter he being here the note of a vocative case, as it is Psa 9:7)
the tree (or trees, the singular number for the plural, as is common) of the field is (or ought, as the Hebrew lamed is used Est 9:1; Psa 62:10) to be employed in the siege; or, as it is in the Hebrew, to go before thy face, i.e. to make fences for thy security, in the siege.
The trees of the field: I here understand not its general signification of all trees, including fruit-bearing trees, as that phrase is commonly used, but in its more special and distinct signification, for unfruitful trees, as it is taken Isa 55:12; or such as grow only in open fields, such as are elsewhere called the trees of the wood, 1Ch 16:33; Isa 7:2, or the trees of the forest, Son 2:3; Isa 10:19, which are opposed to the trees of the gardens, Gen 3:2,8; Ec 2:5; Eze 31:9; as the flower of the field, Psa 103:15; Isa 40:6, and the lilies of the field, Mat 6:28, are opposed to those that grow in gardens, and are preserved and cultivated by the gardeners art and care. And so it is a very proper argument to dissuade from the destroying of fruit trees, because the wild and unfruitful trees were sufficient for the use of the siege. And this sense fitly agrees with the following words, where the concession or grant, which here is delivered in more ambiguous terms, of the tree of the field, is repeated and explained concerning the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. thou shalt not destroy the treesthereof by forcing an axe against themIn a protracted siege,wood would be required for various purposes, both for military worksand for fuel. But fruit-bearing trees were to be carefully spared;and, indeed, in warm countries like India, where the people live muchmore on fruit than we do, the destruction of a fruit tree isconsidered a sort of sacrilege.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it,…. Before it will surrender; it holding out the siege a considerable time: the Hebrew text says, “many days” c; which the Targum of Jonathan interprets of all the seven days, to make war against it, in order to subdue it on the sabbath day. Jarchi observes, that “days” signify two, and “many” three; hence it is said, they do not besiege cities of the Gentiles less than three days before the sabbath; and he also says it teaches that peace is opened or proclaimed two or three days first:
thou shall not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them; that is, not cut them down with an axe, such trees as were without the city, and in the power of the besiegers: what sort of trees are meant appears by what follows:
for thou mayest eat of them; the fruit of them, which shows them to be fruit trees, and gives a reason for not cutting them down, since they would be useful in supplying them with what was agreeable to eat:
and thou shalt not cut them down to employ them in the siege; in building bulwarks and batteries, and making of machines to cast out stones, and the like, to the annoyance of the besieged; which might as well or better be made of other trees, as in the next verse:
for the tree of the field is man’s life; by the fruit of which, among other things, his life is supported and maintained: but some give a different version and sense of this clause, for the tree of the field is man d, or is man’s; it is his property; but this is not a sufficient reason why it should not be cut down, whether the property of the besieger, in whose hand it is, or of the besieged, to whom it belonged: or, “for, is the tree of the field a man” e? that has given any reason of being thus used? no; it is no cause of the war, nor of the holding out of the siege; and had it a voice, as Josephus f observes, it would complain of injury done it, and apologize for itself. Some supply the negative, “for the tree of the field is not a man”; so the Targum of Onkelos, as well as makes it a comparative form of speech;
“for not as a man is the tree of the field, to come out against thee in a siege;”
the Targum of Jonathan is,
“for not as a man is the tree of the field, to be hid from you in a siege;”
or, as some in Aben Ezra express it,
“it is not as a man, that it should flee from before thee;”
it can neither annoy thee, nor get out of thy way; and therefore to lift up an axe against it, to cut it down, as if it was a man, and an enemy that stood in the way, is ridiculous and weak; though the sense of the said writer himself is the same with that of our version; but what seems best is to read the words, “for, O man, of the trees of the field” (there is enough of them) to bring “before thee for a bulwark” g; to make use of, without cutting down fruit trees: though some understand it metaphorically, that as the tree of the field is, so is man, or should be, bring forth fruit, that he may not be cut down; see Mt 3:10. Plutarch h relates, that it was forbidden the worshippers of Osiris to destroy garden trees.
c “diebus multis”, Pagninus, Montanus, Tigurine version, c. d “quia homo lignum agri”, Montanus “quoniam homo est arbor agri”, Drusius. e “An putas lignum agri esse hominem?” Munster; “num enim homo est arbor?” Fagius. f Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 42. g Vid. Reinbeck de Accent. Heb. p. 326. h De lside, p. 365.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
When they besieged a town a long time to conquer it, they were not to destroy its trees, to swing the axe upon them. That we are to understand by the fruit-trees in the environs and gardens of the town, is evident from the motive appended: “ for of them ( refers to as a collective) thou eatest, and thou shalt not hew them down.” The meaning is: thou mayest suppress and destroy the men, but not the trees which supply thee with food. “ For is the tree of the field a man, that it should come into siege before thee? ” This is evidently the only suitable interpretation of the difficult words , and the one which has been expressed by all the older commentators, though in different ways. But it is one which can only be sustained grammatically by adopting the view propounded by Clericus and others: viz., by pointing the noun with interrog., instead of , and taking as the object, which its position in the sentence fully warrants (cf. Ewald, 324, b. and 306, b.). The Masoretic punctuation is founded upon the explanation given by Aben Ezra, “Man is a tree of the field, i.e., lives upon and is fed by the fruits of the trees,” which Schultz expresses in this way, “Man is bound up with the tree of the field, i.e., has his life in, or from, the tree of the field,” – an explanation, however, which cannot be defended by appealing to Deu 24:6; Ecc 12:13; Eze 12:10, as these three passages are of a different kind. In no way whatever can be taken as the subject of the sentence, as this would not give any rational meaning. And if it were rendered as the object, in such sense as this, The tree of the field is a thing or affair of man, it would hardly have the article.
