Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament

Neglected voices

This page intentionally left blank

Neglected voices Peace in the old testament

David A. Leiter

Herald Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Leiter, David A., 1958Neglected voices : peace in the Old Testament / David A. Leiter. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-8361-9385-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Peace—Biblical teaching. I. Title. BS1199.P4L45 2007 261.8’73—dc22 2007016852

Unless otherwise indicated, the Bible text is from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, Copyright © 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, and is used by permission.

NEGLECTED VOICES Copyright © 2007 by Herald Press, Scottdale, Pa. 15683 Published simultaneously in Canada by Herald Press, Waterloo, Ont. N2L 6H7. All rights reserved Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2007016852 International Standard Book Number: 978-0-8361-9385-5 Printed in the United States of America Cover by Greg Yoder Book design by Joshua Byler

12 11 10 09 08 07 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 To order or request information, please call 1-800-245-7894, or visit www.heraldpress.com.

To my parents, Barbara S. Leiter and the late Robert O. Leiter, who have been instrumental in laying a foundation of peace for my life

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Foreword by Jay W. Marshall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Peace and Shalom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2. Nonviolence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3. A Post-Violence Peace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4. Visions of Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5. Mandates for Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 6. Piety and Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Bibliographic Essay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Select Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Scripture Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 The Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

7

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword Virtually everyone, if asked, will say they desire peace. Visions of peace inspire us. We dream about it, write songs about it and even pray for it. With such theoretical support, we are left wondering why peace is so elusive. In some respects, the answer is simple: peacemaking is challenging work. We inadvertently make choices and ignore injustices that contribute to systems and structures that encourage violence. A commitment to peace and nonviolence as an act of faithful living is even more challenging because our religious heritage so frequently appeals to violence. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Old Testament. A text rich with imagery of divine care for creation and concern for humanity, the Old Testament’s witness to divine blessing and promise trumpets covenant and election as signs of God’s favor. Within a context of worship, those themes are affirming and encouraging; but in the market place, the real estate office, the political strategy session, these ideals compete with neighboring groups’ claims of truth, and perhaps, superiority. Competing interests lead to inevitable conflicts, which escalate toward violence, and warfare quickly becomes yoked with religious claims. At that point, peace rooted in faithfulness is unlikely unless God’s people are victorious, or at least feel vindicated, after the conflict. When aggression and the need for prominence dominate religious worldviews, voices advocating peace are frequently muffled, if not oppressed. This creates a sticky predicament for Christians. Few of us would admit to desiring war as a means of faithful response to life’s conflicts. We may, however, accept violence as a necessary evil in a complex world, especially if we believe that truth and righteousness are at stake. Others of us carry strong convictions that God prefers peace rather than war, and we believe a call to peacemaking is part of faithful living. When we turn to the Scriptures and the history of Christianity for instruction on living faithfully we are puzzled, if not disheartened, at the 9

10

Foreword

many accounts of war and violence ascribed to God and those chosen by God. What are we to do with portrayals of aggression and violence—God as warrior, and God’s people engaging in holy war as an act of obedience to the Lord? A frequent conclusion by Christians is to dismiss the Old Testament as irrelevant, and pretend that the New Testament description of Christ’s return and judgment is not a replication of the same violent theme so that it can be presented as a violence-free gospel of love. Rather than confront this theology of violence, we discount our own spiritual heritage because our strategy of abhorring violence is so certain. This tactic allows us to feel distanced from the dilemma, but it also forces us to become arbiters who select which biblical texts are and are not to be taken seriously. An equally problematic alternative can occur when we accept these acts of war and violence as dominant themes in the story of how God’s people came to be. If we appeal to these stories as paradigms for how the faithful are to respond in moments of crisis, then we can justify our own violent responses toward others. Human history, including Christian history, is littered with religiously justified violence; God’s will is identified with imperialist interests as a means of legitimating them. This is the dilemma facing Christians who read—or who want to read—the Old Testament: can we counter the ideology of violence with Scriptural and spiritual integrity so that we do not have to disown a tremendous portion of our foundational narrative in order to be advocates of peace? David A. Leiter’s work allows us to answer yes, we can. Leiter provides a valuable resource to those who want an Old Testament foundation for peace. Perhaps Leiter’s greatest gift in this book is his contention that the Old Testament contains a systemized typology for peace. In seeking to demonstrate the truth of this conviction, he introduces multiple, distinct ideologies of peace that demonstrate where the Old Testament contains nonviolent responses to conflict. The call for peace is not the last gasp for air by an impotent people demoralized through repeated military and religious tragedies. It is not isolated to utopian visions by prophets imagining a future when the kingdom of God prevails, violence ceases, and God’s people are restored. Instead, peacemaking permeates several genres of literature. That in itself is significant, for it elevates the presence and persuasiveness of peace in this material. As the reader is awakened to that fact, we are greeted by several new realizations.

Foreword

11

The most obvious conclusion is the simple recognition that peace itself stands as a prominent theme in the Old Testament story. Examples of nonviolent resolution of conflict stand alongside stories of holy war, leaving us to wrestle with the questions of how to interpret their coexistence in the sacred story. The fact that certain laws and proverbs address the types of inequities that lead to conflicts is significant as well. If we can avoid the impulse to dismiss the legal material because Christians don’t live under the old covenant, we may come to understand that these laws stress the importance of ordering society in constructive ways that reduce the occasion for violence. The presence of these ideologies of peace recasts the dominant perception that the Old Testament only supports violence. This helps us make peace with our own story, reducing the embarrassment that comes when we read of God smiting the multitudes in what seems like arbitrary fashion. They provide a foundation for thinking about how we order our lives and communities differently. Some of the most important choices we make for peace occur when we are deciding how to order our communities, before conflicts escalate to the point where all choices seem to be bad ones. These glimpses of nonviolent responses also help us make peace with the exclusivity of the Old Testament story. When a group is explicitly chosen, this indicates that other groups are intentionally not chosen. Much of the Old Testament violence is directed against those who were not part of the covenant people. Read only from the perspective of a covenant of election, it is easy to view all other groups as expendable if they interfere with God’s plans for the chosen people. Shoddy exegesis allows some groups who identify themselves as recipients of the covenant to read themselves into the story so that the Bible justifies their violence against others. In a twenty-first century context, this type of hermeneutic move is dangerous. These ideologies of peace provide resistance to theologies of violence and annihilation as God’s mandate for those outside of the covenant. If the insights of this book penetrate deeply enough, this work also has the potential to help us make peace with our own context. Much of today’s global conflict is cast in ethnic and religious terms. It tempts us to appeal to a warrior God for protection, or even worse, to justify our own tendencies to violence as a purification imposed for the sake of the kingdom of God. In reality, at a most basic level we are all just people trying to create lives of meaning and significance. Bad things happen when we lose sight of that commonality.

12

Foreword

As an ideal, peace is easy to affirm; as a practice, it is extremely complicated. Many of the most devastating acts of violence and war occur on the national or international level, determined by decisions well beyond our control. We feel helpless, frustrated, but not responsible. But the decisions are no easier when we do have a voice in the matter. We may desire peace, but if by peace we mean something more than the absence of violence among those we hold dear, then it is a terribly complicated issue. Our purchases and patterns of accumulation can contribute to an imbalance of resources that leaves others in a state of need. Our stereotypes about other cultures can demean or lead to suspicions and prejudices that cause harm to others. Our ability to ignore the cries of the hungry contributes to the perpetuation of human suffering. All of these are good kindling for human and international conflict. Given that complexity, this work is also valuable for what it is not. It is not an idealistic rant that calls us to embrace and accept one another while ignoring the power of political, cultural, and economic realities. It will not, and could not, provide us with a color-by-numbers solution to those complexities. Instead, it excavates the biblical text to illustrate that violence is not the only option available when disagreements arise. For those who care about peace and also the message of the Old Testament, this book will help you find a foundation upon which to stand. We only have to listen to the evening news to be reminded of the persistence of violence, and that the escalation of violence as a response seldom brings the desired result. It is easy to be discouraged about the plausibility of peace in our time. Yet, in my lifetime, the Berlin Wall has come down, the Cold War has ended, and relations with China have resumed. Though it is seldom reported—because it doesn’t sell well— goodwill abounds in this world. Peace can happen. Bit by bit, a commitment to the nonviolent resolution of conflict can transform a community, a nation—and even a world. Jay W. Marshall Earlham School of Religion

Preface I was born and raised in the Church of the Brethren, one of the three historic peace churches. My interest in peace and biblical studies began at an early age and developed into a passion during my time with Brethren Volunteer Service. This passion continued to burn during my studies at Bethany Theological Seminary and Drew University, where I also developed a passion for the Old Testament. My passion for peace and the Old Testament prompted me to conceive of this study and to carry it to fruition. I wish to express special thanks to those who assisted me in writing Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament. John Kaltner, Professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College, provided persistent encouragement, valuable advice regarding the development of the manuscript, and important insights pertaining to the world of publishing. Robert W. Neff, President Emeritus of Juniata College, and Dorothy Ritchey Moore, ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren, carefully read every word of the manuscript and offered critical input. Bob and Dorothy also provided much needed encouragement when the pressures and frustrations of writing became overwhelming. A word of thanks also goes to Jane-Adair Seleski, who provided additional proofreading. The students of the Ecumenical Institute of Theology at St. Mary’s Seminary and University in Baltimore afforded feedback and insights when I introduced ideas from this project in coursework and special presentations. And finally a word of thanks to the many people who provided interest in and encouragement of this project from its inception to its completion. David A. Leiter June 2007

13

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction Down through the centuries, Christian writers have used the Old Testament to support warfare and hatred.1 The many instances of violence recorded in the Old Testament have been unsettling, especially when contrasted with the notions of peace and love stressed in the New Testament. The depiction of God as a warrior in Exodus and the military conquests in Joshua and Judges are just a few examples of such violence. This book, in a small way, aims to answer Willard Swartley’s call “for biblical scholars to do more direct study of peace in Scripture.”2 Although violence, warfare, and bloodshed within the Old Testament can’t and must not be dismissed, the existence of such is sometimes used to ignore the fact that another view exists: a call for peace and harmony within society. In addition to a God of wrath and Israelites who do not hesitate to resort to violent means when their security is jeopardized, there is a God who desires peace and reconciliation for his people. This study intends to help strike a balance in the discussion of war and peace in the Old Testament. It challenges students of the Bible to acknowledge the existence of both warfare and peace in the Old Testament and not to view warfare and violence as the overriding theme. Too often writers suggest that to discuss peace in the Old Testament, one must first begin with the topic of war.3 This study simply assumes the existence of violence and warfare in the Old Testament and acknowledges that numerous previous studies have analyzed this topic.4 The intent then is to produce a study that looks at peace in the Old Testament in an analytical and systematic fashion. This study contends that peace is not some capricious and peripheral concept but a key component that emerges time and again within the pages of the Bible.5 The notion of peace rings out consistently and continually in various ways in the broad spectrum of the Old Testament. It’s from the Old Testament that we receive the Hebrew word and notion of shalom. Although this word has numerous meanings, the English word 15

16

Introduction

peace is normally what many people first associate with shalom. But shalom’s meaning is broad, including well-being, peace, justice, harmony, and a lack of violence. It occurs numerous times in the Old Testament and more often than not brings home the notion that peace, justice, harmony, and well-being were very important to the ancient Israelite community. The word shalom does not necessarily need to occur in a passage or text to stress the importance of peace and justice in the community. In some cases rest is used to signify a period of peace. In other cases, a vision or a legal scenario portrays an atmosphere of peace and wellbeing without using the word shalom. One would be remiss to say that the issue of peace in Old Testament studies has been virtually ignored.6 Yet Swartley’s primary concern is a lack of significant studies of peace in the realm of biblical theology. He correctly states that much of the work on peace in the Old Testament has centered narrowly around the issue of peace or liberation or has addressed it in a marginal manner.7 Essays and other works have failed to address the issue in a systematic and analytical fashion. This study attempts to take advantage of previous studies that stressed the general nature of peace in the Old Testament and studies that addressed the notion of peace in specific genres or passages. An analysis of such studies brings one to the conclusion that there are different ways in which the Old Testament texts speak of peace. In fact, the Old Testament contains various ideologies, or typologies, of peace. Although one must be careful not to view war and peace in the Bible as simply two sides of a coin, because each is broader than its contrast with the other,8 several synchronic discussions on war in the Old Testament leave the door open for developing a topical scheme of peace. Susan Niditch develops a typology of war in the Hebrew Bible as she identifies various ideologies of war that existed in the writings of ancient Israel. Such ideologies include the “ban” or h‰rem as both God’s portion and God’s justice,9 a priestly ideology of war, a bardic tradition of war, an ideology of tricksterism, an ideology of expediency and biblical critique, and an ideology of nonparticipation.10 In a separate study, John Wood identifies two types of holy war in the Old Testament: one in which the ancient Israelites are active participants and one in which they are passive. He then distinguishes between vengeful and all-encompassing war and redemptive and inclusive war, as well as ideologies of pacifism and inklings of the just-war theory.11 Following the lead of Niditch and Wood a synchronic discussion of

Introduction

17

peace in the Old Testament may help to further the study of peace in the Bible. Therefore a substantial portion of this book includes a development of various ideologies and typologies of peace in the Old Testament. These will be developed to allow the reader to grasp particular concepts of peace and to identify various biblical passages that address different types of peace. After a chapter on the Hebrew word shalom and the English word peace, separate chapters will be devoted to the following ideologies: peace and nonviolence, peace after conflict or war, visions of peace, mandates for peace, and peace within the realm of piety. The first ideology of peace concerns various instances in which individuals or select communities in ancient Israel looked to means other than violence to prevent potentially violent situations. Certain stories in Genesis, Exodus, Ruth, and Daniel demonstrate a willingness to use nonviolence in creative ways to bring about peace. We can’t go so far as to say that the characters in these stories always chose nonviolent and peaceful means to solve conflicts, but we can say that these stories and others illustrate an ideology of peace through nonviolence. Nonviolence may not be a predominant theme in the Old Testament, but it occurs often enough to show that it was one option in which the ancient Israelites chose to make peace. On the other hand, there is a second ideology that involves a state or condition of peace in society after problematic conflicts or a time of war. For instance, Melchizedek blesses Abram after Abram defeats Chedorlaomer and his allies in Genesis 14. The book of Judges describes one conflict after another in which the Israelites suffer defeat by an enemy, after which God intervenes and there is “rest” and peace in the land for a time (see Judges 3:1-30). After a very violent period in the history of ancient Israel, the destruction and forced exile by Babylon, Jeremiah speaks of a time of peace and contentment for those who remain in exile (see Jeremiah 29). These are just a few of many examples in the Old Testament that describe a peace that comes as a result of resolving conflict through violent or destructive means. Some of the more popular peace passages in the Old Testament envision a time when peace will abound in the world. The book of Isaiah is replete with peaceful visions; Isaiah 9 and 11 gain a good deal of attention, especially during Advent. But beautiful visions of peace can also be found in Isaiah 55 and 65. Other prophetic books, such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea, contain significant visions calling for peace and harmony. Many of these

18

Introduction

prophetic visions are eschatological; they envision a time of peace in the unspecified future. This eschatological nature does not diminish their power. These are strong statements encouraging and advocating peace in the present age. A fourth ideology of peace is found in Old Testament legal material and proverbs. Although peace is a virtue, quality, or condition that can’t necessarily be legislated, certain legal statements set the framework for an atmosphere of shalom. For example, if a community found itself capable of enforcing the legal mandates in Leviticus 25—the release every fifty years of servants and land sold due to indebtedness—it would most definitely live in a certain degree of peace. Any community that sees to it that land is distributed in fair and equitable ways and that people do not have to sell themselves or their relatives to pay off debts would be making way for shalom. In addition to these examples in Leviticus 25, the Old Testament contains other legal statements, commands, and proverbs that mandate specific behavior patterns that direct the community toward shalom. A final ideology of peace in the Old Testament relates to piety and worship in ancient Israel. Most of this material comes from the Psalms. Psalm 15 speaks of the importance of worshippers exhibiting virtues of integrity and righteousness (which lead to shalom) prior to entering the sanctuary. Other psalms, such as Psalm 85, lament a time when peace did not exist in Israel but look forward to a time when God’s intervention will lead to the desired peace. And finally, other psalms and passages, such as Numbers 6:22-26, connect peace with God’s blessing. What one finds is that an ideology of peace runs through materials designed for worship, such as temple liturgies, prayers, laments, praises, blessings, and benedictions. Any categorization of types of peace in the Old Testament will be an imperfect device because the ancient Israelites did not think or write in that way. The above categorization, however, suggests that peace was an important theme espoused by different writers through different literary genres. It also suggests that the theme of peace is variegated and complex, which underscores the need to identify different types of peace if readers and students of the Old Testament are going to more fully understand the concepts of shalom and peace. This typology helps to move us away from the tendency to see only a God of wrath in the Old Testament and a God of love in the New Testament. We actually have both in both testaments. A systematized

Introduction

19

typology of peace in the Old Testament gives it prominence to the degree that it can’t be dismissed simply because of the existence of Old Testament passages of extreme violence and warfare. Up to this point in the discussion, peace and shalom have been used interchangeably. This stems partly from the fact that people commonly associate the English word peace with the Hebrew word shalom. However, these two words are not synonymous; they derived from two different linguistic contexts. Yet the two words intertwine in such a way that it is difficult to cleanly separate them. As stated earlier, when one hears the word shalom, normally the English word peace comes to mind. Peace is not always an appropriate translation of shalom, but in many instances it is sufficient. Needless to say, the connection between these two words warrants a thorough discussion and examination. The next chapter will address peace and shalom in the Old Testament and open the door for more extensive discussions on the various typologies that we have merely identified in this introduction.

This page intentionally left blank

1

Peace and Shalom This book’s primary focus is peace in the Old Testament. That sounds simple enough, but things get fairly complicated when we try to define peace. Some writers suggest that the English word peace is limited and usually thought of negatively, as indicating the absence of something, such as war, turmoil, or strife.1 This mode of thought implies that peace lacks a positive connotation that would describe relationships and situations in the community in a positive or even ideal manner. One dictionary indicates that peace has a moderate range of meanings 2 that include both the positive and the negative. In some cases, peace indicates the absence of war and hostilities, but it also signifies harmonious relationships, security, inner contentment, serenity, and freedom from strife. This range of meanings suggests that peace involves the absence of something such as war, but it also implies positive conditions such as freedom, harmony, and tranquility. Most pastors end a worship service with a benediction. Although benedictions may vary from service to service, they normally end with the words “Go in peace.” Regular attendees come to expect these words. In fact, if a pastor deviates from his or her routine and does not speak those three words, a few congregants might express their disappointment after the service. It’s also significant that the words “go in peace” mean different things to the people who worship at that congregation. For some it is simply a comforting way to end a service. For others it is an invitation to leave the sanctuary with God’s presence. Others see it as a suggestion to live in a community where violence and strife do not exist. And yet others see it as a challenge to find ways to create peace in a turbulent world during the upcoming week. For some, the word peace has a 21

22

Neglected Voices

limited and negative connotation, while for others its positive and farreaching aspects involve hope and justice. Like many words, peace can’t be restricted to one meaning, namely, the absence of war or violence. It carries other meanings with negative as well as positive connotations, so we will explore how various aspects of peace play out in the Old Testament literature. Yet a study of peace in the Old Testament must also include a discussion of shalom. Most often, when the word peace occurs in an English Bible, it is a translation of the Hebrew word shalom. In some instances shalom parallels the English word peace, but in other cases it means something very different from peace. We will continue to focus on the concept of peace in this book, but we will examine shalom in detail to help us understand the different types of peace in the Old Testament. Shalom is richer in the depth and breadth of its semantic range than peace.3 Its extensive meanings range from a simple greeting of an individual or a community to peace with God. Shalom appears over 230 times in the Old Testament, and the various contexts in which it is used help to determine what meaning the specific author had in mind. An examination of these occurrences and contexts allows us to explore shalom’s different meanings. Identifying the various meanings of shalom is no easy task, because the usage of this word in one context may overlap with its usage in another context. However, such identification gives us an appreciation and understanding for the complexity as well as the beauty of shalom and how it relates to the concept of peace.

The Meanings of Shalom It is possible to attribute the following meanings to shalom as used in the Old Testament. 1. Greeting. In several instances, shalom is an idiomatic term with which one person is simply greeting another. In this sense, shalom is almost always used in conjunction with the Hebrew verb sh’l, which basically means “to ask about” or “to inquire.” When using the two words together, an individual is asking about or inquiring about the shalom of the other person. Judges 18:15 reads, “So they turned in that direction and came to the house of the young Levite, at the home of Micah, and greeted him” (emphasis added). However, a literal rendering of the Hebrew reads this way, “And they turned there and they came to the house of the young

Peace and Shalom

23

Levite, the house of Micah, and they inquired about his shalom.” Consider another example, 1 Samuel 10:4: “They will greet you and give you two loaves of bread, which you shall accept from them” (emphasis added). The Hebrew reads, “They will ask about your shalom and they will give you two loaves of bread and you will receive them.” In English it is awkward to say that they will ask about your shalom or your peace. The meaning here is simply welcoming or greeting another person. We do have similar idiomatic phrases, however. When we ask someone, “How are you doing?” or “How are you?” we are greeting that person, not necessarily expecting a specific response. So it is not uncommon in both Hebrew and English to pose a welcoming statement in the form of a question. Used in this way, shalom does not have a deep theological meaning nor does it imply an everlasting peace; it serves only as a greeting. 2. Harmonious relationships. At times in the Old Testament shalom designates a relationship or covenant with another party. Depending on the context, the relationship or covenant is one of harmony or disharmony, and a person may come or go in peace. When God commands Samuel to go to Bethlehem to anoint David as king over Israel, the people in Bethlehem are afraid and ask Samuel if he comes “in shalom.” (1 Samuel 16:4. This is a literal rendering of the Hebrew phrase. The NRSV translates this phrase as “peaceably,” and the NIV translates it as “in peace.”) Samuel’s answer is favorable and suggests that he is in harmony with the people of Bethlehem. In Genesis 26, during a time of tension between Isaac and the Philistines over water rights, Isaac responds in such a way that settles the matter amicably. At the end of the narrative, he and the Philistine leaders exchange oaths and then depart from one another in peace (see Genesis 26:31). That is to say, they leave one another on a note of harmony. When it describes the nature of relationships among peoples or individuals, shalom also carries a legal connotation. For example, Joshua made a covenant of peace with the Gibeonites, thus promising not to harm them during his conquest of Canaan (see Joshua 9:15). Here shalom signifies the opposite of war or violence, however, the legal feature of shalom exhibits dominance in this verse thus signifying a degree of harmony between Joshua and the Gibeonites. 3. Non-anxious presence. The Old Testament contains descriptions of many situations in which the characters exhibit a good deal of anxiety and fear. These emotions may be the result of the perception of God’s

24

Neglected Voices

overwhelming temperament, the anticipation of death, or the experiencing of a lack of power. The modern term “non-anxious presence” signifies a relaxed and assertive state in a situation of moderate to extreme anxiety.4 In a few passages in the Old Testament, shalom is used to encourage a non-anxious presence in the midst of anxiety and chaos. When Joseph’s brothers go down to Egypt a second time to buy grain, they are afraid because when they returned home after the first trip, the money they’d used to purchase the grain had been replaced in their sacks. On their second trip, they mention this to the steward and point out that they have brought the money back, plus more to buy new grain. The steward replies, in a literal rendering of the Hebrew, “Shalom be to you, do not be afraid” (Genesis 43:23). The steward uses shalom to reduce the anxiety of the brothers. In another example, an angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon as he prepared a sacrifice. When the angel touched the sacrifice, fire sprang up from the rock on which it sat, and Gideon became terrified because he believed he saw God face to face and therefore would die. But God said, “Shalom be to you, do not be afraid, you will not die” (see Judges 6:23). God’s words move Gideon from an anxious state to a non-anxious presence. In the above two examples, fear results from anxiety about power— human and divine—and the anticipation of death. In both instances, shalom is used either to reduce or to eliminate the anxiety and to create a sense of assurance and peace. 4. Peace with God. On numerous occasions, shalom is used to signify peace between God and the people. In some cases, this peace is portrayed in the form of a covenant. In Numbers 25, Phinehas used violence to stop a plague instituted by God to punish the people for idolatry. God rewarded him by establishing a covenant of shalom with him. In this instance, the covenant of peace denoted a continuous line of priests for Phinehas and his descendants. Isaiah 54:1-17 relates God’s words of assurance and encouragement to the Israelites. God promises not to remove his covenant of shalom from them. In Ezekiel 34 we find the images of the shepherd and wild animals used to assure the exiles that God would make a covenant of shalom with them and banish the wild animals, namely Israel’s enemies, from the land. In addition to these passages are those that speak of a general peace between God and the people. In Psalm 85, the psalmist longs to hear

Peace and Shalom

25

what God will say, for he is confident God will speak shalom to the people (see verse 9). Isaiah 26 discusses the fact that God keeps the people in shalom and ordains peace for them (see verses 3, 12). In a negative fashion, God explains to Jeremiah that he has removed his peace, steadfast love, and mercy from the people in judgment for idolatry and disobedience (see Jeremiah 16:5). 5. Peace as God’s blessing. There are a few passages that call upon God’s blessing of peace. In the well-known priestly benediction of Numbers 6:22-26, the notions of blessing and shalom are tightly connected. Psalm 29 concludes with a similar benediction calling on God to strengthen the people and to bless them with his shalom. In both instances, God’s blessing of peace is not described in detail, but it carries a definite positive connotation and is eagerly sought by the people. 6. Prosperity. In some contexts, the best way to translate shalom is with the English word prosperity. Psalm 37:11 speaks favorably of the meek and says that they will possess the land and delight in great shalom, or prosperity. In this instance shalom is linked with possession of the land and abundant prosperity. Zechariah 8:12 proclaims a “sowing of shalom.” The images that follow this sowing all infer a sense of prosperity in relation to an abundant harvest: a vine yielding fruit, the earth providing adequate vegetation, and dew coming down from the heavens. Isaiah 66:12 compares shalom to a river and the wealth of nations to an overflowing stream. Once again, these images portray prosperity and abundance. To be prosperous in life and in the resources of this earth is to experience shalom. 7. Righteousness and justice. Shalom also has strong connections to the concepts of righteousness and justice. Both Psalm 72 and Isaiah 32 suggest that when shalom exists, so does righteousness. In fact, Isaiah 32 states that shalom is an effect or result of righteousness. Isaiah 59 juxtaposes the concept of justice and shalom in the negative: if the people do not have shalom, there is no justice in their lives. The two go hand in hand. And finally in Psalm 34:14, while the concepts of justice and righteousness are not mentioned, they are implied through the command “Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace [shalom], and pursue it.” A person who seeks peace and pursues it brings about justice and righteousness within the community. 8. Safety. Another nuance of shalom found frequently in the Old Testament is that of safety and security. This nuance can emerge in a subtle and general sense as one person wishes another to depart and

26

Neglected Voices

“go in peace.” Although this phrase may serve as words of parting, as discussed above, it can also signify harmony between two parties; in some cases it is an encouragement for the leaving party to have a safe journey (see, for example, Exodus 4:18). Some passages are more explicit in terms of safety and security. For example, at one point Jonathan and David are discussing whether or not it is safe for David to remain in Saul’s presence. Jonathan tells David that if he discovers that Saul intends to harm David, he will send David away in shalom, safe and secure (see 1 Samuel 20:13). And one psalmist ends a lament against his enemies with an element of trust and confidence by stating that he is able to lie down and sleep in shalom because God alone allows him to sleep safely (see Psalm 4:8). These and many other examples suggest that to be in shalom is to be in a safe place or in the safe care and protection of God. 9. The absence of war and violence. There are many instances in the Old Testament in which shalom refers to the absence of war or violence. In these cases, shalom indicates a type of peace that excludes war or violence or occurs after the experience of war and violence. For instance, Deuteronomy 20:10 instructs the Israelites to offer a town terms of shalom before they fight against it. This example puts shalom, or peace, at the opposite end of the spectrum from war. In 1 Kings 22, King Jehoshaphat and Micaiah the prophet debate whether Jehoshaphat should go to war against Ramoth-gilead. All the other prophets encourage Jehoshaphat to do so, but Micaiah proclaims that God has revealed to him that the king will be defeated if he does. Jehoshaphat imprisons Micaiah, gives him a bread-and-water diet, and says he must stay imprisoned until he returns in shalom. Micaiah answers by saying that if Jehoshaphat returns in shalom, God has not spoken through him. Shalom in this case is used to refer to peace or victory after war. 10. Well-being. In most cases in which shalom is used to designate well-being, it refers to a collective or community well-being or welfare. In other words, shalom is used to describe or indicate the well-being of the people or a group of people, such as a city. In a negative sense, in Deuteronomy 23:6, the people are told not to promote the welfare (shalom) of the Ammonites or the Moabites. On the other hand, in the last verse of the book of Esther, Mordecai seeks the well-being of his people and all their descendants. In a judgment speech in Jeremiah 15, God wonders who will pity

Peace and Shalom

27

Jerusalem, who will lament its destruction, and who will be concerned about its general welfare (see verse 5). Later in Jeremiah, he encourages the exiles in Babylon to settle down in their exilic setting. He instructs them to seek the well-being of the city of Babylon and to offer prayers to God on its behalf. Jeremiah encourages the exiles to accept their circumstances because the well-being (shalom) of a people in exile depends on the well-being (shalom) of their environment (see 29:7). 11. Wholeness. On a few occasions, shalom appears to indicate a sense of wholeness or completeness. In an address to Job, Eliphaz talks about the deliverance and protection of God for those who do not despise him. In 5:24 he says Job will know that his tent or dwelling is shalom, or safe and secure. The final phrase of the verse indicates that nothing will be missing from his tent, which communicates a sense of wholeness and completeness concerning the dwelling place. In Isaiah 53:5 it is the suffering servant’s bruises and wounds that allow for a degree of wholeness, completeness, and healing for the people. A different sense of completeness in relation to shalom occurs in Jeremiah 13:19. This is one of the rare exceptions where shalom appears in plural form. The literal rendering of the Hebrew in the latter part of the verse is that “all of Judah is taken into exile, shalom [plural].” There is no appropriate way to translate this into English. The gist of the phrase is that Judah has been taken into exile completely, wholly, and entirely. 12. To die in peace. In ancient Israel the people expressed great anxiety when someone died young, without having children, or violently.5 However, the writers of the Old Testament were for the most part accepting of death at the end of a long and full life. In Genesis 15:15 God promises Abraham that he will die in shalom at the end of a good life. In a somewhat different context, Jeremiah prophesies that Zedekiah will die at the hands of the Babylonians, yet he will not die by the sword but in shalom (see Jeremiah 34:5). 13. Good, favorable. Shalom can signify something favorable or good. Proverbs 3:17 describes wisdom as having pleasant ways and paths of shalom. The paths of wisdom are pleasant and good. Like a tree of life, the ways of wisdom bring happiness to those who take hold of it (see verse 18). Shalom can also designate “good” in the sense of the opposite of iniquity or wickedness. Malachi recalls the covenant God gave to the priestly tribe of Levi. When Levi spoke, he spoke the truth and not falsehoods. He walked with God in shalom and uprightness and persuaded many people to refrain from their wicked ways.

28

Neglected Voices

Instead of leading the people with evil and wickedness, Levi led with goodness and integrity. 14. Friendship, companionship. In several uses of shalom the context suggests that the only way to translate this Hebrew word is as “friend” or “ally.” Psalm 41:9 talks about a “man of shalom” (in the Hebrew), someone the psalmist trusts. In Jeremiah 38:22 the Hebrew phrase “men of shalom” is used to signify friends or companions who once were trusted. In virtually all instances in which shalom is used in the sense of friend or companion, the friend or companion is no longer. The trusted friend has violated the trust and turned against the psalmist or the people.

