Humanity’s day to day activities are currently impacting on the natural environment in a way unknown before. Although the destruction of natural resources in times of war is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, it is currently also happening during periods of peace. The reason for this is the undisputed right to life that humans appropriate themselves regardless of the impact of their acts on the environment. According to Deuteronomy 20 all human life is not of equal value and not necessarily superior to life in nature. Deuteronomy 20 challenges conventional thinking on the subject of human-nature relationships. It is also challenged in Jewish Halachic thinking, the practicality of primitive Eskimo’s attitude towards life and nature, as well as Assyrian acts during war. In these societies the dependence of humans on nature in order to ensure survival, was acknowledged. Currently a paradigm shift away from the anthropocentric attitude towards nature is needed to accommodate the conviction that functionality and potentiality should form part of our philosophy concerning the right to life. A new set of moral rules should be established, taking into account the fact that an endeavour to prolong human life indefinitely should not be desirable because it is to the detriment of nature and thus to humanity itself.
Humanity’s day to day activities are currently having a detrimental impact on our natural environment in a way unrivalled in history and it is evident that the impact will not lessen. The reason for this idea is expressed in the
The first person who will live to see their 150th birthday has already been born. Aubrey De Grey believes that the first person to live for 1000 years will be born in the next two decades. (Doughty
Contrary to this, Sir David Attenborough warns: ‘Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth’ (Gray
The above-mentioned contradictory viewpoints, need serious contemplation. On the one hand there is the human wish to prolong life almost indefinitely but on the other hand a well-known environmentalist warns that humans are a plague on earth. In customary reasoning every endeavour will be made to eradicate plagues because of the threat it holds. In the case of humans, eradication is not an option, for various reasons. The situation cannot, however, just be left to its own accord because of the detrimental effect human activities have on the natural environment of which we form part of.
Although ‘nature’ is generally envisioned by humans as a pristine, almost paradisiacal environment, the current reality is far from that. In recent newspaper articles, even the oceans are increasingly described as ‘a plastic soup’ (Milman
The reason for this is the right to life that humans claim for themselves, regardless of the massive impact we have on the ecology of the earth.
From time to time events and issues in our society make us more sensitive to some biblical texts than others and Deuteronomy 20 is such a case. Deuteronomy has a different view from normal thinking as will be argued in this article.
The conventional view of man’s right to life can be found in the proceedings of the Centre for Research and Study in International Law and International Relations of the Hague Academy of International Law of 1983. In the proceedings, which were recorded as essays, Gormley states:
The underlying international public order will impose a higher obligation in regard to the right of life, because of the fact that the inherent value of the right to life is recognized by the global community. (Gormley
This statement focuses the attention on the perceived moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live because he and/or she is alive. It is against this background that the view that man will soon live to the age of a 1000 years, can be seen. As far as the average human mind is concerned, it is envisaged that the environment on earth will graciously tolerate an uncontrolled expansion of the human population. This view is further reiterated by other statements from the above-mentioned publication, namely, that of Ramcharan (
Reiterating the outright priority that human life has, Gormley adds the notion of
Specifically,
In the light of these jurisdictive perspectives on the right to human life, there is another more pressing aspect which can be added to those that Gormley mentioned. It literally threatens every human being the international community comprise of and it is the reality sketched in the findings of the
The Living Planet Index (LPI), which measures more than 10,000 representative populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, has declined by 52 per cent since 1970. Put another way, in less than two human generations, population sizes of vertebrate species have dropped by half. These are the living forms that constitute the fabric of the ecosystems which sustain life on Earth – and the barometer of what we are doing to our own planet, our only home. We ignore their decline at our peril. (World Wildlife Fund [WWF]
It is thus not just the violation of human rights by other humans that is endangering man’s survival on this planet but also man’s violation of the natural environment on a global scale. What makes this of special importance is that apartheid, war crimes and slavery (detestable as they are) do not endanger all humans on the planet, but violation of the natural environment does.
The situation reported by the
It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.
Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited.