Deu 20:20 “ Only the trees which thou knowest that they are not trees of eating (i.e., do not bear edible fruits), mayest thou hew down, and build a rampart against the town till it come down,” i.e., fall down from its eminence. For as applied to the falling or sinking of lofty fortifications, see Deu 28:52; Isa 32:19. , compressing or forcing down; hence, as applied to towns, , to come into siege, i.e., to be besieged (Deu 20:19; 2Ki 24:10; 2Ki 25:2). In Deu 20:20 it is used to denote the object, viz., the means of hemming in a town, i.e., the besieging rampart (cf. Eze 4:2).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Verses 19, 20:
Military siege tactics of that day involved construction of bulwarks or ramparts constructed of logs and stones. Nearby forests and orchards furnished a ready source of material for these bulwarks.
The text prohibits the use of fruit trees in constructing siege ramparts. The reason: fruit trees provide food for man’s life. Only non-fruit trees were allowed1o be used for military purposes.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
19. When thou shalt besiege a city a long time. I have not hesitated to annex this precept to the Eighth Commandment, for when God lays a restraint on the liberty of inflicting injuries in the very heat of war, with respect to felling trees, much more did He desire His people to abstain from all mischievous acts in time of peace. The sum is, that although the laws of war opened the gate to plunder and rapine, still they were to beware, as much as possible, lest the land being desolated, it should be barren for the future; in short, that the booty was so to be taken from the enemy, as that the advantage of the human race should still be considered, and that posterity might still be nourished by the trees which do not quickly arrive at the age of fruit-bearing. He commands them to spare fruit-trees, first of all, for this reason, because they supply food to all men; and thus the blessing of God is manifested in them. He then adds, as a second reason, that trees are exposed to everybody, whereby He signifies that war should not be waged with them as with men. This passage is indeed variously explained, but the sense which I have chosen accords very well and appears to be the right one. For, (160) although the letter ה is demonstrative, according to the rules of grammar, and thus points out the enemy; yet, in my opinion, the sentence is to be taken interrogatively. But מצור, matzor, signifies rather a bulwark than a siege. God, therefore, indirectly reproves the stupidity and madness of men, who, when in arms, exert their strength against a tree which does not move from its place, but waits to meet them. Thus the open field is contrasted with the bulwark. Meanwhile, God permits ramparts and palisadoes, and other machines used in sieges, to be made of trees which do not bear fruit, and only provides that the tempest of war, which ought to be momentary, should not strip the land of its ornaments for many years. Still, there is no such strict rule laid down as that a fruit-tree may not be cut down if necessity demands it; but God restrains the Israelites from giving way to destruction and devastation under the impulse of anger and hatred, and in forgetfulness of the calls of humanity.
(160) S M. and the LXX. agree in regarding ה as interrogative here, hence S M. renders the clause, “Thinkest thou that the tree of the field is man that he must depart from thy face in the siege?” and he quotes Rabbi Solomon as giving a similar exposition. But he also quotes Aben-Ezra as rendering the clause in the same manner as our A V. The word מצור admits of either of the two interpretations quoted by C. — W
Dathe’s version is, “for they ( i. e. the trees) are appointed by God for the use of men,” and he thinks that Moses undoubtedly had in view the precept in Gen 1:29.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) RESPECT FOR NATURAL RESOURCES (Deu. 20:19-20)
19 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 wielding an axe against them; for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down; for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged of thee? 20 Only the trees of which thou knowest that they are not trees for food, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it fall.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 20:19, 20
342.
Why would trees be destroyed? Why not destroy them?
343.
What two-fold use was made of trees?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 20:19, 20
19 When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by using an ax on them, for you can eat their fruit; you must not cut them down, for is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by you?
20 Only the trees which you know are not trees for food you may destroy and cut down, that you may build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it falls.
COMMENT 20:19, 20
As we can now see, all is not fair in love and war! This law, strange as it may appear, was probably designed for Israels own good. In the process of waging a long war (Deu. 20:19), when everything living in the path of combat would normally be destroyed, the fruit trees were to be spared.
FOR IS THE TREE OF THE FIELD MAN . . .? (Deu. 20:19)the Canaanites were being destroyed, not only to make way for Israel, but because of their wickedness as a nation Gen. 15:16, Lev. 18:24-25. But the fruit-trees were to be spared. . . . it was a merciful provision to spare all fruit-bearing trees, because they yielded the fruit which supported mans life; and it was sound policy also, for even the conquerors must perish if the means of life were cut off.