Conclusion The above word study reveals the wide range of meanings of shalom. Although interpreters have attempted to categorize the various aspects and senses of the word, we will not attempt to do so here.6 Rather we will let the various aspects stand on their own. It is the context in which shalom is used that dictates which aspect a writer had in mind. At the same time, we can conclude the following about the Hebrew word shalom. 7 On numerous occasions shalom has a relational connotation. This connotation may involve interpersonal relationships or association with the community at large. To greet someone with shalom implies a relationship. However, the relational implications of shalom go much deeper than simple words of greeting. When Samuel goes to Bethlehem to anoint David, the elders of the city are afraid and ask Samuel if he comes in peace (see 1 Samuel 16:4). He assures them that he does and that their relationship is one of shalom. When shalom signifies friend or friendship, it is difficult to view the word in any other manner than relational (see Psalm 41:9; Jeremiah 38:22). One must not forget the passages that talk about shalom between the people and God (see Psalm 85:8; Isaiah 26:3). Such passages use this Hebrew word to describe the relationship between the human and the divine. On the other hand, shalom often describes a specific condition or status regarding an individual or the community,8 often well-being. In passages where shalom is used to inquire about or speak of the wellbeing of an individual, the community, or a specific situation, the status or condition of the individual, community, or situation is the major concern. In 2 Samuel 11:7 David asks Uriah “how Joab and the people fared, and how the war was going.” The Hebrew actually reads, “And David asked [if there was] shalom to Joab, shalom to the people

Peace and Shalom

29

and shalom with the war.” He is concerned about the well-being and condition of Joab, the people, and the war. Another aspect of shalom that stresses the condition or status of the people or a situation is that of safety or security. In Psalm 122, the psalmist talks about praying for shalom within the walls of the city and security within its towers. He is talking about a state of being for the city of Jerusalem, a state that in this case involves peace and security. The above two passages and numerous others indicate that shalom is used not only to denote a particular relationship but also to designate a particular condition or state of being. Just as the use of shalom involves both the relationships and the description of a particular status or state of being, so it also involves the secular and the religious.9 Although the distinction between the secular and the religious is not always clear, some instances illustrate that the wide semantic range of shalom takes us into both realms. In many cases shalom is used in situations outside the worship and religious arena. It may involve a person seeking shalom for strangers in a village square (see Judges 19:20), the description of shalom between two countries or tribes (see Judges 4:17), or the description of a particular economic status of a group (see Psalm 73:3). However, there are plenty of instances where shalom is used in a religious context. One well known within the contemporary church is Numbers 26:6, in which Moses speaks God’s blessing of shalom to Aaron and his descendants. There are also places where God directly speaks of shalom to the people (see Isaiah 54:10; 60:17). And of course there are cases where one person speaks of shalom to another with a religious connotation in mind. For instance, Eli instructs Hannah to go in shalom with the wish that God may answer her prayer (see 1 Samuel 1:17). Another conclusion we can draw from a word study of shalom is that it expresses a sense of fullness and is superlative. We have noted that one aspect of shalom is fullness as it expresses a notion of completeness. But in an overall sense shalom describes things or situations as they ought to be.10 Shalom is something that individuals and the community should strive toward, and if it indeed is achieved, peace, tranquility, security, and justice will exist. J. T. E. Renner writes the following about shalom: It is a rich and very diversified expression which is able to hold many different nuances of meaning—indeed, it can express all that is highest and best for Israel, in society, politics, cult, family

30

Neglected Voices relationships, as well as for the whole of humankind and the cosmos itself. That it is the prime blessing that a God of peace could convey to a disoriented and chaotic world caused by human disobedience of his covenants, and at the same time be challenge and provocation to human beings to pray for it, to work for it and above all to receive it . . . and then express it in accord with the will of God, that is surely unequivocally attested to in the Old Testament as it also points to an eschatological peace through the office-bearer of peace, a peace which will never end.11

Shalom is a concept that crops up in relationships and situations of all kinds, and in some instances it conveys the notion of something that is positive, full, complete, and whole. Shalom is something we should strive to achieve and bring about for the welfare of society. It’s also important to note that although the most general and common translation of shalom is the English word peace, in many cases the Hebrew word shalom indicates something other than what we understand as peace. This is not to say that shalom transcends peace; rather, in many instances it simply means something different. This becomes clear as we explore the many meanings of shalom, such as greetings, prosperity, righteousness and justice, safety, well-being, wholeness, good and favorable, and friendship. In other instances, however, peace seems to be a more than adequate translation for shalom, such as when it describes harmonious relationships, a non-anxious presence, peace with God, peace as God’s blessing, the absence of war and violence, and dying in peace. Without a doubt, there is a strong connection between peace and shalom. And it is the individual context in which shalom is used that determines the strength or nonexistence of that connection. Although we have devoted a good deal of space to shalom in this chapter, we must continue to stress that this book is a study of peace in the Old Testament and not a study of shalom. Numerous studies in recent years begin by talking about peace in the Old Testament or have the word peace in the title but then focus primarily on the concept of shalom in the Old Testament.12 Additionally such studies tend to argue that shalom is a more exceptional word than peace because of its richness and vast range of meaning. Although it is true that the semantic range of shalom is much wider than that of peace, neither word is better or superior to the other. They are simply different words. We must note that numerous passages in the Old Testament create an

Peace and Shalom

31

image or picture of peace in which the word shalom is entirely absent (for example, Isaiah 65:17-25). So our task is not to chart a course for an extensive study of shalom but to explore the Old Testament for indications of peace and how this notion plays out in the literature as a whole.13 Having said this, an adequate understanding of how shalom is used in the Old Testament is imperative as we seek to uncover the various typologies and ideologies of peace in the Old Testament. We have already identified typologies of peace in the Old Testament and will be exploring them in more detail in later chapters. A cursory overview at this point shows that many of the meanings of shalom relate to all of the identified typologies. For instance, when a passage describes peace after war or violence, the aspects of shalom that come into play are the absence of war and violence and harmonious relationships. When peace results from nonviolent action, we see shalom manifesting itself through the aspects of harmonious relationship and righteousness and justice. Within the mandates for peace, shalom is peace with God, well-being, harmonious relationships, and righteousness and justice. When we explore the visions of peace in the Old Testament, we see shalom in the form of harmonious relationships, peace with God, prosperity, righteousness and justice, safety and well-being. Not all aspects of shalom will relate to one of the identified typologies of peace, but it is virtually impossible to develop and discuss such typologies without involving the Hebrew word shalom. In fact, a word study of this nature on shalom helps to set the stage for and to confirm the typologies of peace in the Old Testament that we have identified. When we explore the meaning of the English word peace, as we did at the beginning of this chapter, we discover that it means more than just the absence of something, usually the absence of war. It includes positive connotations such as freedom, harmony, security, and serenity. Although a word study of shalom has helped us to understand the various aspects of meaning of this word in the Old Testament, an understanding of the concept of peace in the Old Testament can’t be achieved by a basic word study. Peace is not a Hebrew word, and its association with the Old Testament is somewhat vague. First, there is a tendency to confuse peace and shalom, a confusion we have addressed. Second, because of the descriptions of wars and the heavy use of war imagery in the Old Testament, there is a tendency among various interpreters to negate the existence and importance of peace in the Old Testament. Third, just as the various aspects of shalom can’t be categorized in a simplistic way to encapsulate its “basic” meaning, the various aspects of peace stand on their own,

32

Neglected Voices

and their meanings are dictated by the contexts in which they are used. Therefore I have chosen to develop various typologies and ideologies of peace as a more comprehensive and useful way of understanding and explaining peace in the Old Testament. This approach also allows us to explore the connections between shalom and peace instead of ignoring one over the other. Additionally it allows us to go beyond focusing on a particular word and to strive to understand how the notion of peace plays out in various ways in the Old Testament.

2

Nonviolence We do not readily associate nonviolence with the Old Testament because the writers of ancient Israel incorporated plenty of examples and instances of violence within its pages. Many interpreters have allowed these to overshadow the examples of nonviolence within the very same pages. The purpose of this chapter is to identify a sample of texts in the Old Testament in which conflict is resolved or addressed in a nonviolent manner. This does not mean that the writers who composed or preserved such passages, or the characters therein, were pacifists. Such texts do affirm, however, that in various instances, individuals or ancient Israel as a whole looked to nonviolence to bring about peace in their world. Identifying texts as nonviolent merely suggests that alternatives to violence and war were sought in an effort to move a particular situation forward. The protagonists achieved peace through alternatives to war and violence. Each instance of nonviolence is different and arises out of distinct and particular circumstances. In some cases, they chose nonviolence because there was no need to resort to violence. In other instances, they decisively and intentionally chose nonviolence over violence. Sometimes an oppressed or weaker party chose nonviolence because it was unable to overcome a foe with violence. In those cases, violence might have been chosen if it were an option, but circumstances necessitated finding another solution. Gene Sharp’s basic definition of nonviolent action is germane for us here. He states that nonviolent action refers to a variety of “specific methods of protest, noncooperation, and intervention, in all of which the actionists conduct the conflict by doing—or refusing to do—certain things without using physical violence. As a technique, therefore, nonviolent action is not passive. It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent.”1 33

34

Neglected Voices

The nonviolent passages discussed in this chapter are consistent with Sharp’s definition and fall into two distinct categories: peaceful acts of conflict resolution and acts of civil disobedience. Those that recount conflict resolution are not passive in nature but portray some type of action as an alternative to violence. It is “action that is nonviolent,” not inaction. The passages recounting civil disobedience describe acts of defiance. In most cases, such acts run counter to the legal system and are seen by the powers that be as illegal actions. In the selected passages, acts of civil disobedience were committed by people in positions of little power. Instead of using considerable power to bring about peaceful means through nonviolence, they used what little power they had to stand up against oppressive authorities and challenge such authorities by refusing to obey and committing illegal acts.

Peaceful Acts of Conflict Resolution Conflict was a constant part of life in ancient Israel. Israel experienced conflict with other nations, among the tribes, and even among families. In some instances, violence was the preferred method for dealing with such conflicts. On other occasions, however, we find that peaceful acts of nonviolence resolved the conflict. Although such examples are not prevalent in the Old Testament, they do exist and demonstrate that dealing with conflict in peaceful ways was part of ancient Israelite culture. The modern term conflict resolution has developed into a social science with various theories of managing conflict. But we do not need a college degree to successfully deal with a conflict. The Old Testament provides several examples of ancient Israelite culture where individuals or groups embraced conflict and successfully dealt with it. Genesis 26:12-33 12Isaac sowed seed in that land, and in the same year reaped a hundredfold. The LORD blessed him, 13and the man became rich; he prospered more and more until he became very wealthy. 14He

had possessions of flocks and herds, and a great household, so that the Philistines envied him. 15(Now the Philistines had stopped up and filled with earth all the wells that his father’s servants had dug in the days of his father Abraham.) 16And Abimelech said to Isaac, “Go away from us; you have become too powerful for us.”

Nonviolence

35

17So Isaac departed from there and camped in the valley of Gerar and settled there. 18Isaac dug again the wells of water that

had been dug in the days of his father Abraham; for the Philistines had stopped them up after the death of Abraham; and he gave them the names that his father had given them. 19But when Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and found there a well of spring water, 20the herders of Gerar quarreled with Isaac’s herders, saying, “The water is ours.” So he called the well Esek, because they contended with him. 21Then they dug another well, and they quarreled over that one also; so he called it Sitnah. 22He moved from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he called it Rehoboth, saying, “Now the Lord has made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.” 23From there he went up to Beer-sheba. 24And that very night the LORD appeared to him and said, “I am the God of your father Abraham; do not be afraid, for I am with you and will bless you and make your offspring numerous for my servant Abraham’s sake.” 25So he built an altar there, called on the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there. And there Isaac’s servants dug a well. 26Then Abimelech went to him from Gerar, with Ahuzzath his adviser and Phicol the commander of his army. 27Isaac said to them, “Why have you come to me, seeing that you hate me and have sent me away from you?” 28They said, “We see plainly that the LORD has been with you; so we say, let there be an oath between you and us, and let us make a covenant with you 29so that you will do us no harm, just as we have not touched you and have done to you nothing but good and have sent you away in peace. You are now the blessed of the LORD.” 30So he made them a feast, and they ate and drank. 31In the morning they rose early and exchanged oaths; and Isaac set them on their way, and they departed from him in peace. 32That same day Isaac’s servants came and told him about the well that they had dug, and said to him, “We have found water!” 33He called it Shibah; therefore the name of the city is Beer-sheba to this day.

Conflict is a regular feature of the book of Genesis. In addition to the conflict in Genesis 14, which we will discuss in the next chapter, is one that inevitably arises in the three “Ancestress in Danger” texts in

36

Neglected Voices

Genesis 12, 20, and 26. Each of these stories involves conflict with a patriarch and a matriarch (Abraham and Sarah, Genesis 12 and 20; Isaac and Rebekah, Genesis 26) and a neighboring nation. Each conflict ends nonviolently. In addition is the often-cited story in Genesis 13 of Abram and Lot parting company due to tension among their herders. Abram willingly moves on and allows Lot to have his choice of the land. Later, in Genesis 33, Jacob and Esau run into trouble to the point that Esau threatens to kill Jacob. When they eventually come back together, the narrator sets the stage for an impending fight as Esau approaches Jacob with four hundred men. Instead of fighting, they embrace and then go their separate ways. In Genesis 26:12-33, Isaac has a series of conflicts with his neighbors. Each conflict pertains to the legal claim to water. Isaac re-digs a well that his father had dug, and the Philistines say that the well belongs to them. Isaac lets them have it and digs another, which the local herders lay claim to. Again Isaac relents and allows them to have the well. He moves on and digs a third. This time there is no contention. After he has an encounter with God, the Philistine officials approach Isaac to make a covenant with him. They acknowledge that God has blessed him, and they want him to promise not to harm them, just as they have done no harm to Isaac. Isaac agrees. They dine with one another, then establish the covenant, and the Philistines depart in peace. When each conflict regarding a well emerged, Isaac had several options. He could have attempted to settle the conflicts legally, since the wells in question all had belonged to his father. He also could have used force. At the beginning of the passage, the narrator explicitly states that Isaac had wealth and power to the degree that the Philistines envied him. And in a speech between the Philistine officials and Isaac (verses 26-29), Isaac’s power is again underscored. Instead of resorting to violence, however, he chose to resolve the conflicts in a peaceful and nonviolent manner. When one well became a problem, he did not contest it, but moved on and dug another. He did so until the conflicts ceased. In modern terms, we might label Isaac’s behavior as conflict avoidance; he did not deal directly with the dispute but simply found water elsewhere. But such behavior led to a sense of prosperity to the degree that the hostile Philistines eventually came seeking Isaac’s favor.2 George W. Coats identifies the covenant between Isaac and the Philistines as a nonaggression pact, not an act of reconciliation.3 But Isaac’s style of conflict management led to peace and nonviolence, and

Nonviolence

37

he reconciled himself with a group of people who ultimately became enemies of ancient Israel.4 By responding to the Philistines nonviolently, Isaac found a way to live with them in peace.

2 Kings 6:8-23 8Once when the king of Aram was at war with Israel, he took

counsel with his officers. He said, “At such and such a place shall be my camp.” 9But the man of God sent word to the king of Israel, “Take care not to pass this place, because the Arameans are going down there.” 10The king of Israel sent word to the place of which the man of God spoke. More than once or twice he warned such a place so that it was on the alert. 11The mind of the king of Aram was greatly perturbed because of this; he called his officers and said to them, “Now tell me who among us sides with the king of Israel?” 12Then one of his officers said, “No one, my lord king. It is Elisha, the prophet in Israel, who tells the king of Israel the words that you speak in your bedchamber.” 13He said, “Go and find where he is; I will send and seize him.” He was told, “He is in Dothan.” 14So he sent horses and chariots there and a great army; they came by night, and surrounded the city. 15When an attendant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. His servant said, “Alas, master! What shall we do?” 16He replied, “Do not be afraid, for there are more with us than there are with them.” 17Then Elisha prayed: “O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the servant, and he saw; the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. 18When the Arameans came down against him, Elisha prayed to the Lord, and said, “Strike this people, please, with blindness.” So he struck them with blindness as Elisha had asked. 19Elisha said to them, “This is not the way, and this is not the city; follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek.” And he led them to Samaria. 20As soon as they entered Samaria, Elisha said, “O LORD, open the eyes of these men so that they may see.” The LORD opened their eyes, and they saw that they were inside Samaria. 21When the king of Israel saw them he said to Elisha, “Father,

38

Neglected Voices shall I kill them? Shall I kill them?” 22He answered, “No! Did you capture with your sword and your bow those whom you want to kill? Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink; and let them go to their master.” 23So he prepared for them a great feast; after they ate and drank, he sent them on their way, and they went to their master. And the Arameans no longer came raiding into the land of Israel.

This passage is unusual in that it describes an unlikely situation of nonviolence between two countries at war. But it is in the unusual that unexpected and transformative elements often emerge. In this story, a peaceful outcome develops in creative fashion. The story unfolds as Elisha thwarts an attack against Israel by the Arameans (that is, the Syrians). The king of Syria consults his advisers, and they identify Elisha as the culprit. The text does not say how Elisha knew about the Syrian king’s planned ambushes. The text also does not say how the king’s officers knew that Elisha was the one who was undermining their military schemes against Israel. In a matter of a few verses (11-14), the Syrian king accuses his officers of treason. They point the finger at Elisha, and the king accepts their answer and commands a great army to capture the Israelite prophet. As the Syrian army approaches Elisha at Dothan, a servant informs him that the enemy surrounds them. Elisha then calls upon God to strike the army blind. He addresses the army by saying that they are in the wrong place and, if they would simply follow him, he will take them to the one they are seeking. Elisha leads them right into Samaria and places them in the hands of the king of Israel. God then removes the blindness from the army and they see that danger awaits them. The king appears unsure of what to do next. He seeks permission from Elisha to kill the enemy. Elisha negates the request and instead commands the king to feed the army and send them on their way. The text ends by stating that the Syrians no longer besieged the land of Israel. The story ends on a curious note. In the midst of a historical collection of ancient Israelite history in which national and international conflicts are resolved through military action, a decision is made to send the enemy home instead of keeping them captive as servants or prisoners of war. T. R. Hobbs argues from a practical military standpoint and suggests that Elisha sent the Syrians home to humiliate them.5 On the other hand, Richard Nelson contends that Elisha used his power to control

Nonviolence

39

the situation by ordering a conciliatory outcome instead of a violent one.6 Walter Brueggemann states that Elisha’s action brought about a transformation. When Elisha delivered the Syrians, the king was prepared to kill them. But Elisha proposed that festival is better than war, and the hostility at the beginning of the text was transformed into peace.7 Although the narrator does not specifically state what Elisha’s motives were in feeding the enemy and sending them away in peace, there’s a clue in the last sentence of the narrative: “And the Arameans no longer came raiding into the land of Israel.” Perhaps the Syrians came raiding no more because of the nonviolent act of Elisha and the king, or perhaps they stayed away because of God’s power. If God is going to strike them blind and deliver them into the hands of the Israelites without a fight, they might as well stay away. Regardless of the practicality of the outcome, Elisha chose nonviolence when violence was a convenient and available option. The conclusion of this story has contemporary relevance. Syngman Rhee recalls President Kim Young Sam of South Korea appointing Han Wan Sang to his cabinet as the Minister of Unification. One of the first official actions that Han Wan Sang carried out was the release of a North Korean prisoner who had been imprisoned in South Korea for thirty-six years. Severely criticized for this action, Han Wan Sang was eventually dismissed from his position due to political pressures from those who opposed unification and open negotiation with North Korea. But he carried out this gesture with courage and with the conviction that authentic peace must begin with acts of nonviolence and reconciliation.8 Elisha was not a pacifist in the modern sense of the term. When he cursed forty-two boys who ridiculed and insulted him, bears came out of the woods and killed them (see 2 Kings 2:23-25). He also commanded Jehoram, king of Israel, and Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, to conquer the land of Moab (see 2 Kings 3). But one does not need to be a pacifist to perform a genuine act of nonviolent peacemaking. In the story of 2 Kings 6, Elisha brings two enemies together and commands the one in power to send the other home in peace. He institutes a fresh and creative act of nonviolence, thus sending the message that peace is a viable option in a world of violence and war.

Isaiah 42:1-4 1Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my

40

Neglected Voices soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. 2He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; 3a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. 4He will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his teaching.

This passage is part of a collection of poems and speeches often classified as a subsection of Isaiah identified as Second, or Deutero, Isaiah (chapters 40–55). The historic references in this material suggest that it was compiled during the exile in the sixth century BC, rather than in the eighth century BC, the setting of Isaiah 1–39. Four poems or passages in Second Isaiah refer to God’s servant: 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; and 52:13–53:12. These passages are known as the Servant Songs. This unnamed servant is God’s chosen way to enter into this phase of ancient Israelite history. He is a suffering and mysterious figure rather than an awesome and powerful king.9 Some speculate that the servant is the nation of Israel personified, a prophet, or even a king. Due to vague and nondescriptive information about him, securing the servant’s identity proves to be a futile task and is not as important as identifying the servant’s message and mission. Second Isaiah introduces the servant in 42:1-4 in a speech by Yahweh. The servant is upheld and proclaimed as chosen by God. God’s spirit is upon him, and he will be faithful in his task of bringing justice to the world. He will not grow weary or be crushed until justice appears in the land. The heart of the servant’s task is to bring justice nonviolently.10 Such justice will not come about through loud cries in the community. Fragile reeds will not be broken and even candles that have difficulty burning will not be extinguished. The servant will accomplish God’s justice through nonviolence and not by war, in stark contrast to the passages in which the Israelites bring about God’s justice by means of holy war.11 Paul Hanson suggests that the servant’s manner of instituting justice is a means that transcends hostilities and serves as an alternative to war. It is the qualities of the servant that lay the groundwork for this alternative: gentleness, compassion, justice, and suffering.12 This way of establishing justice differs from the way justice was perceived to have come in the past. The servant will not push aside the

Nonviolence

41

weak but will bear witness with quietness and patient gentleness so that compassion and righteousness will embody God’s reign.13 In the ancient Near East and ancient Israel, kings were assigned to establish justice; the servant stands in stark contrast to the monarchy. The servant’s leadership style here is nonhierarchical. Instead of employing a power-down approach, he has the ability to work with all people in an effort to build the framework for liberation and cosmic transformation.14 The context of the nonviolence lifted up by the Servant Songs is not as specific as that of Genesis 26 or 2 Kings 6. Second Isaiah’s historical and socioeconomic setting is Israel’s exilic existence in the sixth century BC. Second Isaiah brings a message of hope to the exiles in Babylon that encourages them to return to Judah and to rebuild and restore their homeland. Also embedded in the Servant Songs’ message to the exiles is the importance of nonviolence. The rebuilding and restoration of Judah will come about by means of peace and nonviolence. Perhaps the servant’s way of peace and nonviolence is in accordance with an old moral principle stating that if it is not absolutely necessary to go to war, it is absolutely necessary not to go to war. Avoiding war and violence opens the door for alternatives such as those proposed by the calling of the servant.

Civil Disobedience Those who participate in civil disobedience refuse to obey civil laws that they perceive to be unjust. Such people usually disobey through acts of nonresistance or nonviolence and willingly accept the legal consequences. Acts of civil disobedience are not uncommon in the Old Testament. What concerns us most in this chapter are those acts carried out to further the cause of peace or to bring justice in a particular situation. These acts usually emerge out of the faith of the individuals committing the acts at a moment when a political agenda collides with God’s agenda. And while the road of civil disobedience may not be the most pragmatic or safest to travel, it is often considered in the Old Testament to be the faithful way to obey God and institute peace through nonviolence. Exodus 1:15-22 15The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom

42

Neglected Voices was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16“When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she shall live.” 17But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live. 18So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this, and allowed the boys to live?” 19The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” 20So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and became very strong. 21And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. 22Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every boy that is born to the Hebrews you shall throw into the Nile, but you shall let every girl live.”

According to Exodus 1, the Israelites multiplied to the degree that the Egyptians took measures to ensure that the Israelites would not overpower them. They oppressed the Israelites with forced labor, but according to the narrative, the more the Egyptians oppressed the Israelites, the more they multiplied over the land. When we come to Exodus 1:15-22, we see the king of Egypt instructing two Hebrew midwives to attend to the Hebrew women during birth and to kill all the male babies. But the midwives fear God and choose not to disobey Pharaoh. Apparently word gets back to him that none of the newborn Hebrew boys are being killed, so he confronts the midwives, demanding to know why they are allowing the baby boys to live. They tell Pharaoh that Hebrew women are different from Egyptian women: they give birth so quickly that the baby is already born before the midwives arrive. Apparently he fully accepts their answer and then responds with another plan: to throw newborn males into the Nile. This of course sets the stage for the ensuing story of Moses. Satire lies in the interaction between Pharaoh and the midwives. It’s certainly curious that the Egyptian king would put a plan to kill all Hebrew male babies into the hands of two Hebrew midwives. The irony intensifies when Pharaoh, who is able to command all of Egypt, is unable to control two Israelite servants.15 Not only do the women directly disobey the king, but they also feed him a deceptive and irrational answer that implies that the Israelite women are stronger than the Egyptian women—and that Pharaoh is not very wise.16

Nonviolence

43

Renita Weems suggests that the Hebrew women in this story do not lie; they simply do not tell the whole truth. Deception is a common tactic of the powerless against those in power. She notes, “The ‘truth’ is not defined by the powerful, but becomes the priority of the underclass to interpret and shape according to their own reality. The refusal to tell the ‘truth’ becomes tantamount to the refusal to obey.”17 Whether the midwives deceive Pharaoh through failure to tell the entire truth or simply refuse to obey Pharaoh and support their disobedience through an irrational excuse, the fact remains that, in refusing to carry out Pharaoh’s command, they prevent the killing of innocent children. With violence being a futile option, they resort to creative and deceptive disobedience to temporarily overcome an oppressive power. Their civil disobedience is effective, and this story is just the beginning of a long, drawn-out conflict between the Egyptians and the Israelites.

Daniel 3 1King Nebuchadnezzar made a golden statue whose height was

sixty cubits and whose width was six cubits; he set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. 2Then King Nebuchadnezzar sent for the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces, to assemble and come to the dedication of the statue that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 3So the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces, assembled for the dedication of the statue that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. When they were standing before the statue that Nebuchadnezzar had set up, 4the herald proclaimed aloud, “You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, 5that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble, you are to fall down and worship the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. 6Whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be thrown into a furnace of blazing fire.” 7Therefore, as soon as all the peoples heard the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble, all the peoples, nations, and languages fell down and worshiped the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up.

44

Neglected Voices 8Accordingly, at this time certain Chaldeans came forward and denounced the Jews. 9They said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “O king, live forever! 10You, O king, have made a decree, that

everyone who hears the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble, shall fall down and worship the golden statue, 11and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be thrown into a furnace of blazing fire. 12There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These pay no heed to you, O king. They do not serve your gods and they do not worship the golden statue that you have set up.” 13Then Nebuchadnezzar in furious rage commanded that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought in; so they brought those men before the king. 14Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods and you do not worship the golden statue that I have set up? 15Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble to fall down and worship the statue that I have made, well and good. But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be thrown into a furnace of blazing fire, and who is the god that will deliver you out of my hands?” 16Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to present a defense to you in this matter. 17If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us. 18But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up.” 19Then Nebuchadnezzar was so filled with rage against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego that his face was distorted. He ordered the furnace heated up seven times more than was customary, 20and ordered some of the strongest guards in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and to throw them into the furnace of blazing fire. 21So the men were bound, still wearing their tunics, their trousers, their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the furnace of blazing fire. 22Because the king’s command was urgent and the furnace was so overheated,

Nonviolence

45

the raging flames killed the men who lifted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. 23But the three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down, bound, into the furnace of blazing fire. 24Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up quickly. He said to his counselors, “Was it not three men that we threw bound into the fire?” They answered the king, “True, O king.” 25He replied, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the middle of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the fourth has the appearance of a god.” 26Nebuchadnezzar then approached the door of the furnace of blazing fire and said, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out! Come here!” So Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out from the fire. 27And the satraps, the prefects, the governors, and the king’s counselors gathered together and saw that the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men; the hair of their heads was not singed, their tunics were not harmed, and not even the smell of fire came from them. 28Nebuchadnezzar said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants who trusted in him. They disobeyed the king’s command and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. 29 Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that utters blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins; for there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way.” 30Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon.

The stories of Daniel 3 and 6 are prime Old Testament examples of civil disobedience, and it is worth noting some similarities and differences between the two. In both stories, the king and his law are explicitly disobeyed. In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to worship the king’s statue. In chapter 6, Daniel continues to pray to God, which is a violation of the king’s new law. Although the disobedience of the Israelites in each story puts them in extreme jeopardy, by the end of the story they are unharmed and the foreign king praises God. Each story has its antagonists. In Daniel 3, it is “certain Chaldeans” who inform the king that the three Israelites do not worship the king’s statue. Daniel 6 tells of certain officials jealous of Daniel. Not only do they

46

Neglected Voices

encourage the king to establish a law in conflict with Daniel’s religious practices, they also inform him that Daniel has violated this new law. The major difference between the two stories is the relationship between the Israelites and the king. In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego have an adversarial relationship with the king. When they persistently refuse to worship the king’s statue, he becomes all the more incensed. In Daniel 6, the king and Daniel are more congenial. The king is fond of Daniel and in no way angered by Daniel’s insistence to pray to God. In fact, the king goes to great lengths to find a way to save him. But the only way Daniel can be saved is through the deliverance of his God. Each story has relevance in a discussion of civil disobedience in the Old Testament. But because the adversarial relationship between the disobedient and the disobeyed figures so prominently in Daniel 3, we’ll focus on that text. The story neatly divides into four sections. Verses 1-7 provide the reader with expositional information and set the stage for the ensuing crisis. King Nebuchadnezzar makes a large, golden statue and commands everyone to bow down and worship it. Anyone who refuses will be thrown into the king’s blazing furnace. In the next section, verses 8-18, the conflict between the exiled Israelites and the king comes to the forefront. “Certain Chaldeans” approach the king and inform him that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to worship his statue. Nebuchadnezzar becomes furious and demands that the three men be brought before him. He wants to know if the accusation made against them is true, and he wants to witness for himself how they respond to his law. The answer by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is striking, making this story a choice example of civil disobedience. They begin by saying they have no defense; the accusations are true. The king’s law states that everyone must bow down and worship the statue when the musical ensemble begins to play. They are not willing to do that, so they are guilty. Because of their guilt they know that punishment is imminent. And even though they faithfully worship God, they also know that deliverance from punishment is not a foregone conclusion. In a very bold statement they say that it is God’s choice whether to deliver them. Regardless of God’s decision, they will not serve Nebuchadnezzar’s gods, and they will not worship his golden statue. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to obey the king’s laws on religious grounds, making their action a faith-based civil disobedience. Their faith is the primary driving force in their refusal to obey the king.

Nonviolence

47

In the third section, verses 19-23, the king does not respond to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s speech with words but rather with a seven-fold vengeance. Nebuchadnezzar is so outraged that he orders the furnace to be heated seven times hotter than normal. The narrator illustrates the severity of the punishment and the power of the furnace by indicating that the heat and raging flames killed those who threw the three Israelite men into the furnace. The final section, verses 24-30, resolves the suspense. The king himself, not an attendant or a counselor, notices the three men unharmed by the fire and accompanied by a fourth individual. Nebuchadnezzar commands the men to come out of the furnace and blesses God for their deliverance. The king now understands the power of their faith and acknowledges that they were willing to die rather than serve his gods. He then issues a decree that condemns blasphemy of any kind toward God and promotes Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to higher positions within his administration. The three men in Daniel 3 remain faithful to God even though their faithfulness may bring about their death. They experience joy, confidence, and freedom as a result. They had other options: they could have worshipped the statue and put the conflict behind them, or they could have used force and attempted to escape before they were brought before the king. In the midst of their powerlessness, though, they chose a path of civil disobedience that, in the end, afforded them great power. Their faith in God was unconditional and nonnegotiable. Once this faithfulness put their lives in danger, they left the matter in God’s hands. They did not have a naïve belief that God would simply do what they wanted. Longevity on this earth was not the issue. The issue was being faithful to God, and for that they were willing to stand before King Nebuchadnezzar in the face of death. Faith-based civil disobedience will not always end miraculously, as this story does. The real miracle is not that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out of the furnace unharmed, but that they were willing to enter it in the first place.18 Such acts of courage demonstrate the power and importance of civil disobedience based on faith.

Contemporary Implications In most cases of personal, community, and global conflict, nonviolence is a viable option. Unfortunately individuals and communities do not frequently consider nonviolence as an option when they are embroiled

48

Neglected Voices

in a conflict. The examples in this chapter suggest that the world might be a more peaceful place if people viewed nonviolence as an alternative when dealing with all levels of conflict. Genesis 26, 2 Kings 6, and Isaiah 42 demonstrate that peaceful conflict resolution is in accordance with God’s intentions and purposes as we strive to find ways to live together with all peoples on this earth. Glen Stassen looks to the teachings of Jesus and Paul to develop the notion of just peacemaking.19 Just peacemaking is initiative taken by individuals, religious groups, and governments to prevent war and create a sustainable environment of peace. The notion of just peacemaking stands in contrast to just-war theory and pacifism, which ask whether or not war is justified. Just-war theory argues that war can be justified under certain circumstances and criteria; pacifism argues that war is never justified. Just peacemaking, on the other hand, is concerned with a different set of questions. These questions involve the initiatives or criteria necessary to create peace and to prevent war. Stassen and twenty-two other authors have attempted to clarify ten basic initiatives that undergird just-peacemaking theory, including supporting nonviolent direct action; taking independent initiatives to reduce threat; using cooperative conflict resolution; advancing democracy, human rights, and religious liberty; fostering just and sustainable economic development; working with emerging cooperative forces; strengthening the United Nations and international efforts for cooperation and human rights; reducing offensive weapons and weapons trade; and encouraging grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations.20 Stassen and his colleagues suggest that the practices of nonviolence and peaceful acts of conflict resolution can be lifted up as important and necessary. Gene Sharp also chronicles the many instances of nonviolence enacted in world history and addresses the implications of such acts.21 Walter Wink further provides a list of nonviolent acts and demonstrates how the teachings of Christ and other biblical passages offer mandates for developing methods of creative nonviolence and active peacemaking.22 Stassen and Wink base their theories of just peacemaking and creative nonviolence on New Testament teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount. As we’ve seen in this chapter, some Old Testament passages can be added to the equation as well. We can certainly make the case

Nonviolence

49

that support for nonviolence in the New Testament outweighs that in the Old Testament. The point is that such support does in fact exist, and we would be remiss if we continued to ignore the Old Testament’s message of nonviolence. It is in the Old Testament that we have a patriarch who chose nonviolence to deal with conflict regarding water rights. We have an example in which a king is ready to obliterate the enemy, but God’s prophet tells him to feed them and send them on their way instead. And we have an unnamed servant of God whose mission is to bring about God’s justice in a nonviolent manner. As the works of Wink and Sharp demonstrate, actions of civil disobedience are prevalent throughout history.23 The examples of civil disobedience cited in this chapter are acts based on faith. Anabaptist history is replete with instances of faith-based civil disobedience. These Christians engaged in a radical reformation movement that furthered the reforms initiated by leaders such as Martin Luther in early sixteenth-century Europe against the established church. The religious and civil authorities of the day, attempted to squelch the radical reformers’ efforts because of their advocacy of religious liberty, practice of believers baptism, rejection of civil office, and nonresistance. Subsequently many Anabaptists were imprisoned, tortured, burned to death, beheaded, and drowned. They often looked to the Scriptures for guidance and hope as they engaged in the acts of faith-based civil disobedience that led to their persecution and death. For example, Dutch Anabaptist Jan Woutersz van Cuyck was imprisoned and eventually killed by the council of Dordrecht, the Netherlands, in 1572 for his religious beliefs. Before his death, he wrote the following in a letter to his parents: “Rather go with Daniel in the lion’s den, than that I should kneel down before wood, stone, gold, silver, bread, wine, or oil. Rather go with the young men in the fiery furnace, than worship the image, which was set up.”24 Van Cuyck is one early Anabaptist who found inspiration in faith-based civil disobedience texts in the Old Testament. The Church of the Brethren emerged in Europe in the early eighteenth century. Persecution of the radical reformers from the Pietist and Anabaptist traditions was still prevalent. On an August morning in 1708, eight people gathered on the bank of the Eder River in Schwarzenau, Germany, to engage in the act of believers baptism. Not only was it illegal for them to meet apart from the established church in their region, it was also illegal to receive baptism as adults, because the Catholic and Protestant churches practiced infant baptism. Schwarzenau fell under the jurisdiction of Wittgenstein’s Count Henrich Albrecht. Although Albrecht

50

Neglected Voices

exercised a certain degree of tolerance of these early Brethren and their religious practices, they staged their formal beginning through an act of faithbased civil disobedience. During World War II, Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman remained true to his faith in God amid the barbarism, cruelty, and persecutions of the Nazi regime. In 1941, he called together the Jewish community of Kovno (now Kaunas, Lithuania) and asked them to proclaim their loyalty to their faith in spite of their imminent deportation and death. Perhaps death was inevitable regardless of their response, but they chose to take a courageous stance of civil disobedience as they confronted a power incongruent with their faith.25 On July 14, 2004, Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches USA, carried out an act of civil disobedience outside the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C.26 In protest of the extensive killings of civilians by the Sudan military in the Darfur region, he presented himself for arrest by the U.S. Secret Service, calling for the Sudanese government and the international community to bring an end to the genocide-like actions. Although Edgar’s example of civil disobedience did not emerge out of personal persecution, he participated in a faith-based act that led to his arrest in an effort to give voice to those Sudan citizens facing persecution and death. The list could go on; acts of civil disobedience are committed daily. The passages in Exodus 1 and Daniel 3 and 6 strongly suggest that disobedience of civil authorities must become a matter of faith. They also suggest that we should never follow the law blindly. If faith leads us to fulfill God’s calling to disobey unjust laws or practices, such faith is leading in the right direction. Nonviolence does not dominate the pages of the Old Testament, but there are passages that lift it up as a viable method of dealing with conflict. When I discussed the formation of this chapter with people in various faith-based circles, I frequently encountered comments of doubt or surprise. I vividly remember a woman saying that if I was devoting an entire chapter to nonviolence on a book about peace in the Old Testament, there must be something to it. “Tell me more,” she added. I hope the texts analyzed in this chapter provide understanding on the issue of nonviolence in the Old Testament and prompt others to say, “Tell us more.”

