War and Peace in Judaic Thought

By Martin Sicker

Judaic thought on the role of war in the history of the children of Israel begins with the biblical narratives that record a variety of belligerencies in which God is often depicted as the one who leads the Hebrews in battle, protects them from their enemies, and makes them victorious over other armies. Thus, during the initial phase of the exodus from Egypt, when the people were terrified by the approach of the Egyptian army, Moses sought to calm them by assuring them that the Lord will fight for you (Ex. 14:14), which he repeated when he sought to calm their concerns by again assuring them: The Lord your God who goeth before you, He shall fight for you (Deut. 1:30). These assurances clearly were not intended to be taken literally. The metaphor of God as their warrior had multifaceted connotations for a people who knew or at least perceived themselves to be smaller and weaker than the nations with which they would have to contend in order to establish themselves in the land divinely promised to their ancestors. The metaphor provided the children of Israel with a sense of security; informing them that they were chosen for freedom by an all-powerful God who would continue to support them even in the face of apparently overwhelming challenges.
The present study focuses primarily on a number of biblical narratives selected because they each reflect the basic issues of reason and morality that relate to the conduct of warfare throughout human history, as understood in Judaic thought. In each case, the context will be described to the extent necessary to evaluate the rationale and consequences, both intended and unintended, of the resort to armed conflict. The study then addresses the efforts, in the post-biblical rabbinic period, to amplify and codify the rules pertaining to the making and conduct of war and peace, a process that continues in Judaic thought to the present day, when such decisions, after a lapse of two millennia, once again confront autonomous decision-makers in the modern State of Israel.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Sep 27, 2021
• ISBN: 9781664108936

Martin Sicker

Dr. Martin Sicker is a writer and lecturer on the Middle East and Jewish history and religion. His is the author of 42 previous books including Reading Genesis Politically; The Trials of Abraham; The Ordeals of Isaac and Jacob; Aspects of Jewish Metarational Thought; The Exodus and the Reluctant Prophet; The Convocation at Sinai; The Theopolitical Discourses of Moses; and Pondering the Imponderable.

Book preview

Copyright © 2021 by Martin Sicker.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including

photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval

system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are

models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 09/27/2021

Xlibris

844-714-8691

www.Xlibris.com

835263

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Abraham the Warrior

3 The Assault of Simeon and Levi on Shekhem

4 Confronting Post-Exodus Geopolitical Realities

5 Moses and the Amelikites

6 Confronting the Fear of War

7 War against the Midianites

8 The Purpose and Parameters of the Invasion

9 The Mosaic Laws of War

10 Mandated and Optional Wars

11 Civil War in Israel

12 Summary of David’s Wars

13 War and Peace in Post-Biblical Thought

14 The Authority to Make War

15 Classification of Wars

16 The War against the Seven Nations

17 The War against Amalek

18 Defensive War

19 Preventive and Preemptive War

20 Rules of Mobilization

21 Rules of Military Conduct

22 Military Assistance

23 Peace as a Goal of War

24 Negotiating Peace

References

Notes

1

Introduction

It has been observed that the casual modern reader of the Bible is struck by the ubiquity of war in its pages. Violence is as Biblical as milk and honey. ‘Possessing the gate of one’s enemies’ (Genesis 22:17), pursuing them until they ‘fall before you by the sword’ (Lev. 26:7-8) are divine blessings for the righteous. Prophecies of consolation to Israel, including those of eschatological intent, often contain references to the smiting of enemies . . . it is understandable that readers who are not inclined to distinguish among wars, and who are influenced by other Biblical texts implying a positive view of warfare, are liable to prejudge the issue, and lump all the wars of Israel together as ingredients of a thoroughly bloody vision.¹

Notwithstanding the prominent role of war in the biblical narratives, a general biblical hostility to war may be seen encapsulated in the prohibition against constructing an altar with hewn stones for if thou lift up thy tool [herev or ‘sword’] upon it, thou hast profaned it (Ex. 20:22). As the sages interpreted this verse, the sword, or weapon of iron, is the symbol of strife; whereas the altar is the symbol of reconciliation and peace between God and man, and between man and his fellow.² This suggests that the matter of war and peace in the biblical narratives merits more than a casual reading before drawing conclusions about the role of war in Judaism. In this regard, a modern rabbinic sage pointed out that, in biblical times, pacifism was not a realistic option. It would have been impossible, at a time when all the neighbors were literal wolves of the night, that only Israel refrain from war. For then they would have gathered and eradicated them. God forbid. Moreover, it was necessary for them to cast their fear on the barbarians through harsh conduct, albeit with the hope of bringing humanity to the state that it ought to reach, but without prematurely anticipating it.³