It is diabolic cruelty to add to the miseries of war the horrors of famine; and this is done where the trees of the field are cut down, the dykes broken to drown the land, the villages burnt, and the crops wilfully spoiled. O execrable war! Subversive of all the charities of life! (Clarke).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
19. Not destroy the trees In the besieging of cities there was to be no wanton destruction of property. The fruit trees in the gardens of the environs were not to be cut down. War, as anciently carried on, was terrible. Life and property, except so far as they could be of service to the conqueror, were to be destroyed. Moses, with these stern laws prevalent, aims to introduce a gentler and more lenient usage into the military code.
For the tree is man’s life The Hebrew expression is difficult of translation. Ewald, Knobel, Keil, and others render it as a question, Is the tree of the field a man, that it come in siege before thee? But this translation, which follows the Septuagint, requires a different pointing of the Hebrew text. The literal rendering of the passage is, Man is the tree of the field that is, he lives and is supported by the fruits of trees. Our Authorized Version gives the substantial sense.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Preservation of Trees ( Deu 20:19-20 ).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
a When you shall besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them
b For you may eat of them, and you shall not cut them down, for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged by you?
b Only the trees of which you know that they are not trees for food, you shall destroy and cut them down
a And you shall build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it fall.
Note that in ‘a’ the siege is a long one but in making war against them they must not cut down the trees as a matter of policy, while in the parallel they can be used to build siege works while the siege is still in progress. In ‘b’ they must especially not cut down the trees from which they can eat, while in the parallel they may destroy and cut down the trees which are not trees that produce food if necessary.
Deu 20:19
‘ When you shall besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them, for you may eat of them, and you shall not cut them down, for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged by you?’
An important principle was now being laid down, the preservation of trees in warfare. One of the worst crimes of the later Assyrians and Babylonians, shared also by the Egyptians, was their destruction of trees (Isa 37:24; Isa 14:8). But however long Israel were besieging a city they must not cut down the fruit trees. Indeed they might well need to eat from them. And they should consider that the trees are not men. Trees would not fight them or stab them in the back. They were there simply for man’s benefit. Again there is the stress on mercy wherever possible.
Deu 20:20
‘ Only the trees of which you know that they are not trees for food, you shall destroy and cut them down, and you shall build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it fall.’
The only trees that they should cut down were those which were not fruit trees and which were needed for siegeworks. It was permitted to cut these down for the purposes of building siege weapons, including ladders for scaling walls and protective defences behind which they could find shelter.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Ver. 19, 20. (For the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege The plain meaning of the passage, as appears from the context, is, that in case of a long siege, where they might want wood for raising batteries, they were to spare the fruit-trees as much as possible, and make use of others which were as fit for those purposes, and bare not fruit; and that too, not merely for waste and desolation, but for necessary occasions. In this view, perhaps, our translation is as justifiable as any other. But as there is nothing for life in the original, it would be equally as expressive, and nearer the Hebrew, if we read, for the tree of the field is for man.
REFLECTIONS.As they would be engaged in other wars beside those with the seven devoted nations, 1. God commands them to give their enemies fair notice, and, before they declared war, to offer peace on condition of their renunciation of idolatry, and paying tribute. Note; (1.) God deals thus with sinners. The Gospel offers peace and reconciliation: if hereupon we accept the favour, and submit ourselves to God, all is well; if not, then justice unsheathes the sword, and we are treated as determined enemies. (2.) In our disputes, recourse should never be had to violent methods, till we have in vain tried every mode of peaceable accommodation. 2. In case the terms were rejected, then the war proceeded; God engaged to support them in their righteous quarrels, and give them victory: and all the men, at least all found in arms, are to be put to death, while the rest of the land and inhabitants are given them for spoil. Note; (1.) Those who will not hear the calls of Divine mercy must perish under the rod of vengeance. (2.) God will bless those who follow him. 3. The seven devoted nations must have neither offers of peace, nor any quarter. They are to suffer for their sins; and their utter extirpation is necessary, that Israel may not be ensnared by their idolatry. It is dangerous living among bad neighbours; we are more likely to learn their ill customs, than they of us to repent and forsake them. 4. In case of long sieges, they are forbidden to use fruit-trees for their bulwarks, because, as they were sure of taking the city, the loss would afterwards fall upon themselves. Note; God in his prohibitions consults our interest and happiness. All his restraints are onlyDo thyself no harm.
Reflections on the destruction of the seven nations of Canaan.
The destruction of the seven nations of Canaan is a question of great difficulty and importance. To set which in its true light, we shall consider, first, The case of this destruction; and, secondly, the nature of the cherem, which does not always imply destruction.
