WAR AND CHRISTIAN SERVICE IN WAR.
I. Theory and Ethics of War.
- Ethics of War (§ 1).
- Patristic and Medieval Views (§ 2).
- Clerics and Military Service (§ 3).
II. Movements and Societies for Mitigation of Horrors of
War.
- Origin of Societies for Care of Wounded (§ 1).
- German Societies (§ 2).
I. Theory and Ethics of War: Though war is
undoubtedly an evil, it is not unmixed with good,
and the view that condemns it unconditionally is
one-aided. To base this view on the words of Jesus
in the
sermon on the mount (Matt. v.
r. Ethics 39-44) is to misinterpret the passage.
of War. It is true that in the kingdom of heaven
there will be no place for war, and that
the development of the work of salvation among
men points directly to the abolition of war; but the
future can not be anticipated. The Christian must
bear with patience present evils and tribulations
(Rom. xii. 11).
Did not Moses say, "The Lord is a
man of war"
(Ex. xv. 3)?
David confidently recommends his martial doings to the Lord (Ps. ix., xviii.,
Ix.). There is no reason for restricting the validity
of this view to the time of the old dispensation, for
nowhere does
the New Testament reject war unconditionally. John the Baptist did not ask of the
soldiers that they abandon their profession
(Luke iii. 14),
nor did Jesus ask such a thing of the centurion of Capernaum
(Matt. viii. 5-13),
or Peter of
Cornelius (Acts x.). God has given the sword to
rulers that they.may punish evil-doers and maintain law and order. It was from this point of view
that Luther wrote Ob
Kriegsleute such in seligem
Siande sein konnen.
He maintained that unnecessary war is a sin, but that necessary war is a duty.
The part of the individual Christian in war is a matter of duty to the ruler. It is not for him to decide
whether or not the war is justified. This view of
the Reformer has not been changed greatly by later
Evangelical ethics. The right of intervention, which
is now generally recognized, offers a difficult problem; and it is questionable whether, in matters pertaining to the kingdom of God, the sword should
be drawn at all
(Matt. xxvi. 52).
Strategy in war
has been recognized from time immemorial, and is
justified, in that it serves to shorten the war and
diminish lose of life. As regards the care of the
wounded and the life and property of non-combatants, warfare is now conducted on more humane
principles than formerly. Even Luther regarded
robbing and burning as unavoidable. It can not be
too
strongly emphasized that the only proper purpose of war is to restore peace and reestablish law
and order, and that no more damage should be done
to the enemy than is necessary for the accomplishment of this purpose. Recent attempts to secure
a world-peace by disarmament are based upon
economic considerations rather than upon Christian
principles.
The early Christians abhorred war, partly on account of a misinterpretation of the words of Jesus
to Peter, "for all they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword"
(Matt. xxvi. 52);
partly
because military service brought them
a. Patristic in contact with many idolatrous rites.
and Medi- The State seemed to them an exprea-
eval Views. aion of the godlessness of the world and
its hostility to Christ. In this spirit
Tertullian treated the subject
(De idol., xix.; De
corona militis, xi., both in
ANF,
vol.
iii.). Nevertheless, in spite of the reigning aversion, many
Christians served in the Roman army (Tertullian,
APoI., xlii.; Ad Scdp., iv.);
and when, under the
reign of Constantine, the relation between State
and Church became one of intimate friendship
and alliance the objections of the Christians to
war were gradually silenced. Augustine, who
maintained intimate personal and epistolary intercourse with many distinguished statesmen, such
as Marcellinus and Bonifacius, considered war a
social benefit, and military service an employment
of a talent agreeable to God (Epist., ecvii. ad
Bonif.,
and Epist., cxa:xviii.
ad
Marc.). In his book
against Faustus (XXII., Lyxiv.) he exclaims, " What
is there bad in war "? Later on, when it became the
great task of the Church to convert the Germanic
tribes no objections to war were heard. True, its
horrors and cruelties were mitigated by the "Truce
of God" (q.v.), the sanctity of sacred places (see
Asylum, Right of),
etc. Indeed, the Church instigated the wars of the Crusades, which were regarded
as wars of God. Nor is the attitude which Luther
assumed with
respect to the Peasants' War and
the war against the Turks different in principle
from that which the Latin Church originally assumed with respect to the Crusades. In the ancient
church the clergy were absolutely forbidden to participate in was; and no one who had served in the
army after he had professed Christianity was admitted to holy orders. During the Middle Ages it
was not rare to find great generals among the bishops. Such a one was Christian of Mainz. After
the decay of the feudal system the clergy were freed
from all personal military service.
