The Mosaic law, however, mitigated to a certain ex- tent the severity of the ancient usages towards the van- quished. With the exception of the Canaanites, who were delivered over to the ban of extermination by the express command of God, it was forbidden to the Is- raelites to put to death any others than males bearing arms; the women and children were to be kept alive (Deut. XX, 13, 14). In a similar spirit of humanity the Jews were prohibited from felling fruit-trees for the purpose of making siege-works (ver. 19). The law fur- ther restricted the power of the conqueror over females, and secured to them humane treatment (xxi, 10-14). The majority of the savage acts recorded as having been practiced by the Jews were either in retaliation , for some gross provocation, as instanced in the cases of Adoni-bezek (Judg. i, 6, 7), and of David's treatment of the Ammonites (2 Sam. x, 2-4; xii, 31; 1 Chron. XX, 3) ; or else they were done by lawless usurpers, as in Meuahem's treatment of the women of Tiphsah (2 Kings XV, 16 ; comp. Judg. ix, 45). The Jewish kings generally appear to have obtained credit for clemency (1 Kings xx, 31; comp. 2 Kings vi, 20-23; Isa. xvi, 5).
The conquerors celebrated their success by the erec- tion of monumental stones (1 Sam. vii, 12; 2 Sam. viii, 13, where, instead of " gat him a name," we should read "set up a memorial"), by hanging up trophies in their public buildings (1 Sam. xxi, 9; xxxi, 10; 2 Kings xi, 10), and by triumphal songs and dances, in which the whole population took part (Exod. xv, 1-21 ; .Judg. v; 1 Sam. xviii, 6-8; 2 Sam.xxii; Judith xvi, 2-17; 1 Mace, iv, 24). The death of a hero was commemorated by a dirge (2 Sam. i, 17-27 ; 2 Chron. xxxv, 25), or by a na- tional mourning (2 Sam. iii, 31). The fallen warriors were duly buried (1 Kings xi, 15), their arms being de- jjosited in the grave beside them (Ezek. xxxii, 27), while the enemies' corpses were exposed to the beasts of prey (1 Sam. xvii, 44; Jer. xxv, 33). The Israelites were tlirected to undergo the purification imposed on those who had touched a corpse, before they entered the pre- cincts of the camp or the sanctuary (Numb, xxxi, 19). See Fight.
IV. Moral Principles Involved. — We may distinguish two kinds of wars among the Hebrews. Some were of obligation, being expressly commanded by the Lord ; others were free and voluntary. The lirst were such as those against the Amalekites, and the intrusive and wicked Canaanites, nations devoted to an anathema. The others were to avenge injuries, insults, or offences against the nation. Such was that against the city of (Jibeah, and against the tribe of Benjamin ; and such was tliat of David against the Ammonites, whose king had insulted his ambassadors. Or they were to main- tain and defend their allies, as that of Joshua against
X.— K K K
the kings of the Canaanites, to protect Gibeon. In fact, the laws of Moses suppose that Israel might make war, and oppose enemies.
As to details, the laws of war among the Hebrews, as we have seen, permitted severities in the treatment of the conquered such as we should not now approve. Probably in practice limitations were put upon the ab- stract rights of conquerors among the Jews just as among Christian nations. This is not invalidated by severities such as those of Gideon towards the kings who had enslaved Israel (Judg. vii, 25; viii, 18-21); or of David cutting off and carrying away the head of the Philistine champion (1 Sam. xvii, 54) ; nor by such ex- ceptional dealings as those with the Midianites, who had made themselves almost as obnoxious to punish- ment as the devoted Canaanites (Numb. xxxi). The same may be said of the fearful threatening in Psa. cxxxvii, 8, 9 ; but, as a matter of practice, contrast the cruelty of putting out eyes by the Philistines, the Am- monites, and the Chaldoeans (Judg. xvi, 21 ; 1 Sam. xi, 2; 2 Kings xxv, 7). The treatment of the men of Suc- coth and Penuel by (iideon, of the Ephraimites by Jephthah, and of the men of Jabesh-gilead by the as- sembled Israelites (Judg. viii, 4-7 ; xii, 1-6 ; xxi, 8-12), are uninistakably punishments of extraordinary sever- ity on account of aggravated acts of treason against Jehovah. The treatment of ten thousand Edomites by Amaziah is a parallel on the part of one whose princi- ples and practice ought to have been better (2 Chron. xxv, 12). On the other hand, it should be borne in mind that these were not usages of Judaism as such, nor peculiar to the Hebrews; but manifestations of the common spirit of the age and region, which the Mosaic law did all it could, as we have seen, to soften and les- sen. Nor should we try a distant jera by the rules of modern humanity which is the offshoot of Christianity. See MosAiSM.
It has been questioned whether wars are, under any circumstances, justifiable from Jewish example. While it is certain that the practice of offensive wars cannot be defended by reference to sacred historj', it is equally clear, if wars must be, that they can only be consistent with the light of that dispensation which breathes for- giveness and forbearance on the clear and obvious ground of necessity and self-defence. When the prin- ciples of the Bible shall have illuminated the minds of all nations, wars shall cease from the ends of the earth, and all men will give glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good-will will universally prevail (Psa. xlvi, 9; Ixxvi, 3; Isa. ii, 4 ; Ezek. xxxix, 9; Luke ii, 14). See Peace.