3

A Post-Violence Peace As I mentioned in the introductory chapter, some biblical interpreters tend to simplistically contrast the violence of the Old Testament with the love and peace of the New. But both testaments contain instances, examples, and images of violence. While in this chapter, I do not dismiss or ignore the violence in the Old Testament, I do want to point out that one typology of peace in its pages is a peace that emerges after situations of violence. Examples of violence in the Old Testament are too numerous to list; a few will suffice. Exodus 15:1-18 is a poem depicting God as a warrior who killed the pursuing Egyptians to allow the Hebrews to begin their trek to the Promised Land. Numbers 21 recounts how Moses and his followers used violence, sanctioned by God, to kill the Amorites when they would not freely allow the Israelites to travel through their land. Subsequently the people worshipped other gods during their journey in the wilderness (see Numbers 25). When God commanded Moses to kill all those involved, an Israelite took a Midianite as his wife during the mourning period and an outraged Phinehas killed the man and woman. God praised Phinehas for his fervor. In 1 Samuel 15:3, God commands Saul to utterly wipe out the Amalekites because they did not extend hospitality to the Israelites during their journey from Egypt. Similar examples of violence are prevalent throughout the narrative and poetic accounts of ancient Israel.1 Wink acknowledges violence and acts of war in the Old Testament and attributes a majority of this violence to Israel operating under a system of domination.2 Wink finds evidence of these systems in the literature of many cultures, including ancient Babylonian narratives, as well as in novels, cartoons, and movies of contemporary popular culture. The basic ideology of this system of domination, which Wink also 51

52

Neglected Voices

labels as “the myth of redemptive violence,” is the victory of order over chaos through the means of violence. That is to say, good prevails over evil through the use of a righteous and morally superior violence.3 Although Wink devotes very little of his study to the literature of the Old Testament because he is more interested in how such a system of domination is at work today, he sees the system of domination as alive and well in the Old Testament through the “bloodthirsty deeds of Yahweh,” the vast destruction of cities such as Ai and Jericho, and the many violent acts committed by ancient Israelite kings.4 These instances and others show that this system of domination permeated the Old Testament and contributes to the popular thought of many today that the Old Testament is merely a book of violence. The depiction of Israel as the controlling power of a system of domination in the Old Testament is only part of the story. In fact, the story of ancient Israel includes lengthy periods when the nation is dominated by another power, such as Assyria or Babylon. But regardless of the dominant power, the system of domination outlined by Wink is foundational to many of the instances of violence that occur in the Old Testament. What one finds when applying Wink’s analysis is that on numerous occasions a certain peace exists after violent deeds or acts of war. On some occasions this peace emerges when Israel is the dominant power and in other instances when Israel is dominated by another power. This leads to two primary types of peace after violence and war: (1) when Israel is victorious, a peace in which Israel is the dominator, or (2) when Israel is defeated, a peace in which another power dominates and oppresses Israel. Selected passages demonstrate these two types of post-violence peace.

Peace After Victory The Old Testament records numerous military encounters between the Israelites and their neighbors. In many of these conflicts, especially those in the books of Joshua and Judges, Israel is the victor. In some instances, the writers attribute the victory to God, and in some of these cases, the writer explicitly states that a certain peace follows the victory. In other words, a military conflict has taken place; Israel has defeated the enemy; and peace, in some sense of the word, prevails. Genesis 14:1-24 1In the days of King Amraphel of Shinar, King Arioch of Ellasar,

A Post-Violence Peace King Chedorlaomer of Elam, and King Tidal of Goiim, 2these kings made war with King Bera of Sodom, King Birsha of Gomorrah, King Shinab of Admah, King Shemeber of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 3All these joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea). 4Twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and subdued the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, 6and the Horites in the hill country of Seir as far as El-paran on the edge of the wilderness; 7then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and subdued all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who lived in Hazazon-tamar. 8Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out, and they joined battle in the Valley of Siddim 9with King Chedorlaomer of Elam, King Tidal of Goiim, King Amraphel of Shinar, and King Arioch of Ellasar, four kings against five. 10Now the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits; and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into them, and the rest fled to the hill country. 11So the enemy took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way; 12they also took Lot, the son of Abram’s brother, who lived in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. 13Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, who was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and of Aner; these were allies of Abram. 14When Abram heard that his nephew had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred eighteen of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15He divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and routed them and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus. 16Then he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his nephew Lot with his goods, and the women and the people. 17After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). 18And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. 19He blessed him and said, “Blessed be

53

54

Neglected Voices Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; 20and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him one-tenth of everything. 21Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself.” 22But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have sworn to the LORD, God Most High, maker of heaven and earth, 23that I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, so that you might not say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’ 24I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me—Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre. Let them take their share.”

Although the book of Genesis contains much conflict and strife, in few cases do the characters choose violence as the way to move through the conflict. One example is Genesis 14:1-24. Although this chapter is contained in the Abraham saga (Genesis 12:1–25:11), the narrative begins with no mention of him. Four kings from the east make war with five kings from the Canaanite region. The military conflict occurs because Canaanite kings who served King Chedorlaomer of Elam organize a rebellion. Chedorlaomer rallies other kings from the east to follow him in a military campaign against them. The military endeavor culminates in a battle in the valley of Siddim, from which the Canaanite forces retreat and flee. Chedorlaomer and company loot the area, which includes the territory of Sodom, and along with the provisions and possessions of Sodom, they capture Lot, Abraham’s nephew. This is where Abraham enters the picture. When he receives word that Lot has been taken captive, he takes 318 men and pursues Chedorlaomer and his forces. They liberate Lot and bring back the booty taken from the Canaanite region. After the defeat of Chedorlaomer and his forces, the king of Sodom and the king of Salem, Melchizedek, meet Abraham. Melchizedek provides him with bread and wine and blesses him. The king of Sodom offers Abraham a portion of the booty, which he refuses. The narrative of Genesis 14 has a different flavor than the other stories about Abraham in Genesis 12–25. The notion of Abraham leading an army of 318 men to pursue Chedorlaomer portrays him in a very different light from the rather peaceful figure elsewhere.5 Abraham’s response in verses 13-16 appears to be out of character from those in the rest of the book. At the same time, the narrator does not go into great detail about

A Post-Violence Peace

55

what it was that Abraham actually did when he encountered the forces of Chedorlaomer. We’re told that he pursued Chedorlaomer to Hobah, north of Damascus, that he rescued Lot and the others, and that he brought back the booty. But we are not told how Abraham does this. Does he do it with great violence, or does he broker a deal with Chedorlaomer in diplomatic fashion? Verse 17 provides a clue by stating that Abraham returns from the “defeat” of Chedorlaomer and company. The Hebrew word that most translations render defeat carries the connotation of conquest and the overcoming of one party of another by force or violence.6 Even though the text does not describe how Abraham overcame King Chedorlaomer, verse 17 strongly implies that some type of force was used to subdue him and the kings with him. Verses 18-20 give us some indication of the mood and events that took place after Abraham’s encounter with Chedorlaomer. Melchizedek enters the story with no explanation. But his role, however complex and vague, is an important one. Due to the specific language Melchizedek uses in verses 19-20, including his references to the divine, most writers view him as a Canaanite king and priest.7 Melchizedek begins by making no direct mention of the military encounter between Abraham and Chedorlaomer. He simply brings forth bread and wine and blesses Abraham and “God Most High,” who delivered the enemies into Abraham’s hand. The words and actions of Melchizedek demonstrate elements of worship such as praise and blessing.8 Although the nature of the relationship between Melchizedek and Abraham is not clear, Melchizedek initiates the relationship and glorifies Abraham for defeating Chedorlaomer and his armies. The episode with Melchizedek indicates that the war is over and that the violence has come to an end. There is worship and celebration. Due to any destruction, captivity, and violence that came about through Abraham’s act of deliverance, a true sense of shalom does not exist at this point. However, there is a degree of peace that emerges because the war and violence have come to an end. This peace is one that surfaces following war, abduction, and oppression. It’s a peace not brought about by amicable or diplomatic means but by coercion and force. After the violence and the war, this is what we have left. The encounters with Melchizedek and the king of Sodom indicate that this chapter of violence is in the past and that it is now time to move on.

Joshua 21:43-45 43Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to

56

Neglected Voices their ancestors that he would give them; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. 44And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their ancestors; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. 45Not one of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.

The book of Joshua contains many accounts of violence as Joshua and the people lead a conquest over the land of Canaan. Chapters 1–12 describe the three military campaigns, in which Joshua and the people virtually wipe out those they encounter. The offensive begins with a military campaign in the midwestern region of Canaan. It is then followed by campaigns in the north and south. Cities such as Jericho and Ai were not inhabited by significant amounts of people during the time when the conquests could have occurred. Therefore the archaeological evidence does not verify these and some of the other conquests attributed to Joshua.9 But we are not overly concerned with the historicity of such accounts and will not turn to archaeology to explain away the violence. Whether or not these violent conquests took place in the way the narrators suggest is not of utmost relevance. What is relevant is that the narratives use violence to describe the identity and origin of Israel and its social and geographical makeup. This violence has become part of the “story” of ancient Israel. Joshua 13–22 focuses on the manner in which the land is divided among the tribes of Israel. The final two chapters consist primarily of a theological summary of the book centering around the farewell and death of Joshua. Joshua 21:43-45 provides a theological summary statement of the events in the previous chapters, and elements of this statement are echoed in Joshua 22:4 and 23:1. By the time we come to Joshua 21:43-45, the fighting and violence are over. God has given the land of Canaan to Israel as promised, and the people now live there. In addition, now that the conquest of the land is finished, God has given rest to the people on every side. The narrator goes on to explain that this rest involves victory over the enemies that now surround Israel. Verse 45 hones in on the fact that God has made good on his promises to Israel. Everything God promised to Israel has indeed come to pass. A significant element for understanding the atmosphere after the con-

A Post-Violence Peace

57

quests is the notion of rest described in verse 44. God gives this rest to the people, and it signifies that the people are living at peace in the land. Additionally this rest indicates a cessation of war and a deliverance from enemies, which allows the people to experience peace and prosperity.10 Although the word shalom is not found here, it could have been used to describe the sense of peace that emerges when the fighting has come to an end and the people of Israel begin to live in the Promised Land. Unfortunately Israel’s rest and peace come at the cost of the lives and displacement of many Canaanites. But the narrator dismisses this injustice as a result of God’s overall plan. God promised that this would happen, and it came to pass. The notion that God gives rest after war can be found in various places in the Old Testament. For instance, in Deuteronomy 3:20, Moses addresses the tribes east of the Jordan River and says they are to help conquer the land of Canaan west of the river so that they and the other tribes will receive rest after the conquest. Deuteronomy 25:19 foresees the rest that the Israelites will receive from God after the conquest of Canaan. Once that rest is achieved, they will go after the Amalekites because they did not extend hospitality to the people on their journey from Egypt. In Joshua 1:13-15, Joshua addresses the tribes east of the Jordan and instructs them to remember that Moses said they must help the tribes west of the Jordan so both groups will experience the rest God will give to them (Deuteronomy 3:20). Both Joshua 22:4 and 23:1 talk about the rest God has indeed given to the Israelites after the conquest of the Canaanites. In all these passages, the notion of rest indicates a sense of peace as the war and conquest are over; once they have possessed the land and have settled down, they will live in peace from their enemies. The misfortune and destruction of the Canaanites leads to the fortune and peace of the Israelites.

Judges 3:7-11 7The Israelites did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, forget-

ting the LORD their God, and worshiping the Baals and the Asherahs. 8Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of King Cushan-rishathaim of Aram-naharaim; and the Israelites served Cushan-rishathaim eight years. 9But when the Israelites cried out to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for the Israelites, who delivered them,

58

Neglected Voices Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother. 10The spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he judged Israel; he went out to war, and the LORD gave King Cushan-rishathaim of Aram into his hand; and his hand prevailed over Cushan-rishathaim. 11So the land had rest forty years. Then Othniel son of Kenaz died.

While the book of Joshua focuses on the activities of a people led by a single leader, the book of Judges gives accounts of the various tribes of Israel. What we find in this book is a loosely crafted literary device used to tell the story of the judges. This device takes the form of a pattern or cycle that involves idolatry, judgment, repentance, and deliverance. More specifically, the people sin against God by turning to other gods. Then God brings judgment on the people as an outside enemy oppresses them. The people cry out to God for help, and God provides deliverance through a “judge” or military leader. The land is then at rest for a time until the pattern begins again. Although not every story in Judges contains all the elements of this pattern, 3:7-11 is a brief account that depicts this pattern from beginning to end. The narrator begins the story in verse 7 by stating that the Israelites were evil in the eyes of God because they worshipped the Baals and the Asherahs, who were deities of the Canaanite pantheon. God becomes angry and allows Cushan-rishathaim, king of Aram to oppress the Israelites. The Israelites cry out to God, and God raises up Othniel to deliver them. The text says that God’s spirit came over Othniel, he judged Israel, and then he prevailed over Cushan-rishathaim. After Othniel’s victory, the land experienced rest for forty years, and then Othniel died. Of interest for our study is that there was rest in the land for forty years until the pattern of idolatry, judgment, repentance, and deliverance started over again, and Ehud became the next deliverer or judge (Judges 3:12-30). This notion of rest following a violent conflict is very similar to that expressed in the book of Joshua. While in most cases the Hebrew word nuach was used to signify rest in Joshua, in Judges the narrator chose shaqat. Similar to nuach, it means to be quiet or undisturbed. This quietness or lack of disturbance describes a sense of peace. The fighting is now over, and the enemy has been subdued. Peace is the rule of the land, at least for the time being. The primary difference is that when the narrator uses nuach in Joshua, it is a rest that God specifically provides. When the narrator

A Post-Violence Peace

59

uses shaqat in Judges, God’s involvement is implied by the events that lead up to the period of rest, but God is left out; the text simply states that the land rested. What the narrator is saying when using shaqat is that when everything is over and done, there is rest in the land. Yes, God was involved, but the narrator does not explicitly say that God brought about the rest or peace, as is the case with nuach. These two Hebrew words are used consistently in this manner. On two occasions shaqat is used in Joshua to signify rest in the land. In both cases, the land rests, while in the other instances in which rest comes about in Joshua, nuach is used to signify that God provided the rest.11 Judges 3:11 is not the only place in Judges that discusses rest in the land. After the deliverances by Ehud (3:30), Deborah (5:31), and Gideon (8:28), the text states that the land rested. In Ehud’s case, the land rested for eighty years; in Deborah’s and Gideon’s instances, the land rested for forty years. In Judges when the land is at rest, there is peace. The Israelites have repented of their idolatry, at least for the time being, and God has delivered them from oppression of an enemy. Now that they are in a right relationship with God, they have the freedom to live in community by exercising their ideals of equality and justice.12 We have no indication that this indeed happened. We are simply told that the land rested for a time and then the movement through idolatry, repentance, and deliverance began anew. The narrator does not describe the rest or peace. We do not know if there was internal peace among the people. All we can conclude is that there was a respite from fighting with other nations or outside forces. However vague and brief it was, peace did exist in the land. The narrator is clear about that. The narrator is also clear that this peace is not long-lasting; it fades away when the Israelites turn from God.

Peace After Defeat Numerous passages in the Old Testament speak of peace after an enemy has defeated Israel. Many can be found in the prophetic literature and usually take the form of a vision. An entire chapter of this book will be devoted to such visions of peace. However, there are some passages that display the existence of peace in a practical sense that addresses the current circumstances of the people. In other words, a military conflict has taken place, Israel has been defeated, and peace in some sense of the word endures.

60

Neglected Voices

Jeremiah 29:1-14 1These are the words of the letter that the prophet Jeremiah sent

from Jerusalem to the remaining elders among the exiles, and to the priests, the prophets, and all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. 2This was after King Jeconiah, and the queen mother, the court officials, the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the artisans, and the smiths had departed from Jerusalem. 3The letter was sent by the hand of Elasah son of Shaphan and Gemariah son of Hilkiah, whom King Zedekiah of Judah sent to Babylon to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. It said: 4Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat what they produce. 6Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. 7But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. 8For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let the prophets and the diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they dream, 9for it is a lie that they are prophesying to you in my name; I did not send them, says the LORD. 10For thus says the LORD: Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. 11For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. 12Then when you call upon me and come and pray to me, I will hear you. 13When you search for me, you will find me; if you seek me with all your heart, 14I will let you find me, says the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.

Jeremiah 29:1-14 consists primarily of a letter Jeremiah sent to the Judean exiles in Babylon. There were two major exilic deportations of

A Post-Violence Peace

61

the political and religious elite of Judah by the Babylonians. During the first deportation, in 597 BC, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon took into exile the Judean king, Jehoiachin, and his leaders. In 587 BC Nebuchadnezzar quelled the rebellion by King Zedekiah of Judah and deported a second group of exiles. Jeremiah addresses this letter to the first group of exiles shortly after their deportation. The first three verses describe how the letter got to Babylon: Jeremiah sent it by way of Elasah and Gemariah as they traveled from Jerusalem to Babylon. Although Jeremiah sent the letter, the words in it are attributed to God. The instructions to the exiles are clear: they are to settle down in the land of Babylon and not look forward to returning to Judah and Jerusalem anytime soon. They are to build houses and grow their own produce. They are to marry and have families in order to build up their population. These are not instructions for the short term but rather for the long haul. Any plans that those in exile make should be for settling down and establishing roots, not for returning home. Apparently Jeremiah’s letter was sent to rebuke other prophets, both in Jerusalem and in Babylon, who were giving hope to the people that the exile would soon end (Jeremiah 28:1-5; 29:8-14, 24-30). Jeremiah stood in clear opposition to those prophets as his message proclaimed a long-term stay in Babylon for the Judean exiles. Through Jeremiah, God tells the exiles to seek the welfare and well-being of the city of Babylon. In fact, the exiles are to seek and pray for the shalom of Babylon, that is, its welfare or well-being. On the one hand, this makes good common sense. Since they are to live in Babylon for a long, undetermined time, praying for Babylon’s shalom would be in their best interest. On the other hand, this is a strange notion for the exiles to swallow. They are to pray for the welfare and shalom of a government that oppressed them, invaded their homeland, and forced them into exile. Babylon was the enemy, and the call to pray on its behalf could not have been an easy one to follow. However, this call points to the longevity of the exile itself. The instruction to settle down and to pray for Babylon leads to a sense of peace after the violent events of the exile. Although we know little of the exact circumstances of the exilic community in Babylon, it is safe to assume that most of the exiles were not dispersed to other lands or sold as slaves. Rather they were contained in their own community or communities and had some freedom to establish a customary way of life.13 This freedom, however artificial,

62

Neglected Voices

constrained, and limited it may have been, allowed for some sense of peace among the exiles. The peace they experienced could not have been an ideal peace but one that looked ahead for a future in the land and within the culture of the enemy. The peace of the exiles in Babylon was also limited because the events of the first deportation were still fresh. There was still tension between the Babylonians and the people of Judah. Zedekiah’s rebellion, the second deportation, and the destruction of Jerusalem were imminent. While the future of the exiles in Babylon was one of a settled existence and shalom, Jeremiah 29:16-18 sees only a future of invasion, destruction, and death for the leaders and people who remained in Jerusalem and Judah.14 No doubt this led only to the anxiety of those in exile as they awaited such destruction for the people of their homeland. Could the exiles in Babylon experience peace as described in 29:3-7? Perhaps, but this peace would come with considerable cost and pain. At the same time, however, God’s call to pray for shalom indicates that peace is not always the result of a military victory. Instead of calling the exiles to resort to acts of revenge or hostile feelings toward the Babylonians, God instructs them to pray not only for their own shalom but also for the shalom of their enemies.15 Whether they were able to actually do this, we do not know. We do know that the exiles had been defeated and humiliated by the Babylonians as they were carted off to a foreign land in the first deportation. Their future and their peace were to be found “in a blend of normal existence and prayerful conformity to Babylonian life.”16

Haggai 2:1-9 1In the second year of King Darius, in the seventh month, on the

twenty-first day of the month, the word of the LORD came by the prophet Haggai, saying: 2Speak now to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to the remnant of the people, and say, 3Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory? How does it look to you now? Is it not in your sight as nothing? 4Yet now take courage, O Zerubbabel, says the LORD; take courage, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest; take courage, all you people of the land, says the LORD; work, for I am with you,

A Post-Violence Peace

63

says the LORD of hosts, 5according to the promise that I made you when you came out of Egypt. My spirit abides among you; do not fear. 6For thus says the LORD of hosts: Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; 7and I will shake all the nations, so that the treasure of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the LORD of hosts. 8The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the LORD of hosts. 9The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the LORD of hosts.

The previous passage portrayed particular events in which certain Israelites were exiled to the land of Babylon and forced to live in a foreign land. In Haggai 2:1-9 the setting is back in Jerusalem. The Persians had ended the exile by defeating the Babylonians some eighteen years earlier. Those who never left Judah were making efforts to restore the land and the economy. Some exiles did follow Jeremiah’s advice and established a cultural and religious identity in Babylon. When the exile technically ended in 538 BC, the exiles did not make a mad dash back to Judah. However, some groups returned at various stages. Zerubbabel and Joshua were among those who returned from Babylon, and they became leaders in the effort to restore Jerusalem. Haggai 2:2 designates Zerubbabel as the governor of Judah and Joshua as the high priest. Apparently the Israelites debated over the importance of rebuilding the temple, because some compared the ruins and the newly built foundations to the former temple in its glory, implying that the rebuilt temple would be no match to the glory of the Solomonic temple. This is the subject of Haggai’s proclamation as he addresses the leaders and the people together. In rhetorical fashion, he asks the people to compare the glory of Solomon’s temple to what they see before them. He then commands Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the people to take courage and to be strong, for God is commanding them to work and rebuild the temple. Haggai ends his short speech by stating that the new temple will be far greater than Solomon’s. When it is finished, it will be filled with shalom. Haggai is somewhat vague with the notion of shalom here. The NRSV translates the Hebrew word as prosperity. But it is unclear as to whether Haggai had in mind a shalom that would touch those who go to the temple or a shalom that would touch all people as it emanated from the temple. Furthermore the context sheds no light on whether or not this

64

Neglected Voices

shalom indicates an absence of war, material prosperity (as the NRSV suggests), or a lack of dissension regarding internal temple matters.17 Shalom in Haggai 2:9 is not used in a limited sense but expresses a variety of its aspects, such as well-being, peace, security, prosperity, and harmony. Verses 1-5 discuss the current situation regarding the rebuilding of the temple and the frustration among the people and leaders. Haggai addresses the frustration by telling everyone to get to work and finish the temple. Verses 6-9 consist of a promise from God that once the temple is finished, it will be greater than the former, a place where one will find shalom. The two passages belong together as one unit; it is the sense of peace leading to shalom that holds them together. Verses 1-5 contain a sentiment of peace in that the exile is over and the people are struggling to determine how they can best survive and rebuild their community. It is not total peace, because the community has suffered from famine and a struggling economy (1:3-6). But there is peace in the sense that the struggle with Babylon is over and the dominant Persian power has allowed them to experience political freedom and a certain degree of autonomy. Internal dissension regarding what to do about the temple permeates this post-war peace. This peace can be transformed into a strong sense of shalom if the people can straighten out their priorities and complete the temple. Once they channel their energies toward God, God promises that they will experience shalom. They will undergo a progression from a limited peace to shalom in its fullest sense. Haggai craftily uses the notion of shalom in 2:9 as an incentive for the people to continue the work on the temple and to build on the peace. The notion of peace in 2:1-9 involves the absence of war and oppression by the Babylonians. The Israelites were defeated, their homeland was destroyed, and certain members of the community were exiled. The peace that exists in this situation is not a peace upon immediate defeat, as was the case in Jeremiah 29:1-14. Rather it is a gradual peace that emerged as the community in Jerusalem found itself moving from the exilic period into what many writers call the post-exilic period. A transition is taking place as Judah faces the restoration and rebuilding of its community and temple, now that the destruction has ended. To some degree, there is once again peace in the land. Shalom in the manner of well-being, security, prosperity, and harmony does not yet exist, but according to Haggai it is within reach.

A Post-Violence Peace

65

Contemporary Implications Peace after war comes with a tremendous cost. As we have seen from the selected passages in this chapter, atrocious and violent acts are committed in times of war. People are killed, maimed, and injured; families are displaced; property and possessions are destroyed and looted; cities and towns are destroyed; oppressive governments are replaced by other oppressive ruling bodies; economies are torn apart; and there is much psychological and emotional damage done to those directly impacted by the violence. Although none of these things can be totally replaced, once they are destroyed through violence, there does come a time in which the thick of the violence and destruction has come to an end. The armies have retreated or moved on. The fighting is over. And peace as the absence of war and the absence of the negative things listed above emerges. Is genuine peace possible after war? Perhaps not, if we think of peace in the total sense of shalom, which would include wholeness, well-being, security, and harmony. However, the passages we examined in this chapter indicate that various writers of the Old Testament believed that a certain peace at times did exist after war and violence. The books of Joshua and Judges speak of the land resting between periods of war and military conflict. During the heart of the exile, Jeremiah tells the Judean exiles to accept their situation and to pray for peace and for the well-being of Babylon. Haggai instructs the leaders and the people of post-exilic Jerusalem to get to work and rebuild the temple because the fighting and oppression are over and it is time to move on, not only to rebuild the temple but also to rebuild a future that leads toward a state of shalom. Again these examples do not demonstrate peace in its fullest sense, but they do speak of a peace, however limited it may be, existing in post-war and post-violence environments. Our contemporary world is full of military and violent conflicts, and there are times when these conflicts come to an end or at least to a standstill. At this point there is peace, even if it is simply a rest from the violence. In the 2002 movie Antwone Fisher, the main character is a young adult with an anger management problem stemming from experiences from his early childhood. He is seeing a psychiatrist to work through the issues so he can function better in his everyday life. When Antwone finally garners the courage to tell his girlfriend he’s seeing a psychiatrist, he is surprised that she does not react negatively. He asks her why. She responds by saying only that her father was a Vietnam veteran.

66

Neglected Voices

Her response implies that involvement in war and violent activities causes post-traumatic issues and emotional scars. Peace may exist in the fact that her father is no longer fighting in the war, but he and his family did not experience total peace. But similar to the situation that Haggai addresses, this father sought out opportunities to deal with the past and rebuild his future in an effort to move forward. For the most part the “cleanup” of those areas damaged during terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, has taken place, but there are many victims who continue to suffer due to losses experienced, anxiety about future terrorists attacks, and agony over the destruction in Afghanistan in the response to this attack. Peace exists in the sense that public buildings and government agencies in the United States are not being attacked, but many citizens have not experienced peace in the fullest sense of the word since the attacks. Subsequently the United States declared war against ruling regimes in Afghanistan, such as the Taliban, and terrorist networks, such as AlQaeda. Many Afghanis are grateful to the United States for removing the Taliban from power, but they also want the United States to know that many civilians were injured or killed during the U.S. air strikes and people are outraged about what has happened to their families.18 The bombs have stopped dropping on Afghanistan, and in that sense there is a degree of peace, but the massive destruction of homes and cities as well as the illnesses and trauma that such war brings prevents the people from experiencing the peace of wholeness, well-being, and harmony in their culture and with the rest of the world. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, much of the violence recounted in the Old Testament is the result of systems in which one power dominates the other in the attempt to overcome evil with good. This system of domination and the myth of redemptive violence are present in the “war on terrorism.” Dominating powers in the world see terrorists as an unacceptable evil and will do what is necessary in the name of good to eliminate their power. On the other hand, those who are commonly classified as terrorists criticize the evil within the dominating powers and how such powers intimidate and oppress the powerless. They argue that resorting to terrorist activities is their only recourse. Rhetoric and propaganda aside, there is an element of truth in each argument and unfortunately both sides feed into the myth of redemptive violence. When powers of the world operate under the myth and

A Post-Violence Peace

67

under systems of domination, any peace will be a limited peace. It will certainly be a peace that will be hard to come by, and when it does come, it will arrive at a great cost. Although the system of domination functions quite clearly in the passages we examined in this chapter, there are other passages found in the writings of Isaiah and other prophets that call for a partnership society rather than one of domination.19 The previous chapter and subsequent chapters of this study elucidate how various writers of the Old Testament envisioned a peace that comes about through a sense of partnership and community rather than domination.

This page intentionally left blank

4

Visions of Peace The Old Testament contains many visions of peace: visions that describe all nations living in peace; visions that speak of an endless and everlasting peace involving justice for everyone; visions that call for the celebration of creation; visions where people live in peace with plenty of resources on hand; and visions that speak of a new covenant through which war and violence do not exist. Such visions are replete with powerful imagery that depicts an idyllic time and a place where violence, war, and conflict over resources are a distant memory. Many of these visions talk of a time in the future when an atmosphere of peace will exist. They are eschatological because the time in the future is not specified. The envisioned peace may lie just around the corner or it may not arrive until the “end times” in which this world, as we know it, comes to an end. Because of the eschatological nature of these visions, we have separated them from the post-violence peace passages in chapter 3. Although many of these visions do talk of a time of peace after a time of violence and destruction, the time is unspecified, and it is not a peace that necessarily and immediately follows a time of war and violence. The distinction between the two is that the visions of peace are visions of the future, whenever that future may occur, and not descriptions of a peace that currently exists. All of the visions identified in this chapter are prophetic in nature. The book of Isaiah contains more visions of peace than any other book, so we will devote an entire section to a selection of those visions.

Visions in Isaiah Although many writers focus on the unity that exists within the sixty-six chapters of Isaiah, the consensus of biblical scholarship con69

70

Neglected Voices

tinues to view these chapters as representing three specific periods. Chapters 1–39 describe historical events in the eighth century BC. Chapters 40–55 recount an era roughly two centuries later, perhaps the early to mid-sixth century BC. The audience appears to be a group of Israelite exiles in Babylon after the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem. The remaining chapters, 56–66, suggest a later, post-exilic date in which the addressees are those living in Judah. The visions of peace in Isaiah can be divided in this way: First Isaiah (1–39)

2:1-4; 9:1-7; 11:1-9; 32:1-20; 35:1-10

Second Isaiah (40–55)

55:1-13

Third Isaiah (56–66)

60:17-22; 65:17-25

The literary function of the visions in Isaiah 1–39 differs from that of the visions in 40–66. In four of the five visions of peace in First Isaiah, there is an abrupt change from judgment to peace. In other words, there are oracles of judgment preceding and following the vision of peace, with little or no indication of the proclamation of the vision. Spliced within the words of judgment is a vision of peace that seems out of place.1 The exception to this is Isaiah 32, where there is a crafty weaving of judgment and hope culminating in a final scene of peace. From a literary standpoint, the visions of peace offer a balance from the preceding and subsequent prophecies of doom. It is quite possible that the compilers of Isaiah 1–39 used the visions of peace to soften the strong messages of judgment and to give the hearer or reader hope for the future.2 The visions of peace in Isaiah 40–66 occur in a later period than those found in 1–39. There are no judgment speeches and there is no effort to balance the notions of doom and hope. Instead peace becomes the final and overriding message as the visions strengthen the notions of peace and harmony found in earlier parts of Isaiah. This becomes clear when we notice that a vision of peace concludes Second Isaiah (55:1-13), and another vision concludes Third Isaiah and the book as a whole (65:17-25). The message of peace that was an attempt to balance hope and doom in Isaiah 1–39 now becomes the note on which the book ends. The visions of peace in Isaiah 40–66 set the stage for a brighter future for the people of God, a future that will lead to transformation from violence to peace and from domination and injustice to liberation and justice.3

Visions of Peace

71

Isaiah 2:2-4 2In days to come the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be

established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it. 3Many peoples shall come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

A version of this popular vision of peace in Isaiah also occurs in Micah 4:1-4. Both visions specify that, at some point, many peoples and nations will travel to Mount Zion, which will be the highest point of all mountains.4 They will learn God’s ways, and God will be their ultimate judge. The peoples will transform swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, and war will cease to exist. Micah adds a verse about everyone sitting under vines and fig trees, unafraid. Once we make a general comparison of the two passages, the next question is, what are very similar versions of this passage doing in both books? Some writers suggest that a form of this text existed prior to the compositions of First Isaiah and Micah, and that both writers incorporated this text into their writings in a slightly different form.5 Others maintain that the text itself is relatively late, dating to the exilic period (sixth century BC). In this case, a version of the text would have been incorporated into First Isaiah and Micah after the bulk of those books had been written.6 The final analysis is that a discussion on how all this may have happened is speculative. The fact remains that an important peace text finds its way into two books in the Old Testament. One final note must be mentioned when comparing Isaiah 2:1-4 to similar passages in the Old Testament. The imagery regarding transforming swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks also crops up in Joel 3:10. There, however, the action is reversed. Through a Yahweh speech, the prophet tells the people to beat their plowshares into swords and their pruning hooks into spears. This rendition in Joel does not necessarily cancel out the positive transformation in Isaiah and Micah.

