Verse 3. Thou shalt prepare thee a way!'-The Jews understand this to refer to the keeping the roads to the cities of refuge in good order, that there might be nothing to impede the flight of the manslayer; and they inform us of the manner in which this injunction was complied with. The roads, they say, were broad and level, thirty-two cubits wide at the least, and without hillocks or hollows; the surface was kept smooth and hard, and all watery places drained; and every brook and river was furnished with a good bridge. To prevent the refugee from mistaking his way, a post or stone was set up at every turning, with the word miklat, 'REFUGE,' engraven upon it in large letters. Once every year, in February, the_magistrates of every city were obliged to inspect the roads, to see that they were in good condition, and order such repairs as might be required. If they neglected this, and the avenger overtook the refugee in consequence, the 'innocent blood' (as that of a person slain by the avenger is called in v. 10) was adjudged to lie at their door. If this statement be correct, the ancient Hebrews must have made very considerable advances in one of the most important arts of civil life-the making of roads. The resort of the male population thrice a year to Jerusalem, which would cause the expediency of good roads to be generally felt, may have contributed to the same result. [2 & 9, APPENDIX, No. 12.] 14. Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark.'Even at the present day, the limits between the lands of different persons are in general so faintly marked that they might be altered without much difficulty. Hedges, walls, and other such enclosures are not known in the East, unless as to gardens and orchards. Arable ground is always unenclosed, and the marks which distinguish one man's property from another, can only be known as landmarks by a practised eye. A line of single stones at wide intervals, a small ridge of earth, or an equally small trench or gutter, form the principal classes of landmarks, so that a large cultivated plain will appear one unbroken field. Boundaries of some kind or other must have been very anciently established to prevent disputes. Moses speaks of landmarks as already in use, not directing them to be set up, but forbidding their removal. Perhaps they originated in Egypt. The annual inundation of the Nile, softening | CHAPTER XX. 1 The priest's exhortation to encourage the people to battle exhortatis proclamation who are to be dismissed from the war. 10 How to use the cities that accept or refuse the proclamation of peace. 16 What cities must be devoted. 19 Trees for man's meat must not be destroyed in the siege. 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 1 Heb. be tender. 2 Heb. make haste. 3 Heb. made it common. the ground and obliterating minute marks by its slimy deposit, must soon have made the cultivators feel the necessity for some means of demarcation. It is said that the science of geometry originated in the processes and calcu lations to which they resorted for the discovery of their property. As, however, an annual survey of this sort must have been rather tedious, they were probably not long in thinking of some standing marks which would not be affected by the inundation. These were probably stones. Homer mentions stone landmarks as ancient at the time of the Trojan war. Pallas, in her conflict with Mars, thus returned his heavy stroke upon her shield:- 'She, retiring, with strong grasp upheaved A rugged stone, black, ponderous, from the plain, In after times, the Greeks and Romans, to render the landmarks the more sacred, committed them to the custody of a god, Jupiter Terminalis, who was considered to be represented by the rude landmark stones, which in time came to be sometimes improved into shapely ones, terminating in a human bust and head. This sort of god was set up at Rome by Numa Pompilius, who devoted to destruction the persons and the oxen of those who should disturb these consecrated landmarks. Before his time, according to Plutarch, the lands of the Romans had their extent marked by no determined limit. But landmarks had existed long before in Greece and other countries, and everywhere it was highly penal to remove them. We consider the following passages, from Halhed's translation of the Gentoo laws, as furnishing striking illustrations of the text: If any person should dig up the roots of a tree planted for a landmark, it is a crime, and the magistrate shall fine him 200 puns of cowries.-If a person, by removing a landmark, fraudulently appropriates to himself an additional piece of land, the magistrate shall take from him a fine of 540 puns of cowries, and shall give back the land to the owner.-If a person entirely breaks the dividing ridge between the tillage of any two persons, the magistrate shall fine him 108 puns of cowries." with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. 5 T 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 4 Chap. 24. 5. 5 Judg. 7. 3. • Heb. melt. See Levit. 9. 23. made an end of speaking unto the people, that they shall make captains of the armies to lead the people. 10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11 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. 12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: 13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou 'take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. 15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. 18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. 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 ax 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: 20 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. 10 Or, for, O man, the tree of the field is to be employed in the siege. 12 Heb. it come down. Verse 2. The priest shall approach and speak unto the people.'