All things considered, the operative core of these provisions is the triple and cumulative standard of ‘widespread’, ‘long-term’ and ‘severe’. Reality of war led to an article published in the
Finally, it must be asked, what is the most effective way to inculcate environmental protection into strategic considerations and thus into the culture of military decision-making? As the author
What makes the situation complicated is that military action can be ruled by the international community and steps can be taken against perpetrators for violating the rules of the UNEP. The burning question is, however, what to do when the human community’s day to day activities and not war are responsible for destruction to the extent that it can be classified as ‘widespread’, ‘long-term’ and ‘severe’?
It has become necessary to acquire wisdom to come to grips with the thinking processes which lead to this kind of destruction. This wisdom can indeed be found in Deuteronomy because it deals with comparable situations of validation of human life and that of the environment in times of war, but also when there is peace.
In this article Deuteronomy 20:19,20 will be used to provide a theological interpretation in order to shed light on humans’ perceived right to life and mankind’s attitude towards nature.
Before I start with the discussion on Deuteronomy note must be taken of the following. The subject under discussion concerns our conscience which is shaped in a way that is not always consistent. Explained at the hand of Verbaan (
Arguing the formation of the text as being part of the Ancient Near Eastern literature and the manner in which wisdom teaching influenced the manner in which war was waged (Wright
Arguing the composition, structure and subject matter of the text (Rofé
Attempting to solve the puzzle of the text on a linguistic level (Barr
Explaining it as understood by the Jewish rabbis which gave rise to its halachic precept of
Using it as point of departure to establish international law by the United Nations (Thomas
More angles could be identified by scholars interested in their own specific fields of research, which in turn will lead to conclusions related to those fields of research. The purpose of this article is to derive guidelines from Deuteronomy 20 that can induce evaluation of humankind’s position on the following two aspects: the perceived right to life, and the underlying thoughts which result in behaviour towards the immediate environment of the global village in which all creatures on earth live in.
Deuteronomy is part of the Torah of which the purpose is to teach humans how to live wisely, also with regard to the environment (e.g. Dt 22:6, 7). The fact that the laws of Deuteronomy 20 were given in order for Israel to gain wisdom and make better choices in their conduct towards the environment, will help with the necessary reflection.
The passage under discussion forms part of the Deuteronomic code which begins in chapter 12 and stretches until 26, framing the legal material in Deuteronomy 13–25. As subsection of the legal material, chapter 20 deals with requirements of conduct during Yahweh’s wars that Israel fought in order to take hold of the promised land (Lundbom
The text of Deuteronomy is heavily influenced by the standard Hittite treaty texts which consisted of:
The preamble.
Historical prologue regarding the relationship of the parties involved.
General stipulations that obligate the treaty partners.
Specific stipulations.
Lists of blessings and curses with regard to fulfilment or violation of the treaty.
Witnesses (Barrett
For the argument of this article the text of Deuteronomy is thus regarded as a legal document which calls for attention in establishing judicial philosophy about human life.
Barr wrote an article about the passage under discussion and aptly titled it: ‘A puzzle in Deuteronomy’ (Barr
‘19When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you? 20 Only the trees that you know are not trees for food you may destroy and cut down, that you may build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it falls.
Lundbom (
The result of the above-mentioned translations is that no link of hostility between man and fruit trees exists. The only link is that of the provision of food and thus dependence. Therefore the trees should not be seen as objects against which war should be waged.
There are, however, translations that link man and trees. This was done by Ibn Ezra (1089 to 1164 AD) and followed by the King James Version which translates the phrase as: ‘(for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege:’ The reasoning behind this understanding does not take the LXX reading into account but only the Masoretic text where כִיּ is understood as a marker of emphasis strengthening a statement and not as introducing a rhetorical question. According to Wolff (
Irrespective of how the passage is translated and understood it cannot be denied that there is a causal relationship between humans and fruit trees. Even when no direct link between trees and humans is acknowledged, as is portrayed in the LXX orientated translation of verse 19, verse 20 clarifies the matter. The phrase עֵץ אֲשֶׁר־תֵּדַע כִּי־לֹא־עֵץ מַאֲכָל [trees that you know are not trees for food] establishes a direct link between the fruit trees and sustainable nourishment. Interpreted in this way, humans still have a responsibility towards the fruit trees because of their dependence on the tree. Schwartz (
With regard to this Brueggemann (
The purpose is to protect the food chain, even leaving a food supply for one’s enemies after the battle when Israel’s troops have withdrawn. Such a provision may be subsumed under an inchoate creation theology in which it is recognized that the created world has its own rights and privileges, and there are important limitations imposed on human intervention. (p. 213)
If Brueggemann is understood correctly it will mean that a degree of dissociation is established between humanity and creation because of creation’s own rights. If the structure of the chapter is studied in depth, another conclusion can also be made which does not only point in the direction of limitation because of rights but also in the direction of interdependent functionality.