I. It is granted, that the seven nations were to be destroyed, and their polity utterly abolished: but this does not imply a total destruction, or putting to death of every man, woman, and child among them. The nations were to be destroyed as nations, i.e. their polity and government were to be extinguished; but there was not any such massacre as some have imagined. It is plain, that neither Joshua, nor any of the judges, nor Samuel, nor David, nor Solomon, nor others after him, ever understood these words of the law in such a sense, as to imagine that they were obliged to cut off every soul of these nations whenever they became subject to them. Nay, those nations, or at least several of them, continued quite down to Solomon’s time, and long after. For, as the sacred writer observes, 1Ki 9:20-21. Upon all the people that were left of the Amorites, &c. which were not of the children of Israel, and whom they were not able utterly to destroy, did Solomon levy a tribute of bond-service. If therefore Solomon, when he had these nations subject to him, levied only a tribute of bond-service upon them, he could not apprehend himself obliged by the law of Moses to massacre them, or put them to death. Suppose the children of Israel were not able to destroy these people before the days of Solomon, yet, when this king had them in subjection, he might have done it, instead of making them either tributaries of money, or of service: and, supposing him to have been antecedently obliged by the law of Moses to put them to death, I do not see how he could have changed the command of death into a mere tribute of service, or money, or both. The case of Uriah the Hittite, 2Sa 11:12 is well known. David’s crime, in causing him to be slain, was severely censured, condemned, and punished by God himself. Though Uriah was of those nations which were devoted to destruction, yet had David no right to murder him; nor did the law, that commanded not to spare any one that breathed of the seven nations, justify or excuse the sinister contrivance to take him away. One part of the law in question itself very manifestly supposes, that all, universally, were not to be destroyed. It is said, thou shalt not make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give to his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take to thy son. See chap. Deu 7:3. Now, what occasion for this injunction, if it be supposed that nothing that breathed was to be spared alive, but all were to be utterly destroyed? Or, what end could it serve to forbid intermarriages with a people supposed not at all to be? If the known reason and end of the law could be obtained without this absolute destruction of the people, then it might fairly be concluded, that such deletion was not absolutely required, unless it were impossible to attain the end otherwise. A certain end is proposed and declared, and this end may be obtained by various means. It cannot be argued, therefore, that these people are to be destroyed in order to such end, because, consistent with their not being destroyed, that end may be secured. It could not indeed be obtained without the destruction of them as a polity, or as nations, but might very well be secured consistent with their lives. The reason given for their destruction was, they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods. Deu 7:4. If, then, these nations were to forsake their idolatry, and become converts to the religion of the Jews, they would, in that case, be what God required them to be, penitents, and proper objects of forgiveness, not of punishment. This is a rule laid down in Scripture, and founded in equity:At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them, Jer 18:7-8. But in case these nations did not repent, but continued the objects of displeasure, the command was, utterly to destroy their cities, Deu 20:16-17 and to smite those nations, and to destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire, Deu 7:2. Whilst they continued bodies politic, with power and influence, they might, by intermarriages or leagues, keep up idolatry; and even when the nations, as such, were destroyed, their altars, images, groves, and pictures, might tempt men to false worship: and therefore it was not proper to spare even such things. But when the nations were subdued, the surviving captives, made so by right of war, might reject the worship of false gods; the occasions of seducing the Jews might be removed; and those very people might be brought to the acknowledgment of the one true God, and thus be saved alive, and the reason of the severity be at the same time observed.
That this was in fact the case, may further be urged, from the instances of persons all along spared from this great destruction. Rahab, her father, mother, brethren, and all her kindred, were preserved alive: not only she herself, but all her kindred and family were saved from destruction. Now, if the law was to be interpreted as implying an unlimited command, in no case or circumstances to save alive any thing that breathed of these seven nations, then neither could the spies have promised to deal kindly and truly with her, nor could Joshua, without a manifest breach of the law, have performed the promise which they had made. Jos 2:14; Jos 6:22. So again we find it particularly remarked in Jos 16:10. The children of Ephraim drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute: and, in like manner, Jdg 1:25 it is observed concerning the city of Bethel, when the house of Joseph took it, that they let a man and his family, who shewed them the way into the city, go free; and again, ver. 28. It came to pass when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. As Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites in Gezer, so neither did Asher drive them out in many other places; and as to Zebulun, Naphtali, and the house of Joseph, they made the Canaanites and Amorites become tributaries to them, ver. 27-35.
Since therefore, as has been remarked, neither David with all his power, nor Solomon, did destroy these people; since they subsisted in the country, from the days of Moses, for upwards of four hundred and fourscore years; since they were so far subdued as to become tributaries of service, as well as of money; and since they might therefore have been absolutely destroyed, because conquered, and yet were kept alive; it follows, that these people were not to be absolutely and entirely cut off, men, women, and children, without mercy, but only were to be destroyed as nations; and that if they submitted, and became subject to the Jews, and relinquished their idolatry, they were not to be deprived of life. For can it be supposed, that none of the Jews in all this time understood the command? Did none of their generals or successful warriors understand that their business was to destroy all these people? Had they no opportunity, no power? not even when they made them tributaries? And was Joshua, was Samuel, was David such strangers to the law?
