^{page 183 note 1} Exodus 15.3 (from the ‘Song of the Sea’).

^{page 183 note 2} S.J.T.., vol. XVII, 1964, p. 325f.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 3} Genesis 15.16, Deuteronomy 9.4 etc.

^{page 183 note 4} Exodus 13.5 etc. Numbers 33.51–53 implies both aspects of Yahweh's purpose.

^{page 183 note 5} That is, the Old Testament stresses Yahweh's initiative in the wars of conquest. H. van Oyen tends to emphasise the element of defence without really coming to grips with Yahweh's initiative in the wars of conquest; Ethik des Alien Testaments, Gütersloh, 1967, p. 182f.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 1} Mowinckel, S., The Old Testament as the Word of God, Abingdon Press, New York, 1959, P. 49. etc.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 2} War and the Christian, S.C.M. Press, London, 1938, p. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 3} This is perhaps oversimplifying the case, but C. S. Lewis expresses it well in his treatment of the analogous problem created by the ‘acursings’ in the psalms: ‘… we must not either try to explain them away, or yield for one moment to the idea that, because it comes in the Bible, all this vindictive hatred must somehow be good and pious’ (Reflections in the Psalms, Fontana Books, London, 1961, p. 25).Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 4} e.g. I Corinthians 8.6; cf. Kelly, J. N. D.Early Christian Creeds, London, 1950, p. 19f.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 5} That is, if the Song of the Sea is accepted as a very ancient poem reflecting the situation in which it is set in Exodus. For recent discussions of the problem, see Schmidt, H., ‘Das Meerlaied’, z.A.W., vol. XLIX N.F. 8, 1931, pp. 59–66Google Scholar; Cross, and Freedman, , ‘The Song of Miriam’, J.N.E.S., vol. XIV, 1955, pp. 231fGoogle Scholar; Watts, J. D. W., ‘The Song of the Sea’, V.T., vol. VII, 1957, pp. 371ffGoogle Scholar; Muilenburg, J., ‘A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh’, Studia Biblica et Semitica, 1966, pp. 233ffGoogle Scholar; cf. Caspari, W., in Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. 54, 1912, pp. 110–158.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 1} Perhaps the best source material is the early poetry of war, for it is likely that it preserves for us the emotions of the warriors who partook in the battles (cf. Judges 5 etc.).

^{page 185 note 2} cf. Wright, G. E. in Wright, and Fuller, , The Book of the Acts of God, Duckworth, London, 1960, p. 86f.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 3} Muilenburg, J., The Way of Israel, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1961, p. 161.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 4} I am using the term in the general sense which is defined by Dreyfus, F., ‘The Existential Value of the Old Testamaent’, Concilium, vol. X, no. 3, 1967, p. 18fGoogle Scholar. Cf. Porateous, N. W., Living the Mystery, Blackwell, Oxford, 1967, p. 161.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1} It is sometimes argued that the Israelites' approach to war and their ethical standards in war compare quite favourably with, for example, those of the Assyrians, or of early Islam. Cf. Kruse, H., ‘Ethos Victoriae in Vetere Testamento’, Verbum Domini, vol. XXX, 1952, pp. 8ff and 79Google Scholar. But this is only a relative comparison and does not really deal with Yahweh's use of war.

^{page 186 note 2} ‘It is probable that the power of much of the Old Testament teaching about history would be more vividly appreciated, and its relevance to the twentieth century more readily recognised, it only we could rid ourselves of an obsession and genuinely convince ourselves that the history of the ancient Hebrews was fundamentally of the same texture as our own’ (Butterfield, H., Christianity and History, Fontana Books, London, 1957, p. 97).Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 3} Mowinckel, op. cit., p. 51, notes that ‘even sin and evil he can link into his plan…’ but the world is such that the majority of God's plans must appear to be through media which are sinful and evil.

^{page 186 note 4} cf. van Ouwerkerk, C., ‘Gospel Morality and Human Compromise’, Concilium, vol. V, no. 1 (May 1965), p. 7Google Scholar: ‘This world … is himself as sinful man … it is the concrete realisation of his own self.’

^{page 187 note 1} We can never hope to answer fully such a question any more that we can say why God elected Israel for His divine purpose. Both war, as a means to an end for Israel, and Israel, as a means to God's end for the salvation of the world, were imperfect, yet a part of God's plan.

^{page 187 note 2} This is a point hinted at with reference to the wars of conquest by Bruce, W. S., The Ethics of the Old Testament, Edinburgh, 1895, p. 263Google Scholar: ‘Whatever view be taken of this perplexing question it is to be said with all reverence that there was here but a choice of two evils.’

^{page 187 note 3} cf. the discussion of this subject in general terms by Brunner, Emil, The Divine Imperative, Lutterworth, London, 1937, p. 469fGoogle Scholar

^{page 188 note 1} Though often our perspective is wrong, for peace can hold more evils than war; cf. Waddams, H., A New Introduction to Moral Theology, S.C.M. Press, London, 1964, p. 171.Google Scholar