Judaic thought on the role of war in the history of the children of Israel begins with the narratives of the Pentateuch that record a variety of belligerencies, several of which will be discussed in the following pages. It is noteworthy that in these episodes God is often depicted as the one who leads the Hebrews in battle, protects them from their enemies, and makes them victorious over other armies. Thus, during the initial phase of the exodus from Egypt, when the people were terrified by the approach of the Egyptian army, Moses sought to calm them by assuring them that the Lord will fight for you (Ex. 14:14), which he repeated when the leaders of the people expressed fear at the prospect of confronting the Amorites who blocked their entry into Canaan. He then sought to calm their concerns by again assuring them: The Lord your God who goeth before you, He shall fight for you (Deut. 1:30).

It seems evident that these assurances were not intended to be taken literally, as would soon become clear, but only metaphorically. The metaphor of God as their warrior had multifaceted connotations for a people who knew or at least perceived themselves to be smaller and weaker than the nations with which they would have to contend in order to establish themselves in the land divinely promised to their ancestors. The metaphor would appear to have been intended to provide the children of Israel, just released from centuries of passive subjugation and bondage, with a sense of security; informing them that they were chosen for freedom by an all-powerful God who would continue to support them even in the face of apparently overwhelming challenges.⁴

It is noteworthy that the Judaic concept of war underwent radical changes in post-Pentateuchal thought. Some of the later prophets extolled a vision of universal peace in a messianic era, when nations shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3). Others prophesied the eschatological vision of the terrifying war of the avatars Gog and Magog at the end of days (Ezekiel 38-39). During the Second Temple period the eschatological vision of Ezekiel was reconceived as an apocalyptic sanctified war against the demonic powers that controlled the world; a war that would usher in the messianic era of world peace and the kingdom of God.

Somewhat surprisingly, at least one traditional contemporary scholar has lent questionable credence to the apocalyptic sanctification of war in Judaic thought by asserting: "To understand the role of war in Jewish apocalyptic thought, it is necessary to understand the concept that modern scholars have termed ‘Holy War.’ This concept overlaps to some extent with the Talmudic notion of milhemet mitzvah (‘war of obligation’), but the term ‘Holy War’ emphasizes certain concepts of messianic war as well. ‘Holy War’ denotes a war declared, led, and won by God Himself, modeled after the war of conquest of the Promised Land in the time of Joshua . . . War becomes a fulfillment of the covenant with God and is essentially a sacrificial or ritual performance."⁵

In this regard, it has been pointed out in the nineteenth century classic work of modern critical biblical studies that The foundation upon which, at all periods, Israel’s sense of its national unity rested was religious in its character. It was the faith which may be summed up in the formula, Jehovah is the God of Israel, and Israel is the people of God . . . It was most especially in the graver moments of its history that Israel awoke to full consciousness of itself and of Jehovah. Now, at that time and for centuries afterwards, the highwater marks of history were indicated by the wars it recorded. The name ‘Israel’ means ‘El does battle,’ and Jehovah was the warrior El, after whom the nation styled itself. The camp was, so to speak, at once the cradle in which the nation was nursed and the smithy in which it was welded into unity . . . If in times of peace the relations between the two had become dormant, they were at once called forth into fullest activity when the alarm of danger was raised.⁶

This insight was elaborated on by Friedrich Schwally in a work on ‘Holy War in Israel,’ published in 1901, which added the observation that one cannot talk about war in Israel as anything but a religious phenomenon. Acceptance of this notion has led to the misleading depiction of war in Israel’s history as ‘Holy War,’ the reality being that nothing about war itself being considered intrinsically ‘holy’ in Judaic thought, war being a harbinger of death, even when divinely mandated. "Schwally took the term from the Arabic jihad, ‘holy war.’ In classical Islam, jihad was a technical term referring to wars undertaken to convert infidels, specifically the Jewish and Christian population of a territory, and to enforce land and poll taxes on the non-Islamic population."⁷ Perhaps needless to point out, there are no instances in the biblical narratives where an Israelite jihad existed beyond the bounds of the Promised Land, as is evident from even a casual reading of those narratives. Moreover, where such campaigns were pursued, it was because of the moral consequences of tolerating polytheism in the Israelite homeland rather than a religious compulsion to forcefully compel adoption of monotheism.

