A HIERARCHY OF COMMITMENTS And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it. And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? let him also go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it. And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her (Deut. 20:5-7).
What is the theocentric principle which this law exemplifies? In many Mosaic case laws, the answer is immediately clear, but not in this case. The first two laws of military exemption had something to do with the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labor. Death on the battlefield was not to separate a man from these fruits. Yet the exemptions were not permanent. In the case of a newly married man, the exemption lasted one year (Deut. 24:5). The fourth exemption, fear, I cover in the next chapter.
When in doubt, it is safe in an economic commentary to invoke the general theocentric principle of God the Creator as the cosmic owner. He is entitled to a return on His assets. But is there more to this section than mere ownership? To discover a more specific theocentric principle, I asked myself: In what way did a man's right to enjoy a preliminary return on a long-term capital investment reflect a property right of God? I came up with three plausible answers: the tithe, the firstfruits offering, or both.
The first two laws of military non-participation were land laws: new house, new vineyard. They had to do with sacrifices. These sacrifices no longer exist. The third exemption was a seed law: newlywed.
The Economics of the Firstfruits Offering The problem with designating the tithe alone as God's property right rather than the firstfruits offering (or both), is that the tithe is God's permanent right of return. The two exemptions were not permanent. In contrast, the firstfruits offering was a preliminary offering in addition to the tithe. The firstfruits offering was a kind of down payment to God for God's down payment on the harvest. Firstfruits were offered three times on the day after Passover (Lev. 23:1-12), at the feast of Firstfruits (Pentecost) (Ex. 34:22), and at the feast of Booths (Tabernacles) (Ex. 23:16; 34:22; Lev. 23:39-40). In the case of Booths, when the harvest was complete, others in the community were to be invited in to share the wealth.
Thou shalt observe the feast of tabernacles seven days, after that thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy wine: And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates. Seven days shalt thou keep a solemn feast unto the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD shall choose: because the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the works of thine hands, therefore thou shalt surely rejoice (Deut. 16:13-15).
To understand what was involved in the law of military exemption, we must begin with a fundamental biblical economic principle: the individual serves as the economic agent (steward) of God. God had delegated to individual Israelites the task of building up the capital base necessary to increase His firstfruits. This is why a producer's right to collect the firstfruits of a newly finished capital asset -- house or vineyard -- could not lawfully be challenged by the State in Mosaic Israel, even in wartime. The producer's initial claim on the fruits of his newly completed stream of income was superior to the State's claims on his life. This, in turn, reflected God's prior claim of firstfruits on agricultural output. The firstfruits offering of the vineyard would be paid to the priesthood, who in turn held a veto on the war (Num. 10:8; Deut. 20:2).
But why did a newly built home offer an exemption? There was no firstfruits offering required for dedicating a new home. Answer: an Israelite's home was analogous to God's home, the tabernacle-temple. Although no law required it, Solomon dedicated the newly constructed house of God by sacrificing 22,000 oxen and 20,000 sheep (I Ki. 8:63). Thus, a sacrifice of dedication, while not legally required, was appropriate when a man finished building his home. He could enjoy the fruits of his labor, just as God, in His capacity as a cosmic house-builder,(1) enjoyed the blessings of dwelling in a new home.
The firstfruits were token payments to God: a kind of down payment on the future tithe. They were a man's statement of faith in God's long-term future bounty, as well as thanks for God's preliminary manifestation of blessing.
Inheritance and Battle Chapter 20 deals with military affairs. Israel's inheritance of Canaan would be the result of military action. The physical disinheritance of the Canaanites through their execution on the battlefield was to be the operational means of claiming the inheritance. Military sanctions were to be the means of this long-prophesied inheritance/disinheritance. That is, point four of the biblical covenant model, sanctions, was the prerequisite of point five.