But what then is the meaning of those wordsThou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but shalt utterly destroy them? It may be answered, the seven nations were that people whose land the Jews were to possess, and in whose place they were to dwell. They were to be expelled, to make way for these new inhabitants; consequently, they, as nations, were to be destroyed: all power was to be taken from them, and they were so far to be conquered and reduced, as not to have it in their power to teach the Israelites to do after all their abominations, which they had done to their gods, so as to make them sin against the Lord. No alliance was to be made with them; no treaties of peace were to be concerted; no peace to be proclaimed unto them: but they were to be pursued and smitten without mercy, that the Israelites might have the inheritance which had been all along promised to them. The Hivites were certainly one of the seven nations with whom no league was to have been made; yet, by their art, Joshua made peace with them on the condition of servitude, which they themselves offered; Jos 9:11-15. In the event of things, we read there was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites:For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no FAVOUR, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses. Jos 11:20. The conclusion from which seems very natural, that, as they chose to oppose themselves, and try their success in battle, and would not surrender nor accept any terms of submission, they were cut off: but, had they submitted, they might have had favour, though they were not to have been received as allies and friends, whereby to have had the power of making Israel sin against God: For, if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee. See Exo 23:32-33. Deu 7:4. The law in Lev 27:29 which says, None devotedshall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death, and which has been quoted as an objection against the present exposition of the injunction to destroy the Canaanites, certainly does not relate to the putting to death any devoted person; nor is there an instance of any person devoted to the Lord, who was ever, in virtue of being devoted, put to death. See the note on the place.
To prove this, it will be proper to consider, as we proposed,
II. The exact nature and meaning of the word cherem, and to what it is applied in the Old Testament, Le Clerc observes, that the verb charan in the Arabic signifies to forbid, to be unlawful; and the substantive from it, a thing prohibited: and this he takes to be the original meaning of the word. Agreeable to which derivation, it signifies in the books of the law, first, a thing absolutely prohibited, as an idol, or the gold of an idol; see Deu 7:26. Secondly, As nothing unlawful was to be kept, or used, it came to signify generally to destroy. Thirdly, To destroy without mercy, as in the above passage of Deu 7:26. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be CHEREM; i.e. a thing to be destroyed, like that: and Exo 22:20. He that sacrificeth to any God, save unto the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed: icherim; i.e. shall be certainly put to death without favour or mercy. Fourthly, Because what was given to the Lord was declared unlawful to be used, and what was given in perpetuity could not be redeemed; hence, whatever was in this manner devoted to the Lord, had the name of cherem; as Lev 27:21. The field, when it goeth out in the jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field devoted: the possession thereof shall be the priest’s; i.e. it could never be redeemed by the proprietor, but was to continue in the possession of the priests for ever. Here devoted means absolutely given in perpetuity to the Lord. And hence, fifthly, It signifies what was appointed to destruction by God, as, Isa 11:15. The Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and so Isa 2:5 in which places it is applied as an act of God himself, to destroy things, as well as persons. Sixthly, Whatever was forfeited, or addicted to the sacred treasury, by way of punishment, was called cherem; as in Ezr 10:7-8 where we find a proclamation was made, that whosoever would not come within three days,all his substance should be forfeited. Seventhly, From the general signification to destroy, instruments of destruction to fish and beasts, as nets, were called by the name of cherem; see Ecc 7:26. I find more bitter than death, a woman whose heart is snares and [cheremim] nets. Eighthly and lastly, Inasmuch as people who merited destruction were justly liable to contumely and reproach, though they were not destroyed; they are therefore called cherem, as in Isa 43:28 where cherem doth not seem to signify a total destruction, but such abuse and contempt as is consistent with their being not destroyed. From all these passages, there appears not the least reason to imagine, that persons given, or devoted by cherem, were ever slain, or made sacrifices. See Dr. Sykes’s Connection of Natural and Revealed Religion.
The extirpation of the Canaanites appears to have been predetermined in the counsels of heaven; Gen 9:25-27 yet was their national wickedness the only cause of their national ruin: for notwithstanding the assurance given to Abraham, that his posterity should be settled in the room of the Canaanites, it is expressly declared, that this event should not take place for several generations, till the iniquity of the nations should be full; (Gen 15:16.) till their incorrigible wickedness had baffled all the gentler means of Providence, which, during the course of some hundred years, had been employed for their reformation: for it is agreeable to the procedure of a benevolent Deity, in similar instances, first to use the milder means of mercy and forbearance towards a people, to see if they can be reformed upon the principles of filial love, gratitude, and generous remorse; but if, instead of being reformed thereby, they only become hardened, presumptuous, and insensible to every motive of honour or generosity, then the sword of justice awakes to strike the long-suspended blow. That this was the unhappy case of the Canaanites before they were given up to utter destruction, that they were sunk into the deepest degeneracy, we have various testimonies, particularly in Leviticus 18 whence it appears, that the period destined for their extirpation was arrived; that their iniquities were full, and that they brought down destruction upon themselves. The extirpation of this people, thus sunk into idolatry and wickedness, was also a most awful and instructive example to the Jews, whose proneness to idolatry in that age of the world was such, that nothing seemed effectual for the restraining them from it, but impressing them with the most horrid idea of that crime, as rendering men accursed in the sight of God and man.