72

Neglected Voices

Within the prophetic tradition, here we have distinct imagery used in two cases as an expression of peace and in one case as an expression of destruction. This is simply another indication that the Old Testament contains passages of war and peace. The imagery in Isaiah 2:1-4 is powerful. There is talk about Jerusalem being raised high above all other nations geographically. There will be many peoples and nations traveling to the city to learn the ways of God. God will then serve as the absolute judge and arbiter. Because there will be no need for war, people will transform their military weaponry into farming tools. Techniques and strategies of war will no longer be taught nor learned. This imagery lays the foundation for a time in which peace will be the norm. The previous ways of resolving conflict will be put aside. The powers of the world will be in God’s hands so that God will settle all conflicts that arise. God’s judgment will result in overall justice to the degree that weaponry formerly used for one nation to battle another will no longer be necessary. Nations and peoples will live in peace under God’s rule. This passage lays out a scenario of peace in the future. Some translators and commentators suggest that the future outlined in this vision is one that occurs at the end of time, or the “last days.” Therefore it carries little or no practical implications for our current age.7 Others believe that Isaiah is simply speaking of a time that has not yet occurred.8 The vision indeed had contemporary implications for Israel and if taken seriously can also have implications for our world today.9 God’s words of instruction in verses 3-4 are couched in a futuristic vision that can give direction to Israel for the present.10 Lind views this passage as introducing a political strategy for Israel that is grounded in trust in God as opposed to the previous power politics of Israelite kings, such as Ahaz and Hezekiah of the eighth century BC. Such politics involved alliances with international powers, such as Egypt and Assyria. According to Lind, the political strategy outlined in Isaiah 2:1-4 would not isolate Jerusalem in a political vacuum but place the city in a position to “lead the nations in a new international politics of voluntary obedience to Yahwistic torah, a politics which would render obsolete the sword and 11 military college.” Such politics will create a peace that will serve as a model for the international scene.12 The visionary character of Isaiah 2:1-4 can’t be entirely settled here. However, the passage seems to suggest to the ancient Israelites and to us today that if we can find ways to turn to God, perhaps we

Visions of Peace

73

will have the courage and foresight to find ways to transform our weapons for conquering and defense into implements that will help unify our society and world rather than destroy it. The skeptic will no doubt say that as long as we have people and conflicts there will always be weaponry available to settle some of those conflicts. This passage, however, has served as an inspiration for various poems and songs that look to a time in which peace will be paramount and the need for weapons to settle conflict will not exist. The first verse of the traditional African-American spiritual “Study War No More” has been sung on many occasions in which individuals and communities took comfort in envisioning peace where conflicts would be settled without violence. This verse refers to the weaponry and the need no longer to learn the ways of war: Gonna lay down my sword and shield, down by the riverside, Down by the riverside, Down by the riverside, Gonna lay down my sword and shield down by the riverside And study war no more.13

Isaiah 9:2-7 2The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light;

those who lived in a land of deep darkness—on them light has shined. 3You have multiplied the nation, you have increased its joy; they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest, as people exult when dividing plunder. 4For the yoke of their burden, and the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian. 5For all the boots of the tramping warriors and all the garments rolled in blood shall be burned as fuel for the fire. 6For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

74

Neglected Voices

This passage speaks of a future and endless peace similar to that in Isaiah 2:1-4, but the characters are different. In Isaiah 2, God rules the world in a way that maintains a perpetual peace. In Isaiah 9, a ruler from the lineage of David will bring about and sustain such peace. This connection of a Davidic ruler with a future, lasting peace crops up again in Isaiah 11. Although both texts are adequate examples of peace visions in First Isaiah, we will work in more detail with Isaiah 9. As already noted, the visions of peace in First Isaiah tend to be intertwined with visions of judgment and destruction. Isaiah 9:2-7 is one of the more vivid examples of this. Words of judgment and gloom introduce this peace vision (8:5-22). The prophet uses the image of flooding to foreshadow that Assyria will overpower Judah. Chapter 8 concludes by describing an atmosphere of gloom and darkness. Following the vision of peace, the message reverts back to judgment and destruction in the remainder of chapter 9 and into chapter 10.14 Isaiah 9:2-7 begins with a contrast of light and darkness: “The people who have walked in darkness have seen a great light.” The darkness that the people experienced was the rule and oppression of the Assyrian empire. The light they now experience is liberation from that oppression. Their deliverance from the oppressor is compared to that of Midian, when Gideon delivered the people from the Midianites in a surprise nocturnal attack (Judges 6–8). Upon such deliverance from the Assyrians, a king ascends the throne of David. The king is introduced as a child given by God. He carries much authority and bears names: “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” This ruler will institute his authority in such a way that it will bring about an endless peace, justice, and righteousness. Interpreters debate how the ruler assumes authority in verse 6. Some suggest that the verse refers to the birth of a child that leads to the eventual authority of a ruler. Others believe that verse 6 depicts the child in a metaphoric sense and describes the ascension of the king as opposed to an actual birth.15 The eventual result, however, is the same. Whether verse 6 refers to the birth of the ruler or a royal ascension, the fact remains that the ruler comes to power and brings about a long-lasting peace. Because of its references to a Davidic ruler, the progression from a child to a king, and a future peace that takes on an eschatological nature by being a perpetual peace, this passage is often viewed as a messianic scripture. The ruler described in the passage is the coming Messiah, who will establish a reign of justice and righteousness with an everlasting

Visions of Peace

75

peace. If we read this passage in its scriptural context, however, we must conclude that it is not a prediction of the coming Messiah but an announcement of a transition from darkness to light and from oppression to peace because of the birth of a royal child.16 Christian tradition has adopted Isaiah 9:2-7 as one of several passages that point the way to Jesus Christ.17 It is a standard lectionary passage during the Advent season,18 and it is proclaimed by choruses and choirs through the singing of Handel’s Messiah. Without a doubt, this is a powerful passage that envisions a strong and endless peace. Furthermore, justice and righteousness will augment this peace. Many people strive for virtues such as peace, justice, and righteousness. Our longing for such virtues is perpetual, from month to month and year to year. Perhaps this passage continues to be uplifted year after year during the Christmas season because when Christians celebrate the birth of a savior and redeemer, the virtues of peace, justice, and righteousness are paramount. Lifting up such virtues during the Christmas season sets the stage for envisioning how these virtues can be realized in local communities and in the world during the rest of the year.

Isaiah 55:1-13 Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you that have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. 2Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen carefully to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. 3Incline your ear, and come to me; listen, so that you may live. I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David. 4See, I made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander for the peoples. 5See, you shall call nations that you do not know, and nations that do not know you shall run to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has glorified you. 6Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7let the wicked forsake their way, and the unrighteous their thoughts; let them return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD. 9For as the heavens

76

Neglected Voices are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. 12For you shall go out in joy, and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. 13Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall be to the LORD for a memorial, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

This passage is the only vision of peace in Second Isaiah.19 It begins by inviting those who are thirsty and without money to come and eat. Food, wine, and milk are freely available. In verse 3 the author links this invitation to food and drink, essentially life, to the everlasting covenant. The covenant of David (see 2 Samuel 7) is now transferred to the people and becomes a present reality to them.20 As is the case with the Davidic covenant in other parts of the Old Testament, here is an act of God’s grace extended to the people without conditions. The vision concludes with imagery of rejoicing and gladness. The mountains and the hills sing. The trees break into applause. Instead of thorns and briers, the cypress and the myrtle spring forth. Instead of weeds, thorns, and undesirable plants, there will be plants and trees of beauty. This imagery provides a sign that the covenant God has made with the people will be long lasting and will serve them well into the future. It attempts to inspire hope in dispirited exiles in Babylon and, more importantly, contributes to the future rebuilding of Israel when the exile has ended and the restoration begins.21 Although this vision is the only one contained in Second Isaiah, it brings the section to a fitting conclusion. Instead of oracles of judgment like those in First Isaiah, Second Isaiah proclaims numerous oracles of salvation. What better way to end a section that lifts up the message of salvation and restoration than with a vision of peace? In a literary sense, this vision strategically concludes Second Isaiah with a message of peace that reinforces the message of hope and salvation.

Visions of Peace

77

Isaiah 65:17-25 17For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind. 18But be

glad and rejoice forever in what I am creating; for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy, and its people as a delight. 19I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and delight in my people; no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it, or the cry of distress. 20No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old person who does not live out a lifetime; for one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth, and one who falls short of a hundred will be considered accursed. 21They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. 23They shall not labor in vain, or bear children for calamity; for they shall be offspring blessed by the LORD—and their descendants as well. 24Before they call I will answer, while they are yet speaking I will hear. 25The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent—its food shall be dust! They shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain, says the LORD.

The vision begins as God announces a new creation. This creation will consist of a new heaven and a new earth, and it will bring gladness and rejoicing. The author describes this new creation by contrasting it with the current and past circumstances of Jerusalem. Israel is in transition between exile and restoration. The laments in chapters 63–64 that precede this vision suggest that there is still desolation and distress in the land. In the new era of peace outlined in the vision, however, God will rejoice in the city of Jerusalem and delight in the people. The weeping and cries of distress that permeated the city due to the Babylonian destruction will now come to an end. There will no longer be infants who die in a few days following birth and there will no longer be people who do not live long and healthy lives. The people will build houses and live in them, and they will grow vineyards and harvest their fruit. Gone are the times when people labor

78

Neglected Voices

to build houses for others and do not have a place to live for themselves. Gone are the times when people plant and harvest crops only for others to eat the produce. The society envisioned in this passage is not one divided into haves and have-nots. Rather its resources are distributed equitably among the inhabitants of the community. The vision concludes with animal imagery similar to that found in chapter 11. Instead of predators feeding off their prey, they will eat together and coexist in peace. The wolf will no longer feed off the lamb and the lion will eat fodder and straw like oxen. The final sentence of the vision sums up the peace described in the previous verses. People and animals will not hurt one another and there will be no destruction on God’s holy mountain. The new creation will be one of long-lasting peace and nonviolence. Isaiah 65:17-25 is a vision of an ideal community. John J. Collins argues that visions of an ideal nature such as this must be taken seriously as the depiction of a goal toward which we should strive, even if it is not attainable.22 In a similar vein, Paul Hanson suggests that this vision of the new heaven and the new earth is a vision of hope that can spur people into important and needed action. A society wanting to achieve justice and peace must create idealistic visions as well as practical programs that implement justice and peace. He illustrates his point by moving from the theoretical to the pragmatic: Our personal experience can aid us in understanding the contribution of the vision of the new heaven and the new earth to a life of involved commitment to compassionate justice. The medical doctor in Somalia, laboring in the midst of seemingly endless need, perseveres not by scaling down objectives to saving one infant out of ten but by working indefatigably out of yearning for the world in which there shall no longer be “an infant that lives but a few days” (verse 20). The relief worker in Bosnia steers the food-laden lorry up a dangerous mountain pass in commitment to the world in which “no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it” (verse 19). Albert Schweitzer left the limelight of cathedral and university for the villages of Africa, Dag Hammarskjöld kept landing his United Nations plane in dangerous trouble spots, Mother Teresa maintained her ministry to the outcasts of Calcutta not out of programs designed on the basis of human pragmatics but out of a vision of a world in which “they shall not labor in vain, or bear children for calamity” (verse 23).23

Visions of Peace

79

Just as Isaiah 55:1-13 concluded the section of Second Isaiah, 65:1725 rounds out the section of prophetic oracles in Third Isaiah. We can conclude that this vision draws a fitting end to the entire book, as the final compilers of Isaiah end it with a message of peace. Peace is one theme designed to help move the community forward from despair to hope, from desolation to restoration, from ruin to rebuilding. The message of peace occurs at various points in the book but its presence at the end is strategic: it sets the stage for a hopeful future for the people of God, a future that will lead to a transformation from violence to peace and from domination and injustice to liberation and justice.24

Other Prophetic Visions The visions of peace in Isaiah send a strong message that at least one book in the Old Testament is devoted to the visionary message of peace. As stated earlier, more peace visions occur in Isaiah than in any other book. However, similar visions do occur in other books of prophetic literature. The visions selected in this section from Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel all reveal the connection of a future state of peace with a covenant with God. Hosea’s covenant of peace is analogous to a problematic marriage that ends in harmony. Jeremiah’s covenant of peace is contrasted with the law and God’s desire to embed the covenant into the very fiber of the people’s being. Ezekiel’s covenant of peace is strongly connected with shepherd imagery. The visions of peace in this section address themes found in Isaiah’s visions, such as a paradisiacal future with peace and harmony in God’s creation. Hosea 2:18-23 18I will make for you a covenant on that day with the wild ani-

mals, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground; and I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land; and I will make you lie down in safety. 19And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. 20I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the LORD. 21On that day I will answer, says the LORD, I will answer the heavens and they shall answer the earth; 22and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer Jezreel; 23and I will sow him for myself in the land. And

80

Neglected Voices I will have pity on Lo-ruhamah, and I will say to Lo-ammi, “You are my people”; and he shall say, “You are my God.”

Chapters 1–3 of Hosea serve as an allegory where the marriage of Hosea is compared to God’s relationship with Israel. It is virtually impossible to ascertain all the details of Hosea’s marriage to Gomer. The basic elements of the story suggest that Hosea marries Gomer, and they have three children. Gomer’s unfaithfulness leads to their separation and divorce, and ultimately Hosea receives her back. Her unfaithfulness portrays Israel’s idolatrous behavior. The separation and divorce portray God’s punitive judgment on Israel. And the reconciliation between Hosea and Gomer portrays God’s persistent love and willingness to renew the covenant with Israel. Hosea 2:18-23 is God’s visionary speech demonstrating his reconciling love toward Israel. Verse 18 speaks of God’s promise to establish a covenant between the people and creation and to eliminate weapons of destruction and war itself. Verses 19-20 elaborate further on the covenant, with God taking Israel as a marriage partner forever, thus picking up on the allegorical connection between Hosea and Gomer. The covenant will involve righteousness, justice, steadfast love, and mercy. Hosea’s children are part of the covenant and reconciliation in a symbolic manner. For Jezreel, the earth will bring forth abundance in crops and produce. God will have compassion on Lo-ruhamah. Through Lo-ammi, God will affirm the Israelites as his people. This passage’s tone differs from that earlier in chapter 2. It shifts from an angry God, whom the people have rejected through idolatrous ways, to a God who speaks intimate words to them and likens their relationship to that of a husband and wife who are devoted to one another. The idolatry and disobedience of the people will be a thing of the past. The war and disaster that resulted from this disobedience will also end. This new covenant between God and the people resembles the restoration of a broken marriage. Through confrontation, chastisement, confession, and healing, a new relationship emerges. It includes righteousness, justice, steadfast love, and mercy. It is a relationship of faithfulness and harmony. And because of this new relationship, the need for weapons no longer exists. Peace and shalom will replace violence.25 This vision of a new covenant and relationship with God offered hope to the people of Hosea’s time. For us today, it offers hope in a time of crisis.26 Where power struggles in countries such as Israel, Afghanistan, and

Visions of Peace

81

Iraq cause perpetual suffering, Hosea envisions a time when such suffering and violence will end. Where ecological disasters threaten natural reserves, such as rainforests and waterways, Hosea envisions a time in which God’s creation will thrive in harmony and safety. In a time when people stray from God for various reasons, Hosea envisions God embracing them as his people. Hosea’s vision of peace provides hope for a world that has experienced brokenness within itself and distance from God. Such hope heals brokenness and brings people closer to God through a perpetual covenant of faithfulness and mercy.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 31The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make

a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the LORD,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.

As was the case in Hosea 2:18-23, God envisions a new covenant in Jeremiah 31. He contrasts this new covenant with the Mosaic covenant, which he made with the Israelites on the condition that they would obey him and his laws. The Israelites disobeyed this covenant, and now God makes a different one with the houses of Israel and Judah. This covenant is not only new because it is an additional covenant, but also because it is made with Israel after the days in which they broke the previous one. This covenant is also different because it will not be written on stone tablets or on a scroll, but on the hearts of the people. Their knowledge of God will be internalized within their hearts, becoming a part of who they are. The old covenant is dead and gone. This new covenant will consist of an inner power of motivation toward obedience.27

82

Neglected Voices

Along with this new covenant comes God’s forgiveness and the forgetting of their sin. The focus of this passage is the new covenant, not the notion of peace. In fact, neither peace or shalom occur in this passage. However, this passage describes a time in which a new covenant will emerge, and the result will be a time of peace. The previous days of destruction are gone. Israel will be faithful to God; they will no longer have to think about being obedient, because their obedience will be on their hearts. This new covenant will connect the people to God in such a way that everyone will know him. When this happens, the people will experience peace and harmony on all levels. The new covenant with God is a covenant of peace. Robert Carroll acknowledges the visionary character of this passage, but he argues that it stops there. The vision expresses a pious hope rather than impelling the people to engage in a persistent and perpetual degree of faithfulness. It is utopian in nature and in no way demonstrates how this renewed faithfulness and sense of peace would be achieved and then maintained.28 However, visions of peace in the prophetic tradition consistently serve to provide a hope that is more than simply pious. They provide the impetus for creating the community outlined in the vision. No one can doubt the idyllic and utopian nature of this vision in Jeremiah 31 and other peace visions, but to say they have no social value is to ignore the power of this particular genre. Visions of peace provide hope in dire circumstances. They also provide incentives for people to address those circumstances and to find ways to transform them into a better and more suitable community. In the book of Jeremiah, the new covenant provides hope to a community in the throes of exile and envisions a new community of peace with renewed faithfulness to God.

Ezekiel 34:1-31 The word of the LORD came to me: 2Mortal, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel: prophesy, and say to them—to the shepherds: Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, you shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 3You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep. 4You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured, you have not brought

Visions of Peace back the strayed, you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them. 5So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd; and scattered, they became food for all the wild animals. 6My sheep were scattered, they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill; my sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with no one to search or seek for them. 7Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 8As I live, says the Lord GOD, because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild animals, since there was no shepherd; and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep; 9therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 10Thus says the Lord GOD, I am against the shepherds; and I will demand my sheep at their hand, and put a stop to their feeding the sheep; no longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, so that they may not be food for them. 11For thus says the Lord GOD: I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. 12As shepherds seek out their flocks when they are among their scattered sheep, so I will seek out my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places to which they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. 13I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the watercourses, and in all the inhabited parts of the land. 14I will feed them with good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel shall be their pasture; there they shall lie down in good grazing land, and they shall feed on rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I will make them lie down, says the Lord GOD. 16I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with justice. 17As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord GOD: I shall judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and goats: 18Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture, but you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pasture? When you drink of

83

84

Neglected Voices clear water, must you foul the rest with your feet? 19And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have fouled with your feet? 20Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD to them: I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21Because you pushed with flank and shoulder, and butted at all the weak animals with your horns until you scattered them far and wide, 22I will save my flock, and they shall no longer be ravaged; and I will judge between sheep and sheep. 23I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. 24And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them; I, the LORD, have spoken. 25 I will make with them a covenant of peace and banish wild animals from the land, so that they may live in the wild and sleep in the woods securely. 26I will make them and the region around my hill a blessing; and I will send down the showers in their season; they shall be showers of blessing. 27The trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield its increase. They shall be secure on their soil; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I break the bars of their yoke, and save them from the hands of those who enslaved them. 28They shall no more be plunder for the nations, nor shall the animals of the land devour them; they shall live in safety, and no one shall make them afraid. 29I will provide for them a splendid vegetation so that they shall no more be consumed with hunger in the land, and no longer suffer the insults of the nations. 30They shall know that I, the LORD their God, am with them, and that they, the house of Israel, are my people, says the Lord GOD. 31You are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture and I am your God, says the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 34 is one literary unit in which the image of the shepherd reverberates from the beginning of the chapter to the end. Verses 1-10 serve as an invective against the leaders of Israel. Ezekiel accuses them of not caring for the people as a shepherd cares for the flock. As a result of this negligent leadership, the sheep of Israel have been scattered over the land. In verses 11-16 God vows to bring the sheep back into the fold. He will bring them back to Israel and care for them in the

Visions of Peace

85

proper manner. Verses 17-22 declare that once God unites the sheep again, he will judge between the just and the unjust. After the judgment portion of this passage, the author moves into the vision and covenant of peace (verses 23-31). God will place his servant David as shepherd over the people. God will then make a covenant of peace with Israel. As a result of this covenant, God will take the wild animals out of the land and put them in their proper place: the forest and wilderness. God will remove oppression and enslavement from the people, and they will have an abundance of crops, so hunger will cease. It is through this covenant of peace, not unlike the covenant in Jeremiah 31, that the people will come to know God. In Jeremiah 31 the people will know God because the covenant will be written on their hearts. In Ezekiel 34 the people will know God because they have entered into a time of peace and harmony. Under this covenant of peace, the people will live in God’s pasture, and they will no longer be afraid. Like other visions of peace, this depicts a paradise where violence, oppression, enslavement, and hunger have become nonexistent and a certain harmony between the people and nature emerges. In this vision an unconditional covenant with God brings about a paradisiacal future. The author does not indicate when this future peace will occur. Yet the first part of Ezekiel 34 suggests that Israel has entered the exilic period, so this visionary covenant of peace gives hope to a people who have experienced devastation and destruction. The covenant of peace may be just around the corner, or it may be in the distant future, but whenever it occurs, it will be a time of peace worth striving for in the meantime.

Contemporary Implications In this chapter, we have identified seven visions of peace. The two visions in First Isaiah are spliced between messages of judgment and soften the impact of the judgment speeches. Hosea’s vision holds out hope in the midst of an impending judgment. The visions in Isaiah 40–66, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel look ahead to a time of reconciliation and peace that will follow the destruction and distress they are either experiencing or have experienced. All these seven visions exhibit an eschatological nature in that they look ahead to a time in the future. None of them specifies the time and context of this future. It could be a future within immediate grasp, or it could be well down the line. This is an important component of these visions. It leaves the future open-ended and raises important questions:

86

Neglected Voices

When will the future peace and harmony occur? What will happen in the meantime? How does this future peace relate to judgment and destruction? Once these questions are addressed, the community faces the important task of interpreting the nature of the future described in the visions. Is this future simply a utopian one that has no bearing on current circumstance? Can the community hold onto these visions with hopes of achieving this future or certain aspects of it? Peace visions can seem like idealistic dreams, and in some cases they remain only that. Perhaps they simply soften the judgment or injustice that we experience in a way that the visions of peace functioned in First Isaiah. But in societies that must make changes for the health and wellbeing of their people, such changes start with visions. Visions can prompt us to look ahead to a time when destruction and distress are past and the future is one of peace and harmony, which is the primary message of the visions in Isaiah 40–66, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The visions of peace discussed in this chapter display several common characteristics. One is the elimination of weapons. Isaiah 2:2-4 talks about transforming swords and spears into plowshares and pruning hooks. In Isaiah 65:17-25 God indicates that, in the new creation, humans and animals will not hurt or destroy one another. In a similar vein, in Hosea 2:1823, God promises to abolish the bow and the sword, and war itself. In a world where the use of weapons is an acceptable option for dealing with global conflict, envisioning a society without such weapons may seem impractical or utopian. On the other hand, when individuals and collective circles of society begin to envision a world without weapons and take steps to see how such a vision might play out, the line of distinction between vision and reality blurs. In the 1970s and 1980s a nuclear arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States spiraled out of control. Much concern arose as people wondered how practical such a race was in the first place. What did it matter if the United States could destroy the entire Soviet Union “x” amount of times and vice versa? Although deterrence of nuclear war was the primary explanation for the arms race, the accumulation of nuclear weapons was depleting vast resources on both sides and increasing federal debt. The Nuclear Freeze Campaign (NFC) emerged as a grassroots movement and called on the United States and the Soviet Union to “adopt a mutual freeze on the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons and of missiles, and new aircraft designed primarily to deliver

Visions of Peace

87

nuclear weapons.”29 The NFC organized rallies and demonstrations, put ballot referendums in the 1982 U.S. national election, and brought the issue to the forefront in the 1984 presidential election. Such initiatives set the stage for the end of the Cold War several years later and the implementation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks.30 Although these two treaties brought about the reduction of thousands of nuclear weapons, a critical assessment would argue that it was simply a drop in the bucket. The United States and Russia were a long way from the total disarmament envisioned in the Old Testament peace visions. Indeed it would be incorrect to label the NFC a comprehensive success, but it began with a vision of a world without nuclear weapons and took practical steps to educate the public and prompt it to action. Peace through covenant with God is another theme permeating the visions of peace in the Old Testament. Through such a covenant, a visionary peace becomes possible. In Isaiah 55, God brings about a joyful peace by means of a Davidic covenant. In Hosea 2:18-23, the covenant between God and Israel serves as the foundation for peace. This covenant continues with the marriage theme in the previous verses, and through this covenant, virtues such as righteousness, justice, steadfast love, mercy, and faithfulness abound. The covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is an internal covenant written on the hearts of the people, and the Ezekiel 34:23-31 covenant is also an unconditional covenant in which God provides a safe environment for the people, just as a shepherd cares for a flock. When we speak of a visionary peace in contemporary society, we would do well to keep God’s covenant with us in the forefront. Since the covenant with God commands such a strong presence in the peace visions of the Old Testament, one must wonder if peace is possible in our time without the acknowledgment of God’s covenant. The setting for the 1984 movie Places in the Heart is a small town in Texas in the 1930s where the racial divide between blacks and whites was very wide. The movie begins with the sheriff of the town, Royce Spalding, being shot dead by a young, drunken African-American named Wylie. A white mob wastes no time in lynching the young man. The subsequent story is fraught with strained relationships. Royce’s widow, Edna, must fight with the bank to keep the family farm. Edna’s brother-in-law is involved in an extramarital affair. The man who runs one of the local cotton businesses tries to take advantage of Edna when she buys supplies and sells her crop. Edna’s hired hand, Moze, is injured by a Ku Klux Klan mob

88

Neglected Voices

led by the cotton business owner because Moze had skillfully helped Edna harvest a successful cotton crop. At the end of the movie, Edna, Moze, other hired workers, and family members bring in the cotton crop, which earns enough to keep the bank from foreclosing on the farm. However, Edna’s sister, Margaret, and brother-in-law, Wayne, are estranged, and the KKK group runs Moze out of town. The final scene is a vision in which the people of the town are taking communion at a worship service at the local church. Margaret and Wayne are reconciled. The banker is present. Moze is sitting with the Spalding family. As the communion tray moves down the pew, Edna’s children pass it to her, and she passes it on to her husband. He passes it to the man sitting next to him—young Wylie. The movie ends with these two men sitting together in peace. The foundation for this vision of peace, in a town permeated with violence and broken relationships, is a covenant ritual with God, the act of communion. Through this covenant act, failed relationships are restored, a family is brought back together, and two dead victims of systemic violence commune together in peace. We come away from the visions of peace in the Old Testament knowing that complete and everlasting peace is impossible without God’s blessing and God’s covenant. Peace has been hard to come by in Sudan since the civil war between the Sudan People’s Liberation Army and the official government of Sudan began in 1983. Haruun Ruun, executive secretary of the New Sudan Council of Churches, has been a driving force in bringing together churches to proclaim and institute peace within the African and Arab conflict. On July 6, 2004, Ruun spoke at the Annual Meeting of the Church of the Brethren. He referred to new peace agreements that had emerged between the two warring groups earlier in the year. Yet he spoke a caution: “Peace is coming. And some papers have been signed. But signing papers does not mean peace.”31 They had been down that road too many times. Ruun and the Sudanese people know all too well how fragile peace is among the humans who make political decisions. The Old Testament peace visions have something to tell us about violent conflict, whether it be in Sudan, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, elsewhere: everlasting and sustainable peace must involve God. When we invoke God into the working processes of our world, God’s blessing and God’s covenant become a foundation for the everlasting peace we seek.

Visions of Peace

89

A third theme contained in the Old Testament visions of peace is an end to the cycle of violence. Violence is no longer a part of the communities described in these visions. Isaiah 2:4 says that the people “learn war no more,” and 9:7 speaks of an endless peace for David’s kingdom. In Isaiah 65:25 God says that people and animals will no longer hurt or destroy one another, and in Hosea 2:18 God promises to abolish war from the land. Visions that imagine a world no longer caught in the cycle of violence are very powerful. But many people dismiss such hopes because of the ease and frequency with which humans resort to violence when conflict arises. Regardless of such skepticism, there are numerous examples of people putting their lives on the line or devoting themselves to a lifestyle that envisions a world where there is endless peace. Although numerous family members, relatives, and friends of those who died in September 11 attacks felt that a strong military response was appropriate and necessary, there were others left behind who believed that responding to violence with violence would simply fuel the cycle of hatred that led to the attacks in the first place. Orlando Rodriguez, whose son Greg was one of the victims, said in an interview with the New York Daily News a week later, “I know there is anger. I feel it myself. But I don’t want my son used as a pawn to justify the killing of others. I’m not willing to give our government carte blanche to take away our freedoms in the name of public safety.”32 Several days earlier Orlando and his wife, Phyllis, had sent a letter to President Bush, imploring him not to use violence in their son’s memory to respond to the terrorist attacks. They encouraged him to seek peaceful and rational solutions, lest we sink to the inhuman level of the terrorists.33 Other families had similar feelings and stories. Through networking and communication, these came together to form September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. Dedicated to finding alternatives to war as a response to personal and national tragedies, they have spoken out through interviews, letters to the editor, and speaking engagements. They have organized public gatherings and demonstrations. They even traveled in delegations to Afghanistan to meet family members of victims of the United State’s bombings in response to the terrorist attacks. They also have visited with survivors of the 1945 atomic bomb attacks on Japan. Some who disagree with their actions have attacked them verbally, accusing them of being unpatriotic and traitors. Yet these families have also received overwhelming support for their attempts to seek alternatives to war and to work to end the cycle of violence that plagues our world.

90

Neglected Voices

Families for Peaceful Tomorrows has responded to grief by creating a vision of peace that calls on everyone to seek an end to violence. Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) was formed in the mid-1980s by people from the Mennonite and Church of the Brethren traditions. It offers an organized, nonviolent alternative to war and other forms of violent conflict. In short, CPT is committed to ending the cycle of violence in various trouble spots around the world, including Afghanistan, Canada, Colombia, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Haiti, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the United States, where trained teams are a presence devoted to nonviolence. Team members observe and report injustices, attempt to defuse and reduce conflict, and engage in nonviolent intervention. They try to emphasize and encourage nonviolent methods among all parties involved in explosive situations, and they step in the way of violence whenever possible. By creating an active presence in places where perpetual violence seems unending, CPTers carry out a vision with the ultimate goal of bringing an end to such violence and implementing peaceful alternatives in its stead. The work of CPT teams is dangerous and problematic, but it is one authentic and persistent attempt to confront violence and bring it to a halt.34 Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela served on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which was formed at the end of apartheid in South Africa as an effort to break the cycle of racial violence and bring about social cohesion and peace in that country. In A Human Being Died That Night: A South African Woman Confronts the Legacy of Apartheid, Gobodo-Madikizela writes about her experience as a member of the TRC and her encounters with Eugene de Kock, former colonel of the South African Police and head of the Security Police’s Section C1 at Vlakplass Farm north of Pretoria. De Kock had plotted, ordered, and carried out thousands of killings of anti-apartheid activists on behalf of the National Party Government. Gobodo-Madikizela recounts how de Kock appeared before the TRC for the first time to testify regarding his role in the Motherwell bombing, in which three black policemen were killed when a bomb exploded in their car. After his testimony, de Kock asked to meet with the widows of the men. One of the widows, Pearl Faku, said, “I hope that when he sees our tears he knows that they are not only tears for our husbands, but tears for him as well. . . . I would like to hold him by the hand, and show him that there is a future, and that he can still change.”35 Gobodo-Madikizela discusses Faku’s response:

Visions of Peace

91

Her statement of forgiveness was profound. As an invitation to de Kock to turn the page, to come onto the path toward the road of peace, it had no equal that I was aware of on the TRC, nor was I aware of any such gestures made by victims in the history of atrocities in the twentieth century. Her response surpasses much of what we know about people who have been victimized when their victimizers ask forgiveness. It is hard to resist the conclusion that there must be something divine about forgiveness expressed in the context of tragedy. How else can we understand how such words can flow from the lips of one wronged so irreparably? Archbishop Tutu, whenever we were witnesses to such inexplicable human responses at a public hearing of the TRC, would be driven to call for silence “because we are on holy ground.” There seems to be something spiritual, even sacramental, about forgiveness—a sign that moves and touches those who are witnesses to its enactment.36

This story demonstrates how the peace visions in the Old Testament can come to life in the contemporary world. The TRC sought to carry out a vision for breaking the cycle of violence after years of violent apartheid. In the commission’s work, forgiveness was a powerful tool. When issued in a genuine manner, not only does forgiveness heal wounds deep inside the person issuing it, but it also sends the message to the community that one step in the right direction of ending the cycle is the act of forgiveness. When people can experience forgiveness, an end to a violent world may be in sight. Violence can be postponed or sidestepped by political treaties, but when it is confronted by acts from the heart, such as forgiveness, the perpetual cycle of violence can indeed be broken, and God’s peace can reign in its place. The above reflections provide examples of people experiencing ways to transform visions of a peaceful world into reality. The result is not always the utopian peace initially envisioned. In some cases, it is a far cry from that vision. What these examples do demonstrate, however, is that visions can prompt us to work toward the much-desired peace in a way that we begin to develop hope to the point that transformative change springs forth. The Old Testament visions of peace provided hope for the ancient Israelites regarding a peaceful society that included the elimination of weapons, a covenantal peace with God, and an end to the perpetual

92

Neglected Voices

cycle of violence. These visions speak to us today and tell us that such a society is not only worth striving toward but also falls within the purposes of God as his presence permeates our world.