Now that military service is required of all in
Germany, the question of military service by clerics
has again become a vital one, and has
3. Clerics occasioned much discussion. It has
and Mili- been urged that military duties are in
tact' Service. consistent with service in the kingdom
of God, and that the obligations of the
young
clergyman to his church should take pre
cedence of secular duties. From the point of view
of the Church it is highly objectionable that the
work of preparation of the theological student should
be unnecessarily interrupted by a period of military
service, which may prove both expensive and
demoralizing. [For views traversing those of this article see
Peace Movements.)
(Karl Burgert.)
II. Movements and Societies for Mitigation of
Horrors of War: Felddiakonie is the German term
for voluntary service rendered to combatants in
time of war. In its origin it partook of the nature
of
Christian ministration, but was also influenced
largely by the spirit of secular humanitarianism.
The care of the sick and wounded in
r. Origin war presupposes three essential eleof Societies menu-the existence of a trained and
for Care of devoted body of voluntary workers,
Wounded. their harmonious cooperation with the
regular. military sanitary department,
and the recognition of their neutral character by international law. Up to the middle of the nineteenth
century the fate of those wounded in battle was pitiful,
and even the Crimean War, which witnessed the
heroic labors of Florence Nightingale and the first
beginnings of organized sanitary activity on the
part of volunteers, deprived war of but few of its
horrors in the field and the hospital. It was the
Lombard War of 1859 that gave the great impulse
to the movement. Stirred by the dreadful sights
of the battle-field of Solferino Henri Dunant of
Geneva began to plead the cause of the wounded
soldier, and so eloquently as finally to convince the
entire world of the necessity of radical improvement in that sphere. On Aug. 22, 1864; was concluded the Geneva Convention by which the sick
and wounded in war together with the staff devoted
to their care and all utilities appertaining to the
work were declared inviolable under the sign of the
Red Cross (q.v.) on a white field. But of more
avail than the specific conditions of the Geneva
convention itself was the impulse thus given to a
great humanitarian movement which
speedily came
to constitute one of the most wide-spread fields of
beneficent human activity. The basis had been
laid for the foundation of numerous societies which
may be divided into two general categories according as the moving spirit is one of Christian mission
work or of secular humanitarianism and patriotism.
Of Protestant associations the Knights. of St.
John trace back to the time of the crusades. The
bailly of Brandenburg in the grand
priory of Germany was disbanded in 1812, and revived in 1852
as an Evangelical order devoted to the
s. German defense of religion and the performance
Societies. of works of mercy. Both in peace and
war it has been active in the care of
the sick through the erection and maintenance of
hospitals and the knightly protection of sisters
engaged in their work of mercy on the battlefield.
In 1898 the
order counted 770 active and 1,77
affiliated honorary members, and maintained 48
establishments with 2,297 beds, attended exclusively by the members of the sisterhoods. In time of
war it can place 1,600 women nurses in the field.
Among Roman Catholic orders the first place belongs
to the Knights of Malta, divided into two asaocia-
tione, one in Silesia organized in 1864, and one in
the Rhenish and Westphalian region founded three
years later. Its staff includes about 1,500 sisters of
mercy and a smaller number of brethren. The
Knights of St. George are a Bavarian order founded
in 1729 and reorganized in 1871. Non-religious
bodies are the Associations for the Care of the
Wounded and Sick in War of which the first was
founded in Württemberg in 1863, followed within
five years by others in all the principal German
states. In 1886 a movement was set on foot for the
organization of voluntary associations for the care
of the sick under the auspices of Johann Wichern,
director of the Rauhes Haus, whose exertions -resulted in the establishment of branches throughout
Germany and the creation of a body of 2,200 trained
nurses with a reserve of almost double that number.
The organic law conditioning the existence and
character of all these associations is the sanitary
ordinance of Jan. 10, 1878. For Red Cross Societies
see the article on that subject; gee also
Peace Movements.
(Theodore Schäfer.)