The extraordinary commission given to the children of Israel for extirpating the Canaanites can justify none in the imitation of their example, but such as shall be in like circumstances with the Jews. It is impious and absurd even to suppose, as some have done, that Christians are capable of receiving any such commission as that in question; which is, indeed, repugnant to the very genius and essential principles of Christianity. The Christian religion inspires nothing but love, and peace, and universal benevolence: the weapons which it authorises its adherents to employ are not fire, and sword, and desolation, but argument and persuasion; the soft, the inviting motives of forbearance, condescension, and instruction in meekness: it allows us to hold no man, or nation of men, unclean and accursed; but, on the contrary, teaches that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek; that in every nation, he who feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. Our Lord sufficiently intimates, how opposite to the spirit of Christianity is the fury of bigotry, and the rage of persecution, by his reply to those disciples who would have called down vengeance on the Samaritans, for rejecting him and his doctrines: Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And after he has foretold the persecutions which should arise in the times of Christianity, when bigots should blindly imagine they did God good service, by putting their fellow-creatures to death on account of difference in religion, he adds, these things will they do, because they have not known me, nor my Father. If ever, therefore, any professed Christian should pretend a commission from God to propagate religion by violence and persecution, a holy war, or a crusade; should he even vouch miracles and prophecies fulfilled in attestation of such commission, he would deserve as little regard as a Jewish prophet or wonder-worker, who sought to seduce the Israelites from their allegiance to the true God; Deu 13:1 for “idol-worship is not more opposite to the Jewish religion, than persecution is to the spirit of Christianity.” See Jameson’s Dissert.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
There seems much mercy in this precept, and it is not confined we may suppose to trees only, but of a general tendency, in war to preserve all that can be consistently done, that there may be no waste of any of the good things of GOD’S providence. It is one of the distinguishing characters of the gospel church, that neither violence nor destruction shall be heard within her borders: Isa 60:18 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Cutting Down Fruit-trees
Deu 20:19
It will be observed that this instruction is given to the Jews in the event of their going to war against any city. No question of mere horticulture arises in connection with this injunction. It is wantonness that is forbidden; it is not art that is decried. Trees that did not bear fruit were of course available for war, but trees that could be used for purposes of sustaining human life were to be regarded as in a sense sacred and inviolable.
A prohibition of this kind is charged with lofty moral significance. When men go to war they are in hot blood; everything seems to go down before the determination to repulse the enemy and establish a great victory. But here men in their keenest excitement are to discriminate between one thing and another, and are not to permit themselves to turn the exigencies of war into an excuse for wantonness or for the destruction of property that bears an intimate relation to human sustenance. It would be easy in times of calmness to admire and preserve beautiful fruit-trees, but imagine an army of soldiers rushing up to an orchard, and standing still before it as if they had suddenly come upon an altar a god! surely that were a severe trial of human patience. If one of the trees could have been cut down the victory might have been won, or certainly the enemy might have been baffled; but even under such circumstances law was to be religiously respected. Dropping all that is merely incidental in the instruction, the moral appeal to ourselves is perfect in completeness and dignity. Civilisation has turned human life into a daily war. We live in the midst of contentions, rivalries, oppositions, and fierce conflicts of every kind, and God puts down his law in the very midst of our life and calls upon us to regulate everything by its sacredness. God has not left human life in a state of chaos; his boundaries are round about it; his written and unwritten laws constitute its restraints, its rewards and its penalties; and even war in its most violent form is not to blind our eyes to the claims of God. Men say that all is fair in love and war, but this proverbial morality has no sanction in holy scripture. We are too apt to plead the exigency of circumstances in extenuation of acts that would not have otherwise been committed. It is evident that there are points in life at which circumstances must triumph or law must be maintained. Thus an appeal is made to reason and conscience in nearly every day. When the human or the divine must go down, the Christian ought to have no hesitation as to his choice.
Victories may be bought at too high a price. He who gives fruit-bearing trees in exchange for his triumphs may be said to have paid his soul for the prizes of this world. “What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” What is a warrior profited if he gain the province, and cut down every fruit-tree, and burn up every harvest-field, and dry all the wells and fountains of the land? Thus again and again comes upon us the certainty of the law that a man may purchase even his victories at too high a price. This applies to all kinds of victories, victories, for example, which relate to property, influence, social position, and all the vanities of life. This is the danger which Christ was constantly pointing out. “What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” “Fear him who hath power to destroy both body and soul in hell.” “A man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” A wonderful foresight is discovered in the injunction of the text. The speaker is endeavouring to show that the present victory may be overborne by future suffering. We shall require the fruit-trees after the victory has been established: but if we have cut down the fruit-trees to achieve the victory, where then is our reward and what is its value? We may get our own way in life, but we may have burnt down all life’s fruitful orchards in gaining the worthless prize. A whole philosophy of life is involved in this text. The fruit-tree is symbolical and not literal. God sometimes gives men the desire of their hearts, and sends leanness into their souls. What if a man shall come back from the field of learning, having won his honours, if, in doing so, he has lost his health? What if a tradesman, at the end_ of a long period of service, should retire with a whole bankful of money, but have lost his power of enjoying the beauties of nature or the comforts of social life? “A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked.” Were it possible for a man to adorn his house with all the riches of sculpture and painting, what would he be profited if, in the process of bringing all these treasures together, he should have lost his sight? Which is the more valuable possession, a picture which cannot be seen, or eyes which may for ever satisfy themselves upon the beauties and glories of nature? Many men override this law, and insist upon having the pleasure whatever may be the price that is paid for it. An account is steadfastly kept against them, and one day they must discharge it, or be thrust into prison until they have paid the uttermost farthing. The young life, boastful of its energy, insists upon having its pleasures, cost what they may, and the old man is left to ruminate that in his youth he won his victories by cutting down his fruit-trees.
