When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it. An important principle is here introduced into the war-law of Israel regarding the people they fought against, and the cities they besieged. With "the cities of those people which God doth give thee" in Canaan, it was to be a war of utter extermination (Deuteronomy 20:17-18). But when on a just occasion they went against other nations, they were first to make a proclamation of peace, which, if allowed by a surrender, the people would become dependent, and, in the relation of tributaries, the conquered nations would receive the highest blessings from alliance with the chosen people: they would be brought to the knowledge of Israel's God and of Israel's worship, as well as a participation of Israel's privileges (see the note at Judges 11:12-27).
If, however, the besieged city refused to capitulate and be taken, a universal massacre was to be made of the males, while the women and children were to be preserved and kindly treated (Deuteronomy 20:13-14). (Concerning this war-law, consult Josephus, 'Antiquities,' b. 4:, sec. 42, and 'Contra Apion,' b. 2:, sec. 30.) In concurrence with the most respectable rabbis, and the general tradition of the Jews, he interprets Deuteronomy 20:13 only to imply a permission, not a command. 'Thou mayest kill (not, thou shalt kill) the males,' that is, 'the adult males;' or, as Josephus interprets, 'those who had borne arms against them,' which at that time included all the adult males (cf. 2 Kings 6:22), which, however interpreted, shows an instance of mercy to prisoners by express divine authority.
Selden ('De Jure Gentium apud Hebraeos,' lib. 6:, cap. 16: vol. 1:, p. 673) quotes various authorities to show the Jews were authorized to spare all prisoners who should become proselytes (even of the seven nations), as there would then be no danger of learning abominations from them (Deuteronomy 20:18); and he proves that it was an ancient tradition among the Jews that, in besieging a city, an interval was to be left to give the besieged an opportunity of escaping. For the treatment of female captives, consult 'Philo de Charitate,'p. 547 (Graves 'On the Pentateuch,' 2:, p. 102, note).
See also an admirable exposition of the humane and merciful spirit of the Hebrew war-law, in contrast with the barbarities perpetrated by the Assyrians and other ancient pagan people, in De Quincey's 'Collected Works,' vol 3:, 'Introduction,' pp. 8-11. He concludes thus-`When we consider how intimate and how ancient was the connection between Assyria and Palestine, how many things (in war especially) were transferred immediately through the intervening tribes (all habitually cruel), from the people on the Tigris to those on the Jordan, I feel convinced that Moses must have interfered most peremptorily and determinately, and not merely by verbal ordinances, but by establishing counter usages against this spirit of barbarity, otherwise it would have increased contagiously; whereas we meet with no such hellish atrocities among the children of Israel.' By this means a provision was made for a friendly and useful connection being established between the captors and the captives; and Israel, even through her conquest, would prove a blessing to the nations.