Bibliography:
The subject is sometimes .treated in dis-
I. The Army: Not till the royal period did the
Hebrews possess a standing army, but from a much
earlier time every male adult able to fight was liable
to call for field service. Bedouins either on a raid
or when attacked expect the help of
z. Primitive every member of the tribe. The stateConditions. went in P
(Num. i. 1-2, xxvi. 2)
of
twenty years as the age when war
service may be required may express ancient custom and possibly tells the age at which men became members of the tribe with full rights. The
Book of Judges describes conditions from this point
of view. In case of an expedition for booty or conquest or of necessity for repelling attack the men
capable of bearing arms assembled under a recognized head-the boldest of their number
(Judges xi. 1
sqq.); in case the danger was great, messengers were sent to friendly tribes for help. An example of this last was Jabesh-gilead, the elders of which
sent for help throughout Israel, when Saul made his
stirring appeal and called for the people to come to
the war
(I Sam. xi. 3
sqq.). In case of victory, each
man returned home with his booty. This method
did not permit great wars and slaughter or great
armies, but resembled the conditions under which
at the present Bedouin raids occur. The numbers
of men engaged were relatively small; Gideon had
300 men
(Judges vii. 16),
the Danites numbered 600
(Judges xviii. 11).
Larger numbers are mentioned
in the Song of Deborah
(Judges v. 8,
cf. iv. 14). But
the methods which had sufficed against the Midianitea were not adequate when the enemy. was a
warlike and relatively great and well-armed people
like the Philistines. So Saul recognized the need of
a standing army, and after the victory over the
Ammonites in view of conflicts with the Philistines
he retained 3,000 men under arms
(I Sam. xiii. 1
sqq.), though it is not said that this was a permanent force. Yet he had a force as a body-guard, of
which David was the leader
(I Sam. xxii. 14),
the
members of which were noted warriors, selected by
Saul from all Israel
(I Sam. xiv. 52).
A step momentous in its consequences was the
king's assumption of appointment of the leaders,
the people's voice being no longer heard in the matter. While at first naturally the heads of the tribes
and such men were first chosen by
a. The Saul, his own interest led to the placing
Standing in responsible positions of those known
Army.
to be true to him, eventually to mem
bers of the royal household, as Jona
than
(
I Sam. xiii. 1
sqq.), and under David near re
lations like Joab, Abner, and Amass. Saul sought
to bind David to himself by giving him his daugh
ter Michal. The body-guard had a place in history
which was noteworthy. Under David it was 400
strong at Adullam
(
I Sam. xxii. 2),
and a little later
numbered 600
(
I Sam. xxiii. 13);
at the time of the
Philistine fight
(
I Sam. xxviii. 1
sqq.) it must have
been a formidable force, as the times then went.
This force became David's guard, known as "heroes"
and "Cherethites and Pelethites"
(
I Kings i. 8, 38).
The last designation has been taken to show
that Philistines were in it; this
is
not certain, but
David had a company of 600 under Ittai of Gath
who were trustworthy in critical times
(
II Sam. xv. 19),
and Benaiah was their general
(
II Sam. xxiii. 23).
This body-guard was the kernel of David's
army; whether the standing army included more
is not known. The Chronicler (L, xxvii. 1 sqq.)
divides the whole army into twelve corps of 24,000
each, which served each one month; but the report
is untrustworthy. Still, regular organization of the
army under David is clear, since Joab's office as
general-in-chief was permanent. Considering the
number and length of David's wars, it is improbable
that the entire force available was always under
arms-such a condition was often unnecessary, and
economic conditions would not permit it: The num
bering of the people by David probably had mili-
tary purposes behind it. The organization was by
thousands, hundreds, and fifties
(
I Sam. viii. 12, xvii. 18, xviii. 13;
II Sam. xviii. 1;
II Kings i. 9, xi. 4, 19);
such an organization is attributed to Saul's
times, but it is doubtful whether this breaking up
of the old tribal organization occurred so soon. Regal
interests furthered the dissolution of tribal ties,
and tribal organization was disregarded in Solomon's
divisions
(
I Kings iv. 7
sqq.), which may have had
a military basis. Obligation to bear arms and to
pay taxes rested on possession of the soil, so
that
when Nebuchadrezzar took away " the mighty men
of valor
"(
II Kings xxiv. 14),
naturally only" the
poorest . . . of the land " remained. In later times
among the
officers of the army was the " scribe of
the host " (Jer. Iii. 25).
Limitations to a call to war are placed by
Deut. xxiv. 5, xx. 5-8,
and certain prescriptions were observed by Judas the Maccabee
(I Macc.. iii. 55).