It is well known that the exposition of the laws in Deuteronomy 12–26 follows the order of the Decalogue. All the commands are elaborated on in these chapters, but special emphasis is placed on the explanation and application of the sixth commandment prohibiting murder. Preservation of life is thus on the foreground whether it is linked to moving a landmark and thus inhibiting sufficient food production because of impairment of land use, or falsely accusing someone of an offense which carries the death penalty (Wenham
The chapter can be divided into three main parts:
Approached from another perspective the chapter can be outlined thematically as follows: The opening section underlying the rest of the chapter: Don’t be afraid when preparing for battle as God is with you (20:1–4).
Due to the threat of dying in war, provision for continuity is made regarding:
The new home owner (20:5).
Enjoyment of the fruit of the vineyard (20:6).
Marriage (20:7).
The man in fear lest he endangers the other soldiers (20:8).
The city of the enemy by firstly offering peace (20:10–11).
Some of those far away in order for Israel to physically survive (20:12–15).
Israel’s spiritual survival in the face of idolatry where no one who could endanger their spiritual survival should be given the chance to let them stray (20:16–18).
Nature’s continued existence (20:19–20).
Narrowing it down to the subject under discussion, 20:10–20 should not be seen as mandatory military tactics to be followed to the letter but rather as legal instruction during military action regarding cities in the Promised Land. The cities and what they contained were not to be considered as inherently evil and summarily destroyed but rather valued according to its worth. According to its value it should be established what degree of destruction should be applied, keeping in mind what value the remainder will have in the worship of Yahweh (Benjamin
Deuteronomy 20:10–20 therefore does not involve ‘urbicide’ as a ritualistic process of destroying the memory and identity of a city as triumph to some ruler (Wright
Destruction and violence should therefore not be seen as the focus in chapter 20, as is often the case, but conservation and prolonged life for nature and humanity should rather receive the emphasis. A valuation of the functionality of what ought to be kept intact after a siege is therefore needed, whether it be human life or natural resources. Read like this, it becomes clear that in the context of Deuteronomy 20 not all forms of life can be considered equally functional, not even all human life.
This conviction becomes evident from the following quoted passages in the ESV:
The allowance that they could take it for themselves must be seen as a gift from God to whom everything belongs (Nelson
Contrary to the notion of
The rationale of destruction, or not, depended on the contribution a specific modality could make towards the quality of the community’s life at large, or how it would hinder the quality of life in the presence of Yahweh. The whole chapter in fact deals with contribution and hindrance. If circumstances required service elsewhere, certain individuals need not contribute to war (20:5–8). When in war a formula of vindication was to be used namely: קָרָא לְשָׁלֹם אֵל [call to them peace] (Jonker
Value was thus the principle measurement for what was to remain or destroyed. What was to remain was put to functional use in order to make a contribution to the society whether it was people to be used as labour or trees as sustenance. This can be derived from the use of the root אכל in Deuteronomy 20 verses 14 and 19 which is a marker of utilisation by the people of God.
The conviction that some humans were to be saved and others not, is not a norm in modern thinking. Nowadays every effort is made to prolong every human life even at the cost of other human lives and the environment. Deuteronomy 20 reflects a different stance.
As all humans were not assessed to be of equal functionality, all trees were also not assessed as equal. Verse 20 allows for trees that do not produce food to be cut down to be used as timber for siegeworks. This follows the same pattern as previously mentioned in the chapter where all people are not treated equally, with some to be devoted to God by complete destruction (חרם) while others were to be put to functional use.