5

Mandates for Peace The Old Testament contains various mandates for peace that issue directives or commands regarding specific behaviors or concerns within the communities of ancient Israel. Such mandates occur in legal statements, prophetic oracles, and proverbs. Legal mandates prescribe particular actions or conduct couched in legal literary forms. Some legal statements—the Ten Commandments, for instance—are absolute commands stating that members of the community should do or not do a certain action. Other legal statements take the form of case law, in which hypothetical facts of the case are stated, problematic or illegal behaviors are identified, and the consequences and punishments of such behaviors are spelled out.1 Both instruct the community about appropriate and inappropriate activity. Prophetic mandates normally occur in the judgment portions of prophetic literature. A typical judgment speech spells out the sins of the people or leaders in question, then predicts disaster or announces judgment.2 The proclaimed judgment is viewed as a foregone conclusion, something that will indeed happen because of the wrongdoings. Yet the prophetic mandate differs slightly from the typical judgment speech because the prophet calls for repentance and warns of the consequences. If the people choose repentance, judgment might be avoided. If the people do not repent, judgment will occur. Isaiah 1:16-20 serves as a prophetic mandate. Verses 16-18 contain the call to repentance; 19-20 outline the consequences. Verse 19 describes what will happen if the people repent: they will enjoy the land and what it produces. Verse 20 describes what will happen if they do not repent: they will be destroyed by the sword, in this case by other nations. The prophetic mandate is a mandate for peace because of the call 93

94

Neglected Voices

to repentance. If repentance occurs, peace will be the result. Peace will exist because the people will be in a right relationship with God. They were in danger of experiencing divine judgment, but because of repentance now can have peace with God. The book of Proverbs contains numerous proverbial mandates. These are found in both the longer wisdom poems in 1–9 and 30–31 and the shorter, pithy sayings in 10–29. Some take the form of a short saying, which usually consists of two parallel lines. These are often in the indicative mood; the mandate is implied rather than specifically directed. For instance, Proverbs 14:21 reads, “Those who despise their neighbors are sinners, but happy are those who are kind to the poor.” Proper conduct directed toward neighbors or the poor is not specifically stated, but the mandate is strongly suggested. Proverbial mandates can also occur as admonitions. An admonition is normally written in the imperative mood and directs the reader to do or not do a particular action. A statement is often tacked onto the admonition, such as a motive clause, which serves to strengthen the admonition and give the reader reason and motivation to adhere to the admonition. For instance, Proverbs 24:17-18 reads, “Do not rejoice when your enemies fall, and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble, or else the LORD will see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from them.” This admonition directs the reader not to take pleasure in an enemy’s misfortune. The motive clause in verse 18 indicates that if the reader does take such pleasure, God will not only take notice but also be displeased about it. In both forms, the saying and the admonition, the proverbial mandate serves to instill in the reader proper ways of thinking and acting in the community. The above descriptions of three types of mandates in the Old Testament show that all three are at times concerned with the notion of peace. Strikingly, the legal, prophetic, and proverbial mandates rarely contain the terms shalom or peace, but they deal with issues involving peace, such as equality, love of enemies, and a right relationship with God. The mandates of peace instruct and educate readers of the importance of creating a community or an environment in which peace must take precedence. Such mandates are saturated with sympathetic concern for the disadvantaged of society. In this way they attempt to transform the plight of those in marginalized situations in an effort to lead the community as a whole to a larger sense of peace. Peace can indeed exist among the people if the ideas and notions embedded in the mandates become internalized in their thinking and behavior.

Mandates for Peace

95

Legal Mandates Numerous legal mandates in the Old Testament promote the importance of a society interacting with itself in a just and peaceful manner. The mandates contained in the sabbatical year and Jubilee year sections are certainly prime examples. The sabbatical year legal statements uphold the necessity of assessing land use and financial obligations every seven years. The Jubilee year legal statements uphold the importance of assessing the notion of indebtedness, specifically indebtedness in relation to land and servants, every fifty years. Many contemporary writers have explored the connection between the sabbatical and Jubilee years with the liberation years in the Old Babylonian period in Mesopotamia (2000-1700 BC). On occasion, an Old Babylonian king proclaimed a year of liberation, usually as he ascended to the throne. Such proclamations were politically motivated and put the new kings in a favorable light as they called for the cancellation of personal monetary debts, freedom of enslaved debtors, cancellation of certain royal taxes, and exemption from military service.3 Although numerous differences exist between the sabbatical and Jubilee legal statements and the Mesopotamian proclamations, the biggest is the fact that the Mesopotamian proclamations of liberation were sporadic and somewhat unpredictable. When a king ascended to the throne, he may or may not make such a proclamation. On some occasions, a king may declare a year of liberation in the middle of his reign.4 The sabbatical and Jubilee years, on the other hand, were fixed intervals every seven and fifty years, respectively. This difference makes it difficult to demonstrate a tight connection between the sabbatical and Jubilee years and the Mesopotamian proclamations; however, it is quite possible that the person or persons who constructed the seven year sabbatical and fifty-year Jubilee concepts were familiar with the Mesopotamian years of liberation and used them as a starting point to create separate and unique concepts of liberation.5 The importance of the cyclical nature of the sabbatical and Jubilee years and how they developed an ideology that upheld peace will be discussed in more detail below. In addition to the legal rules in the sabbatical and Jubilee sections of the Old Testament, other legal mandates fall under the category of mandates for peace. Some are concerned with the welfare of the disadvantaged, such as the resident alien, the widow, and the orphan. These three segments of society often appear together in Old Testament literature

96

Neglected Voices

because the resident alien, the widow, and the orphan had minimal or no legal rights. Unless they had next of kin who could provide economic security, they often were left to fend for themselves. Therefore we have directives couched in legal statements that call for their protection and well-being. Other mandates proclaim the importance of loving one another and coming to the aid of one’s enemy. Such mandates contain an ideological framework that sets the stage for peace—peace among neighbors and peace within the society at large. When commentators and interpreters work with legal mandates in the Old Testament, questions of practicality and actual enforcement often surface. Although we mention it here, our study will not be overly concerned with these questions. It will become obvious that most of the legal mandates promoting an atmosphere of peace are couched in strong ideological language. This study’s focus will be the symbolic and instructive nature of these legal statements as a result of this strong ideological language rather than the practicality of the statements themselves.

Exodus 23:10-11; Leviticus 25:2-7, 20-22 10For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; 11but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that

the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the wild animals may eat. You shall do the same with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard. 2Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When you enter

the land that I am giving you, the land shall observe a sabbath for the Lord. 3Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard, and gather in their yield; 4but in the seventh year there shall be a sabbath of complete rest for the land, a sabbath for the LORD: you shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. 5You shall not reap the aftergrowth of your harvest or gather the grapes of your unpruned vine: it shall be a year of complete rest for the land. 6You may eat what the land yields during its Sabbath—you, your male and female slaves, your hired and your bound laborers who live with you; 7for your livestock also, and for the wild animals in your land all its yield shall be for food. . . .

Mandates for Peace

97

20Should you ask, “What shall we eat in the seventh year, if we may not sow or gather in our crop?” 21I will order my blessing

for you in the sixth year, so that it will yield a crop for three years. 22When you sow in the eighth year, you will be eating from the old crop; until the ninth year, when its produce comes in, you shall eat the old.

Exodus and Leviticus contain legal rules that command the people to allow the land to lie fallow every seven years. For six years the people are to work the land; they are to sow it, cultivate it, and harvest it. But in the seventh year, they are to let it lie fallow. According to Exodus 23:11, the poor may eat whatever the crops yield during that year, and what they leave behind, the wild animals may have. The Leviticus passage contains a few more details: In the seventh year there is to be no sowing, pruning, or harvesting. Any after-growth of the crops is not to be harvested. Grapes from the unpruned vines are not to be gathered. Having said that, the passage goes on to assume that the people can eat what they need to survive. This includes landowners and the slaves and servants who live with them. The point here is that the land must rest and that such rest is dedicated to God. A different rationale underlies each passage. In Exodus 23:11, the primary reason the land must lie fallow is so the poor may eat. This raises obvious questions: If the purpose of the fallow year is to provide food for the poor every seven years, what are the poor supposed to eat during the other six? Will there be enough food for the poor to eat simply from what grows from uncultivated crops in the seventh year? What are the rest of the people supposed to do for food during the fallow year? One must recognize that the legal rule in Exodus 23:10-11 is extremely brief and is not designed to address the above questions. It simply states that the land must lie fallow every seven years so that poor have something to eat. The rationale in Leviticus 25:2-7 is somewhat different. The land lies fallow so it can rest. The land is worked hard and produces food for six years; in the seventh year, it is time to rest. The primary meaning of the Hebrew word for Sabbath is “rest.” Therefore the fallow year in Leviticus involves rest. This notion is absent in the Exodus version, where the reason underlying the fallow year involves social justice. However, the social concern is not entirely absent in the Leviticus version. Although the poor are not explicitly mentioned there, the writer

98

Neglected Voices

goes to painstaking efforts to see that those who live in households will have food during that year. This includes the members of the household, servants, and sojourners. This does not perhaps include everyone in society—namely, those not connected with a household—but it does include some of those who do not possess the full rights of citizenship. Some people may not be entirely free, but they have the right to food in the seventh year when the land takes a break. Some interpreters insist that these two passages contain an enforceable and pragmatic element, suggesting that crop rotation is what really is intended when the legal rules call for a Sabbath of the land in the seventh year.6 As the argument goes, it makes no sense to let the entire land lie fallow in the seventh year. The poor and the people of the households would not have enough to eat. If the crops are rotated, the poor can eat from different portions of the land from year to year, and the people of the households will have harvestable food available from portions of the land that are not lying fallow. Although crop rotation is an acceptable agricultural practice in some societies, it does not appear to be a factor in the fallow-year rules in either the Exodus or the Leviticus version. A surface reading of both passages indicates that the entire land must remain fallow in the seventh year. Leviticus 25:20-22 actually assumes that crop rotation is not part of the fallow-year legislation by asking what the people are to eat in the seventh year if the planting and harvesting of crops are not permitted. God’s answer is a theological one, not a practical one. He assures the people that he will bless the crops in the sixth year, providing abundance for the harvest, thus supplying adequate food for the seventh year, when the land lies fallow. Instead of searching for a practical understanding of the rules, perhaps it is best to focus on an ideological meaning undergirding the fallow year. The ideological message in the fallow-year rules takes on a humanitarian concern. Exodus 23:10-11 states this concern more explicitly than Leviticus 25:1-7: the land must lie fallow to feed the poor. The ideological and social justice message may not be as strong in the Leviticus version, but Leviticus does address the importance of dealing with economic struggle within the community. Apparently the authors of this legal rule were not interested in suggesting practical ways in which to care for the poor but rather in putting before the community an ideological statement announcing the importance of helping those who were economically disadvantaged.

Mandates for Peace

99

This upheld the idea of an egalitarian society and elevated the message that those who have plenty to eat are at least in part responsible for aiding those who do not have adequate food. This rule informs the community of its moral responsibility to care for the poor. It instructs society about the need to distribute properly the required resources for eating. The fallow-year legislation asserts that the rich are to come to the aid of the poor. It argues for an egalitarian distribution of resources by proclaiming the notion that everyone must have access to food. When people do not have adequate resources to live, there is pain, anguish, disease, and ultimately death. The fallow-year rules are mandates for peace as they address the gap between the haves and the havenots. They proclaim that resources for living must be available to all. When people are deprived of such resources, they lack peace and therefore so do their communities. Today thirty thousand children will die of hunger and preventable diseases.7 This is not peace. It is not peace for people afflicted by hunger and related diseases. It is not peace for the rest of the world. And from a theological standpoint, it is not peace for God as the children who die of hunger are not only children of the world but also God’s children. The mandates for peace in the fallow-year rules do not contain well-thoughtout programs for eliminating poverty, but they do send a message of peace that is loud and clear: the poor should have food to eat.

Deuteronomy. 15:1-11 1Every seventh year you shall grant a remission of debts. 2And this

is the manner of the remission: every creditor shall remit the claim that is held against a neighbor, not exacting it of a neighbor who is a member of the community, because the LORD’s remission has been proclaimed. 3Of a foreigner you may exact it, but you must remit your claim on whatever any member of your community owes you. 4There will, however, be no one in need among you, because the LORD is sure to bless you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a possession to occupy, 5if only you will obey the LORD your God by diligently observing this entire commandment that I command you today. 6When the LORD your God has blessed you, as he promised you, you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.

100

Neglected Voices 7If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your

community in any of your towns within the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. 8You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. 9Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, “The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,” and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the LORD against you, and you would incur guilt. 10Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. 11Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”

The first verse of this passage declares that a šemitta-h is to occur at the end of every seven years. This Hebrew word is not easily translated into English. Some translations refer to a šemitta-h as a release, a remitting, or a cancellation. When this concept is viewed within the context of the passage, it becomes clear that what is at stake is the remission or cancellation of loans every seven years, as with the fallow-year legal rules. Verse 2 clearly states that creditors are to release or cancel any debts or loans they have extended to members of their community. The passage goes on to say that this applies only to fellow Israelites, not to non-Israelite. As with the fallow-year legal rules in Exodus 23, there is concern in this passage regarding the poor. The passage is clear: if there are poor people within the community, others are to lend freely to them to see that their needs are met. Potential lenders must not harden their hearts or close their hands against their neighbors. And they are certainly not to withhold any available funds when the seventh year approaches since the loan will be cancelled or released at that time. For example, a lender could refrain from granting a loan to someone in need in the fifth or sixth year with the knowledge that the sabbatical year or the šemitta-h is just a year or two away. The text clearly states that people are to give freely and openly to their neighbors who are in need. Interpretation issues have surfaced regarding the nature of the šemitta-h. Some interpreters argue that the šemitta-h is calling only for a

Mandates for Peace

101

suspension of debts in the sabbatical year. This means that any debts or loans scheduled to come due on the seventh year would be suspended or shelved, and payment would not be required until the following year.8 After the sabbatical year, all debts and loans that existed in the prior year would come back into play. The suspension argument falls under the same category as the crop rotation argument for the fallow year. It attempts to provide a way of softening the economic impact that a total cancellation of all loans and debts every seven years may have on the society. The other primary interpretation of this text suggests that it calls for a total cancellation of debts every seven years. The legal rule itself calling for a šemitta-h occurs in Deuteronomy 15:1-3. The following verses, 4-11, serve as a commentary elaborating on the legal rule in question. Supporters of the cancellation view look to the commentary in verses 4-11 to make their case. Verse 9 states that a person is not to refrain from lending to a neighbor in need when they see the seventh year approaching. This would be unnecessary if only a suspension of debts is the aim, because the debt would pick up in the eighth year where it had left off in the sixth.9 Additionally, verse 4 supports a total cancellation of debts because it implies that if the rules in verses 1-3 are carried out, there will be no one in need within the community. This statement makes little sense if one assumes only a suspension of debts. Perhaps one reason this debate surfaces in the first place is that a regular cancellation of debts every seven years seems much more difficult to implement and enforce than a suspension. A suspension requires the lender to wait a year until the legal force of the loan comes back into play. A total cancellation of debts, on the other hand, means that a loan in years one through six becomes a gift in year seven. Every seven years, loans become gifts. The leaders of early Judaism had difficulty putting into practice the cancellation of debts mandated in Deuteronomy 15. A section of the Talmud10 indicates that when the leaders realized the people were unwilling to cancel debts in the sabbatical year, they developed a legal document called the Prozbul. The Prozbul was a declaration a creditor made before a judge, exempting the creditor from the legal rules involving a cancellation of debts and allowing the creditor to maintain the right to collect a debt during the sabbatical year. This prevented the outright cancellation of the debt, even if it was not due in the seventh year. Therefore the creditor and the debtor had a legal understanding that a cancellation

102

Neglected Voices

of debts during the sabbatical year would not apply to the loan the creditor was granting to the debtor. The Prozbul originated in oral tradition in the first century BC. The Talmud contains an actual formula regarding the wording of the Prozbul and states that it is legal only if drawn up at the time when the loan commences. The Prozbul actually addresses the concern raised in verse 9 that creditors not withhold their lending when they saw the sabbatical year approaching. According to the Talmud, people in the early Judaic communities were doing just that. The Prozbul allowed creditors to continue their lending practices without their loan reverting into gifts in the seventh year. From a practical and economic standpoint, it seems unwise to grant a loan if it is going to revert to a gift in year seven. But the economic practicality of this legal rule may not be the point. The rhetorical and ideological language woven through this passage suggests that some other agenda is at work here. Two statements of promise in verses 4 and 6 follow the legal rule in verses 1-3. Verse 4 promises that there will no longer be poor people and verse 6 promises God’s blessing on the people. These promises are conditional on Israel’s obedience to God (see verse 5). Deuteronomy 15:7-11 also contains exhortations that add persuasive force to the previous verses. It warns a potential creditor not to refrain from lending in order to avoid the cancellation of debts rule, adding two motive clauses. Verse 9 instills the fear of punishment within the people, because a person denied a loan will cry out to God, and the withholding of the loan will be seen as sin in God’s eyes. Verse 10 is a positive motive clause as it states that when the people freely lend to their neighbors, they will indeed be blessed.11 Deuteronomy 15:1-11 contains rhetoric, didactic devices, and motive clauses in an effort to alert the people to the problem that the author wants to address: there are poor people in the land, and one way to solve this problem is by freely giving to one another. The statements of promise, the condition of obedience, and the motive clauses in verses 4-11 are added to the legal rule in verses 1-3 to persuade the people, in a moral fashion, of the need to act. Verses 1-11 contain a rule followed by ideological rhetoric that serves to educate the community of the importance of economic equality. This legal rule, calling for a cancellation of debts every seven years, envisions a community where monetary resources are distributed equitably. Such resources should not be consumed by a small group. Therefore the rule attempts to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. The pri-

Mandates for Peace

103

mary concern is not to formulate a rule that could be enforced universally within the community but rather to address the problems of economic inequality, thus stressing the importance of resolving such problems. This legal rule becomes a mandate for peace as it underscores economic equality for all people and leaves no room for those who have adequate resources and choose to ignore those who do not. If the people find creative ways to deal with poverty, the promise in verses 4-5— there will be no poor among the people—becomes a promise of peace. Verse 11, on the other hand, states that the poor will always exist and that reaching out to them is imperative for instilling peace in the land. On the surface, verses 4-5 and 11 appear to be contradictory, but what holds them together is obedience to God and the generosity people are to express toward one another. If they are able to find creative ways to tend to the economic needs of another, they will be one step closer to a society at peace. Today international debt relief is an important topic. Many impoverished countries have incurred such large debts from banks, other governments, and international financial institutions that they have no hope of ever paying them off. In fact, most of these countries have stopped servicing their debt, which includes paying the interest and principal on the loans. Those countries that do continue to service a fraction of their debt are draining funds that could be used to help people who are dying because of a lack of resources or to aid those who barely scratch out a living. International financial institutions have developed solutions to the problem, but such solutions focus on moving such countries to where they will be less of a credit risk for future lending. Concerned individuals have proposed a more radical solution—debt relief or a total cancellation of debts—in an effort to make resources such as healthcare and education available in debtor nations. Jim Wallis, a strong advocate of debt relief, documents how public opinion and grassroots organizations have influenced world leaders, international financial institutions, and the G-7 and G-8 summit meetings.12 Some gains already have begun to bring positive changes in the living conditions in some countries, yet Wallis acknowledges that we have to continue to work toward debt relief to create truly significant gains for impoverished countries. When leaders of our world come together to make important decisions that benefit the poor and not the wealthy, we are moving in the direction

104

Neglected Voices

of peace. A šemitta-h every seven years as called for in Deuteronomy 15:13 may not be sound economic policy and it may not be popular in a world driven by a market economy, but a legal rule of this nature can underscore the importance of finding ways to bridge the gap between the wealthy and the poor. When we begin to do this, we lift up the notion that living together in peace requires equality on all fronts, including economic resources.

Leviticus 25:8-55 8You shall count off seven weeks of years, seven times seven

years, so that the period of seven weeks of years gives forty-nine years. 9Then you shall have the trumpet sounded loud; on the tenth day of the seventh month—on the day of atonement—you shall have the trumpet sounded throughout all your land. 10And you shall hallow the fiftieth year and you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: you shall return, every one of you, to your property and every one of you to your family. 11That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you: you shall not sow, or reap the aftergrowth, or harvest the unpruned vines. 12For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you: you shall eat only what the field itself produces. 13In this year of jubilee you shall return, every one of you, to your property. 14When you make a sale to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not cheat one another. 15When you buy from your neighbor, you shall pay only for the number of years since the jubilee; the seller shall charge you only for the remaining crop years. 16If the years are more, you shall increase the price, and if the years are fewer, you shall diminish the price; for it is a certain number of harvests that are being sold to you. 17You shall not cheat one another, but you shall fear your God; for I am the LORD your God. 18You shall observe my statutes and faithfully keep my ordinances, so that you may live on the land securely. 19The land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill and live on it securely. 20Should you ask, “What shall we eat in the seventh year, if we may not sow or gather in our crop?” 21I will order my blessing for you in the sixth year, so that it will yield a crop for three years. 22When you sow in the eighth year, you will be eating from the old crop; until the ninth year, when its produce comes

Mandates for Peace in, you shall eat the old. 23The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants. 24Throughout the land that you hold, you shall provide for the redemption of the land. 25If anyone of your kin falls into difficulty and sells a piece of property, then the next of kin shall come and redeem what the relative has sold. 26If the person has no one to redeem it, but then prospers and finds sufficient means to do so, 27the years since its sale shall be computed and the difference shall be refunded to the person to whom it was sold, and the property shall be returned. 28But if there are not sufficient means to recover it, what was sold shall remain with the purchaser until the year of jubilee; in the jubilee it shall be released, and the property shall be returned. 29If anyone sells a dwelling house in a walled city, it may be redeemed until a year has elapsed since its sale; the right of redemption shall be one year. 30If it is not redeemed before a full year has elapsed, a house that is in a walled city shall pass in perpetuity to the purchaser, throughout the generations; it shall not be released in the jubilee. 31But houses in villages that have no walls around them shall be classed as open country; they may be redeemed, and they shall be released in the jubilee. 32As for the cities of the Levites, the Levites shall forever have the right of redemption of the houses in the cities belonging to them. 33Such property as may be redeemed from the Levites— houses sold in a city belonging to them—shall be released in the jubilee; because the houses in the cities of the Levites are their possession among the people of Israel. 34But the open land around their cities may not be sold; for that is their possession for all time. 35If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens. 36Do not take interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live with you. 37You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in advance, or provide them food at a profit. 38I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God. 39If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished

105

106

Neglected Voices that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. 40They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41Then they and their children with them shall be free from your authority; they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. 42For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. 43You shall not rule over them with harshness, but shall fear your God. 44As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness. 47If resident aliens among you prosper, and if any of your kin fall into difficulty with one of them and sell themselves to an alien, or to a branch of the alien’s family, 48after they have sold themselves they shall have the right of redemption; one of their brothers may redeem them, 49or their uncle or their uncle’s son may redeem them, or anyone of their family who is of their own flesh may redeem them; or if they prosper they may redeem themselves. 50They shall compute with the purchaser the total from the year when they sold themselves to the alien until the jubilee year; the price of the sale shall be applied to the number of years: the time they were with the owner shall be rated as the time of a hired laborer. 51If many years remain, they shall pay for their redemption in proportion to the purchase price; 52and if few years remain until the jubilee year, they shall compute thus: according to the years involved they shall make payment for their redemption. 53As a laborer hired by the year they shall be under the alien’s authority, who shall not, however, rule with harshness over them in your sight. 54And if they have not been redeemed in any of these ways, they and their children with them shall go free in the jubilee year. 55For to me the people of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Mandates for Peace

107

This passage describes the heart and soul of what people normally refer to as the Jubilee year. Although the Jubilee year is referred to in passing in a few other places in Scripture, such as Isaiah 61:2, the information, details, and primary messages of the Jubilee year are spelled out in this text alone. At points, the passage can become complicated as several economic practices are discussed and the writer or final compiler does not make a concerted effort to connect them. Perhaps the best way to gain a basic understanding of the essential issues of this passage is to identify and discuss the various units that make up this text.13 Verses 8-12. These verses announce the proclamation of a Jubilee year throughout the land every fifty years. The year commences with the sounding of the trumpet, and liberty is avowed throughout the land. This liberty is to be expressed in two major forms: people will experience economic freedom by returning to their land and to their families. As we will learn later in the chapter, returning to one’s land and one’s family indicates a cancellation of debts regarding land and servitude, respectively. Verses 11-12 mention food provisions and agricultural practices during the Jubilee year. This topic, however, does not resurface later in the chapter, as do the topics of land and servitude indebtedness.14 Verses 13-17. This section provides details pertaining to the sale of land between Jubilee years. The specifications state clearly that land must not be sold permanently. In fact, “sale” of the land actually results in the lease of it. The price of the land varies according to the number of years remaining until the next Jubilee. When that year arrives, the land does not remain in the hands of the “purchaser” but returns to the family of the “seller.” Verses 18-22. In theme and content, this section relates to Leviticus 25:2-7, which we examined earlier. Verses 2-7 and 18-22 relate to the sabbatical year, not the Jubilee year. Thematically, verses 18-22 are out of place in their current context. We need only to connect verses 13-17 with verses 23-24 to notice the displacement. The primary concern with this section pertains to pragmatic questions regarding the fallow land during the sabbatical year. If the land does lie fallow every seven years, meaning that the people can’t sow or harvest crops, what are they to do for food in that seventh year? The answer to this question is theological rather than practical. The people are not to worry about lack of food during the sabbatical year because God will provide a bumper crop in the sixth year that will yield food for the next several years. Verses 23-24. These two verses are an integral part of the Jubilee

108

Neglected Voices

notion of land redemption. Other portions of Leviticus 25:8-55 stress the importance of keeping the land within the family, and these verses explain why. They provide us with the theological rationale regarding inalienability of the land: it can’t be sold permanently because it does not belong to the people. Rather it belongs to God. The theological rationale also has pragmatic consequences. If the land can’t be sold “in perpetuity,” small segments of society will not be able to accumulate large portions of land, thus allowing for a continuous equitable distribution of the society’s land. Verses 25-28. This section discusses the options available for an individual or family that finds it necessary to “sell” land due to indebtedness. First, the next of kin can redeem the land from the purchaser and bring it back into the family. Second, the individual or family can “buy” the property back if they acquire the means to do so. If there is no redeemer available or willing to purchase the land and if the individual or family can’t “buy” it back, the third and final recourse is to wait until the Jubilee year, in which the land automatically reverts back to the family. Depending on the timing of the Jubilee, the person who initially had control of the land before its “sale” might not be alive when the land is released in the Jubilee, but the important point here is that the land is to be returned to the family unit. Verses 29-34. There was one exception, however, to the Jubilee concept of land redemption: it was not valid regarding houses within a walled city. In these cases, the redemption options were valid only for one year. If the land was not redeemed within this one-year period, it became the permanent property of the purchaser and was lost to the family who initially held it. The text does not provide a reason for this exception, so we are left with speculation. Apparently a distinction is being made between the urban and rural cultures. The theological bearing of inalienability of land had no pertinence in the urban culture. Perhaps the exception to walled cities was an attempt to adjust from the traditional notion of protection of family-owned land in the rural setting to the possession of housing in cities.15 Jacob Rosenberg reminds us that the purpose of the land redemption rules was to keep the land resources in the hands of all people and to limit the ability of one or a few individuals to acquire too much economic power. He believes that houses in walled cities were exempted from the rules because they were not used for production and “thus not subject to antitrust concerns.”16 It is also possible that this exception for

Mandates for Peace

109

houses in walled cities was a subtle challenge to the land redemption rules found in Leviticus 25 and elsewhere.17 This exception, however, did not apply to the Levites. Levites living inside walled cities had the same right to redemption as those living outside. Verses 35-38. What happens if, due to financial difficulty, a person becomes dependent on his or her relatives? The text commands the relatives to be supportive and to allow the person to live with them. Once this is done, several prohibitions outline the parameters of the relationship. The relatives must not take advantage of or make a profit from the disadvantaged person. This includes lending money without interest and providing food. The section concludes with a motive clause pertaining to the Exodus event that explains why the relatives are to treat fairly the person in difficulty: because God brought the people out of the land of Egypt, they should not mistreat one another. Verses 39-46. Two different types of servitude become the topic of this section. If Israelites enter into economic difficulty to the point that they must sell themselves to another Israelite, they shall be considered hired servants, not slaves. They are to serve until the Jubilee year and at that time they may return to their family and family’s property. Once again a motive clause pertaining to the Exodus event is brought in: the reason Israelites are not to serve one another as slaves is because God delivered them from Egyptian bondage. However, servants from other nations are treated differently. They are considered slaves, and the Jubilee ramifications do not apply to them. The text is clear: there is a certain element of society to which the Jubilee does not pertain. This exception is worth noting, especially by those who wish to glorify the Jubilee concept. In and of itself, the notion of canceling certain debts every fifty years is admirable, but unfortunately not everyone is included. Verses 47-55. Apparently Israelites fell into financial difficulty at times and sold themselves to a person from another nation who lived in the land of Israel. In this instance, Jubilee rules applied. The options at their disposal were the same as those regarding land redemption. They could appeal to the next of kin, hoping for redemption from servitude. They could redeem themselves. If none of these options were possibilities, they must wait until the Jubilee year for freedom. For a third time, a motive clause involving the Exodus surfaces. The reason Israelites in the land of Israel are not to serve people from other nations as slaves is because God previously delivered them from slavery.

110

Neglected Voices

Although the above summary regarding the rules of the Jubilee year in Leviticus 25 is brief and concise, it at least underscores the fact that the circumstances pertaining to the Jubilee are quite detailed and involved. So, what does all of this have to do with peace? Once again the primary legal rules in this passage have to do with land and servant indebtedness. When a person suffers economic distress through either type of indebtedness, there is a lack of well-being and peace. The legal rules in the Jubilee year were designed to stress the importance of overcoming such economic distress and to instill a sense of peace to individuals and the community. As with the sabbatical and fallow years, much discussion among interpreters has centered around whether or not the Jubilee legal rules were practiced as enforceable legislation. Yet the issue is not whether or not such rules were actually carried out in ancient Israel but rather the primary message behind the rules. What were the authors and compilers of these rules trying to say and what issues were they attempting to address? As with the sabbatical and fallow-year legislation, when we ask such questions, we discover that the rules take on a didactic and instructional nature rather than a legislative one. That is to say, the rules in Leviticus 25:8-55 are more concerned with teaching the community about fairness and equality regarding land and servant indebtedness than with outlining well-thought-out, practical, and enforceable legislative rules. The land redemption rules contained in Leviticus 25:13-17, 23-24 convey to the community the significance of maintaining an equitable distribution of land. These rules inform the people that everyone, not just an elite few, has a right to own land, and the community is to see that this right is exercised and worked out among its members. The primary rationale for this equitable distribution of land rests with divine rather than human authority.18 The reason people are not to sell the land in perpetuity is because the land does not belong to them; it belongs to God (25:23). Verse 23 does not appeal to a practical rationale regarding this universal right to land but rather a rationale that is in the realm of the divine. This rationale helps to signify that the legal rules were not devised to function as practical legislation but to serve as a symbol to the community that everyone has a claim to own and work the land. The Jubilee land redemption rules also assume an educational function as they instruct the community, through the legal forum, about certain moral and ideological concerns. These concerns include the equi-

Mandates for Peace

111

table distribution of land, the exchange of land when necessary without deception, and the importance of the connection between land and the family. These rules not only indicate the necessity of caring for those who do not have equal access to land, they also serve to teach the community that an equitable distribution of land should indeed occur. They further instruct the people that when land must change hands due to dire economic circumstances, it must be done in a fair and decent way. Verse 14 is clear. When a “sale” or “purchase” of property takes place, cheating is forbidden. The transaction must take place on the level. In addition to these moral concerns, the connection between land and family is underscored. Ownership and access to the land is an important part of family life. The land provides a sense of security and furnishes the family with food. Without access to land, the family finds itself in jeopardy. If anyone should question this connection between family and land, they should speak with God. God has the final say on ultimate ownership of the land. Therefore the symbolic and educative functions of the land redemption rules envision a community of peace. If the land is being abused and if people do not have the God-given right to possess the land, there is no peace in the community. On the other hand, if the community properly addresses the symbolic and moral concerns identified in these legal rules, peace will permeate the community, and the well-being of the community will indeed be enhanced. The legal rules regarding servant redemption in Leviticus 25:39-55 convey to the community the necessity of caring for each other with respect and dignity. If a person becomes impoverished to the degree that she or he must be sold to another, that person is not to exploit the hired servant through harsh and unreasonable treatment, and the impoverished person functions as a hired servant rather than as a slave. The fact that the hired servant is released in the Jubilee signifies to the community that perpetual servanthood is prohibited and that at some time the buyer is obligated to return the servant back to his or her family. Verses 42 and 55 provide two primary reasons why servants are not to serve in perpetuity or to be treated harshly. The servants belong to God, and it is God who delivered the Israelites from servitude as a nation. These rationales appeal to the historical experiences of Israel in order to convince the community that they are to heed the message being brought to them by way of these legal rules.19 The rules serve as a sign to the people, directing them toward a proper relationship with one another.