-It was customary among most ancient nations for a priest to be present on such occasions to encourage the soldiers. It is believed by the Jews that the priest here mentioned was one set apart and anointed for the especial purpose of attending the army, to speak to the soldiers, and to blow the silver trumpets (Num. x. 9); and they call him the anointed for war. His speech, as given in verses 3 and 4, is a short and expressive harangue, admirably adapted to the occasion and the time, which, we are told, was when the men were drawn up ready for action. 5. The officers shall speak unto the people.' - This speech, like the former, was, as the rabbins say, spoken by the priest, and merely repeated by the officers, so that it might be heard by the whole army. It is probable that, as they add, the present speech preceded the former in point of time, as the retirement of a considerable number of men, which must often have happened when this proclamation was made, would have occasioned sad confusion when the men were drawn up in battle array. It is not very clear who the officers mentioned here were, as they are distinguished in v. 9 from the military leaders, and the functions assigned them in different passages of Scripture are very multifarious. Their name is shoterim, translated in the Authorized Version sometimes 'officers,' and sometimes 'scribes.' The latter is the literal rendering, as we have shewn in the note to Exod. v. 6, where it denotes the leaders as officers ('overseers') of the Israelites in Egypt. In Num. xi. 16, they are the persons from whom the council of seventy was taken. In Deut. i. 15, they are among the persons appointed as rulers or judges; but they were different from the judges afterwards appointed for cities, as Moses directs the Hebrews to have judges and shoterim in all their gates. (Deut. xvi. 18.) In other places we find them representing the people in the great assemblies, or when they entered into covenant with God. (Deut. xxix. 10, and xxxi. 28; Josh. viii. 33, and xxiii. 2.) In the instance before us they seem to have acted in some sort as heralds; and in 2 Chron. xxvi. 11, we meet with a shoter who seems to have occupied a post somewhat analogous to that of muster-mastergeneral. Under the kings, the shoterim seem to have been usually taken from the tribe of Levi. Michaelis, followed by others, thinks that these functionaries kept the genealogical tables of the Hebrews, with a faithful record of births, marriages, and deaths; and, as they kept the rolls of families, had, moreover, the duty of apportioning the public burdens and services on the people individually. He adds: Among a people whose notions were completely clannish, and with whom all hereditary succession, and even all posthumous fame, depended on genealogical registers, this office must have been fully as inportant as that of a judge.' — built a new house, and hath not dedicated it.'—That is, has not begun to occupy or enjoy it. On their first occupation of a new house, the Jews made a feast, which, being the first eaten there, was called the chanukah, or 'dedication.' (See Patrick in locum.) The word is the same as that which expresses the dedication' of the temple; and although it does not here imply any consecration to holy uses, it may possibly refer to some religious solemnity of prayer and thanksgiving with which pious men were accustomed to enter on the occupation of new houses. In Nehem. xii. 27, seq. there is an account of the ceremonies at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem, which may assist our ideas on the subject. The Jews think that the exemption extended to a year from the commencement of occupation. In the East, where, generally, every man is ambitious to build himself a new house according to his own fancy, and rather dislikes to repair and occupy an old one, this event is a sort of era in a man's life, which accounts for the importance here attached to it. The feeling on this subject was not peculiar to the Jews. Homer (Iliad, ii.) mentions it as a personal mis fortune in the fate of Protesilaus, the first Greek killed in the Trojan war, that— • A wife he left To rend in Phylace her bleeding cheeks, And an unfinish'd mansion.' COWPER. 6. Planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it.'This must, by parity of reason, be understood to extend also to orchards, olive-yards, and the like. The Jews say that five trees planted together, and in good order, sufficed for a ground of exemption from military service. This must have operated for five years, as the law did not regard fruits as fit for use in the first three years; the fourth produced the first fruits, which were to be taken to the place of the sanctuary, and eaten there; and thus the produce did not become wholly at the proprietor's own disposal until the fifth year. 7. Betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her.'—This refers to the custom still common among Oriental nations, in which persons are often betrothed to each other a long time before the marriage is actually completed and the bride taken home. In chap. xxiv. 5, there is a sequel to this law, directing that a man should be exempt from service a year after marriage. As there could be no want of men in a country where every man was liable to serve, the Jews always seem to have interpreted these exemptions in the largest possible sense. Their utility in a nation so constituted must be apparent. Josephus touches on one good reason for them, that men, when taken from that which had much engaged their attention and were preparing to enjoy, would not be likely to serve very cheerfully, and might be rather too careful to preserve their lives. 8. What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted.— One would think that no man would avail himself of such an immunity as this, which involved a voluntary declaration of cowardice. But the fact was otherwise, of which we have a remarkable instance in the history of Gideon, more than two-thirds (22,000 out of 32,000) of whose army left him when permission was proclaimed for the fearful and fainthearted' to retire. (Judges vii. 3.) The truth is, that much as the Jews came to be ultimately distinguished for their valour and prowess, they were, for a considerable period after the exode, a timid and unwarlike people, who recovered but slowly from the depressing influence which the hard bondage' in Egypt had exercised upon their mind and character. This the more magnifies the Divine power, which put such a people in possession of Palestine, notwithstanding the numerous and warlike adversaries by whom they were opposed. The manner in which the forces were levied was not calculated to exclude the usual proportion of cowardly people from the original levy, and hence the present after-process was resorted to for getting rid of those who were likely to do double mischief, by the example they set, and by the disorder their conduct would occasion. This was of the more importance in an irregular militia, such as was the Hebrew force. In our standing armies,' observes Michaelis, the strictness of military discipline compels the most dastardly cowards, as they are confined in close ranks, to fight nearly as well as the bravest warriors. Some thousand years ago, however, the case was in all points very different. Military operations were not so artificial and mechanical as now.' read of some ancient generals who resorted to some such expedient as the present to clear their armies of cowards; but we do not know of any but the Hebrew nation which had a standing law calculated for that object. We 10. When thou comest nigh unto a city,' etc.-From hence to v. 15, we have the regular war-law; that is, the law applicable to all ordinary wars, as distinguished from those with the seven devoted nations, who were to be treated under the special law which we find in verses 16-18. In other words, we have first the general law, and then the exception. The details claim the attention of those who would enter into the principles on which we see that future wars were conducted. -Proclaim peace unto it.'-That is, that the lives and property of the inhabitants should be safe, if they surrendered the place on certain conditions. Tribute is the only condition here mentioned; but the Jewish writers add, that they were also to renounce idolatry, and become subject to the Jews. These are not three things, as they state them, but two-subjection being implied in tribute. If the rabbins were right, it is more probable that these two things were proposed rather as alternatives than as conditions, and that the enemy would have been at liberty to accept either, but was not bound to accept both. In fact, we shall hereafter find the Jews rendering nations tributary without requiring them to become proselytes. We are convinced, however, that the whole opinion is wrong, as there is nothing in the Pentateuch, or elsewhere in the Bible, which sanctions an attempt to compel a people to change their religion. This, however, which the rabbins attribute to their law, was actually the war-law of Mohammedanism, by which tribute or conversion were proposed as the only alternatives of peace. Their law on this point is thus stated in the Mischat-ul-Masabih, in accordance with the Koran:-'When you meet your enemies the polytheists, invite them to three things; and whichever they accept of, approve of in them, and refrain from troubling them: invite them to Islam, and if they accept it, then do not spill their blood or take their property: but if they refuse to become Musselmans, call upon them to pay a poll-tax; and if they refuse to give it, then ask assistance from God, and fight them.' The law of the present chapter seems to leave it doubtful whether terms of peace were, in the first instance, to be offered to the devoted nations; and Biblical scholars are rather divided on the subject. Some Jewish writers of authority think in the affirmative, and say that Joshua actually did send three deputations to the Canaanites, two with offers of peace, and the third with a declaration of war. But we do not see how this can be rendered compatible with the strong injunctions to make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them' (Deut. vii. 2); or with the conduct of the Gibeonites, who, when they wished to save their lives by timely submission, only hoped to do so by deceiving Joshua into the belief that they did not belong to any one of the seven nations. This last difficulty they indeed obviate by saying, that the Gibeonites had previously refused the alternatives of peace, and wished, though late, to repair their error. Even these authorities, however, do not state that conversion was one of the alternatives proposed by Joshua to the Canaanites. The first message, they say, was 'Let him flee who will;' the second, Let him surrender who will;' and the third, 'Let him fight who will.' 12. Besiege it.'-Some details concerning ancient sieges will more properly be brought out by the account given in Scripture of several which actually took place. Meanwhile, our wood-cut, after an engraving in the Description de l'Egypte, will suggest some leading ideas on the subject. It is copied from the walls of what is commonly called the 'Memnonium,' at Thebes, and is unquestionably the most ancient representation extant of an attempt to take a fortified place. Its interest is the greater when we reflect that the usages of the Israelites in the attack of fortified places were, at this time, doubtless such as they had brought from Egypt, and consequently such as this scene exhibits; for the representation is referred to the time of Rameses the Great, four of whose sons appear (at the bottom) directing the assault, and whose reign commenced rather less than a century (B.c. 1355) after the present time. This remarkable representation has much engaged the attention of antiquarians, and various explanations have been given. From this and other representations