Because of the large number of instances of warfare recounted in Scripture, the following discussions will be focused primarily on a number of narratives related to the topic appearing in the Pentateuch, as well as in the biblical books of Joshua and Samuel. The narratives discussed in this study were selected because they each reflect the basic issues of reason and morality that occur in connection with the various other instances of warfare to be found in the biblical writings. In each instance, the context will be described to the extent necessary to evaluate the rationale and consequences, both intended and unintended, of the resort to armed conflict. The study will then address the efforts in the post-biblical rabbinic period to amplify and codify the rules pertaining to the making and conduct of war, a process that continues in Judaic thought to the present day, when such decisions, after a lapse of two millennia, once again confront autonomous decision-makers in the modern State of Israel.

2

Abraham the Warrior

According to longstanding tradition, the saga of Abraham involves his undergoing a series of ten trials beginning with his response to the call to break his ties to the world of his ancestors and ending with the call to sacrifice his son and heir Isaac. One of these trials, intimately related to the subject of this study, took place not long after Abraham had finally established his home base at Hebron in the highland of southern Cisjordan. The land his descendants were to inherit and upon which their new civilization and society were to be built would make great demands on its possessors. Both from the standpoint of its physical and its sociological environments great fortitude and resolve would be required of its masters. Abraham had already tasted the bitterness of famine, which had forced him temporarily to abandon the country for Egypt. He was now to experience the vicissitudes of a land that served as the land bridge between Mesopotamia and Egypt, a land plagued with endemic political instability. To survive and prosper here would require determination and boldness; qualities without which the new society for which Abraham strove to prepare the groundwork would remain but a vain dream.

In an unusual digression from his generally focused approach to the narrative, the biblical narrator quite tersely describes the complex political environment into which Abraham unwittingly was to be drawn as a consequence of his lingering attachment to and concern for the welfare of his nephew Lot, with whom he presumably maintained sporadic contact. And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chederlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, that they made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela—the same is Zoar. All these came as allies unto the vale of Siddim—the same is the Salt Sea. Twelve years they served Chederlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. (Gen. 14:1-4).

It is noteworthy that various scholars have attempted to correlate the names given in the biblical text to known historical figures of the general period in which these stories are assumed to have taken place. Accordingly, some identify Amraphel with Hammurabi, the well-known Amorite king of Babylonia; Arioch king of Elisar with Eriaku, king of Larsa, and Tidal king of Goiim with Tudghula, a king of the northern Mesopotamian hordes, presumed to be Kurds. Some understand Goiim as the Hebrew form of Gutium or Kurdestan. No one appears to have as yet come up with a similar identification for Chederlaomer.

It appears that some fourteen years earlier, probably even before Abraham left Haran for Cisjordan, an expeditionary force dispatched by an alliance of Mesopotamian kings had attempted an invasion of Egypt that evidently was repulsed, reflecting but another of a long series of conflicts between Egypt and the ruling powers in Mesopotamia that took place throughout the ancient history of the region. In the course of their march on Egypt, the expeditionary force presumably came down the King’s Highway in Transjordan and then crossed the Jordan valley in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, where they subjugated the Sodom-dominated confederation of five city-states located at its southern end. It has been suggested that the King’s Highway got its name from the inhabitants of that stretch of territory who preserved the memory of the expedition of the four kings.⁸ In much later Roman times, the road was known as Trajan’s Road (Via Traianus), linking the Gulf of Aqaba to Damascus and beyond.