The laws in this passage applied to a settled population: settlement in the post-conquest world. This generation as yet had no houses, no vineyards. They had not become dwellers in the Promised Land. They were still outsiders. So, this passage presumed a forthcoming victory. These laws would go into effect in Israel's history only after the conquest. In this sense, this passage was prophetic. It assumed the transfer of the inheritance. More than this: these laws had to do with the maintenance of the individual's inheritance, i.e., enjoying the firstfruits of house, vineyard, or wife. The focus of these laws was on preserving an inheritance. One man sows; another man is not to reap. This was to be the case in Israel for righteous men. He who sows is supposed to reap. Not even the needs of the military were to supersede this principle. Only unrighteousness is to break the legal pattern of sowing and reaping. Canaan was soon to become an example of such unrighteousness.
And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full; Then beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you (Deut. 6:10-14).
There is a fundamental principle of individualism in the Deuteronomy 20 passage. The defense of the individual's legal right to enjoy the firstfruits of his labor was superior to the military defense of the nation.
God had not previously instructed Moses to convey these rules of post-conquest warfare to the exodus generation. There was no need. First, they were not the fourth generation that was scheduled to inherit (Gen. 15:16). Second, He knew that they were an army of slaves: fearful of everything. They were in no spiritual condition to conquer Canaan.
No Conscription The tribes were supposed to respond to a call to military action. Yet it is clear from Deborah's song that some tribes had not responded (Jud. 5:16-17). This indicates that the Mosaic law offered no formal negative sanctions to the central government that would enable it pressure the tribes to assemble. The Levite whose concubine had been raped to death by the Benjaminites cut her corpse into pieces and sent them to the other tribes (Jud. 19:29). This was a form of moral suasion. There was no legal compulsion available to him.
Could a tribe compel each adult male to assemble in military formation? There was no law that mandated this. The exemption laws of Deuteronomy 20 mandated that the officers permit any member who qualified under the law to return home. Anyone could claim fear and thereby be exempted. Perhaps not many men would have done this, for fear of shaming themselves, but the other three exemptions were easy ways out. All three involved building toward the future, i.e., future-oriented activities. There was no shame involved in claiming one of these exemptions. What is important to understand here is the principle that a man's demonstrated but unfulfilled future-orientation -- the figurative harvest sown but not reaped -- was more important to Israel than his participation in the army. The building of familistic capital was more important than participation in war. The creation of streams of personal income was more important for the nation than adding numbers to the army.
If a man could be exempted immediately preceding the battle, was there compulsion in assembling? That is, with exemptions so easy, what would have pressured a man to assemble and then march off to war? If there were no external, civil pressures available to the State, why would there have been these exemptions? One reason occurs: ecclesiastical pressure. I have argued elsewhere that citizenship in Mosaic Israel was based on two things: circumcision and eligibility for service in God's holy army. If a man refused to answer the call to muster the troops, would he have lost his citizenship? That is, was mere military eligibility sufficient to maintain citizenship? Or was actual attendance at the mustering required?
Deborah did not declare that members of the tribes of Reuben, Asher, and Dan had lost their citizenship (Jud. 5:16-17). They suffered the negative sanction of being written into her song of victory in an unfavorable light. They would have had the option of going home on the basis of fear, but they never even showed up. They were not willing to admit in public at the time of battle that they were too afraid to fight. This is why Deborah criticized them: not for their fear but for their unwillingness to show up and admit in public as tribes that they were too afraid to fight.
The Mosaic law had no specified negative sanctions against non-appearance. Thus, there was no lawful military conscription under the Old Covenant. There was neither a written law nor specified sanctions that compelled anyone to answer the trumpets' call. The State had to rely on men's sense of duty to motivate them to answer the call. Even after responding, there was another opportunity to return home.
An Army of Holy Warriors The goal of these exemption laws was two-fold. First, no fighting man should suffer second thoughts about having completed a long-term project that he did not have time to enjoy. Second, the army had to rely on God more than numbers. I discuss the second concern in the next chapter.
