Deuteronomy 20:19 Komentář

This chapter settles the militia, and establishes the laws and ordinances of war, I. Relating to the soldiers. 1. Those must be encouraged that were drawn up to battle (Deu 20:1-4). 2. Those must be dismissed and sent back again whose private affairs called for their attendance at home (Deu 20:5-7), or whose weakness and timidity unfitted them for service in the field (Deu 20:8, Deu 20:9). II. Relating to the enemies they made war with. 1. The treaties they must make with the cities that were far off (Deu 20:10-15). 2. The destruction they must make of the people into whose land they were going (Deu 20:16-18). 3. The care they must take, in besieging cities, not to destroy the fruit-trees (Deu 20:19, Deu 20:20).

INTRODUCTION TO DEUTERONOMY 20 In this chapter rules are given to be observed in times of war. When a battle was near, a priest was to address the soldiers, and encourage them to fight, Deu 20:1, then the officers were to declare who might return home, Deu 20:5 when an enemy's city was approached, peace was to be proclaimed on certain conditions, which, if accepted of, the inhabitants were to be tributaries and servants, but if not, when taken, all were to be put to the sword, excepting women, children, and cattle, Deu 20:10, but those of the seven nations were to be utterly destroyed, Deu 20:16, and, during a siege, no trees bearing fruit fit for food were to be cut down, Deu 20:19.

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 Mat 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.

The Logos in his goodness, richly equipped with love of humankind, teaches that it is not right to cut down cultivated trees, still less to cut crops for purposes of vandalism before harvest, and even less still to destroy, root and branch, cultivated fruit, whether of the land or of the soul. It does not even allow the razing of enemy land. Yes, and farmers find their profit from the law. It enjoins them to take care of their young trees right to their third year, pruning them to prevent them being oppressed by excessive weight and being weakened through shortage of a nourishment spread too thinly. It enjoins them to trench and dig around them to prevent parasites from inhibiting their growth. It does not allow the harvesting of immature fruit from immature trees. After three years, the first fruits are to be consecrated to God after the tree has reached maturity.

THE PRIESTS' EXHORTATION TO ENCOURAGE THE PEOPLE TO BATTLE. (Deu. 20:1-20) When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies--In the approaching invasion of Canaan, or in any just and defensive war, the Israelites had reason to expect the presence and favor of God.

thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them--In a protracted siege, wood would be required for various purposes, both for military works and for fuel. But fruit-bearing trees were to be carefully spared; and, indeed, in warm countries like India, where the people live much more on fruit than we do, the destruction of a fruit tree is considered a sort of sacrilege.

Instructions for Future Wars - Deuteronomy 20 The instructions in this chapter have reference to the wars which Israel might wage in future against non-Canaanitish nations (Deu 20:15.), and enjoin it as a duty upon the people of God to spare as much as possible the lives of their own soldiers and also of their enemies. All wars against their enemies, even though they were superior to them in resources, were to be entered upon by them without fear in reliance upon the might of their God; and they were therefore to exempt from military service not only those who had just entered into new social relations, and had not enjoyed the pleasures of them, but also the timid and fainthearted (Deu 20:1-9). Moreover, whenever they besieged hostile towns, they were to offer peace to their enemies, excepting only the Canaanites; and even if it were not accepted, they were to let the defenceless (viz., women and children) live, and not to destroy the fruit-trees before the fortifications (Deu 20:10-20).

When they besieged a town a long time to conquer it, they were not to destroy its trees, to swing the axe upon them. That we are to understand by עצהּ the fruit-trees in the environs and gardens of the town, is evident from the motive appended: "for of them (ממּנּוּ refers to עץ as a collective) thou eatest, and thou shalt not hew them down." The meaning is: thou mayest suppress and destroy the men, but not the trees which supply thee with food. "For is the tree of the field a man, that it should come into siege before thee?" This is evidently the only suitable interpretation of the difficult words השּׂדה עץ האדם כּי, and the one which has been expressed by all the older commentators, though in different ways. But it is one which can only be sustained grammatically by adopting the view propounded by Clericus and others: viz., by pointing the noun האדם with ה interrog., instead of האדם, and taking אדם as the object, which its position in the sentence fully warrants (cf. Ewald, 324, b. and 306, b.). The Masoretic punctuation is founded upon the explanation given by Aben Ezra, "Man is a tree of the field, i.e., lives upon and is fed by the fruits of the trees," which Schultz expresses in this way, "Man is bound up with the tree of the field, i.e., has his life in, or from, the tree of the field," - an explanation, however, which cannot be defended by appealing to Deu 24:6; Ecc 12:13; Eze 12:10, as these three passages are of a different kind. In no way whatever can האדם be taken as the subject of the sentence, as this would not give any rational meaning. And if it were rendered as the object, in such sense as this, The tree of the field is a thing or affair of man, it would hardly have the article. Deu 20:20 "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 ירד as applied to the falling or sinking of lofty fortifications, see Deu 28:52; Isa 32:19. מצור, compressing or forcing down; hence, as applied to towns, במּצור בּוא, to come into siege, i.e., to be besieged (Deu 20:19; Kg2 24:10; Kg2 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).