Rules of Engagement
“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. And if it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and serve you.” Deuteronomy 20:10-11 NASB
Terms of peace – As we discovered in the examination of Joshua 9:2, Maimonides interpreted the text as an acceptable approach with the Gibeonites. Rather than treat the story as a failure to exercise God’s commands regarding the indigenous people of Canaan, he claimed that Joshua did the proper thing by making a treaty with them because Joshua was following the prior command given to Moses. That command is found in Deuteronomy 20:10-11 (see above). In that command, God instructs the people to offer “terms of peace” as an alternative to war and inevitable extinction. So, if this is the official rules of engagement, why is the story of Joshua’s encounter with the Gibeonites treated as a mistake?
First, let’s examine the text in Deuteronomy. The key phrase, “terms of peace,” is really just the word šālôm. The translator modifies the noun to the phrase in order to place it in what we would understand as diplomacy prior to conflict. Perhaps the justification also includes the fact that in this verse, šālôm is preceded by the preposition lĕ. What is offered is “toward peace,” or “about peace,” or “in reference to peace.” We know that šālôm covers a very broad range of meanings surrounding the general idea of well-being. But consider the consequences of accepting this peace offering. The result is mas, a term for servitude. “The institution of tribute or corvee involves involuntary, unpaid labour or other service for a superior power—a feudal lord, a king, or a foreign ruler. . . The subjugation of the Canaanites by Israel after the Conquest was by means of manas (e.g. Deut 20:11; Josh 16:10; 17:13).” [1]
Maimonides included more than involuntary service. He added tribute and religious compliance, but even if these additional requirements are more like Rome than Jerusalem, imagine what the terms of peace sounded like to the people of Canaan. Slavery! “Serve on your knees or die.” Not a very comfortable choice. Even Rome didn’t require this, although they did enslave thousands. In the Roman Empire, if you paid your taxes you were generally left alone, at least until the Empire needed more workers. God’s instruction to Moses—and potentially to Joshua—was not so generous. In fact, it was just the opposite of what we might have expected from a God who just liberated His people from slavery. This is the same God who constantly reminds Israel that they should treat others with a certain dignity, a dignity that they were denied in Egypt. How is it possible for those in forced labor to not feel like the Israelites subjected to Pharoah? How can Deuteronomy 20:10-11 be reconciled with the moral repulsion of slavery let alone the additions provided by Maimonides? Is this another case of tradition triumphing over the text?
Topical Index: šālôm, peace, mas, tribute, forced labor, Maimonides, Deuteronomy 20:10-11
[1] Carr, G. L. (1999). 1218 מַס. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 516). Moody Press.