The biblical narrator appears to be informing us that the rulers of this confederation of city-states had convened in the vale of Siddim, where they concluded a peace treaty with the leaders of the Mesopotamian alliance, under which they agreed to acknowledge the suzerainty of the king of Elam, to whom they were required to pay an annual tribute. For a period of twelve years, during which time Abraham had immigrated to Cisjordan and sojourned in Egypt, the confederated city-states observed their obligations under the treaty and paid the required annual tribute. However, during that same period they also proceeded to reconstitute their military capabilities in anticipation of the day when they would be able to throw off the foreign yoke.

Finally, in the thirteenth year of their vassalage, they concluded that they were sufficiently strong to repudiate their subservience to Elam, which they clearly signaled by a refusal to continue to pay the annual tribute, an act that constituted open rebellion against their previously acknowledged suzerain. This, of course, was a frontal challenge that the Mesopotamian alliance could not permit to go unanswered. Once it became clear that the Sodom-led confederation was in open rebellion, the Mesopotamian alliance mounted a punitive expedition against the confederation to re-impose Elamite suzerainty in the Jordan valley. It evidently took some time to organize and outfit such an expeditionary force, and, in the fourteenth year, that is, at about the same time that Abraham had reluctantly become directly involved in the political dynamics of the region, the king of Elam, together with his allies mounted the anticipated punitive expedition against the city-states of the Jordan plain, in an effort to restore the political status quo ante.

With the reasonable expectation that the Mesopotamian alliance to which they had been subjugated for so long would not allow them to alter their status as vassals unilaterally, the rulers of the city-states needed to take steps in their defense against the anticipated assault. For this purpose, it would appear that they entered into alliances with the semi-nomadic hordes that virtually surrounded the plain, purchasing their services and thereby effectively creating a series of buffer zones through which the armies of the Mesopotamian alliance would have to fight their way before reaching the Jordan plain. As a result, Chederlaomer, the Elamite leader of the alliance, and his allies had to dispose of these buffer forces before being able to compel the city-states of the plain to submit to them once again and renew the presumably substantial tribute that they had previously paid.

And in the fourteenth year came Chederlaomer and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, and the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in their mount Seir, unto El-paran, which is by the wilderness. And they turned back, and came to En-mishpat—the same is Kadesh—and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazazon-tamar (Gen. 14:5-7).

The biblical narrator tells us very briefly that the Mesopotamian forces swept down the eastern flank of the Jordan once again, defeating in succession the Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, and Horites, then turned westward skirting the wilderness of Paran and continued in a northwesterly direction until they encountered and defeated the Amalekites at Kadesh. They then swung in a northeasterly direction and overran the Amorite enclave at Hazazon-tamar (Ein Gedi) in the hills west of the Dead Sea. Having thus eliminated the protective ring around the city-states of the Jordan plain, the Mesopotamian forces were now poised for a direct assault on the home territory of the Sodom-led confederation.

Abraham’s large encampment, located in the hill country farther to the west, remained effectively isolated and untouched by the turmoil that engulfed the southern and eastern parts of the country. It would also appear from the narrative, that the Mesopotamian forces stopped to rest and recuperate from the arduous battles against the various hostile tribes of the region before mounting what would be the final stage of the entire campaign. This, in effect, gave the Sodom-led confederation the opportunity to seize the initiative with harassing attacks on the encamped Mesopotamian forces, further sapping their strength and hoping to draw the weakened invading army onto a battlefield of their choosing.

And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela—the same is Zoar; and the set the battle in array against them in the vale of Siddim; against Chederlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; -four kings against the five. Now the vale of Siddim was full of slime pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there, and they that remained fled to the mountain. And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way (Gen. 14:8-11).

Adding what may be seen as a touch of historical irony to the situation, the Sodom-led confederation chose to set the decisive battle with the Mesopotamians in the vale of Siddim, the same site where they had acknowledged Elamite suzerainty fourteen years earlier. As a practical matter, the site of the final battle was evidently chosen by the Sodom-led confederation in the expectation that the terrain there, which contained large numbers of bitumen pits that would limit the mass movement of the attacking forces, could be exploited effectively for defensive purposes. However, it proved of little avail with regard to the ultimate outcome of the battle, and the Sodom-led confederation was decisively defeated, the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah themselves being subjected to the indignity of having to hide in those same bitumen pits to avoid capture while the remnants