Two views may be taken of the circumstances and objects by which we are surrounded; the one is the highest view of their possible uses, and the other the low view which contents itself with immediate advantages. The wood of the fruit-tree might be as useful as any other wood for keeping back an enemy or serving as a defence; but the fruit-tree was never meant for that purpose, and to apply it in that direction is to oppose the intention of God. We are to look at the highest uses of all things a fruit-tree for fruit; a flower for beauty; a bird for music; a rock for building. It is not enough that things be put to some use, we must endeavour to discover the particular use which God intended them to serve, and the adoption of that use alone will bring us into harmony with the divine will. Music was never intended to celebrate evil or give notoriety to things that are unholy, or purposes that are morally mischievous. Music can be used for these purposes, but the use of it in this direction is a profanation. Eloquence was never intended to advocate unrighteous claims or dishonourable causes; eloquence can bring together all its words and sentences and thunders even for this base purpose, and in the choicest language may defend the foulest criminal: but this was not the original purpose of eloquence; man’s tongue was not made that the interests of falsehood might be subserved, or that vice might outwit virtue in some display of wordy skill. Eloquence was meant to expound truth, equity, law; it was intended to be a tongue for the dumb, and to speak boldly for those who could not speak for themselves in all righteous causes and claims. So, as a fruit-tree might have been used for military purposes, but was yet forbidden to be so used, many human faculties, if not all, might be turned to inferior or even forbidden uses, but the mere fact that they could be so perverted is no justification of the perversion. In all things respect the highest purpose, the chief intent, the manifest destiny, and, working along that high line of appointment and ordination, the issue must be one of contentment and harmony. A man may be able to clean a boot, but if he be also able to paint a picture the time which is spent upon the inferior service may be time wasted. He may be able to carve a face upon a cherry-stone, but if he can also teach a child, all his carving, however exquisite, is but a proof of his perverseness. The question we ought to put to ourselves constantly is, What is the highest purpose of my being? What is the real intent of my creation? Can I do some larger and nobler thing than that which now absorbs my energies? Unless we study such questions as these, and answer them righteously, we shall certainly be cutting down fruit-trees to help us to gain temporary triumphs. A man has a brook to cross and is unable to cross it without assistance; he can cut. down a fruit-tree which will form a bridge, or he can pull up a gate-post which would serve exactly the same purpose; is he at liberty to desecrate a fruit-tree when he might have crossed the stream by other means, involving no act of wantonness, and inflicting upon society no sense of loss? No man is at liberty to beg for bread so long as he can work for it. He must turn himself to the highest advantage, that is to say, realise the very purpose of God in his creation and fulfil all its obligations. A man has the power to hide his talent, but not the right. This is a distinction which is not always made with sufficient clearness. Power and right are not coequal terms. We have the power to cut down fruit-trees, but not the right; we have the power to mislead the blind, but not the right; we have the power to prostitute our talents, but not the right. The right is often the more difficult course as to its process, but the difficulty of the process is forgotten in the heaven of its issue. To have the power of cutting down fruit-trees is to have the power of inflicting great mischief upon society. A man may show great power in cutting down a fruit-tree, but he may show still greater power in refusing to do so. The first power is merely physical, the second power is of the nature of God’s omnipotence. Forbearance is often the last point of power. We may have power to starve an enemy, or injure an opponent, or lead away business from a rival, or turn aside the current which would fertilise the garden of an antagonist; all these things we might do at great cost, and show great expertness and ability in bringing about our purposes: we forget that we should show a more distinguished power in abstaining from every one of these wicked things. To love an enemy is to show greater strength than could possibly be shown by burning up himself and his house, and leaving nothing behind but the smoking ashes. This is a great spiritual mystery, and seems indeed to have in it all the elements of a palpable contradiction, and is not to be understood or realised in all its gracious possibilities but by long-continued practice in obedience to the divine will. Such issues as these often come upon the mind with the surprise of a revelation.
There are times when even fruit-trees are to be cut down. Perhaps this is hardly clear on the first putting of it. The meaning is that a fruit-tree may cease to be a fruit-tree. When Jesus came to the fig-tree and found on it nothing but leaves, he doomed it to perpetual barrenness, and it withered away. Even the husbandman pleaded that if the fruit-tree did not bear fruit after one more trial it should be cut down as a cumberer of the ground. Fruit-trees are not to be kept in the ground simply because in years long past they did bear fruit. Trees are only available according to the fruit which they bear today. “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit.” Christians themselves are only to be tolerated as such in proportion to the fruit which they bear. Profession often aggravates disappointment. Ornamental churches, ministries, and institutions generally, how bold and loud soever their professions, must perish under the condemnation of the society they have mocked by their false appearances. A tremendous possibility must not be overlooked here: it is possible to bring forth evil fruit. The question, therefore, is not, Are we bearing fruit? but, Are we bearing good fruit? The Christian can have no difficulty as to the kind of fruit which he is expected to bring forth. He is to be as a branch in the Living Vine. “From me is thy fruit found.” “Every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” “Little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.” There is to be a judgment of trees. “Now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees.” Here again we are brought into close proximity with our own text, for in Deu 20:20 , we read: “Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down.” There must be no mistake about the fruit. Leaves are not enough. Shapeliness is not enough. Abundance of wood is not enough: “That which heareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.”
