Deut 20
Notes
War in the Old Testament was always viewed as a necessary evil in the defense of God’s people from those who would seek their harm but also as an offensive measure in advancing their territorial interests. As the Creator and Sovereign over all things, the Lord had the right to bring them under his dominion, by force if necessary. And this he chose to do through the human instrument of his elect people.
All war by Israel under divine protection is therefore “holy war” (or “Yahweh war”) and as such was not only permitted by the Lord but initiated and carried out by him and his heavenly and earthly hosts. The wicked nations as a whole were viewed as under hostile and even demonic leadership and so they had to either capitulate to Yahweh’s lordship or face his wrathful judgment.
The peoples of Canaan in particular were to be eradicated, for they occupied the land of Israel’s inheritance and, furthermore, constituted a never-ending threat to Israel’s purity and separateness as a kingdom of priests.
The biblical witness is univocal that the Canaanites were beyond hope of redemption and had to be placed under the merciless ḥērem of the Lord.
The passage at hand provided a “manual of war” for Israel, a handbook addressing in a comprehensive if brief way the proper attitude of God’s people toward enemy forces and the approach to be used in undertaking war against them. After an introductory statement identifying such conflict as the Lord’s (vv. 1–4), the text provided provisions whereby exemption from military service could be allowed (vv. 5–9), strategy to be followed in offensive war against distant cities (vv. 10–15), and the invocation of ḥērem with respect to the nations of the land of promise (vv. 16–18). There is finally an appendix pertaining to the sparing of trees, a most ironic twist in a document devoted to the destruction of human life (vv. 19–20).
Moreover, he would lead the armies himself as the reference to the priest attests (v. 2). Not only did the priest address the army on the Lord’s behalf (v. 3), but his presence suggests also the presence of the ark of the covenant, the symbol of the Lord’s visitation in war at the forefront of his hosts (Num 10:35; Josh 3:1–6; 6:1–14; 1 Sam 4:3–8).
20:4 Especially significant is the “do not fear” language of the pericope, whether in the imperfect (lōʾ tîrâʾ; v. 1) or jussive (ʾal tîrʾû; v. 3) forms. This formula is endemic to “holy war” texts elsewhere in the Old Testament (Num 14:9; Deut 1:29; 3:2, 22; 7:18; Josh 10:8; Isa 43:1). The exodus motif is likewise pervasive in such contexts (cf. 4:34–38; 6:20–23; 7:8; 11:3–7; 26:8; Isa 11:11–16; Jer 32:16–23).
The concessions and exemptions that follow (vv. 5–9) are not so much prompted by compassion (though that is not altogether lacking) as by the desire for singlemindedness on the part of those who bear arms.
But there may also be an undercurrent here of that same spirit that later was manifest in the paring down of Gideon’s army from thirty-two thousand to three hundred men. This was done so that Israel might not boast “that her own strength has saved her” (Judg 7:2). In line with holy war, once more, it was to be clear to all observers that battles were won because of the power and presence of the Lord and not because of human prowess.
20:6–7 In the present context the purpose of the dedication appears to have been the public solidification of legitimate claims of ownership and occupation of the property. Were this attestation not declared before the community, there would have been no commonly recognized ownership by the builder of the house and no way to guard his successors against unjust appropriation of their estate.
The same concern is reflected in the second example of disqualification, the need to benefit from the produce of the vineyard (v. 6). Were one to lose his life in conflict, his labors in planting and tending the grapevines would go unrewarded, for another would enjoy their fruits instead.
Indeed, for this very reason a man engaged to be married was to be excused from military service (v. 7). Should he die before taking a wife, she would doubtless become the bride of another man. Moreover, the original husband-to-be would leave no posterity and thus his name would die out forever.
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.