we collect, that the Egyptians, in attacking a fortified town, advanced under cover of the arrows of the bowmen; and either instantly applied the scalingladder to the ramparts, or undertook the routine of a regular siege in which case, having advanced to the walls, they posted themselves under shelter of testudos, and dislodged the stones of the parapet with a species of battering-ram, directed and impelled by a body of men exclusively chosen for this service: but when the place held it was out against these attacks, and neither coup de main, the ladder, nor the ram were found to succeed, they probably employed the testudo for concealing and protecting the sappers while they mined the place. The testudo was a framework, sometimes supported by poles, having a forked summit, and covered in all probability with hides; sufficiently large to contain several men, and so placed that the light troops might mount upon the outside, and thus obtain a footing on more elevated ground, apply the ladders with greater precision, or obtain some other important advantage: and each party was commanded by an officer of skill, and frequently by those of the first rank. In the present engraving, each of the four testudos is commanded by a son of the king. They also endeavoured to force open the gates of the town, or hew them down with axes; and when the fort was built upon a rock, they escaladed the precipitous parts by means of the testudo, or by short spikes of metal, which they forced into the crevices of the stone, and then applied the ladder to the ramparts. See further on this subject Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians, i. 359-364. 6 13. Smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.' -We are not told how the Hebrew assailants were to act in the event that, in the further progress of the siege, the inhabitants offered to capitulate and sued for quarter. Pro bably they were allowed the same, or nearly the same, conditions which had first been offered. At any rate, the execution here permitted, seems to proceed on the supposition that the place had been taken by storm. Moham med did not omit to provide for such a contingency as we have mentioned.-The effect of the present law is, that all the males fit to bear arms were to be put to death; but that all the females, and the males not of age to bear arms (which is the usual meaning of little ones), were to be spared. We do not see any use in going far for an explanation of this direction. Its severity, as compared with the usages of modern European warfare, must at once be admitted. But that severity was not confined to the Hebrew mode of warfare; it formed the common war-law of all ancient nations, among whom the male prisoners capable of bearing arms were not only put to death, but were often previously subjected to the most horrid and barbarous tortures. It was only slowly that men learned to consider it more advantageous to retain their captives, or to sell them as slaves, than to kill them; and the plan of keeping prisoners, to be exchanged for those taken by the enemy, was only introduced when wars became of longer duration than they usually were in the first ages. The treatment of prisoners partly resulted from the peculiarities of ancient | warfare. The subjugation of a people was not then the result of a succession of battles, in which prisoners remained with both parties; but a single battle usually decided the fate of a nation, so that prisoners only remained with the exasperated victors. When armies became more disciplined, and nations learned to manage their resources, so that even defeated armies would repeatedly rally, and a nation could endure a succession of defeats before it was conquered or a peace concluded, prisoners necessarily remained in the hands of both parties, and were, after a time, preserved by both, to be exchanged at the conclusion of the war. We venture to think that this is as good an explanation as can be given of the imputed severity of the Hebrew military law. Michaelis, who has given much attention to this subject, has many excellent remarks, of which, it will be seen, we have availed ourselves in the illustration of this chapter. He does not enter into the view which we have here been led to take; but, on the text before us, he observes, 'The Israelites could not regulate their conduct by our more merciful law of nations, which is, by several thousand years, of later date; but they acted precisely as their vanquished foes would have done, had they been lucky enough to have been the conquerors: and they therefore merit the praise of magnanimity, if, to lessen the evils of war, we see them refraining in the smallest degree from insisting on requital of like for like to the utmost. The enemies with whom the Israelites had to deal were wont not merely to put the vanquished to death, but at the same time to exercise great cruelties upon them. The Bible is full of relations to this purport. . . .The law of nations, according to which the Israelites had to carry on war, was made by these nations themselves; for this law is founded on the manners of nations, and on the permission which we have to treat others as they treat us.' This writer also, very properly, cites, in corroboration of the Scripture statements, the testimony of the Romans, who, although they behaved much more severely to their enemies than we do, complained grievously of the barbarous conduct of the Carthaginians towards their prisoners; and these Carthaginians were the direct descendants of the Canaanites, and had an Asiatic law of nations. It must also be remarked, as partly accounting for the destruction of the adult males, that among the ancient nations there was no such distinction between a citizen and a soldier as among us, and that every one who could bear arms, actually did so when required. 6 16. Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.'This is the exception to that general war-law to which the preceding note refers; and it is an exception which has provoked more animadversion than even the general law itself. Something has been incidentally said on the subject in the notes to Num. xxxi. 14, and in the note on v. 10 of the present chapter. We may now further observe, that the general law was applicable to distant countries, which the Hebrews were not intended to occupy, and which they had therefore no object in depopulating, and might leave in the occupation of the old inhabitants on their consenting to pay tribute, or, at the worst, were only authorized to enfeeble that nation by the destruction of the males able to bear arms. But the present law is intended to meet a different case. It applies to nations whose country the Israelites were to occupy as their own and peculiar land; and, from the degraded and corrupt character of the old inhabitants, and from their principles being more adverse to those of the Hebrew constitution, it was in the highest degree dangerous that they should be suffered to remain in the land along with the Hebrews. The principal reason, therefore, which the Scripture assigns for this law of extermination, was the extraordinary condition of profligacy and impiety at which the Canaanites had arrived. This was notorious even in the time of Abraham: but the measure of their iniquity was not then full, that is, their enormities had not attained that height which rendered their destruction judicially necessary, Their destruction is scarcely ever enjoined without their guilt being assigned as a cause, and therefore it is right to give that cause the principal weight. Now,' says Bishop Watson, it will be impossible to prove that it was contrary to God's moral justice to exterminate so wicked a people. He made the Israelites the executors of his vengeance; and, in doing this, he gave such evident and terrible proof of his abomination of vice as could not fail to strike the surrounding nations with astonishment and terror, and to impress upon the minds of the Israelites what they were to expect if they followed the example of the nations whom he commanded them to cut off. "Ye shall not commit any of these abominations, that the land spue you not out also, as it spued out the nations which were before you." (Levit. xviii. 28.) How strong and descriptive is this language! The vices of the inhabitants were so abominable that the very land was sick of them, and forced to vomit them forth as the stomach disgorges deadly poison.' (Apology for the Bible.) This view takes the matter in its broadest and strongest meaning, and assumes the real intention to have been that which is clearly and repeatedly declared, without seeking inferential conclusions to shew that the injunction is to be understood less severely than its plain terms indicate. It is better at once to avow that the Canaanites were to be judicially exterminated, on the same grounds and under the same principle as that on which the far more awful judgment of the Deluge had before been brought upon the world. It is, however, certain that the Canaanites had the alternative of migration before them, and it appears that many of them did adopt this alternative. And although it does not appear that the Jews had any authority to propose to them a change of religion as an alternative-which would have been to convert them by the sword-there is much that favours the conclusion that, if any city or people had been spontaneously impressed by the evidences of Divine power which marked the wondrous progress of the Hebrews, and had been struck by the beauty and purity of the faith established among them, and had then turned from their idols and abominations, humbling themselves before the God of Israel, they might, and would, have been excepted from the general sentence of condemnation. Josh. xi. 19, 20, seems to imply that, if their hearts had not, to the last, been hardened, they might have found favour. There are instances which lead to this conclusion, particularly that of Rahab, who, with all her family, was preserved, with the full sanction of Joshua, when her city was destroyed. This was her reward for concealing the Hebrew spies; her doing which is stated by the Apostle to have been the result of her faith in Jehovah. (Josh. vi. 17, 22-25; Heb. xi. 31.) For some observations as to the manner in which this law was obeyed, see the note on Judges ii. 2, 3. 19. (For the tree of the field is man's life.')-The word life' is not in the original, and the clause reads more correctly without it. There have been many various readings, of which perhaps the best is- Thou shalt not cut them down to employ them in the siege; for the fruittrees of the field are for the support of man.' The meaning of the whole very clearly is, that, in the case of a long siege, where there might be a want of wood for raising works against the town, they were to abstain from using for the purpose those trees that bore fruit, while others equally fit for their occasions could be procured. Of course, this precept would absolutely prohibit the unneces sary destruction of fruit-trees as an act of wanton aggression. As, in the East, a much more considerable part of man's subsistence is derived from fruit-bearing trees than in our climates, the wanton destruction of such trees is considered little less than an act of impiety. Mohammed, in one of his wars, cut down the date-trees of the BeniNadr (a tribe of Jews), and burnt them. This act must evidently have been viewed with strong disapprobation even by his own people, for he found it necessary to affirm that he had received a revelation from heaven sanctioning the deed: This revelation came down : What palmtrees ye cut down, or left standing on their roots, were so cut down or left by the will of God, that he might disgrace the evil-doers."' (Koran, chap. lix.; Mischat-ul-Masabih, chap. v.) It is very probable that Mohammed did not dare to repeat the experiment. |