Which of these prescriptions is the older is
difficult
to define, and the practicality is both questioned
(Wellhausen,
Composition des Hexa-
3. The
teach, p.
182, but cf. p. 359 of the 3d
Personnel ed., 1899) and defended (Schwally,
and Pay.
Semitische Kriegsaltertiimer, i.
74 sqq.).
Since the wars of Israel were wars of
Yahweh, ceremonial impurity excluded from service. At the time when these prescriptions were
written, customs were still in memory which made
them explicable, and
some of them can be explained
from present knowledge. In Maccabean times there
were changes in the military establishment. Judas
had, in addition to the groupings already mentioned, one of ten men
(I Macc. iii. 55);
Simon
raised a force paid from his own resources (ib.
xiv. 32); Hyrcanus enlisted foreigners (Josephus,
Ant., XIII., viii.
4), while Jews increasingly entered
the service of foreign kings (both Ptoleaniea and
Seleucidx;
I Macc. x. 36;
Josephus,
Ant.,
XII., ii.
5). Under Alexander Jannxua and Alexandra foreign mercenaries held the Jews in check (Josephus,
Ant.,
XIII., xiii. 5); Hyrcanus furnished troops to
the Romans (ib. XIV., x. 2); under the Herods, the
army was trained in Roman fashion, and Germans
were among the forces. In case the need was urgent, the
forces were summoned by the trumpet or
by the display of signal. Whether the forces carried standards in early times is unknown, but passages in P (Nam. i. 52, ii. 2-34) speak of such both for
tribes and families, though their character is not determined. Naturally in ancient times the commissariat was not specially governed; each man took
what he could, even in his own country
(II Sam. xvii. 27)-Jesse
sent provisions to his eons through
David
(I Sam. xvii. 17).
Yet
Judges xx. 10
(the
age of which is not determined) speaks of regular
provision for supply of food. Only the standing
army and mercenaries received pay, and the warriors' reward consisted in part in
their share in the
booty
(Gen. xiv. 24;
Num. xxi. 25
sqq.;
Deut. xxi. 11),
in which those who remained behind for cause
shared (Nam. xxxi. 27;
Josh. xxii. 8;
I Sam. xxx. 24;
II Macc. viii. 28, 30).
II. Arms and Weapons: From their nomadic
life the Hebrews brought into Canaan the chief
weapon of the Bedouins, the lance with wooden
shaft and bronze head. The sling was au early
weapon, but the sword became common only after
they reached Palestine. There they first met foes
whose method of warfare was of a high
z. Offensive
standard. Canaanitic weapons were
and Defen- derived from the Hittites on the north,
sive Armor. and the part of their equipment which
most terrified the Hebrews was the
chariots of iron, to the .possession of which is attributed the ability of Canaanites to retain mastery
of the plains
(Josh. xi. 4;
Judges i. 19;
I Sam. xiii. 5).
The chariots carried three men-driver, warrior, and shield-bearer who protected the others.
The Philistines had cavalry also (I Sam. xiii: 5).
Infantry were of
two kinds, light and heavy armed.
The latter had a round helm of bronze, coat of mail,
bronze greavea, sword, throwing spear, and lance;
the former were bowmen and stingers. This armament the Hebrews adopted from their foes. The
Chronicler mentions light-armed Benjaminites, and
says that they were ambidextrous with bow and
sling
(I Chron. viii. 40, xii. 2;
II Chron. xiv. 8, xvii. 17;
cf.
Judges xx. 16).
Judahitea were heavy
armed, carrying spear and shield, as were Gaditea
and Naphtalites (II Cbron, xiv. 8;
I Chron. xii. 8, 24, 34).
The light-armed had bow or sling and a small
shield. The bow was usually of a
hard springy wood,
though later it was of bronze (Pa. xviii. 34;
Job xx. 24);
as it was strung by placing one end on the
ground and bending the other with the hand,, it
must have been large; yet another kind was strung
by the hands alone. The
string was of ox or camel
gut. The arrow was of light wood with point of
metal, and was carried in a quiver; sometimes the
point was poisoned
(Jer. li. 11;
Isa. xlix. 2;
Job vi. 4).