The first concern had to do with a warrior's sense of commitment. Any warrior who had valid reasons to hold back in the heat of battle, especially offensive battle, was told to go home. These reasons had to do with the future. He had created a capital asset that was to provide him with a stream of income: home or vineyard. He had not enjoyed any benefits from that capital asset. He had not paid the priesthood its lawful firstfruits offering. A similar logic governed the third exemption: a wife back home. In the case of a new wife, the exemption was even more specific: a year's mandatory exemption. His wife's interests were also at stake. The presumption was that the man would have time to impregnate his wife in a year. The issue of biological heirs was a major one in Mosaic Israel. This had to do with the seed laws. The levirate's marriage provisions were associated with these laws: "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel" (Deut. 25:5-6).
Any civil leader who began making long-range plans for indulging himself in a war faced a potential veto by his army: prior capital formation. A man who expected to be called into battle could start building a house, planting a vineyard, or courting a woman if he wanted to avoid serving in the army. If he got the house built, the vineyard planted, or the girl married him before the silver trumpets were blown, he could come home after the mustering but before the battle. Preparations for unpopular wars would have increased capital formation in Israel, at least in the three areas of housing, wine, and families. While some men fought, others would be enjoying the fruits of their labors. This was a military anti-recruiting system designed to keep rulers from indulging in the sin of empire. Sitting at home by the fire, a glass of wine in hand, with your new wife on your lap surely beats slogging through the mud in a foreign war of empire. "Make love, not war" was a law governing Israelite marriage. Any call to the holiness of a cause would have to be believed by the holy warriors in order for the leaders to recruit an army. Mercenaries would not guarantee victory.
A wise king of Israel would have understood this threat to his plans. "Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace" (Luke 14:31-32). The military service exemption laws, when enforced, would have kept the kings honest. It would have kept them from high-risk international displays of their own power.
Conclusion First, citizenship in Israel was based on eligibility for service in God's holy army.(2) Second, the State did not possess final authority over priests and citizens. Warfare was made holy by acclamation by the priesthood. Without their support, the war was illegal. There could be no numbering and no atonement money, which had to be paid to the priests (Ex. 30:12). Third, mandatory military conscription illegal. This was a major restriction on the expansion of State power, which increases dramatically in wartime and is rarely reversed after the war.(3) The hierarchy of military authority in Mosaic Israel reflected the hierarchy of mandatory payments: priesthood, head of household, State.
Israel as a holy army was a judicially restricted army. The army had to be called into action by priests. There were two opportunities for the priesthood to veto a war: prior to assembling the army and immediately prior to the war (Num. 10:2-8). Individuals also had a right to return home. This placed the civil rulers at a disadvantage in any schemes for building an empire. Their troops did not have to participate.
There were superior claims on every warrior's commitment. These were in part economic and in part covenantal. He did not owe a sacrifice for a newly dedicated house, but such sacrifice was appropriate for God's house, so presumably it was appropriate for a man's house. He did owe a firstfruits offering for his newly planted vineyard. Until that debt was paid at the next national feast, he was to depart from the battlefield. He was also to return to his new bride, for her sake (Deut. 24:5) and for his (Deut. 20:7). These commitments took precedence over the State's right to call citizens into battle.
These legitimate commitments, as well as the personal benefits associated with reaping the fruits of one's labor, did not threaten the cohesiveness of God's "leaner, meaner" holy army. The army's greater cohesion would have been the result of these exemptions. The warriors were to be committed to victory. But some commitments could not be relegated to secondary status, either judicially or psychologically. These commitments became the legal basis of exemption from military duty.
No civil sanctions are ever legitimate against men who refuse to serve in the military, for whatever reason. The State does not possess the right to draft anyone into military service, on threat of civil sanctions, in peacetime or war. Also, no moral sanctions are legitimate against men who offer any of these reasons for not serving: a new home, a new vineyard, or a new wife. The fourth reason, fear, I cover in the next chapter.
The firstfruits offering was a land law. It is no longer in force. To the extent that these exemptions were based on the firstfruits offering, they are no longer in force. But the underlying principle was the a man is to enjoy a token payment on his productivity before his life is placed at risk militarily. This restriction on the State is still valid. This is God's way of encouraging men to remain productive and future-oriented.
Footnotes:
1. Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1980), pp. 17-18, 20-21, 35-42.
2. North, Sanctions and Dominion, pp. 37-39.
3. Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out. icetylertx@aol.com