Biblical thought about ‘the right’ to life is thus not dictated by the precept of ‘a human being alive’ and therefore having the right for indefinite preservation of his/her life at all cost, but by the functionality of human life. Human life should thus be pondered on from a practical vantage point as can be found in the Halachic precept of
Practical thinking: The Halachic precept of
In rabbinic Judaism the body of teachings pertaining direct practical application is referred to as הֲלָכָה [that by which one walks]. Halachah, then, is the ‘way’ a Jew is directed to behave in every aspect of life, encompassing civil, criminal, and religious law. The halachah extends beyond that which is forbidden and dictates normative behaviour.
As part of Halachic thinking, the prohibition of
Amongst the rabbis, no consensus could be found on the exact meaning of the central point of ‘needless’ or ‘wanton’ destruction. In extensive research by Schwartz different angles of approach were evaluated. The main question is as to whether needless destruction should be evaluated according to the effective use of the environment by human beings or whether nature does have an inherent value apart from human utilisation and need to be balanced alongside human wants and needs (Schwartz
The value of the one person cannot be put before the value of all. If one harms him/herself he/she is not punishable in civil law, but if his/her destruction harms all, he/she can be held liable.
Human considerations always determine the conduct toward nature.
In this tradition, a degree of inherent worth is given to the natural world, independent of human consumption. This approach demands a much more complex negotiation between human wants and needs on the one hand and nature on the other.
The research carried out by Schwartz provides a view from another cultural perspective and is to be a meaningful stepping stone in the rethinking of our perspectives (Schwartz
On this subject Wolff (
It is very significant, in my opinion, that the Biblical prohibition of bal tashchit is taught with the example of fruit-producing trees, which symbolize the life support system – the natural resources and natural processes that provide for man’s existence in this world. Therefore, the prohibition against the destruction of fruit-producing trees can be, and indeed has been interpreted in the Jewish tradition to include all resources – all useful materials and objects that are beneficial to man’s existence. (p. 24)
In accordance with my own reasoning on Deuteronomy 20:10–20
It is general knowledge that primitive Eskimos lived in a very difficult natural environment and that their indigenous culture exemplified ingenious devices for meeting the demands of their physical environment. Hoebel (
The ultimate act of self-preservation of the Eskimo people became apparent in the manner in which members of the community were allowed to survive. All of the undermentioned practices are, in whole or in part, responses to the basic principle of Eskimo society that only those who are able (or potentially able) to contribute actively to the subsistence economy of the community, may live. The primitive Eskimos, for example, recognised several forms of homicide as legally acceptable which modern law would define as murder, namely, infanticide, invalidicide, senilicide and suicide. The deciding factors are whether present resources were sufficient to nourish a member through non-productivity in the community (1941:670).
What is perhaps of the greatest importance for this article is the perspective and attitude the elderly amongst the Eskimos had about unconditional prolongation of life. This becomes evident in the following remark by Hoebel (
Though infanticide is casually accepted, according to reports on the Eskimos, senilicide gives rise to greater emotional conflict. Not infrequently the aged one has to insist on his ‘right’ to be killed. (p. 671)
The elderly thus welcomed the advantage which their absence from the community had for the community itself. The notion of their absence from the community was not forced upon them but willingly accepted as part of a reality brought about by the natural environment and the whole community’s dependence on limited resources. This is in stark contrast to the modern notion that all human life must be prolonged as far as possible.
These perspectives, taken from the primitive Eskimos’ attitudes are included not for the sake of moral judgement, but for the sake of showing how the environment can fundamentally influence the internalising of values of a specific community. In the Eskimo community the environment (as
The military tactics of the Assyrians are well attested for. Iconographic sources in the British Museum affirm that fruit trees were left standing during siege and even thereafter, as is shown on the gypsum wall panel relief portraying prisoners from Lachish (
Wall panel relief portraying prisoners from Lachish.
Hasel (
The Geneva Conventions provide direct protection of the environment in times of war. However, no such protection for the natural environment exists during day to day activities of the human community resulting in destruction to the extent that it can be classified as ‘widespread’, ‘long-term’ and ‘severe’. This can be ascribed to the unchecked increase of the world’s human population encroaching more and more on nature. The modern human assumption that all human life is of equal value and in general superior to nature, is contradicted by Deuteronomy 20, the maximalist approach of
It is thus not sensible that
Human existence should therefore not
A new set of moral rules (as
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.