Prayer
Almighty God, our hands are withered; bid us now stretch them forth. Thou art the Healer, O Christ of God! Thou dost live to heal; thou hast no pleasure in disease, or death, or the grave: thy joy is in health and life and heaven. May we rise into the spirit of thy joy, and respond to all the ministries thou hast set in motion for the preservation of the soul’s health and the opening out of great views concerning the soul’s destiny. We bless thee for thine house, its comfort, its security, its peace; it is a place of calm: the storm is outside: the high wind blows over the roof but does not come within. Thou hast hidden thy people as in the cleft of a rock until the calamity be overpast, and thou hast spoken comfortably unto them and assured them of deliverance and liberty. We bless thee for thy Book; it is in our native tongue: we understand most of it; when we most need it, it is most to us so comforting in sorrow, so inspiring in dejection, and so enriching when the mind realises its true capacity. May we read thy Book with attentive eyes, with hearts eager to learn the meaning of the message; and may we retire from our perusal of holy pages stronger, purer, wiser, more resolute in the cause of good, and more resigned to all the mysteries of thy rule. Thou hast a word for every one: the old man trembling on his staff and looking into his grave; the little child to whom life is a cloud full of stars, or a night full of voices, or a day bright with hope; send a message to each of us: let each feel that this is the Father’s house, and as for bread, there is enough and to spare. Dry our tears; lift our burdens awhile that we may recover breath and strength; attemper the wind to the shorn lamb; speak to those who have little, and who live in backward places and positions, in the shadow and in the cold, and so reveal thyself to them that the spirit may triumph over the flesh, and that even in unexpected places there may be a sense of thy presence. The Lord grant unto us light, peace, pardon, comfort, all we need, to do the remainder of this day’s work with both hands, and to enter on to-morrow’s labour with Christian hope.
We pray at the Cross: we name the Name that is above every name; we cannot understand the mystery which it represents, but we feel its redeeming love. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Deu 20:19 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:
Ver. 19. Thou shalt not cut them down. ] 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 God’s taste and relish, sanctifying God and Christ in our hearts, we shall not be destroyed. Oaks bring forth apples, such as they are, and acorns, but not fit for meat.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 20:19-20
19When you besiege a city a long time, to make war against it in order to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by swinging an axe against them; for you may eat from them, and you shall not cut them down. For is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by you? 20Only the trees which you know are not fruit trees you shall destroy and cut down, that you may construct siegeworks against the city that is making war with you until it falls.
Deu 20:19-20 Walled cities in the ancient Near East were attacked by wooden siege machines. The wood was to be taken from non-fruit bearing tree, probably because this produce would be needed later by the Israeli inhabitants of the defeated city.
Deu 20:19
NASB, NJBis the tree of the field a man
NKJVfor the tree of the field is man’s food
NRSVare trees in the field human beings
TEVthe trees are not your enemy
The Hebrew text is difficult here. It seems to mean that the trees are not the enemy! They were YHWH’s way of providing immediate and future food for His people.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
This is a study guide commentary which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.
These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought provoking, not definitive.
1. How was Israel’s fear of greater numbers and technology dealt with?
2. List the four exemptions from military service:
3. Did God advocate slavery (Deu 20:11)?
4. How can one reconcile Deu 20:16-17 with our view of God?
5. List all the humanitarian aspects of this chapter.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
man’s. Hebrew. ‘adam. App-14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
thou shalt not: Mat 3:10, Mat 7:15-20, Mat 21:19, Luk 13:7-9, Joh 15:2-8
for the tree: etc. or, for, O man, the tree of the field is to be employed in the siege, The original is exceedingly difficult. The LXX has it, “Is the tree in the field a man, to enter the trench before thee?” The Latin Vulgate: “For it is a tree, and not a man, neither can it increase the number of those who war against thee;” Onkelos, “For the tree of the field is not as a man, that it should come against thee in the siege;” and to the same purpose the Arabic, Philo, and Josephus who say, “If trees could speak, they would cry out, that it is unjust that they, who were no cause of the war, should suffer the miseries of it.” However rendered, the sense is sufficiently clear, and it is a merciful provision to spare all the fruit trees for the support of both the besieged and besiegers. Deu 26:6
to employ: etc. Heb. to go from before thee
Reciprocal: Deu 24:6 – life 2Ki 3:19 – fell 2Ki 3:25 – and felled
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Deu 20:19. Thou shalt not destroy the trees Which is to be understood of a general destruction of them, not of cutting down some few of them, as the convenience of the siege might require. Mans life The sustenance or support of his life.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
20:19 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 {g} tree of the field [is] man’s [life]) to employ [them] in the siege:
(g) Some read: For man shall be instead of the tree of the field, to come out in the siege against you.