112

Neglected Voices

As with the land redemption rules, the rules regarding servant redemption deal with economic matters, as the redemption of servants symbolizes the need to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. The value of these rules was not their effectiveness as enforceable law but their effectiveness as a symbol for those who advocated an egalitarian society and for those who were sympathetic with people who wielded little economic power. The rule was a powerful symbol, signifying that the members of the community are to serve God alone and are not to be slaves to one another.20 The servant redemption rules also instructed the community about the moral implications of limited servitude and family unity. Israelites were not to serve among Israelites as slaves, and whatever servanthood did exist was not to be perpetual. Moreover, an individual’s connection to the family was stressed. When economic circumstances required Israelites to serve others, this was acceptable, but there came a time in which one’s obligations to the family could not be overlooked. At some point impoverished servants must return to their families. From a practical standpoint, the family unity aspect of these legal rules appears to be unrealistic, since it was probable that a person who entered into servitude early in the Jubilee cycle would not be alive to return to the family when the Jubilee occurred. Again these rules are not overly concerned with smoothing out contradictions and unrealistic notions but were designed to instruct the people about proper relationships within the community. As with the land redemption rules, the word shalom, or the concept of peace, is not directly addressed in the servant redemption laws. However, these rules fall under the rubric of mandates for peace, because if the message inherent in these rules is not adhered to, peace would not exist. If the people do not engage in a proper relationship with one another when economic circumstances dictate that some in the community must become servants, there will not be peace. If people attempt to make perpetual servants out of their neighbors, peace will not exist, because perpetual servitude is to be attributed only to God. Because the legal rules that come into play during the Jubilee year have to do with the notion of equality and equal distribution of resources, such as land and servanthood, the Jubilee year is not only a year of liberation and freedom but also a year of peace. In her sermon at the Festival of Homiletics in 2004, entitled “Proclaim Jubilee,” Susan Briehl told about Tornado Monopoly, a game she played with friends when a teenager.21 The game starts out like regular Monopoly, with each player angling

Mandates for Peace

113

for property, railroads, money, and hotels. If anyone is on the brink of bankruptcy, instead of leaving the game or having the fun come to an end, she or he can yell, “Tornado!” In a few chaotic moments, money is redistributed, people are released from jail, properties become available again, and those who were on the verge of going under are suddenly back in the game. Did God have something similar in mind when describing the Jubilee to the Israelites? Briehl’s point was that yelling, “Tornado!” in Monopoly was similar to the proclamation of the Jubilee as described in Leviticus. That proclamation called for a redistribution of property, an unearned release from debtor’s prison, the reunification of families divided by poverty, and the tearing down of the wall that separated the winners from the losers. Briehl suggested that the Jubilee meant crushing the powers that divide us. Crushing the powers that feed some and leave others hungry. Crushing the powers that would imprison some and set others free. Crushing the powers that divide us into winners and losers. Jubilee meant that God’s life was to be free and full and abundant for all people. The fun of living as God’s people could indeed continue. In short, Jubilee meant peace for those who were willing to break down the walls that divided the haves from the have-nots and the winners from the losers.

Exodus 22:21-24; 23:9; Leviticus 19:33-34 21You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. 22You shall not abuse any widow or orphan. 23If you do abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will surely heed their cry; 24my wrath will burn, and I will kill

you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans. 9You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of

an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. 33When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. 34The alien who resides with you shall be to

you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

114

Neglected Voices

These three passages exhibit a concern for the sojourner or stranger. Exodus 22:21-24 expands its focus to include the widow and the orphan. The passages single out certain individuals who, because of their inadequate economic and social circumstances, find themselves at a disadvantage. In this context, the stranger—g‰r in the Hebrew—was born in another country but becomes a permanent resident of Israel. The person is not a natural-born citizen of Israel and is not a foreigner passing through. Rather he or she is a “stranger” who resides in Israel. In the translations, g‰r is rendered differently: stranger (KJV, NAS, RSV), alien (NIV), resident alien (NRSV). The “strangers” in Israel had no local or family connections to rely on when they found themselves in a vulnerable situation. They had no social or legal rights, thus making them susceptible to discrimination and exploitation.22 As a result, we find various legal rules in the Old Testament that are sympathetic with the plight of the g‰r and direct the Israelites not to oppress individuals who fall under this classification. The legal rules do not provide specific legal rights or privileges for such individuals but simply state that Israelites are to treat the stranger with compassion and goodwill. Ancient Israelite society allowed a young woman only two roles: she remained as an unmarried member in her father’s household or she became a child-bearing wife in her husband’s or in-law’s home.23 This created a potential problem for the widow. If her husband’s family followed the levirate law, the widow became the wife of one of her dead husband’s brothers and was adequately provided for.24 It was also possible for the widow to return to her father’s family, but in this case the societal rights of the widow are unclear. No doubt it would depend on the generosity of the family in question. If none of these options were available, like the “stranger,” she was vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination. Because of this inferior status attributed to widows, there are verses like Exodus 22:22 that charge the community not to abuse widows in any way and to have compassion for their situation. The orphan is often associated with the widow in passages that call for the Israelite community to care for the poor and disadvantaged. Like the stranger and the widow, the orphan did not have the benefit of family security and societal rights, and would have been in danger of exploitation. Certain legal rules were devised to instruct the community that those who fit the status of the orphan were to be cared for properly and not taken advantage of. Again such legal rules do not spell out any civil rights of orphans, but call for compassion and suitable treatment of them.

Mandates for Peace

115

The primary concern of these passages in Exodus and Leviticus is the proper treatment of the disadvantaged of society. All three passages refer to ancient Israel’s history as the main rationale for not oppressing the stranger. When Israel was enslaved in Egypt, an alien land, they were the disadvantaged ones. God delivered Israel from such enslavement, and now that Israel enjoys a certain degree of freedom, they are not to oppress or mistreat strangers in their own country as they were oppressed and mistreated in Egypt. Oppressing or mistreating the stranger would be violating their own history.25 Exodus 22:21-24 also includes a hefty punishment for those who choose to mistreat strangers, widows, and orphans. God will hear the cry of the oppressed and kill the oppressors. God directs this warning to men who have wives and children. If they mistreat widows and orphans, they will die, and their loved ones will become widows and orphans. The message is clear: God will not tolerate social injustice. If this type of social injustice does occur, it will lead to social disaster.26 Even though there is a threat of violence from God in the Exodus 22 passage for those who mistreat the stranger, widow, and orphan, it is also possible to see how these legal rules promote peace and shalom. The Leviticus passage takes a more constructive approach and commands the Israelites to love the stranger as they love themselves. The love and proper care of disadvantaged people leads to peace within the community. If the community does not take care of the disadvantaged and poor, peace will be absent not only because oppression is taking place, but also because God promises to bring destructive judgment on behalf of the oppressed. From a more positive point of view, what better way to obtain peace in the community than to extend hospitality to others, such as strangers, widows, and orphans? Providing generous hospitality to those with whom we share community life ensures peace and stability, and strengthens the relationships that shape the community. All of the above legal mandates promote a sense of peace, even though none of them actually contains the word shalom or a word that comes close to the English word peace. The peace evident in the mandates comes alive in the social-justice concerns they contain. The concern for the poor, those who have inadequate economic resources, those who do not have family protection and security, and those who do not have the rights and privileges needed for a comfortable existence in the community is a concern for peace. Numerous other legal mandates in the Old Testament exhibiting a

116

Neglected Voices

concern for peace are not listed here. The point comes through loud and clear in the mandates we have examined: when injustice exists in the community of God’s people, peace does not. When justice is identified and addressed, the community is on its way to creating the peace God intends for all God’s people.

Prophetic Mandates As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, the prophetic mandate of peace differs slightly from the typical judgment speech, because there is a call for repentance followed by certain consequences if such repentance does not occur. To a large degree, the prophetic peace mandates are negative. They criticize the people or the leaders for not creating peace within the community. Any positive aspect in these mandates has to do with adherence to the call to repentance. If the people or the leaders make the changes called for and repent, peace will exist in the community. Viewed from this perspective, the call to repentance is in fact a call for peace. The prophetic mandates of peace also contain social-justice language that points toward peace. If the people continue down the road they’re on, peace will not exist for those who are being oppressed. Furthermore peace will not exist for those in power who continue to carry out offensive and oppressive actions, because if they refuse to repent, divine punishment will occur. The call to repentance and the call to peace, if adhered to, will create peace for both the oppressed the oppressors. Isaiah 1:10-17 10Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Listen to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! 11What to

me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; 13bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. 14Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. 15When you stretch out your hands, I will hide

Mandates for Peace

117

my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. 16Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.

This unit in the first chapter of Isaiah chastises the people for their past sins. They have trampled God’s courts, engaged in iniquity, and have blood on their hands. The passage ends, however, with a call to bring about justice. This call blankets the entire passage with a notion of repentance. And this ending call to repentance informs the people that even though they are doomed to destruction, they can still escape divine judgment.27 The first several verses contain God’s frustration with the people’s sacrifices and offerings. He does not desire the blood of animals, such as bulls, lambs, or goats. The worship celebrations and festivals are of no value. On the surface, this seems odd, since God commanded many of the worship practices in the first place. When one factors in the ending call for justice, one understands that God is not saying that the people’s worship activities are futile and not desired. The issue is how the people can even think of worshipping God while engaging in corrupt behavior. It is the juxtaposition of unacceptable conduct with the festive assemblies that God finds so detestable.28 Worship and sinful behavior do not mix. The call to repentance and the way out of this mess is found in the last two verses, where God implores the people to cleanse themselves of the evil they have done and to stop doing it. They are to learn good, seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, and plead for the widow. In the legal mandates for peace, we discovered the importance of seeking justice through the care of the oppressed, such as widows and orphans. Doing the things listed in verse 17 is what being in community with God is all about. Such instructions embody the Torah and call the people into accountability with God’s will. These instructions are directed incisively at those engaging in corrupt and self-righteous behavior.29 The powerful aspect of verses 16-17 is that ceasing to do evil, learning to do good, and seeking justice are not abstract notions. To do these three is to care for the powerless and disadvantaged members of society, namely the oppressed, the widow, and the orphan.30 The primary emphasis of this prophetic mandate is that worship can be legitimate only when the people who worship God implement

118

Neglected Voices

justice in their daily lives.31 According to the text, justice is lacking and worship is a futile enterprise. If the people adhere to the strong imperatives in verses 16-17, all that could change. Justice could exist once again. Worship of God could be alive and meaningful, but only if the people repent and turn from the evil God so clearly detests. This passage resonates with the history of the Church of the Brethren, which consisted of a blending of the Anabaptist and Pietist traditions. The Anabaptist movement began to form in the fifteenth century and gained momentum during the reformation movements of the sixteenth. Anabaptism (literally, “rebaptism”) was primarily characterized by a vigorous belief in adult or believers baptism as opposed to infant baptism. Those who adhered to Anabaptism made a conscious effort to live according to the teachings of Jesus (discipleship) as they underscored the importance of entering into a new life in Christ by way of the Holy Spirit. They also advocated the grounding of theological and doctrinal tenets in Scripture, such as the doctrine of nonresistance, as they extended the love of Christ to all, including enemies. Other important Anabaptist themes included witnessing to one’s faith by one’s manner of living, a willingness to suffer for Christ, and devotion to the faith community. Pietism was a revival movement that stemmed from the framework of the Protestant Reformation, namely from the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. It arose during the seventeenth century and garnered further definition and influence in the eighteenth. The primary tenets of Pietism were an emphasis on a “new birth” or a religious renewal of the individual, an emphasis on studying the Bible as a model for living, and an emphasis on religious fellowship, which often involved small-group meetings. From this brief overview of these two traditions, we can easily see overlap between them, especially regarding emphasis on the Bible and fellowship. By the time the movement now called the Church of the Brethren formed in the early eighteenth century, these two traditions had gained influence among certain circles within Germany and were especially attractive to the early Brethren. Not only were these two traditions very instrumental in the formation of the Church of the Brethren, but they also have maintained prominence in the Brethren tradition for the past three hundred years. Dale Brown points out that Brethren scholar Vernard Eller has identified a dialectical corrective between the two traditions within the Church of the Brethren. When Pietist tendencies lean too far to the mystical side,

Mandates for Peace

119

they are challenged by Anabaptist concerns for practical and concrete ways of living out the Scriptures in community life. On the other hand, when Anabaptist tendencies lean too far into biblical legalism or works-righteousness, they are challenged by Pietist faith and grace emphases, which stress personal relationships with God and others.32 Conversely, Carl Bowman suggests that the two traditions have reinforced each other, rather than corrected each other.33 Throughout the years, the Church of the Brethren has stressed the Pietist side of its heritage by focusing on spirituality and faith and has also stressed the Anabaptist side by honing in on service and faithful living. Both the Pietist and the Anabaptist elements resonate with the text in Isaiah 1 in that the first part stresses the notion of piety and the last two verses stress faithful living. Isaiah is saying you can’t have the Pietist side without the Anabaptist faithful-living side, something the Brethren have consistently stated. As Bowman maintains, the two are mutually reinforcing. However, an effort must be made not to draw this analogy too tightly, since we are dealing with religious traditions from two very different and distinct periods. Like the worship of the Brethren, the worship of the ancient Israelites was reinforced by faithfully living God’s Torah, which involved doing justice to all people. If faithful living does not reinforce the people’s worship of God, the whole system is out of whack, and God becomes angry and threatens punishment and judgment. The call to repentance and the call to faithful living gives the Israelites another chance to give credibility to their worship of God by living according to God’s will. The juxtaposition of faithful worship and faithful living creates the peace that the call to repentance in Isaiah 1 so desperately demands.

Micah 6:1-8 1Hear what the LORD says: Rise, plead your case before the mountains, and let the hills hear your voice. 2Hear, you mountains, the

controversy of the LORD, and you enduring foundations of the earth; for the LORD has a controversy with his people, and he will contend with Israel. 3“O my people, what have I done to you? In what have I wearied you? Answer me! 4For I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of slavery; and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. 5O my people, remember now what King Balak of Moab devised, what Balaam

120

Neglected Voices son of Beor answered him, and what happened from Shittim to Gilgal, that you may know the saving acts of the LORD.” 6“With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

As we have already indicated, repentance is integral to the prophetic mandate of peace. It is a key factor in this passage as well. Repentance is summed up clearly in the last verse, but a definite path takes us there. The passage begins with words of a legal nature. Although we have classified this passage as a prophetic mandate of peace, the first two verses designate it as a legal speech where God brings his case against the people. The mountains and the foundations of the earth are the witnesses of the case, and the people must come forward with a defense. The case moves forward in verse 3 with God’s accusatory question. God demands to know what he has done to the people and how he has wearied them. He receives no answer and launches into a bit of ancient Israelite history to show how he has indeed cared for them. God revisits the Exodus event, when he delivered the people from Egyptian bondage and sent Moses, Aaron, and Miriam as their leaders. God then demands that the people remember the story of King Balak of Moab instructing Balaam to curse the Israelites. Instead, through God’s words, Balaam ends up blessing the Israelites. Finally God asks the people to remember what happened from Shittim to Gilgal. This is a vague reference that most likely refers to the crossing of the Jordan.34 Shittim was east of the river Jordan, Gilgal was to the west, and the people would have moved from Shittim to Gilgal in the river crossing. The point is that God made this crossing possible. As a rhetorical device, God uses examples of his saving acts in ancient Israelite history to make the case that he has held up his end of the bargain in his covenant with the Israelites. In the verses that follow, the people do not attempt to dispute God’s case. Instead an unnamed spokesperson for them basically wonders what God expects in return. The spokesperson offers suggestions from the

Mandates for Peace

121

realm of worship. Even though the language is in the first person singular, the spokesperson represents the people as a whole. Should they bow down and worship God? Should they bring before God burnt offerings? Would God be pleased with many rams and oil in abundance? Should the people even offer their firstborn child to God? The suggested offerings get more extreme as the list continues. The point is, what will it take for God to receive the repentance of the people and accept them again? An additional unidentified voice enters the discussion and issues an answer on God’s behalf. The voice indicates that God has told the people what is good and God expects three things of the people: to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with him. “To do justice” or “to make justice” is a fairly vague statement. The Hebrew, however, gives us some clues to what God may have in mind. The Hebrew word mishpat can signify justice, judgment, vindication, deliverance, and custom. In this context, mishpat, justice, vindication, and deliverance, is something the people are to do. They are to institute it and make it happen. Such justice may occur through appropriate behavior and peaceful actions or through legal decisions and court actions carried out within the community.35 In this case, justice is not simply wishful thinking; it is something that happens through fair and equitable practices. It involves taking care of all members of society, especially the weak and the vulnerable, who tend to be exploited by those who are more powerful.36 When the people “do justice,” the individual and collective relationships within the community will exhibit a high degree of fairness, righteousness, and integrity. The second phrase—“to love kindness” (NAS, RSV, and NRSV)— is also difficult to translate and somewhat odd in English. Other translations include “to love mercy” (KJV, NIV); “to love goodness” (NAB); and “to love tenderly” (JB). But what does it means to “love kindness” or “love mercy” or “love goodness” or “love tenderly”? What we have in the Hebrew is a two-word phrase. It’s a verbal infinitive construct (“to love”) attached to a noun (“kindness” or “mercy” or “goodness”). The translation challenge comes not in translating the verb (‘a-hab), which indicates human love for an object or, in this case, a concept. Rather the challenge lies in translating the noun chesed. The English translations cited above indicate the most common translations of chesed in this instance. In the English renderings, it seems odd to express love toward a noun such as kindness, goodness, or mercy. The Jerusalem Bible averts this problem by translating chesed as

122

Neglected Voices

an adverb (tenderly). What is implied in the Hebrew and difficult to carry over into the English is an element of action. The notion of loving kindness, mercy, or goodness is that of doing kind deeds, merciful deeds, or good deeds.37 Just as the first phrase commands the people to do justice, this one requires the implementation of good, kind, or merciful acts toward others in the community. One can even go so far as to say that “‘the practice of justice’ apparently has not achieved its goal if it has not accomplished the ‘love of kindness.’”38 Bringing about God’s justice involves doing acts of kindness in some way, shape, or form. The third phrase indicates that God requires the people to walk humbly with him. Walking humbly with God can suggest several things. It means we put God first and live in accordance with God’s intentions for us.39 This requires putting our own agendas aside and letting God unfold agendas before us. Such agendas will no doubt involve the previous two phrases, which require justice and acts of kindness. Walking with God also suggests that God will lead us down a path to what is good.40 When we walk with God, we walk in a good direction, and this direction takes us to places where justice exists. Micah 6:1-8 suggests that God is not only concerned with specific methods and rituals of worship but also with our lifestyle and how we interact within the community. Acts of worship are important; people with high behavioral and ethical standards must do them. Such standards involve bringing about God’s justice, carrying out acts of kindness or goodness, and walking humbly and unassumingly with God. When God requires the people to do the three things listed in Micah 6:8, in a roundabout way God is calling on them to repent. God is calling on the people to live in active repentance, and such active repentance leads to peace. This prophetic mandate of peace involves repentance, but such repentance is not just spoken words. It involves people doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with their God. It’s an active repentance that leads to a lifestyle of peace—peace within the community and peace in one’s walk with God. At its annual meeting in 1979 in Seattle, the Church of the Brethren adopted a listing of goals for the 1980s based on Micah 6:8. God, the Lord of all life and of all creation, calls us: To do justice •By witnessing to God’s justice which forgives us and requires

Mandates for Peace

123

us to turn the other cheek and walk the second mile. •By altering our lifestyles to consume less and to share more, accepting the challenge of the simplicity of Jesus’ life and mission. •By supporting efforts to establish a just world order through nonviolent means. To love tenderly •By sharing the good news of Jesus through proclamation and example. •By living at one with God, at peace with one’s self, one’s family, one’s neighbor, and one’s environment. •By building community and wholeness in all aspects of life. •By confronting and caring for one another. •By claiming God’s gift of reconciliation in the family, the church, society, and among all nations and all faiths. To walk humbly •By diligently searching the scriptures. •By living as a servant people who know the empowering love exemplified by the basin and the towel. •By being in mission that lives out mutuality. •By celebrating the lordship of Christ and the interdependence of all humanity.41

One can easily see the imprint of Micah 6:8 on this list of goals. This Brethren mandate of peace, used to cast a vision, rings out loud and clear in the first set of goals under the section “to do justice.” The first goal calls for turning the other cheek and walking the second mile. The second calls for lifestyle changes that allow the world’s resources to be shared in an equitable fashion. And the third calls for the use of nonviolence as a way of establishing a just and peaceful world. The second section lifts up the message of peace through notions of evangelism; living in peace spiritually, interpersonally, locally, and globally; building community and wholeness; confronting and caring for others; and receiving God’s gift of reconciliation. The third encourages the Brethren to live peacefully by walking humbly as disciples of Jesus Christ. This is one of many contemporary examples of how the mandate of peace in Micah 6:1-8 has spurred people to craft a vision and a manner

124

Neglected Voices

of living that embodies the message of peace. If those who worship God faithfully and diligently can find ways to interact with one another by doing justice, carrying out acts of kindness, and walking humbly with their God, such worship will indeed be worthy of and accepted by God.

Proverbial Mandates The legal and prophetic mandates for peace issue a challenge to the power structures and call for a transformation of them as far as they promote oppression and injustice. As we have already seen, a blatant ideology in support of the marginalized and oppressed is present in such mandates. For example, the legal mandate in Exodus 23:10 commands that the land lie fallow every seven years so the poor will have food to eat. This mandate challenges any economic structure that prevents people from having access to food. The prophetic mandate in Micah 6:1-8 challenges the institution of worship when people are not engaging in proper moral conduct outside worship. Challenges to societal and power structures is strikingly absent when we come to the proverbial mandates. By and large, the individual proverbs and collections of wisdom poems in the book of Proverbs are “precepts, norms, and guidelines for securing a life of well-being, decency, and dignity.”42 Such precepts, norms, and guidelines provide moral instruction that does not necessarily call for social change but rather seeks to validate the existing social reality and the worldview that sustains it.43 The writers and the eventual compilers of Proverbs do not call for a substantial transformation of society, since the basic structures that uphold it are deemed sound and appropriate. Therefore behavior that supports the basic structures of the society sketched in Proverbs is seen as appropriate, and any behavior that threatens such structures is considered inappropriate. One reason proverbial peace mandates do not contain the transformational ideology is that Proverbs is established on the doctrine of retribution, which sustains and undergirds the society as ordered by God. Inherent in the doctrine of retribution is that the righteous are blessed with prosperity and success in life, and the wicked are plagued and punished by suffering and misery. Proverbs discerns who deserves what. The wise and the righteous, because they behave properly, experience well-being and happiness. The wicked and the foolish, because they engage in immorality and sin, experience agony and affliction. A community based on the notion of retribution is effective only when

Mandates for Peace

125

the people adhere to and accept the basic parameters of the doctrine in question, namely, accepting the consequences of moral behavior on the one hand and immoral behavior on the other. Although retribution is integral to the book of Proverbs, tight boundaries regarding it become somewhat blurred at points in the book. But Proverbs never goes to the extent of the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, which challenge the doctrine of retribution outright, because of instances when the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer. Numerous proverbial mandates that adhere to the doctrine of retribution also promote certain behaviors that help to create an irenic and peaceful society. Therefore, such mandates clearly fall under the category of proverbial mandates for peace. The following groupings of behavior and conduct from Proverbs gives some indication as to what mandates for peace are required for keeping intact the society ordered by the doctrine of retribution. Retributive justice—Proverbs 10:6, 11; 11:19; 24:1-2. Several proverbial statements spliced throughout the book summarize this doctrine in a general sense, while the rest of the book illustrates the doctrine through life circumstances. These statements are antithetical; they contrast the righteous and the wicked, the wise and the fool. Proverbs 10:6 states that the mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, while the mouth of the wicked contains violence. The righteous speak words that uphold and sustain life, while the wicked tear life down with their words. Proverbs 11:19 is one of the most succinct statements of retributive justice: Those persons who do their best to be righteous will receive life and those who pursue evil will experience death. Respect of neighbor—Proverbs 3:28-29; 14:21; 24:15-16. When living in community, one must live with others and respect them and their property. Proverbs 3:28-29 begins by addressing what one should do when neighbors come to borrow something. The gist is that, if you have what they need, do not put them off and dismiss them. Rather give it to them to use when they ask for it. The passage goes on to say that neighbors should live trustingly beside one another and for that reason one should not plan any harm or ill will against a neighbor. In a similar vein, Proverbs 14:21 states that one should not despise a neighbor and 24:15-16 urges one not to rob or vandalize the homes of others in the community. Respect of landmarks—Proverbs 22:28; 23:10. Ancient societies did not have the record-keeping and land-surveying abilities of many contemporary societies. A “landmark” was a boundary marker, equivalent

126

Neglected Voices

to a modern-day deed. Both Proverbs 22:28 and 23:10 call on members of the community to respect such markers and not remove them. Land in ancient Israel was not a mere economic commodity to be bartered, bought, and sold at will. It was handed down in the family from generation to generation and was the foundation of the household family. Possession of land allowed the family to exist as a social entity.44 Taking land from a family was a grave injustice, creating indebted servants and day laborers, and forcing families to join the ranks of the poor. We must note, however, that the book of Proverbs does not address the many other ways in which those in power wrestled land away from those not as powerful. The book of Proverbs contains very few proverbs that call for the respect of land boundaries in an effort to allow people to retain the land they are entitled to. The enemy—Proverbs 24:17-18, 29; 25:21-22. Several proverbs encourage members of the community not to seek vengeance on their enemy. Proverbs 24:17 urges people not to gloat over their enemies when misfortune has befallen them. Proverbs 24:29 suggests to the audience that when others have treated them in an unkind and hurtful manner, they are not to seek vengeance and repay with behavior that mirrors what they have experienced. Proverbs 25:21 goes a bit further and states that when enemies are vulnerable, the people are to give them food and drink. Such proverbs do not encourage ways to turn enemies into friends. Rather they assume that having enemies is part of the way society is built, but they also advise against seeking vengeance against the enemy and exploiting their vulnerability. Honest scales and balances—Proverbs 11:1; 16:11. These two proverbs bring the doctrine of retribution into the realm of commerce by suggesting that unfair market practices involving weights and balances threaten the social order. Both proverbs imply that honest business transactions are grounded theologically in God’s justice.45 Using false weights and balances displeases God greatly and, conversely, when such weights and balances are accurate and fair, God is delighted. The poor—Proverbs 14:21; 22:16, 22-23; 28:3, 15; 29:14; 31:20. Numerous sayings in Proverbs address the topic of the poor. The primary message is to be kind to and not mistreat the poor. No ideology in these passages challenges the systemic injustices that allow poverty to exist. The notion that poverty is a part of society is simply accepted, and people are to treat the poor with charity and fairness. In fact, some other places in Proverbs strongly suggest that poverty in some cases is a condi-

Mandates for Peace

127

tion that the poor bring on themselves. In this case, the community is not to contribute to or further the troubles of the poor. The tongue—Proverbs 10:20, 31; 12:18-19; 17:20. There are several proverbs concerned with how people use words in their interactions with one another. When the tongue is used properly, it brings forth righteousness and can be likened to the best of silver (10:20). A perverse tongue, on the other hand, brings problems and runs the risk of being cut off or causing a person to “fall into calamity” (10:31; 17:20). Proverbs 12:1819 sums up the situation of the tongue succinctly by stating that a wise tongue brings healing and a lying tongue lasts but a moment. Wise words heal and bring forth life, while lying and perverse words cause trouble. Within the framework of the doctrine of retribution, lying and perverse words have no longevity whatsoever and should be avoided altogether. The above select listing identifies several among many behaviors in the book of Proverbs that lead to the well-being of society. When people emulate such behaviors, the society envisioned by the wisdom writers of Proverbs will be a society of peace. The primary message is to keep your nose clean. Put in your time. Do the right thing, and you will bring blessings and peace on yourself and your family. In a world ordered by the notion that God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked, you will bring peace to the world if you adhere to the various mandates for peace and follow the righteous path.

Contemporary Implications The three categories of mandates for peace in the Old Testament are quite varied. The mandates in each section represent different literary genres and stem from different sociological settings. Despite their diversity, the mandates all point the way to peace. If one looks for a common topic in the peace mandates, it appears to be the poor. The legal mandates contain strong ideological language that stresses the importance of caring for the poor. Exodus 23:10-11 states that the land must lie fallow every seven years so the poor may eat. Deuteronomy 15:1-11 mentions the poor three times in its discussion regarding debt cancellation every seven years. The gist of 15:4 is that if a society cancels debts every seven years, poverty will cease to exist. Since the compiler of this passage deems that to be an unlikely reality, verses 7 and 11 specifically state that one should not refrain from lending to the poor. Leviticus 25:8-11 links the notion of the poor with land and servitude indebtedness. And finally, Exodus 22:21-24 talks about not oppressing the

128

Neglected Voices

stranger, the widow, or the orphan. As we discussed earlier, people in ancient Israel who found themselves in these three categories were normally considered to be among the ranks of the poor. The prophetic mandates suggest that the people need to reevaluate how their living affects others, especially if their manner of living affects others adversely. If that is the case, the way they go about living must undergo a change preceded by repentance. In its discussion of doing good deeds, bringing about justice, and correcting oppression, Isaiah 1:17 says it is equally important to defend the rights of the widow and the orphan. The proverbial mandates do not challenge the issue of poverty as adamantly as the legal and prophetic literature, but they nonetheless express a concern for the poor (see Proverbs 14:21; 22:16, 22-23; 28:3; 29:14; 31:20). Therefore the peace mandates tell us it is difficult to have peace unless the society is willing to address poverty. But we do not need Old Testament mandates for peace to tell us that poverty prevents many people from experiencing peace. Peace does not exist for over 1.3 billion who must live on less than one dollar a day. Peace does not exist for the 34,000 children who die every day due to hunger or preventable diseases. Peace does not exist for the seventeen million people who die every year from infectious and preventable diseases. Peace does not exist for the 1.45 billion people who do not have access to health services. Peace does not exist for the 1.33 billion people who do not have safe water to drink. Peace does not exist for the 2.25 billion people who do not have access to sanitation services.46 Such figures show poverty in our world to be an overwhelming obstacle. Many feel that poverty can’t be eliminated, and if it were possible to do so, where would we begin? Jim Wallis argues that we have reached a tipping point in our world regarding the problem of poverty. He picks up on Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book, The Tipping Point. Gladwell’s thesis is that as an idea, product, message, behavior, or way of thinking moves from the edges of a society to widespread acceptance, somewhere along the way there must be a “tipping point” that transforms the perceptions of that society regarding the issue in question from a peripheral acknowledgment to widespread acceptance.47 Wallis says that “for the first time in history we have the information, knowledge, technology, and resources to bring the worst of global poverty to an end.”48 He notes that a growing number of individuals and organizations have made significant contributions to the effort to overcome global poverty. But he believes we have not yet reached the tip-

Mandates for Peace

129

ping point, because we lack the political and moral will to demand solutions to this debilitating problem.49 The legal and prophetic mandates identified in this chapter also suggest that such political and moral will was missing at various points in ancient Israelite society regarding poverty, but such mandates also suggest some degree of visionary thinking that can provide the motivation for dealing with and perhaps overcoming poverty. Jeffrey D. Sachs, special adviser to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development Goals, makes a compelling case for the possibility of ending extreme global poverty by the end of the first half of this century. In his book The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time, he writes, “The end of poverty, in this sense, is not only the end of extreme suffering but also the beginning of economic progress and of the hope and security that accompany economic development.”50 Stated in this manner, the end of poverty would indeed bring a degree of peace to our world. Throughout his book, Sachs makes the case that the end of extreme poverty is an economic possibility and that if the nations work together, such possibility can become a reality. A key element in his proposal for dealing with poverty is the implementation of the eight Millennium Development Goals, which all 191 United Nations member states adopted in 2002 when they signed the United Nations Millennium Declaration.51 The Millennium Development Goals involve (1) eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, (2) achieving universal primary education, (3) promoting gender equality and empowering women, (4) reducing child mortality, (5) improving maternal health, (6) combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, (7) ensuring environmental sustainability, and (8) developing a global partnership for development.52 In making his case, Sachs argues that the end of poverty is possible from an economic sense by achieving the following: (1) meeting the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, (2) ending extreme poverty by 2025, (3) ensuring well before 2025 that all the world’s poor countries can make reliable progress up the ladder of economic development, and (4) accomplishing all of this with modest financial help from the rich countries, more than is now provided, but within the bounds of what they have long promised.53 For those who accuse Sachs of simply offering another pie-in-the-sky suggestion for solving the world’s problems, he offers a well-thought-out and detailed economic plan to achieve the possibilities he sets forth. For example, he calculates that a transition of the world’s extreme poor to a

130

Neglected Voices

basic-needs level would require approximately thirty-one cents a day per poor person from the rich donor nations. That comes out to about 124 billion dollars or 0.6 percent of the total income of the gross national product of the high-income world. That is a mere six cents of every ten dollars of income.54 Obviously political maneuvers would be required to make the necessary economic transfers and to see that the people in need actually benefit from the services provided, but Sachs makes this candid point: “The effort required of the rich is indeed so slight that to do less is to announce brazenly to a large part of the world, ‘You count for nothing.’”55 The point of Sachs’s detailed analysis and the work of other organizations such as Call to Renewal, Alliance to End Hunger, Bread for the World, and Jubilee 2000 is that bringing an end to poverty is indeed plausible but, as Wallis notes, we must possess the political and moral will as a world community to do so. Again one can hope that the mandates addressed in this chapter as well as the work others are doing to tackle poverty will serve as motivators to political and nonprofit organizations to create peace where it is absent because too many people are impoverished. While addressing the problem of global poverty through the United Nations and other national and international efforts reaps change, individual acts can make a difference too. Robert M. Johnson, retired dentist and dental director for Washington County, Maryland, spends most of his time screening young children and teaching them proper tooth care. But for over twenty years he also has provided emergency dental extractions for the adult poor and uninsured.56 While modern dentistry emphasizes preservation of teeth and views an extraction as a mortality, Johnson’s services are desperately needed. The poorest 20 percent have 80 percent of dental disease. When Johnson extracts a tooth, it is not a dental mortality, but a necessary health service. He is available only several days a week and finds it difficult to keep up with the demand. In 2004 he saw over a thousand patients from just two rural counties. In the scheme of global poverty, Johnson’s work is a drop in the bucket, but it is an indication of how one person can meet the needs of others, which is a primary concern of the peace mandates in the Old Testament. In his own way, Johnson seeks to create peace among those with whom he lives. Some people work for the betterment of humanity and others exploit the vulnerability of those who are less powerful and less fortu-

Mandates for Peace

131

nate. The legal, prophetic, and proverbial mandates for peace address this injustice. They call on those in power to respect the rights and needs of others, especially those of the poor. The legal mandates use the genre of legal rules to envision a peaceful society in which an equitable distribution of resources occurs within the community. The prophetic mandates challenge those who exploit the poor and vulnerable. These mandates envision a peaceful society once the initiators of injustice repent and their behavior, which once led to injustice, works for justice and peace in the community. The proverbial mandates demand appropriate behavior among the people within the realm of the doctrine of retribution. Such behavior involves caring for and respecting the needs of others and living righteously. The primary concern of the peace mandates is justice—justice between individuals and justice within society. When such justice begins to emerge in response to these mandates, peace will prevail in accordance with God’s wishes and blessings for the community.