Fire arrows. were used against city and camp
(Isa. 1. 11). The sling was also the weapon of the
shepherds, and was a strap of leather or such material, broader in the
center where the missile, usually
a smooth stone, was placed, this being discharged
by loosing one end of the sling. The light-armed,
at least the bowmen, carried a small shield only
half as large as that of the heavy-armed, but the
shape of neither is known. From
Ezek. xxxix. 9;
II Sam. i. 21;
and
Isa. xxi. 5
it seems clear that the
shield was of wood covered with leather or of several layers of leather. Solomon's golden shields
were merely for display; Rehoboam furnished instead those covered with bronze
(I Kings xiv. 26).
Apparently on the march the shields were carried
by wagon. The heavy-armed had as weapon of attack the spear
(hanith)
used for thrusting, not throwing
(I Sam. xvii. 7, xix. 9-10).
How this weapon
differed from that called
roman
is unknown
(II Cbron, xi. 12); but the
roman
later became the
usual weapon. I Cbron, xii. 8, 24, 34 distinguishes
the
hanith
as the weapon of the Naphtalitea, the
roman
as that of Judah and Gad. The weapon
called
kidhon
probably differed from both as being
a casting epees; Goliath had one besides his
hanith
(I Sam. xvii. 6, 45).
The sword was of iron,, its
blade straight and often double-edged, and, it was
used both to cut and to thrust
(I Sam. xiii. 19;
Judges iii. 16, 21, xxi. 10).
It was carried at the
left by
a
girdle worn over the soldier's coat. The
helmet
(kobha`
or
kobha`)
in early times was worn not
by the man in the ranks but by the king or leader of
the host
(
I Sam. xvii. 5, 38);
the Chronicler (II.,
xxvi. 14) reports first of Uzziah that he equipped
the army with helmets, and later it was a common
article of defense. Saul and Goliath are reported
to have had bronze helmets and coats of mail.
Probably these were not wholly of bronze, but of
leather covered with the alloy. The form is not
known, but the monuments show that of Egyptians
and Assyrians. Goliath's coat was of scales of
bronze, while Saul's was probably of bronze
also, since it was too heavy for David
(
I Sam. xvii. 38-39).
From Assyrian sources it appears that
the coat of the common soldier was a thick jacket
of felt or leather somewhat strengthened with sheet
iron; the charioteers wore the long coat reaching
to the knees. In Grmco-Roman times the metal coat
was more common, in the Syrian armies the com
mon soldiers wore interwoven coats of mail
(
I Macc. vi. 35).
Other weapons of an uncommon sort are
mentioned, but do not characterize the armament
of the Hebrews
(
Job xli. 26;
Jer. 1. 23, li. 20;
Prov. xxv. 18;
Gen. xlix. 5;
Ps, xxxv. 3).
Up till the time of Solomon the Hebrews had only
infantry; David's course in the Syrian war when he
captured chariots and horses was to disable the
horses
(
II Sam. viii. 4).
But Solomon
z. Branches introduced cavalry and chariots, and
of Service. is said to have had 12,000 cavalry,
1,400 chariots, and 40,000 chariot
horses
(
I Kings x. 26),
which were kept partly in
Jerusalem and partly elsewhere
(
I Kings ix. 19).
This marks the beginning of a great standing army
over and above the body-guard of the king. Cav
alry and chariotry thenceforth were a part of the
Hebrew army, although a large part of the land was
not suited to their evolutions. For this element of
the army the prophets had no liking and frequently
denounced reliance upon it
(
Hos. i. 7, xiv. 3).
The
chariots were doubtless like those of Philistines and
Canaanites, two-wheeled, open behind, and prob
ably carried three persona.
III. Fortresses: When the Hebrews crossed the
Jordan, they found the land defended by numer
ous strong places and fortified cities which, with
their high walls, made great impression upon the
sons of the desert
(
Num. xiii. 28;
Deut. i. 28),
who
were not able at once to reduce them. For a time
they dwelt in the open, and in time of war fled to
woods and caves for refuge
(
I Sam. xiii. 6).
This
condition changed in the kingly period, when Ca
naanitic fortresses fell into their hands, especially
Jebus
(
II Sam. v. 9);
they learned also to build their
own fortifications, as when David refortified Jebus
Jerusalem, and when Solomon built Hazor and
Megiddo on the roads to the north, Gezer, lower
Beth-horon, and Balaath toward the west, and
Tamar toward the south. Rehoboam erected no
less than fifteen border fortresses on the west and
south
(
II Chron. xi. 5
sqq.); Jeroboam fortified
Shechem and Penuel in the north
(
I Kings xii. 25);
Baasha attempted to fortify Ramah as an outpost
against Judah, but Asa destroyed it and used the
material to build Geba and Mizpah
(
I Kings xv. 16-22).