This page intentionally left blank

6

Piety and Peace We have examined the notion of peace in Old Testament story and narrative, prophetic discourse, legal material, and proverbial sayings. The notion of peace is prevalent in another literary framework in the Old Testament: the Psalms. The book of Psalms is often called the prayer book or hymnbook of ancient Israel.1 Considerable debate has ensued as to what that means. Hermann Gunkel argued that because many references in the Psalms relate to worship activities, such as singing, dancing, offering sacrifices, and prayer, the psalms arose out of a public worship context.2 Subsequent writers have suggested that some of the psalms may have originated in a family setting in the form of household or individual prayers.3 Due to a lack of historical information, there is only so much we can know about the setting out of which the psalms originated and in what setting they were later used. The consensus of modern students of the psalms suggests that most psalms grew out of some type of worship setting, whether public or private. For the most part, then, the psalms reflect to some degree the piety of the people of ancient Israel. The term piety in this chapter will be used in a general way to refer to materials in the Old Testament that have a “worship” flavor to them. That is to say, those materials that consist of prayers, praise, laments, blessings, and benedictions reflect a sense of piety between the people of ancient Israel and God, because they are designed to connect the people and God in a worshipful manner. When we examine the liturgical and piety resources of the Old Testament, we find that peace is an important concept in some of them. And because of the connection between peace and worship in the Psalms and other worship resources, we can conclude that peace is a significant component in the piety of ancient Israel. In this sense peace and piety go 133

134

Neglected Voices

together. The notion of peace is found not only in literary genres addressed in the previous chapters but also in the book of Psalms and other Old Testament liturgical pieces (see, for example, Numbers 6:22-26). Not all of the Old Testament psalms follow the same format nor do they convey the same message. In fact, there is a great deal of variety in their literary character. There are hymns of praise, which lift up the glory and greatness of God and center around God’s involvement in the ancient Israelite community. There are also lament psalms, which express extreme sorrow and distress on behalf of an individual or the community as a whole. In addition to these major types are psalms of thanksgiving, psalms of trust, creation psalms, enthronement psalms (focusing on God as king), royal psalms (extolling the human king), hymns of Zion, Torah psalms, wisdom psalms, and story-telling psalms. These literary categories help us understand the nature and character of individual psalms. They also create a structural framework for this chapter. When we identify those psalms that lift up the notion of peace, it helps to classify them according to their literary function within the larger genre of the psalm. This chapter focuses on four major categories of psalms that connect the notions of piety and peace: praise, laments, prayers, and blessings and benedictions. When it becomes necessary, the more specific genre of a psalm will be addressed in an effort to ascertain how that particular psalm may have functioned within the life of the community. Because Numbers 6:22-26 contains liturgical aspects we’ll include it with the psalms of blessings and benedictions. As we work through the psalms and this passage from Numbers, the reader should be able to see how integral the notion of peace was to the worshipping communities of ancient Israel.

Praise Psalm 147 1Praise the LORD! How good it is to sing praises to our God; for he is gracious, and a song of praise is fitting. 2The LORD builds up Jerusalem; he gathers the outcasts of Israel. 3He heals the brokenhearted, and binds up their wounds. 4He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. 5Great is our Lord,

and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. 6The LORD lifts up the downtrodden; he casts the wicked to the ground.

Piety and Peace

135

7Sing to the LORD with thanksgiving; make melody to our God on the lyre. 8He covers the heavens with clouds, prepares rain for the earth, makes grass grow on the hills. 9He gives to

the animals their food, and to the young ravens when they cry. 10His delight is not in the strength of the horse, nor his pleasure in the speed of a runner; 11but the LORD takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in his steadfast love. 12Praise the LORD, O Jerusalem! Praise your God, O Zion! 13For he strengthens the bars of your gates; he blesses your children within you. 14He grants peace within your borders; he fills you with the finest of wheat. 15He sends out his command to the earth; his word runs swiftly. 16He gives snow like wool; he scatters frost like ashes. 17He hurls down hail like crumbs— who can stand before his cold? 18He sends out his word, and melts them; he makes his wind blow, and the waters flow. 19He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances to Israel. 20He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his ordinances. Praise the LORD!

Psalm 147 is part of a series of six hymns of praise (145–150) that round out the book of Psalms as a whole. This particular psalm breaks down neatly into three parts: verses 1-6, 7-11, and 12-20. In fact, each section can be considered a separate, short praise psalm, since each contains the two primary characteristics of a hymn of praise, namely, a call to praise followed by specific reasons to praise God. Verse 1 contains the ever-popular call to praise, “Praise the LORD,” and stresses the privilege of singing such praises to God. The rest of the section focuses on certain actions and attributes of God. It is these that motivate the people to praise God. The thematic content of these actions and attributes falls into two primary categories: First, God builds up the city of Jerusalem by tending to the needs of the outcasts and brokenhearted and by lifting up the downtrodden. Second, because of God’s creative power, God can determine all the stars in the sky and give a name to each one. God is a powerful God. His power relates to the creation of the universe but also extends to the people who inhabit the earth. God’s power lifts up those who find themselves powerless within the confines of the activities and circumstances of the world. As we saw with the prophetic and legal material in previous chapters, justice that comes about as a result of God’s interaction in the world sends the mes-

136

Neglected Voices

sage that he is a God of peace. In this hymn of praise, such peace deems God worthy of praise. In the second section of this psalm, the writer stresses God’s creative power, which waters the earth and feeds the animals and birds. In the third and final section, a call in verse 12 to the city of Jerusalem to praise leads into a series of statements about God indeed caring for and blessing the city by strengthening its gates, blessing its children, providing peace among the city’s borders, and supplying it with sufficient food. The city of Jerusalem enjoys peace because God cares for the people in it and protects them. This is ample reason for the people of the city to praise their creator God. This hymn celebrates a peace that comes from God, a divine peace. It stems from God’s compassion for the outcasts, the brokenhearted, and the downtrodden. It also encompasses the city of Jerusalem. Because Jerusalem is the recipient of God’s care and protection, the city benefits from God’s peace. Such peace is reason enough to praise the Lord.

Psalm 29 1Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength. 2Ascribe to the LORD the glory of his name;

worship the LORD in holy splendor. 3The voice of the LORD is over the waters; the God of glory thunders, the LORD, over mighty waters. 4The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty. 5The voice of the LORD breaks the cedars; the LORD breaks the cedars of Lebanon. 6He makes Lebanon skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox. 7The voice of the LORD flashes forth flames of fire. 8The voice of the LORD shakes the wilderness; the Lord shakes the wilderness of Kadesh. 9The voice of the LORD causes the oaks to whirl, and strips the forest bare; and in his temple all say, “Glory!” 10The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD sits enthroned as king forever. 11May the LORD give strength to his people! May the LORD bless his people with peace!

In an artistic and poetic manner, the writer of Psalm 29 uses repetition to applaud God’s power and greatness. The first three phrases of the call to worship (verses 1-2) begin with the words, “Ascribe to the LORD.” The heavenly beings are called on to attribute praise to God for

Piety and Peace

137

his glory and strength and for his wondrous name. In addition, they are called to worship God with holiness. The main body of this psalm, verses 3-9, gives numerous reasons why God is worthy of praise. “The voice of the LORD” occurs seven times in these seven verses. It is the voice of the Lord that demonstrates God’s power and glory in the world. This powerful voice is over the waters and is full of majesty. It is strong enough to break the sturdy cedar trees in Lebanon. Powerful enough to make the mountain ranges of Lebanon and Sirion skip like young animals. Powerful enough to take a forest full of trees and strip it bare. The power of God is embedded in God’s voice, and it is a power to be reckoned with, not to be taken lightly. This description of power in verses 3-9 leads neatly into verse 10, which portrays God as king. Because God is powerful, he sits enthroned over the flood and over the universe as king forever. Verse 11 concludes the psalm with a prayer or blessing of peace. The appeal in this verse is for this powerful God to extend his power to the people and give them strength, for God to give peace to the people. God can create thunder, break mighty cedar trees, and make mountains jump around like animals, but the psalmist’s faith affirmation is that God can extend his blessing of peace to the people as well. Verse 11 combines God’s strength and peace. In this instance, strength and peace parallel one another.4 Just as God’s voice is powerful enough to shake up the universe, God also sustains humanity with salvation and peace. The psalmist’s hope for peace on earth at the end of Psalm 29 relies on a powerful God whose glory is worthy of praise.5 It’s important that the psalm ends with a blessing of peace. The earlier verses of the psalm portray a destructive and threatening character to God’s power. And although this power is the primary subject of the psalm, it is not the only quality of God nor is it the final word. The final word in this psalm is peace—a peace that comes about by the hand of a very powerful and glorious God.

Laments Psalm 85 1LORD, you were favorable to your land; you restored the fortunes of Jacob. 2You forgave the iniquity of your people; you pardoned all their sin. (Selah) 3You withdrew all your wrath;

you turned from your hot anger. 4Restore us again, O God of our salvation, and put away

138

Neglected Voices your indignation toward us. 5Will you be angry with us forever? Will you prolong your anger to all generations? 6Will you not revive us again, so that your people may rejoice in you? 7Show us your steadfast love, O LORD, and grant us your salvation. 8Let me hear what God the LORD will speak, for he will speak peace to his people, to his faithful, to those who turn to him in their hearts. 9Surely his salvation is at hand for those who fear him, that his glory may dwell in our land. 10Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet; righteousness and peace will kiss each other. 11Faithfulness will spring up from the ground, and righteousness will look down from the sky. 12The LORD will give what is good, and our land will yield its increase. 13Righteousness will go before him, and will make a path for his steps.

Psalm 85 is commonly classified as a community lament. In other words, it was composed on behalf of the community to bring its distress before God. The psalm neatly divides into three sections: verses 1-3, 4-7, and 8-13. The first section introduces the psalm by revisiting the past and recalling a time when the people had a loving and faithful relationship with God. This relationship was based on God’s forgiveness when the people sinned. As we continue reading, we find that the current relationship is strained, and the people are once again in need of forgiveness. Thus the psalmist’s recollection of God’s forgiveness of the people in the past is an effort to soften the current distress and to motivate God to extend forgiveness and grace to the people once again. The second section (verses 4-7) contains both complaints and petitions. Actually there are two questions of complaint (verses 5-6) sandwiched between two prayers of petition requesting God to intervene. These four verses indicate that the people are distressed, although the circumstances are not spelled out. Verse 4 asks God to restore the people as he once did in the past and to no longer be angry with them. Then the questions of complaint in verses 5-6 ask how long God will be angry with them and when God will revive them. Verse 7 is a petition for God to extend his love and salvation to the people. Again these verses are the only indication of the distress the people are experiencing. Because of the vagueness of many of the lament psalms, their contextual setting is often difficult to determine. The words of these four verses seem to suggest that the people are in a post-exilic setting.6 In

Piety and Peace

139

other words, they have experienced God’s wrath through the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and Judea, when the elite were taken into exile. The people are facing the end of the exilic period and are ready to renew their relationship with God and receive his forgiveness, love, and deliverance from the overwhelming distress and destruction caused by the Babylonian forces. The psalm then moves into the third section (verses 8-13), an assurance rich with concepts of peace, love, faithfulness, and righteousness. This section contains beautiful poetic images that describe what life will be like once God responds to the people’s needs. There is hope and confidence that God will speak words of peace to those who become faithful to him. God’s salvation and glory will be among the people once again. In this section, the psalmist indicates that when God responds to the people’s complaints and petitions, steadfast love and faithfulness will meet. Righteousness and peace will kiss one another, and faithfulness will come up from the ground and righteousness down from the sky. At first glance, it appears that the psalmist is grouping together a number of abstract concepts to portray a situation that reflects God’s response to the people’s complaints and petitions. However the psalmist may be portraying a scenario that will exist when God’s steadfast love and the faithfulness of the people toward God come together. When the people’s faithfulness springs up from the ground and God’s righteousness looks down from the sky, indeed righteousness and peace will encounter one another. Peace and justice in the community will exist once again, and God will bless the people with goodness and fruitful harvests. In this sense, peace is a divine promise of the salvation that God will give to a defeated people.7 Through words of assurance, this psalm ends in a vision of peace for the people in a land where God will richly provide what they need.8 Many biblical laments conclude with praise that demonstrates the people’s confidence that God will respond. Psalm 85 ends with words of assurance that express faith that God’s peace and love will prevail. In the present situation, things are definitely troublesome. But God’s salvation is at hand as the people long for God to respond with peace and righteousness. Such words of assurance and peace demonstrate the people’s confidence that God will end the pain caused by the Babylonian exile and create a future in their land that sparkles with peace, righteousness, abundance, and well-being.

140

Neglected Voices

Psalm 120 1In my distress I cry to the LORD, that he may answer me: 2“Deliver me, O LORD, from lying lips, from a deceitful tongue.” 3What shall be given to you? And what more shall be done to you, you deceitful tongue? 4A warrior’s sharp arrows, with glow-

ing coals of the broom tree! 5Woe is me, that I am an alien in Meshech, that I must live among the tents of Kedar. 6Too long have I had my dwelling among those who hate peace. 7I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war.

Whereas Psalm 85 is a lament spoken to and written on behalf of the community, Psalm 120 is an individual lament in which the distress and concerns of the psalmist are brought before God through the use of the first person singular.9 Verses 1-2 make up the opening section, with verse 1 indicating that the psalmist is indeed in distress and is presenting his distress to God. Verse 2 contains the actual prayer to God to deliver the psalmist from those who are mistreating him through lies and deceit. The next section, verses 3-4, elaborates a bit on the distress as the psalmist speaks directly to the culprits. Verse 3 contains rhetorical questions that underscore the fact that deceit is the problem. Verse 4 answers the questions in the previous verse by suggesting that the sharp arrows of a warrior and the burning coals of a broom tree will punish the culprits. These images speak of death and destruction to those who are afflicting the psalmist hatefully. The last section of this brief psalm, verses 5-7, contains the actual complaint and a declaration of peace. The psalmist complains to God that he is in a foreign land, where the people around him are hostile and offensive. He speaks for peace but his “neighbors” are not interested in forming a peaceful and pleasant relationship. As with most of the psalms, the historical circumstances of Psalm 120 are unclear. The geographical references in verse 5 are somewhat problematic because they refer to places far from each other. Meshech is in Asia Minor, northwest of Israel, while Kedar is the large desert area between Israel and Babylon. The references most likely indicate in a symbolic way that the psalmist is living in an exilic setting away from his homeland and not at all pleasant. Peace is prevalent in the final two verses. As we have already indi-

Piety and Peace

141

cated, these verses are a complaint that the psalmist must live among those who do not extend peace to him. He emphasizes this by stating that he is for peace but his neighbors are not. Taken by themselves, verses 6-7 put the psalmist is a righteous light. But will the psalmist wish peace on those who persecute him? In verses 3-4 he imagines distress and destruction for them. We could say that these verses simply illustrate the Old Testament notion of retributive justice: those who do harm to others will receive harm in return. In the context of this psalm, however, the punishment meted out in verse 4 appears to be the wish of the psalmist. Yes, the psalmist is for peace and apparently has made an effort to be conciliatory toward his neighbors. But he also seems to expect a certain degree of punishment for his neighbors when they return his efforts to promote peace with hostility. This psalm seems to underscore the hard reality that though we are nice to others, they may not be nice to us. When we promote peace in our lives and extend the olive branch to those with whom we have conflict, we are never assured that they will accept the offer of peace. This psalm underscores another hard reality: it is very difficult to respond to hate with peace. Both realities are present today, whether on an interpersonal or an international level. If someone blames us, we want to blame him or her. If someone calls us a name, we want to respond in kind. If someone cuts us off in traffic, we want to have something to say about it. Yet we have many resources that remind us how we simply add fuel to the fire when we respond to hurt with hurt and blame with blame. Such resources teach us how to resist these temptations and give us practical suggestions on how to move beyond this “tit for tat” and “eye for an eye” mentality into a situation where constructive and respectful dialogue can replace harmful exchanges.10 Examples of vengefulness and unforgivenness in which it is difficult to stand for peace are endless: attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001; genocidal violence in the Darfur region of Sudan; judgmental reactions when passionate clashes occur between persons of different faith traditions, and so on. Again questions raised by Psalm 120 are relevant. How can we be nice to those who are not nice to us? How do we respond to hate with peace? Perhaps the most important aspect of this psalm is that it ends without resolution.11 It exposes hard realities, but concludes without offering resolution for those who encounter hate in response to efforts to

142

Neglected Voices

promote or maintain peace. Peace is not always returned with peace and there are times when, despite our best efforts and God’s help, we must find ways to live with a tension that will not soon go away. So, it is with pain and anguish that Psalm 120 ends.

Prayers for Peace Psalm 122 1I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the LORD!” 2Our feet are standing within your gates, O Jerusalem. 3Jerusalem—built as a city that is bound firmly together. 4To

it the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord, as was decreed for Israel, to give thanks to the name of the LORD. 5For there the thrones for judgment were set up, the thrones of the house of David. 6Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: “May they prosper who love you. 7Peace be within your walls, and security within your towers.” 8For the sake of my relatives and friends I will say, “Peace be within you.” 9For the sake of the house of the LORD our God, I will seek your good.

Numerous psalms in the Bible contain prayers. We have already demonstrated that a prayer of petition is a significant element of a lament psalm. However, some psalms contain specific or specialized prayers for peace. These psalms are not normally classified as psalms for peace, but as another genre or type of psalm. For the sake of a conversation about piety and peace in the Old Testament, however, psalms that contain specific prayers for peace do deserve separate attention and consideration. For example, Psalm 122 is generally classified as a hymn of Zion because it focuses on the city of Jerusalem and offers praises on its behalf.12 It also contains a prayer for peace that is central to the psalm itself. The context of Psalm 122 suggests that the writer had undertaken a journey to Jerusalem. The psalm does not say where the journey originated, but in many cases the journey to Jerusalem was difficult.13 The first section of the psalm, verses 1-2, alludes to the invitation and the eventual arrival of the psalmist in the city. He welcomed the invitation and rejoiced when he reached the city’s gates. The next section, verses 35, offers praise to the city as the place where the tribes of Israel congregate and worship God. The last section, verses 6-9, is a prayer of peace for Jerusalem. Verse 6 begins with a call to prayer: “Pray for the peace

Piety and Peace

143

of Jerusalem.” The prayer itself concerns the security of the city and of the people who live within its walls. For the sake of these people, especially relatives and friends, the psalmist prays that peace be on the city. The prayer extends beyond the notion of peace for the city and the people within it, ending with the focus on which it began in verse 1: the house of the Lord. Because the temple is in the city, the psalmist will pray for and seek goodness and peace for Jerusalem. Although peace is inherent in the last half of the name Jerusalem, the city itself historically has struggled to maintain peace. Yet the psalmist looks to Jerusalem as a city of peace through his prayers to God. Perhaps such prayers are the psalmist’s acknowledgment of God’s power to bring about peace in a city that is central to the heritage of ancient Israel.14 Verse 5 discusses the judgment and justice present in the city under the Davidic throne. As the psalm makes the transition from justice and judgment in verse 5 to peace in verses 6-9, it becomes clear that peace and justice go hand in hand. Perhaps the notion of peace in Psalm 122 is reminiscent of the peace prevalent in the first part of Isaiah. Just as the psalmist journeys to Jerusalem, the nations in Isaiah 2 journey to Jerusalem for God to teach them peace and so that war will come to an end. And in Isaiah 11, we learn of a Davidic king who will bring peace and justice to the land.15 The psalmist praises Jerusalem for the judgment and justice that has existed there in the past and then offers a prayer of peace for the future of the city. Psalm 122 is indeed a hymn of Zion focused on the importance and the significance of Jerusalem. And within the hymn is a prayer for peace that calls on God to bring about security and wellbeing for this beautiful and exquisite city.

Psalm 72 1Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son. 2May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. 3May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. 4May he defend the

cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor. 5May he live while the sun endures, and as long as the moon, throughout all generations. 6May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth. 7In his days may

144

Neglected Voices righteousness flourish and peace abound, until the moon is no more. 8May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. 9May his foes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust. 10May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts. 11May all kings fall down before him, all nations give him service. 12For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. 13He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. 14From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight. 15Long may he live! May gold of Sheba be given to him. May prayer be made for him continually, and blessings invoked for him all day long. 16May there be abundance of grain in the land; may it wave on the tops of the mountains; may its fruit be like Lebanon; and may people blossom in the cities like the grass of the field. 17May his name endure forever, his fame continue as long as the sun. May all nations be blessed in him; may they pronounce him happy. 18Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, who alone does wondrous things. 19Blessed be his glorious name forever; may his glory fill the whole earth. Amen and Amen. 20The prayers of David son of Jesse are ended.

Psalm 72 is a royal psalm emphasizing the importance of the king of Israel. A royal psalm stands in contrast to an enthronement psalm, which upholds the importance of God as king16 Psalm 72 is a lengthy prayer for the king of Israel that centers around peace and justice. In verses 1-4, the psalmist asks God to extend to the king justice and righteousness so that he will rule with justice and righteousness, thus taking care of the poor and delivering the needy and the oppressed. These verses describe a virtuous ruler concerned for those on the margins of society. In fact the stress that these verses place on the justice for the poor indicates that it is an important element for the well-being of the community.17 The justice for the poor and the oppressed outlined in this portion goes beyond simple charity; it offers a standard for the well-being of the community: if one is in need or oppressed, the total peace of the society is at risk.18 The psalmist uses nature imagery in verses 5-7 to pray for the

Piety and Peace

145

longevity of the king’s reign, while in verses 8-11 he prays for the king’s dominion to reach far and wide. Verses 12-14 are actually words of praise, lauding the king for attending to the needs of the poor when they call out and have no one else to turn to. The psalmist praises the king for actually saving the lives of the powerless and oppressed and seeing their lives and blood as precious and worth the attention of a monarch. These words of praise offer a standard by which to measure the king’s performance: he is not to be praised for extensive building projects or military campaigns, but for his care of the poor and the needy.19 Psalm 72 concludes with specific prayers in verses 15-17. These call for a long reign, continual prayers and blessings, and that the king’s reign will bring prosperity for the land and blessings for surrounding nations. The final three verses are a doxology, probably not part of the original version of Psalm 72, which ends naturally with verse 17. Verses 18-20 serve as a fitting conclusion to book 2 of the Psalter (Psalms 42–72). Psalm 72 begins, “Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son.” The justice depicted in this psalm for the Israelite king depends on God’s justice. In the subsequent verses, it is justice that concerns all realms of society, but especially those persons who for one reason or another are at a disadvantage. Verse 4 clearly prays for the king to have the ability and the wisdom to defend the poor and deliver the needy. The prayer here is that the king be given God’s justice so he might bring about a just society in which the powerful do not exploit the powerless. Such justice paves the way for shalom.20 In many worship settings today, it is common to hear prayers for national and international leaders. Often the prayers are for wisdom and guidance. Here in Psalm 72, they are for the king to use the power he has to ensure equal treatment for all members of society, especially the powerless. Such prayers are prayers of justice, righteousness, and peace.

Blessings and Benedictions Psalm 128 1Happy is everyone who fears the LORD, who walks in his ways. 2You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be happy, and it shall go well with you. 3Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. 4Thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD.

146

Neglected Voices 5The LORD bless you from Zion. May you see the prosperity of Jerusalem all the days of your life. 6May you see your chil-

dren’s children. Peace be upon Israel!

Psalm 128 has the characteristics of a wisdom psalm since it contains the notions of blessedness, prosperity, and the fear of the Lord. Such notions also occur frequently in the poems and sayings of the book of Proverbs, for example. In this case, it is the wisdom notions of this psalm that lead to the blessing of peace in the last verse. The first section of the psalm, verses 1-4, begins with a beatitude stating that those who fear God and walk in his ways will be blessed. Verses 2-4 specify what such blessedness could entail: people will have food at their disposal because of the hard work they do. Overall, life will be prosperous and things will go well. The man’s spouse will bear many children. Verse 4 repeats and brackets the thought initiated in verse 1: those who fear God will indeed be blessed. Verses 5-6 consist of a blessing. Like verses 1-4, the blessing appears to be directed to people within ancient Israel. The blessing’s recipients would not exclude people who live in Jerusalem, but the blessing emanates from Zion to the rest of the nation. The hope is that those who receive the blessing will experience the same prosperity as those in Jerusalem. Also inherent in the blessing is longevity. Not only is there a desire for families to be blessed with children as outlined in verse 3, but the blessing in verses 5-6 includes grandchildren as well. The blessing calls for the people to live a prosperous and good life that is long enough for them to know those who will make up the next generation and carry on the life of the community. The blessing ends with a wish that peace be upon the nation of Israel. In this case, the elements of God’s blessing are connected with those of God’s peace. The prosperous life outlined in the earlier verses depends on God’s blessing, and the result of such blessing is God’s peace. If the people fear God and follow his ways, the prayer is that they will experience God’s blessing and live a life filled with peace. This all sounds nice and idyllic, but many people on this earth could argue that fearing God and following in God’s ways does not necessarily bring about a prosperous life full of children and abundant with peace. Ancient Israel was no exception to this. The Israelites experienced disease, war, famine, and untimely death like other nations. A full and prosperous life was not guaranteed; it was something to hope

Piety and Peace

147

for and certainly to pray for. Verses 5-6 take the reader in this direction. There have been and perhaps always will be God-fearing and obedient people who live tragic lives. According to Craig Broyles, in his commentary on the Psalms, Blessedness is not viewed as an automatic consequence of one’s actions—it is a divine gift. The realization of the blessing is conditional on one’s asking, on Yahweh’s free choice, and to some extent on the circumstances of time. For example, much depends on whether or not one happens to live while Jerusalem is enjoying prosperity. If Jerusalem is under Yahweh’s judgment, then one would not see its prosperity, no matter how much one feared Yahweh and walked in his ways.21

The suggestion of prayer and worship puts the blessedness and peace in Psalm 128 in proper context. According to the psalmist, fearing God and following God’s ways are important, but they provide no promises. This is where prayer, worship, and a relationship with God come into play. The skeptic will say that prayer will not necessarily bring such things about, and he or she would be right in making this claim. However, the main point in Psalm 128 is not that prosperity is our God-given right but that fearing God, obeying him, and engaging in prayer are what define a faithful believer. For those who are able to do such things in either prosperous or calamitous circumstances, may peace be upon them.

Numbers 6:22-26 22The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 23Speak to Aaron and his

sons, saying, Thus you shall bless the Israelites: You shall say to them, 24The LORD bless you and keep you; 25the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; 26the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

This passage from the book of Numbers, like those from the Psalms discussed elsewhere in this chapter, is a classic text that exhibits a definite worship flavor. It is often referred to as the Aaronic blessing or benediction and has been used at the end of worship services down through the centuries. It concludes two chapters of instructions that involve top-

148

Neglected Voices

ics such as the sanctity of the temple, adultery, and the Nazirite tradition. It also reveals that one of the priests’ duties was to bless the people in the name of the Lord.22 Evidence of the priestly blessing can be found in some of the psalms, including Psalms 129:8; 133:3, and 134:3.23 The passage begins with God telling Moses to tell Aaron and his sons to speak a blessing to the people. This blessing, consisting of three lines, or three specific aspects, is the core of the passage. The first line wishes a blessing and security upon the people; the specific prayer is that God will bless and keep them.24 The second line expresses hope that God will extend his presence and grace to the people. The third is a prayer for God to be attentive to the people by lifting up his face and countenance toward them and by giving them peace.25 In this three-line blessing, there appears to be a pattern regarding the verbs. The first verb of each line summarizes an activity God extends to the people and the second verb describes the results of this action.26 For example, in the first line, the action of the first verb is that God will bless the people. The result of that action portrayed by the second verb is that God will keep the people; they will experience security and protection. The first verb of the second line indicates that God will extend his blessing to the people, and the impending result of that action is that the people will receive God’s grace. The first verb of the third line suggests that God will be attentive to the people, and the result is that the people will live in peace. The security and grace in the first two aspects of the blessing point to the third aspect, peace. In a sense, the prayer is that the Lord may bless his people by giving them peace. This peace can be interpreted as being given by God for the individual and the community.27 In fact it is not that far removed from the description of peace in the prophetic visions discussed in chapter 4, such as Isaiah 2:1-4 and 65:17-25. The peace depicted by nations turning their destructive weapons into constructive farming implements and the peace depicted by the predator eating with its prey are the same peace that God extends in the blessing of Numbers 6.28 The peace connected to God’s blessing in this passage transcends boundaries and offers hope that God will continue to extend his enduring blessing and peace to the people. Couched in the language and context of worship, the Aaronic benediction attempts to connect worship with community life outside worship. It’s designed to bring a worship experience to a close but also to connect the worship experience to life beyond it.29 When a benediction

Piety and Peace

149

such as this ends with parting words of peace, the hope and the prayer is that such peace will extend beyond worship and into the everyday experiences of the people. The Aaronic benediction focuses on blessing and peace. God blesses the people so that they can experience his peace during the days to come.

Contemporary Implications This chapter is not a comprehensive study of peace in the psalms but rather a look at some of the psalms that lift up the notion of peace. The passages examined here explore the connection between God, worship, and peace, a connection relevant to worshippers of God down through the centuries into today. When we experience peace in our lives or in the world, we tend to offer praise to God for that peace. In like fashion, when we lack peace in our lives or in the world, we tend to express our laments to God for this lack of peace. Additionally, throughout our daily routine and regular worship experiences, we tend to pray to God for peace in an intercessory manner and ask God to bring about peace. And along with such prayers for peace, we often ask for God’s blessing of peace in our communities and throughout the world God created. In this sense the four categories of psalms of peace in this chapter relate well to living in today’s world since we tend to express our desire for peace in ways that are not far removed from the psalms of the Old Testament. The specific ways in which we connect peace and worship vary from individual to individual, from denomination to denomination, from one religious tradition to another. In recent history, it has been common to have special services to remember events that cry out for God’s peace in this world. Candlelight vigils are often held to remember the horror of the Holocaust. In early August, similar vigils occur to remember the destruction and devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most recently, vigils of peace take place on September 11. In many cases, such vigils are liturgical or worshipful to strengthen the connection between God and people with the hope and prayer that such violence does not occur in the future. Through such worship experiences, hope emerges that as God’s people we can find ways to create a long-lasting peace in our world. Of course, religious services are held on Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day in the United States to honor those who have given their lives in military service, but all too often such services blur the distinction between justifying the act of war and humbly calling for God’s peace.

150

Neglected Voices

Resources Numerous resources provide insight and practical suggestions on how to connect God, worship, and peace. Some books try to reach a wide audience. For example Jane Vennard’s Embracing the World: Praying for Justice and Peace focuses on how to deepen our spiritual connection with God and the world by centering prayer disciplines around peace and justice.30 The Scent of Jasmine: Reflections for Peace in Everyday Life by Patricia McCarthy encourages the reader to find ways to daily experience God and the gift of peace. This practical resource links faith and daily life in an effort to underscore the fact that God’s peace is a gift we need to claim and reclaim over and over again.31 In Searching for Shalom: Resources for Creative Worship, Ann Weems provides poems, skits, monologs, and liturgies that serve as peace resources for a worship setting.32 Many denominations have websites with worship resources for peace. • On Earth Peace, a Church of the Brethren agency, publishes Coming to Life: Worship Aids for the Living Peace Church quarterly. This publication is a collection of worship resources used in Church of the Brethren congregations in the United States that center around the topic of peace. Although it can be mailed directly to interested subscribers, it is also available on the On Earth Peace website.33 • The Way of Peace, a joint website of Brethren Press and On Earth Peace, provides worship resources that speak of peace in a time of war. Resources include prayers, litanies, hymns, and sermons.34 • The Peace and Justice Network of the Mennonite Church USA website contains resources for congregational worship including litanies, prayers, sermons, songs, and worship ideas.35 • The General Board of Discipleship of the United Methodist Church publishes worship resources for peace, including prayers, specific services, preaching, and music suggestions.36 • The Episcopal Peace Fellowship website includes liturgical resources and peace prayers for anyone desiring to plan a worship service along the lines of peace and peacemaking.37

The list of contemporary worship resources concerning peace could go on and on. The point is that just as the ancient psalms of the Old

Piety and Peace

151

Testament expressed a desire for peace in their world through hymns of praise, laments, prayers, and blessings and benedictions, so do we use those same liturgical expressions to convey our desire for peace in our world. On occasion, religious communities are criticized for not upholding the spiritual element in their call for peace around the world. The Old Testament psalms and many religious communities today understand that it is virtually impossible to issue a call for peace without incorporating that call in a worship context. The call for peace must involve worship of God to give its issuers a spiritual grounding, making that call effective and significant. In essence, the call for peace becomes a call to worship the Lord our God. Praise the Lord.