4mri built Samaria on an isolated hill and
made it so strong that it was able to hold out for
three yearn against the Assyrians
(II Kings xvii. 5).
The Maccabeans and Herods built many fortresses,
among which especially worthy of mention are
Beth-zur, Jotopata, Herodium (southwest of Bethlehem), Masada, and Machaerus. Naturally, these
fortresses stood on hills; and it was the custom for
each great fortified city to have in or near it also a
citadel (so Jerusalem, q.v.; Shechem, Penuel, and
Thebez;
Judges ix. 46, 51, viii. 9, 17).
The primary
fortification was an encircling wall, usually of the
largest stones obtainable or workable, often not
squared, and in ancient times set without mortar;
it was so thick that not only the watch but considerable forces could occupy its crown
(Neh. iii. 31
sqq.;
I Macc. xiii. 45).
There were also placed
there catapults and other engines of war, beginning
from the time of Uzziah
(II Chron. xxvi. 15).
Massive towers of great stones protected the corners,
gate, and other portions of the walls. Battlements
protected the defenders. The entrances were not
simple openings in the walls, but quite roomy
structures with towers and an upper story
(II Sam. xviii. 33);
the gates were usually double doors of
strong wood, probably covered with plates of bronze
or iron and fastened with bars of the same metal
(Deut. iii. 5;
I Kings iv. 13).
Commonly a city
had but one gate, which was closed at evening
(Gen. xxxiv. 20;
Josh. ii. 5).
Frequently there was
a smaller outside wall.
IV. The Conduct of War: A preliminary to war
was the consulting of the oracle
(Judges i. 1, xx. 2728;
I Sam. xiv. 37)
or of the prophet
(I Kings xxii. 5
sqq.); there were sacrifices
(I Sam. vii. 8 sqq., xiii. 9
sqq.) and consecration, since war was holy
(see below). In great conflicts the war palladium,
the ark, was present as a matter of course
(I Sam. iv. 4
sqq.;
II Sam. xi. 11);
Deut. xx. 2
prescribes
that before the fight the priest address the soldiery
and inspire them with courage, and the priestly law
requires the presence o£ the priest with his silver
trumpet
(Num. x. 9, xxxi. 6).
This ordinance was
observed by the Maccabees
(I Macc. xvi. 8).
If
possible, the war began in the spring, that return
might be had before the winter, when men stayed
at home. Of the arrangement of the camp nothing
is known; Num. ii, seems to indicate a triangular
form, but how nearly this corresponded to actual
custom is not clear. Tents are mentioned as being
in the camps of Hebrews and Syrians
(II Sam. xi. 11;
II Kings vii. 7)
in connection with protracted
sieges of fortresses. The night was divided into
three watches
(Judges vii. 19);
while the main force
was away, a camp guard protected the camp. The
maintenance of the purity of the camp was strictly
enjoined
(Deut. xxiii. 10
sqq.). The battle array
was either in line or in three parts of center and two
wings
(I Sam. iv. 2, xvii. 8, 20-21;
Judges vii. 16, 20, xx. 20, 30;
Isa. viii. 8),
with sometimes an ambush at the rear of the enemy
(Josh. viii. 13-14).
The attack was accompanied by a loud outcry
(Josh. vi. 20;
I Sam. xvii. 52).
The art of war was
not highly developed, though stratagem, in the
way of surprise or rear attack, was employed, also
the turning of the flanks (Josh. ii., vi. 22, viii. 2,
12;
Judges vii. 10 sqq., 16 sqq., xx. 36
sqq.;
II Sam. v, 23).
The fight depended often upon individual
bravery, strength, dexterity, and quickness. Occasionally a duel between chosen champions decided
the battle (I Sam. xvii.;
II Sam. ii. 14
sqq.). Though the Hebrews were behind the Assyrians in cruelty,
their treatment of the conquered was harsh. While
the latter cut off the heads and hands of the fallen
as trophies, the former seem to
have done this only
in exceptional cases
(
I Sam. xvii. 5 sqq., xxxi. 9;
II Sam. xx. 22);
possibly it was an old custom to
cut off the foreskins of the fallen foe
(
I Sam. xviii. 25, 27);
not seldom the captive
kings or generals
were killed
(
Josh. x. 24
sqq.;
Judges vii. 25),
though the Hebrew kings bore a reputation for mildness
(
I Kings xx. 31).
Sometimes the entire
captive host was slain
(
Judges vii. 25;
Josh. x. 24
sqq.), and severe practises of other kinds are known
(
Judges i. 6-7;
I Sam. xi. 2).
As a rule the captives became slaves, yet the usually mild Deuteronomy (xx. 13-14) enjoins the enslaving of
women and children only. For examples of other horrors
of *ax cf.
II Kings viii. 12, xv. 16;
Isa. xiii. 16;
Hos. x. 14;
Amos i. 13.
The land of the enemy was ravaged, the trees cut down, the wells stopped up
(
Deut. xx. 19;
Judges vi. 4;
II Kings iii. 19, 25),
while cities and villages were burned
(
Judges ix. 45;
I Macc. v. 28).
The subjected people were put under ransom of a large sum or under tribute
(
II Kings xviii. 14;
Isa. xxxii. 18),
for the payment of which hostages were taken
(
II Kings xiv. 14).
Victory was celebrated with song and dance (Ex.
xv.; Judges v.;
I Sam. xviii. 6
sqq.). The burial of the fallen was a sacred duty (I Kings xv.); the host
mourned fallen leaders
(
II Sam. iii. 31),
whose weapons were buried with them.
V. Religious Significance of War: In common
with other Semites, Hebrews regarded war as a sacred thing, a concern of Yahweh
(Ex. xvii. 16;
Num. xxi. 14;
I Sam. xxv. 28);
hence in Deborah's song those are cursed who remained away from the battle
(Judges v. 23).
Israel's foes are also Yahweh's
(Judges v. 31;
I Sam. xxx. 26).
As "Lord of hosts"
and "God of the armies of Israel"
(I Sam. xvii. 45)
Yahweh participated in the battle; and cast stones
upon the enemy to assist his people
(Josh. x. 11).
His presence with the army was
believed to be a
literal fact, in common with the ordinary belief of
the times, and he was represented by the ark, which
by the enemy was taken as the presence of God himself
(I Sam. iv. 6-7).
War was therefore one of the religious institutions of Israel; the warrior was obligated to perform certain cultic duties before battle, being consecrated to God
(Josh. iii. 5;
Isa. xiii. 3),
men spoke of "sanctifying war"
(Joel iii. 9,
A. V. margin;
Jer. vi. 4);
and the warrior was to remain ceremonially pure during the war (Smith,
Rel. of Sem., p. 455; cf.
II Sam. xi. 6
sqq.). From this standpoint has been explained the exemption
from warlike duties of those newly married, or who
had just built a house; and this, too, explains the
fact
that the camp is sacred
(Deut. xxiii. 10
sqq.). Thus is explained also the custom of the ban; all
booty belongs to Yahweh, hence the extreme form
of the ban was the killing of all which had life and
burning of everything else
(Josh. vi. 17;
I Sam. vi. 3;
cf.
Deut. xiii. 16-17).
Limitations of the ban are found in
Deut. vii. 27
sqq.; while historical practise or prescription is found in
Num. xxxi. 7 sqq., 17-18;
Josh. viii. 2, 27-28, xi. 10'sqq.;
Judges xxi. 11
sqq. In all probability practise was milder
than theory, the desire for booty having its influence. The destruction of a part of the booty signifies consecration of that part to Yahweh, and
parallel
for the Hebrew custom is found in the Moabite Stone (q.v.), which declares that Mesha devoted
7,000 men to his god Chemosh (lines 3, 11,12,16-17).
(I. Benzinger.)
Bibliography:
F. Schwally, Semitische Kr%epaaZtertiimer,
part i., Der heilive Krieg in Israel, Leipsic, 1901; J. L.
Saalschiitz,
Moaa%aches Recht, pp. 258-288, 841 sqq., Berlin, 1848-48; S.
Spitzer. Dos Heer- and Wehr-Gesetz der
alter Israeliten, 2d ed., Pressburg, 1879; Benzinger, Arch6olov%e, pp. 27908; Nowack, Archäologie, i. 357-375;
DB, i. 154-158, 348, 703, iv. 892-897; EB, i. 312-318,
80507, ii. 1918, 2013, iii. 44635, 'iv. 5281-70, 5275;
JE, ii. 120-122, au. 483-486; and, for comparative purposes, A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, pp. 520 sqq., New
York, 1894.