This page intentionally left blank

Conclusion The preceding pages have demonstrated that the concept of peace is indeed prevalent and significant throughout the Old Testament. As discussed at several points in this book, there are widespread perceptions in religious communities and churches that peace is either nowhere to be found in the Old Testament or a peripheral and passing concern. While working on this project, I’ve encountered blank stares when discussing my effort to explore the many peace passages in the Old Testament. It’s a surprise or even a shock to some that the concept exists among those pages. People have strongly hinted that I had my work cut out for me in tackling such a project or that I would really have to struggle to find something credible to say along this vein. For many, the descriptions of war and the presence of violent passages in the Old Testament seem to negate the possibility that peace could be a prevalent notion in the same testament. I hope I have made my case that the concept of peace is alive and well in the Old Testament and was indeed an important component of the religious thinking of various writers of it. The journey we have taken in this book has been to classify five primary ideologies, or typologies, of peace. These typologies demonstrate that peace in the Old Testament cuts across various genres, such as narratives, psalms, legal material, prophetic discourse, and wisdom sayings. Although there is no strong, common thread tying these ideologies together, they demonstrate that there were various ways in which the writers of the Old Testament viewed the notion of peace in their respective communities. The typology of nonviolence illustrates that the Old Testament includes examples of characters who chose to deal with tense situations nonviolently. These stories do not necessarily suggest that the writers were pacifists, but they do suggest that means other than violence were utilized in dealing with conflict. The typology of a post-violence peace underscores the reality that 153

154

Conclusion

a sense of peace existed after the Israelites encountered violence with other nations. In some cases, the peace they experienced came after an encounter in which they were victorious. In other cases, peace followed defeat, such as the war with the Babylonians. The ideology of peace that emerges in the prophetic visions of the Old Testament reflects an ideal for peace and tranquility in the near future. In the midst of the judgment speeches in Isaiah and other prophetic books are beautiful and elaborate visions that uplift the importance of looking forward to a time in which God’s peace will prevail over the land and within the communities of ancient Israel. The typology of mandates for peace demonstrates that peace is prescribed in the legal traditions, prophetic discourse, and proverbial wisdom sayings in the Old Testament. Such mandates strongly suggest that all members of society must adopt certain behavioral patterns that bring about peace in the community. Although many of the mandates were not written in a way that allows for strict enforcement, they certainly portray the message that responding to one another’s needs in appropriate ways is paramount to living with others in peace. The ideology of peace that emerges in the piety and peace typology underscores how important the concept of peace was to the worshipping community of ancient Israel. Through praise, laments, prayers, and blessing and benedictions, the composers of these liturgical materials found a way to express the need to bring their desire for God’s peace into the worship life of the community. This study of five typologies of peace in the Old Testament presents several implications for the church and the field of biblical studies. The primary implication is, of course, that peace is central to the Old Testament. That peace is significant and widespread throughout the Old Testament has not been given adequate press in Christian communities and religious traditions. Not only is this true in the Christian community at large, but also in the Anabaptist tradition, which by and large holds a Marcionite view that the Old Testament is simply relegated a secondary status to that of the New Testament or ignored altogether. This study attempts to overcome the tendency to deny the existence of peace in the Old Testament simply because we find the notions of violence and the wrath of God there as well. A second implication of this study is the hope that it may inspire others to explore peace passages in the Old Testament in addition to the ones examined here. The passages that exemplify the five typolo-

Conclusion 155

gies merely demonstrate the validity of each typology. Perhaps this study can encourage additional, more comprehensive studies. A third implication is the possibility of prompting further discussion on how the church may come to terms with the fact that the Old Testament contains passages of extreme violence and passages that are pro-peace. While many studies in recent years have explored the notion of war and violence in the Old Testament, this book has attempted to explore peace in the Old Testament. The question that remains for further study and examination is whether or not the two concepts can be reconciled and, if so, how that is to be worked out. To put it another way, what is one to do with the existence of both concepts in the Old Testament and how does their existence affect our faith and our understanding of God? A fourth implication of this study will be the potential for an examination of the texts in this book as well as any Old Testament peace texts to serve as a springboard in thinking about and creating peace in today’s world. The post-violence peace passages can help us as we anticipate a time of peace after war. The nonviolent passages can send the message that we too can resort to means of nonviolence when it is very tempting to fall back on violence to resolve conflict. The visionary passages of peace can stimulate creativity, helping us envision scenarios of peace when peace seems a remote possibility. Change for the better often begins with visionary aspirations that lead to practical realities. The mandates for peace in the Old Testament can remind us that we must develop and follow certain mandates and rules to generate a longlasting peace among the people with whom we live. And the piety and peace passages serve as a model for finding and developing liturgical materials of peace for our worship. They emphasize the fact that peace comes not just from what we do, but also out of our relationship with God. Out of our worship of God, peace and peacemaking can filter into our daily living. Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament attempts to shine light on the peace passages in the Old Testament. It strongly suggests that when addressing the concept of peace in the Old Testament, we need not begin by looking at the concept of war and violence. The conversation can start off with a discussion of peace. The hope is that when conversation emerges regarding the absence or presence of peace in the Old Testament, students and readers of the Bible will be able to identify various passages and address the blank stares and comments that suggest that peace is non-

156

Conclusion

existent or a sidebar in the Old Testament. On the contrary, peace is a central concept in the Old Testament that gave life to the people of ancient Israel and can give life to us today as we worship God and attempt to further God’s kingdom here on this earth.

Bibliographic Essay As I noted in the introduction, numerous books and essays on peace in Old Testament studies have been published. A primary premise of my book is that these works have failed to adequately address this topic in a systematic and analytical manner. That said, a brief discussion on various studies on peace in the Old Testament may help to prompt further study on this topic. It is possible to categorize works on Old Testament peace studies into three basic areas: attempts to address the issue in relation to war; works on how the issue of peace itself crops up in the Old Testament; and studies on how peace relates to a specialized area of the Old Testament.

War and Peace It is common to view war and peace as polar opposites, like good and evil or light and darkness. The logic of this viewpoint dictates that a discussion of one necessitates a discussion of the other. Many writers have deemed it important to come to some resolve regarding both war and peace in the Old Testament. How is it possible that war is so blatantly advocated in some parts of the Hebrew Scriptures while in other parts peace is advocated just as strongly? Waldemar Janzen states that the wars in the Old Testament have consistently posed a problem for many Christians. He concedes the existence of holy war, in which God is active in the warfare of ancient Israel and, in most cases, mandates and sanctions it.1 In his classic study, Gerhard von Rad outlined and defined the holy-war theme in ancient Israel and traced it through the writings of the Old Testament.2 In a more recent study, Susan Niditch took the discussion to a higher level by distinguishing between various degrees of holy-war theology in the Old Testament. This included a holy war in which defeated persons are devoted to God through destruction and a holy war in which God’s justice is realized through the destruction of the enemy.3 Janzen downplays the emphasis of this theme in the Old 157

158

Bibliographic Essay

Testament by identifying various peace emphases, including praises of peace, condemnations of war, renunciation of self-defense, and visions of God’s future reign being ushered in by peaceful means.4 Janzen goes on to say that the Old Testament as a whole views holy war as peripheral and does not make it a model for additional wars.5 Those prophets who do pick up on holy war emphasize Israel’s passivity rather than active participation, as evidenced in earlier texts. So not only does the holy-war notion in later texts become a vehicle to lift up God’s ultimate victory and God’s eventual peace, it also becomes a concession to humanity’s sinful condition.6 Janzen attempts to solve the problem of texts that lift up both war and peace in the Old Testament by viewing peace as God’s ultimate goal and warfare as an unfortunate consequence of humanity’s way of dealing with conflict. As Millard Lind addresses the problematic nature of the issues of war and peace in the Old Testament, he focuses on the notion of trust in God. He begins by examining the holy-war theme in Exodus and concludes that it involves trust in Yahweh that excludes human fighting.7 Lind interprets the Hebrew Bible literature about Israel’s holy wars as God’s miraculous intervention; he downplays or excludes altogether the military involvement of the ancient Israelites themselves. Lind then examines the prophetic works of Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. He agrees with Friedrick Huber and Walter Dietrich that Isaiah, as portrayed in Isaiah 1–39, was a pacifist. Isaiah’s call was to trust in God, not military armaments.8 This trust in God that Lind traces from Exodus through the prophetic literature focuses on obedience to God and provides the foundation for a system of justice. In essence, Lind attempts to reconcile the Old Testament tradition of warfare with the tradition of advocating for peace by demonstrating that trust in God brings the two together. Vernard Eller looks to the Zion tradition in the Old Testament as the theme that serves as the primary bridge between war and peace in the Bible. According to Eller, the Zion tradition underscores that Zion, the hill on which Jerusalem was built, is sacred and will be preserved by God because of its important place in God’s plan for the world.9 Although Eller sees this tradition in various portions of the Bible, such as the Psalms and certain Minor Prophets, he maintains that Isaiah 1–39 developed and expanded the tradition. Eller views this tradition as picking up on the holy-war theme from Exodus, Joshua, and Judges but pointing, in Isaiah 1–39, to the failures of human warfare. Ultimately, in Isaiah 40–55, Zion is the place where peace will reside.10

Bibliographic Essay

159

A crucial point in Eller’s argument is what he calls “reverse fighting.” He looks to the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 and suggests that God’s way to peace is not “fighting” as we normally see it but “reverse fighting,” in which weakness, humiliation, and social rejection lead to victory.11 Eller suggests that the holy-war and Zion traditions set the stage for the New Testament writers, who used variations of these traditions to uplift God’s notion of peace. Eller believes that, by unifying the holy-war and Zion traditions, the biblical writers were sending the message that the way to peace does not necessarily entail an end to fighting but rather a shift from fighting human wars to fighting God’s war. According to Eller, fighting God’s war in an effort to bring about peace occurs in the destructive fighting portrayed in Joshua and Judges, the reverse fighting portrayed in Isaiah 40–55, the life and teachings of Jesus, and the Lamb’s war in the book of Revelation. Dianne Bergant identifies the war and peace traditions as the Godis-warrior tradition and the harmony-in-nature tradition.12 Although the theme of trust is inherent in both traditions, she emphasizes the “splendor of God” in the warrior-God tradition, rather than the glorification of war. This tradition speaks of a “God of unprecedented majesty and unsurpassed solicitude. Here is a God that is not only with the people, but for the people as well.”13 The harmony-in-nature tradition focuses on the harmony and peace within which we all must live. Bergant brings the two traditions together to illustrate ancient Israel’s faith and trust in God and to point to the need and call to live in peace and harmony. By joining these two traditions in this way, Bergant concludes that the Old Testament does indeed foster a message of peace. More interested in how the war-and-peace issue plays out through the entire Bible, Albert Curry Winn applies a canonical approach to the discussion; he tries to examine as many Scriptures as he can find regarding war and peace in the Bible.14 He analyzes these passages in a descriptive manner and keeps exegetical comments to a minimum. As he embarks on his quest, he comes to the conclusion that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains a good deal of ambiguity regarding war and peace. Winn can find no vehicle, theology, or theme that unifies the concept of war and peace. Rather he believes the Bible expresses a variety of viewpoints regarding it. Simply stated, there are passages that support war and passages that promote peace. Winn refers to Paul Hanson’s study on the diversity and polarity of Scripture. He suggests that diversity in the Scriptures, such as that regard-

160

Bibliographic Essay

ing war and peace, actually helps us to make a decision and take a stand regarding the ambiguous issue in question.15 Winn’s hope is that the choices and decisions people make regarding the ambiguity of war and peace in the Bible will be in favor of peace. He uses the slavery issue as an analogy and argues that the Bible is just as ambiguous about slavery as it is about war and peace. Eventually and without rejecting Scripture, people for the most part made a choice in favor of abolishing slavery.16 In a similar vein, Winn hopes that such ambiguity will prompt people to choose peace over war without rejecting Scripture. Marvin Tate also resists the temptation to easily reconcile the war and peace traditions in the Old Testament. Instead he suggests that we should change our focus from Yahweh the divine warrior to Israel the people of Yahweh. While arguing that the people of Yahweh were not war makers per se, Tate does acknowledge the numerous violent episodes in the Old Testament involving Yahweh’s people. However, he believes the basic will of God for Israel is not that they be a violent people but that they be God’s worshippers and obedient servants. He looks to various psalms and aspects of wisdom literature to support this claim.17 Tate also concedes that ancient Israel had its military heroes, and from time to time they were given praise and adulation. But the ultimate fate of such warriors frequently ends on a tragic note. He cites, as examples, the suicide of Saul, the various misfortunes of David and his family, and the fact that Joshua had no successor.18 Tate concludes by identifying the beautiful visions in Isaiah and Micah, which are not visions of conquest but of peace. Such visions underscore the fact that the mission of Yahweh’s people involves peacemaking, not war.

The Broad Nature of Peace The above summary gives a sampling of how writers have attempted to address issues of peace and war in the Old Testament by viewing them as two sides of the same coin. Attempts have been made to reconcile traditions of war and peace through a unifying theme, such as trust in Yahweh, the Zion tradition, or simply as two themes standing alone and expressing an important message. In addition, there have been numerous attempts to address the issue of peace in the Old Testament without paying attention to the issue of war. These studies tend to focus on the Hebrew word and concept of shalom, and I’ll discuss some of these studies here because the concept of shalom is covered in more detail in chapter 1.

Bibliographic Essay

161

Kurt Henning develops eighteen theses that point to peace in the Bible. Five of them he finds in the Old Testament. They include the following: peace involves both the outer and inner well-being of the people of ancient Israel; the shalom of Israel is the shalom of God’s people; this peace is a gift from God and a concept of faith; God’s peace finds completion in the coming reign of the Messiah, the prince of peace; God’s peace is separate and distinct from the false prophecy of peace.19 Hennig supports each of his theses with various biblical examples, but his treatment is brief and he does not elaborate on the development of each thesis. Henk Kossen also addresses the sole issue of peace, but he provides a more detailed analysis as he sees variations of peace in the Old Testament. He traces the notion of shalom through various parts of Old Testament literature and identifies an ideological critique of some prophets who spoke against those advocating a false sense of peace.20 He also examines passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel in which God is seen as the giver of shalom.21 Kossen addresses the visions and scenarios that the latter portions of Isaiah say the people would have enjoyed had they obeyed God. This then allows him to focus on the eschatological visions, which look to a “final” state of peace. He concludes his study by identifying passages that speak of a certain egalitarianism among the people.22 Kossen concludes that shalom in the Old Testament has an eschatological emphasis that speaks of peace in the final days. Walter Brueggemann presents a study that develops a theology of peace in the Old Testament. This volume is a reprint of a collection of essays presented as oral addresses in various church settings and provides a fruitful discussion of biblical reflections on peace.23 Brueggemann identifies three dimensions of shalom in the Old Testament. The first dimension is cosmic in nature, involving a vision that encompasses all reality. This dimension concerns the mystery and majesty of God’s creation. The second dimension of shalom relates to the historic political community. When this community is in harmony and exhibits a healthy sense of order, then shalom is likely to exist. On the other hand, if the political community is in disarray and lacks order, shalom is likely to be absent. The last dimension is personal in nature as the individual contributes to the community by engaging in caring and sharing behavior.24 The remaining discussion of shalom sets the stage for the rest of Brueggemann’s book. He suggests that there are two sociological contexts in which shalom operates. The first context pertains to the “havenots.” This is a sociological situation in which the primary people are

162

Bibliographic Essay

concerned primarily with survival issues. It is the precariousness of their situation that shapes their faith, their vocabulary, and the way they worship. Because of their needs and their distresses, they look to God for deliverance, and this is where they see salvation.25 The “haves,” on the other hand, are not concerned so much with survival but rather with how to manage and maintain their life situation. The haves acknowledge the many blessings that have come their way, and they look to God for guidance in caring properly for these blessings.26 As Brueggemann examines shalom in the context of the have-nots, he develops a theology of salvation, and as he relates shalom to the haves, he develops a theology of blessing. The theology of salvation is concerned with freedom and deliverance, while the theology of blessing is primarily concerned with order. This work is helpful in developing two models of peace and shalom in the Old Testament. It gives the Bible student who has an interest in peace in the biblical context a place to begin to search and study. One must question, however, whether the broad nature of shalom and peace in the Old Testament can be limited to these two theologies. The primary chapters of this book have demonstrated the existence of various models, ideologies, or typologies of peace within the Hebrew Scriptures. An often-overlooked study is a little volume prepared by the Historic Peace Churches and the Fellowship of Reconciliation Consultative Committee, which strives to articulate a biblical vision of peace.27 This study rests on the premise that the peaceable creation as envisioned in the Bible is “praised by psalmists, repaired by lawgivers, discerned by sages, and envisioned anew by prophets and apocalyptists.”28 The approach employed by the writers is primarily paradigmatic as they focus on the basic paradigms of God’s people, namely the priest, prophet, sage, and monarch. A chapter is devoted to each of the four paradigms, and material for the development of each paradigm is gleaned from the life of ancient Israel and of Jesus. The study concludes by demonstrating how these paradigms can work in the life of God’s people today. One can certainly argue that priests, prophets, sages, and kings in the Bible have advocated violence, but this study focuses on the characteristics of these four roles that foster peace. This observation leads to an important feature of the study: instead of using a discussion of war and violence in the Bible to lead into a discussion of peace, it focuses primarily and initially on the peaceful nature of God’s people that is found throughout the Bible. Perry Yoder and Willard Swartley’s The Meaning of Peace: Biblical

Bibliographic Essay

163

Studies29 has made a substantial contribution to the study of peace and the Bible in English speaking communities. The authors observe that a significant number of works regarding peace and the Bible have been published, but they see much more German scholarship than North American. In an effort to correct this imbalance, they translated into English select essays originally published in German. Their goal was to stimulate further discussion in North American communities, with the hope of encouraging more work in this area. Most of the essays are exegetical and are studies on the biblical Hebrew word shalom and the New Testament Greek word eirene. Although this volume is not in and of itself a new work that advances the study of peace and biblical studies, it does make available important works on biblical studies and peace to the non-German reader. This brief discussion on select studies that look at peace and shalom in the Old Testament underscores the fact that peace stands on its own in biblical literature. One need not refer to topics such as war and violence to begin a discussion on peace. These studies open the door for discussions on the broad nature and scope of peace in the Old Testament. Such discussions focus on variations, theologies, and paradigms of peace. Unfortunately, these studies and others have only scratched the surface in examining peace in this manner. For example, when discussing variations and theologies of peace in the Old Testament, much more can be said about the various texts that make them up. In addition, more can be done in the actual development of such variations and theologies in an effort to provide more substantial and consequential studies.

Peace and the Particular Numerous studies have attempted to isolate the discussion of peace in the Old Testament to a particular area of literature, a specific biblical passage, or a particular theological topic. In an effort to demonstrate that there are examples in the Old Testament in which the ancient Israelites looked to peaceful means to resolve potentially volatile situations, Robert W. Neff examines the ancestral narratives in Genesis. He believes that ancestral figures such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph modeled instances of peace in a disruptive and disorganized world.30 He points to the example of Abram and Lot. Genesis 13 reports that the immediate land could not support both families. Abram is portrayed as the peacemaker when he invites Lot to choose the best part of the surrounding land. Later in Genesis, Isaac promotes peaceful rela-

164

Bibliographic Essay

tions among his neighbors as he and the Philistines enter into disputes over water rights. Isaac allows the Philistines to retain the wells under dispute and then digs another for himself. Neff also discusses the eventual reconciliation between Jacob and Esau despite earlier acts of animosity between the brothers. He sees Joseph as a peacemaker due to his able administrative skills in Egypt.31 Neff believes that these stories in Genesis pave the way to peace as a way of life for other contexts in the Old Testament. His study is helpful in revealing instances in which at least some of the parties choose to resolve conflict in a peaceful and gracious manner. Carroll Stuhlmueller presents two studies concerned with prophecy and peace. In one essay he looks at various passages in the prophets and concludes that prophets sometimes advocated peace and at other times war and military alliances.32 In a second essay he explores peace in specific portions of prophetic literature, including early prophecy, the book of Amos, Isaiah 1–39, and Isaiah 40–55.33 In this examination, he views the prophetic quest for peace through different stages. These include the challenge of royalty in the book of Amos and the peace that results from disciplinary suffering in 40–55. In both studies, Stuhlmueller isolates specific Scriptures that display visions and pragmatic strategies that speak to the importance of peace among the prophets. According to Dermot Cox, peace in the Old Testament is not restricted to the Torah or the prophets but can be found in the “writings” of the Old Testament. Cox turns to various psalms and wisdom writings in an effort to locate the idea of a peacemaker who brings about peace in the community.34 He selects Psalms 15 and 24, noting that both speak of the individual who is righteous and cultivates shalom. This cultivation creates an atmosphere in the community where shalom can exist and prosper. He identifies various peacemaking virtues in additional psalms and proverbs and concludes with a presentation of Job as a model peacemaker. In the final analysis, Cox connects the attributes of the righteous person (tsaddîq) with the unfolding of shalom in the community. Such a peacemaker “creates and maintains peace by acting towards others according to the innate dignity and value of the human person—by inculcating respect for neighbour and enemy, for human life and the dignity that human life endows.”35 Although one might be skeptical about finding a strong message of peace in the ancient Israelite and Jewish apocalyptic texts, this is precisely where W. Sibley Towner centers his examination.36 This examina-

Bibliographic Essay

165

tion includes the early proto-apocalyptic texts of Isaiah 24–27 and Joel 2:28–3:31, the apocalyptic texts in Daniel 7–12, and the more fully developed apocalyptic texts found in the deutero-cannonical literature such as 2 Esdras 3–14.37 Despite various differences among these three stages of apocalyptic texts, Towner sees a consistent three-part theme running through them: “an onset is followed by a cataclysm, beyond which lies the new age of shalom.”38 These texts also contain fundamental theological premises, such as (1) the triumph of evil, death, corruption, injustice, and hatred in the coming age; (2) this triumph will be accomplished by God alone, and (3) good wins over evil in the end because God is the victor.39 Towner’s understanding of the Old Testament apocalyptic message involves God entering into conflict with the evil forces of the world. God emerges as the victor and overcomes evil with good. This accomplishment of peace and justice through judgment against evil is “the truest twentieth-century representation of the kerygma of Old Testament apocalyptic literature.”40 In essence Towner believes that we do not need to wait for the coming age in the apocalyptic sense for shalom to emerge. He suggests that the struggle against evil portrayed in the apocalyptic texts prompts us to work for justice and peace in the present age. He writes, The biblical vision of God’s victory over the forces of evil has something in it for every person and every creature. That is why sea monster and deeps, mountains and trees, young men and maidens, kings and princes all celebrate God’s power (Psalm 148:7-14). That is why the wolf can dwell with the lamb, and a little child can play on the hole of the viper—because there is something in the divine victory for every creature (Isaiah 11:6-9).41

Two specialized studies resulted from Hans Walter Wolff’s lecture as a guest at the University of Munich followed by Wolfhart Pannenberg’s response. They appear as separate chapters in The Meaning of Peace.42 Wolff deals with the dilemma of Isaiah 2:4 (repeated in Micah 4:3) and Joel 3:10, in which the Isaiah passage calls for swords to be turned into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, but the Joel passage calls for the reverse. Instead of viewing these two distinct passages as contradictory, he argues that Joel 3 is proclaiming in a sarcastic manner “that all military preparation must come before the judgment seat of God and be

166

Bibliographic Essay

annihilated. The phrase ‘plowshares into swords’ makes a blunt mockery of the world powers, who think that by completely arming themselves with much effort they will have power and superiority over the people of God.”43 Placed in this context, the Isaiah 2 and Joel 3 passages declare an end to all wars. In a different vein, Pannenberg argues that the two passages offer a prophetic critique of trust in military strength and armaments, but he does not go as far as Wolff in saying that they call for an end to all wars. He suggests that the Isaiah 2 passage was an “expression of the condition of peace made possible by justice.”44 The passage in Joel, which speaks of a reversal of the instruments of peace into instruments of war, portrays a destruction of the condition of peace spelled out in Isaiah. Pannenberg supports the notion that the two passages do not call for unilateral disarmament but rather imply the right to self-defense by pointing out that the same Isaiah who calls for “swords into plowshares” encouraged King Hezekiah to hold off the Assyrians in 701 BC.45 Pannenberg does not see these Scriptures as contradictory, but rather as speaking to two options: one that places trust in God and the other that trusts in human powers. The above discussion illustrates that many passages in the Old Testament uphold the theme of peace. This theme must not be downplayed or upstaged by other texts that speak of war and violence, but it stands on its own as it emerges in various Old Testament texts. Peace should continue to be discussed and examined as a major theme in the Old Testament.

Select Bibliography Bergant, Dianne. “Peace in a Universal Order.” In Biblical and Theological Reflections on the Challenge of Peace. Edited by John T. Pawlikawski and Donald Senior. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984: 17-29. Brueggemann, Walter. Peace. Understanding Biblical Themes. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2001. This reprint was originally published as Living Toward a Vision: Biblical Reflection on Shalom. Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1976. Cox, Dermot. “Peace and Peacemakers in the ‘Writings’ of the Old Testament.” Studia Missionalia 38, 1989: 1-20. Eller, Vernard. War and Peace from Genesis to Revelation: King Jesus’ Manual of Arms for the ‘Armless.’ Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1981. Gwyn, Douglas, et al. A Declaration on Peace: In God’s People the World’s Renewal Has Begun. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1991. Henning, Kurt. “Der Friede Gottes und der Friede der Welt - 18 biblische Thesen zum Frieden.” In Christen im Streit um den Frieden. Edited by Wolfgang Brinkel, B. Scheffler, and M. Wächter. Freiburg: Dreisam-Verlag, 1982: 48-51. Janzen, Waldemar. Still in the Image: Essays in Biblical Theology and Anthropology. Institute of Mennonite Studies Series 6. Newton: Faith & Life Press, 1982. Kossen, Henk B. “Der Friedensbegriff in der Bibel.” In Christen im Streit um den Frieden. Edited by Wolfgang Brinkel, B. Scheffler, and M. Wächter. Freiburg: Dreisam-Verlag, 1982: 36-47. Lind, Millard C. “Perspectives on War and Peace in the Hebrew Bible.” In Monotheism, Power, Justice: Collected Old Testament Essays. Elkhart: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1990: 171-81. ———. Yahweh Is a Warrior. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1980.

167

168

Select Bibliography

Neff, Robert W. “Paradigms of Peace in the Book of Genesis.” Brethren Life and Thought 23, 1978: 41-44. Niditch, Susan. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Stuhlmueller, Carroll. “The Prophetic Combat for Peace: Struggling in the Name of a Compassionate God.” The Way 22, 1982: 79-87. ———. “The Prophetic Price for Peace.” In Biblical and Theological Reflections on the Challenge of Peace. Edited by John T. Pawlikawski and Donald Senior. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984: 31-44. Tate, Marvin E. “War and Peacemaking in the Old Testament.” Review and Expositor 79, 1982: 587-96. Towner, W. Sibley. “Tribulation and Peace: The Fate of Shalom in Jewish Apocalyptic.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 6, 1984: 1-26. Von Rad, Gerhard. Holy War in Ancient Israel. Translated by Marva J. Dawn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Winn, Albert Curry. Ain’t Gonna Study War No More: Biblical Ambiguity and the Abolition of War. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. Yoder, Perry B., and Willard M. Swartley, eds. The Meaning of Peace: Biblical Studies. 2nd edition. Expanded bibliography. Elkhart, Ind.: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 2001.

Notes Introduction 1. William Klassen, Love of Enemies: The Way to Peace, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 27. 2. Willard M. Swartley, “Preface,” in The Meaning of Peace: Biblical Studies, Studies in Peace and Scripture, 2nd ed. (Elkhart, Ind.: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 2001), xi. 3. Ben C. Ollenburger, “Peace and God’s Action against Chaos in the Old Testament,” in Church’s Peace Witness, eds. Marlin E. Miller and Barbara Nelson Gingerich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 71. 4. For example, Gerhard von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel, trans. Marva J. Dawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); Peter C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978); T. R. Hobbs, A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament, Old Testament Studies, Vol. 3 (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989); Sa-Moon Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1989); Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); and John A. Wood, Perspectives on War in the Bible (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998). 5. Perry B. Yoder, “Toward a Shalom Biblical Theology,” The Conrad Grebel Review 1 (1983): 42. 6. See the extensive bibliography in The Meaning of Peace, Studies in Peace and Scripture, 2nd ed. (Elkhart, Ind.: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 2001), 261-300. 7. Swartley, “Preface,” xi, fn. 3. 8. Ben C. Ollenburger and Willard M. Swartley, “Series Preface,” in The Meaning of Peace, ix. 9. H‰rem is the Hebrew word dominant in many Old Testament passages in which the warfare is classified as “holy war.” The term primarily refers to the destruction of the enemy during times of war. Niditch translates the word as “ban,” while some Scripture translations designate it as “devoted thing” or “accursed thing.” In any case, it refers to things or persons devoted to God through sacrifice or destruction. 169

170

Notes: Introduction—Chapter 1

10. Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible. 11. Wood, Perspectives on War. Although in some instances in the Old Testament, nonviolent means are used to resolve certain violent situations, Wood stretches it when he calls the players of such peaceful means pacifists. Choosing not to use violence in a particular situation does not immediately classify persons as pacifists. See Wood, 104-20.

Chapter 1 Peace and Shalom 1. Perry B. Yoder, Shalom: The Bible’s Word for Salvation, Justice and Peace (Newton, Kan.: Faith & Life Press, 1987), 13. 2. The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985), s.v. “peace.” 3. Gerhard von Rad, “Shalom in the Old Testament,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 402-6. Although numerous authors have discussed the substantial breadth and depth of shalom, von Rad’s essay is most commonly cited in this matter. 4. This term is common in analyses of theories involving interactive systems. See Edwin H. Friedman, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue (New York: Guilford Press, 1985), 27, 208-10. 5. Lloyd R. Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). 6. Perry B. Yoder, Shalom: The Bible’s Word for Salvation, Justice and Peace (Newton, Kan.: Faith & Life Press, 1987), 10-23. Yoder classifies the various meanings of shalom under three headings: material well-being and prosperity; justice; and straightforwardness. Albert Curry Winn, Ain’t Gonna Study War No More: Biblical Ambiguity and the Abolition of War (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 66-75. Winn separates the aspect of shalom that refers to the absence of war off to one side and suggests that this aspect is closest to the meaning of peace. He then puts all the other aspects of shalom under the rubric of the “Fullness of Well-being” and believes that these aspects express a richness and fullness that surpasses the English word peace. 7. Von Rad, “Shalom in the Old Testament,” 402. 8. Claus Westermann, “Peace (Shalom) in the Old Testament,” in The Meaning of Peace: Biblical Studies, eds. Perry B. Yoder and Willard M. Swartley (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 21. 9. Perry B. Yoder, “Shalom Revisited,” in The Meaning of Peace, 12; and Ulrich Mauser, The Gospel of Peace: A Scriptural Message for Today’s World (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 13-14. 10. Perry B. Yoder, Shalom, 22. 11. J. T. E. Renner, “Thoughts of Peace and Not of War,” Lutheran Theological Journal 19 (1985): 69.

Notes: Chapters 1—2

171

12. Westermann, “Peace (Shalom) in the Old Testament,” 16-18; Renner, “Thoughts of Peace and Not of War,” 65ff; and Dermot Cox, “Peace and Peacemakers in the ‘Writings’ of the Old Testament,” Studia Missionalia 38 (1989): 1ff. 13. Andrew Chester, “The Concept of Peace in the Old Testament,” Theology 92 (1989): 470.

Chapter 2 Nonviolence 1. Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Part One, Power and Struggle (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1973), 64. 2. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 196. 3. George W. Coats, Genesis: Forms of Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 194. 4. Robert W. Neff, “Paradigms of Peace in the Book of Genesis,” Brethren Life and Thought 23 (1978): 44. 5. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word Books, 1985), 78. 6. Richard Nelson, First and Second Kings, Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1987), 187. 7. Walter Brueggemann, “The Embarrassing Footnote,” Theology Today 44 (1987): 13. 8. Syngman Rhee, “2 Kings 6:8-23,” Interpretation 54 (2000): 184. 9. Paul D. Hanson, The People Called: The Growth of Community in the Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 241. 10. Millard C. Lind, “Is There a Biblical Case for Civil Disobedience?” in Monotheism, Power, Justice: Collected Old Testament Essays (Elkhart, Ind.: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1990), 128-29. 11. Examples include Joshua 6; once the city was delivered into the hands of the Israelites, they destroyed it, killing men, women, and animals. In Joshua 8, Joshua and his followers killed all the inhabitants of Ai. 12. Paul D. Hanson, Isaiah 40-66, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1995), 169. 13. Ibid., 45-46. 14. Carol J. Dempsey, The Prophets: A Liberation-Critical Reading (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 175. 15. Terrence E. Fretheim, Exodus, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991), 31. 16. J. William Whedbee, The Bible and the Comic Vision (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 137.

172

Notes: Chapters 2—3

17. Renita J. Weems, “The Hebrew Women Are Not Like the Egyptian Women: The Ideology of Race, Gender and Sexual Reproduction in Exodus 1,” Semeia 59 (1992): 29. 18. D. S. Russell, Daniel: An Active Volcano: Reflections on the Book of Daniel (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989), 49. 19. Glen H. Stassen, Just Peacemaking: Transforming Initiatives for Justice and Peace (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992). See especially chapters 2 and 3 (33-88). 20. Glen Stassen, ed., Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 1998). 21. Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Part One, Power and Struggle; Part Two, The Methods of Nonviolent Action; and Part Three, The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973). 22. Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). 23. Wink, Engaging the Powers, 243-57; Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, 183-435. 24. Thieleman J. van Braght, Martyrs Mirror, trans. J. F. Sohm (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1938), 918. 25. Alexander A. DiLella, Daniel: A Book for Troubling Times, Spiritual Commentaries (New York: New City Press, 1997), 54. 26. “Edgar Arrested,” The Christian Century 121, no. 16 (August 10, 2004): 16.

Chapter 3 A Post-Violence Peace 1. Studies that offer a systematic presentation of violence in the Old Testament by developing various typologies of war include Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); and John A. Wood, Perspectives on War in the Bible (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998). 2. Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 44. 3. Ibid., 16. 4. Ibid., 28. 5. Eugene F. Roop, Genesis, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1987), 107; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed., The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973), 175. 6. The actual grammatical form used here is the infinitive construct of the Hebrew verb nakah. 7. In verses 18, 19, and 20, the “God Most High” (‘el ‘elyon) refers to the

Notes: Chapters 3—4

173

supreme god of the Canaanite pantheon. In verse 22, ‘el ‘elyon is prefaced by the word Lord (Yahweh) to designate the God of Israel. See Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1985), 204-5; and Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 180. 8. Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 205. 9. Richard D. Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997), 3. 10. H. D. Preuss, “nuach,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 280. 11. A further examination of the Hebrew reveals that when nuach is used to signify rest in Joshua, the Hiphal form of the verb is used to indicate that God caused the rest. When shaqat is used in both Joshua and Judges, the simple Qal form is used to indicate that the land rested. In this case, God is not the subject and does not explicitly cause the rest. 12. Paul D. Hanson, “War, Peace, and Justice in Early Israel,” Bible Review, Fall 1987, 45. 13. R. E. Clements, Jeremiah, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary of Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), 171. 14. Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 562. 15. Georg Strecker, “Die biblische Friedensbotschaft,” Kerygam und Dogma 30 (1984): 134. 16. Ibid., 556. 17. David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 69-70. 18. “Afghan Portraits of Grief: The Civilian/Innocent Victims of U.S. Bombing in Afghanistan,” prepared by Global Exchange and Peaceful Tomorrows, September 2002, 15. 19. Wink, Engaging the Powers, 44.

Chapter 4 Visions of Peace 1. David A. Leiter, “Visions of Peace in Isaiah,” in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 378, eds. John Kaltner and Louis Stuhlman (New York: T & T Clark, 2004), 246-7. 2. Ibid., 248. 3. Ibid., 250. 4. Although many English translations render the first Hebrew words of verse 2 as “in the last days,” the phrase more accurately expresses a time in

174

Notes: Chapter 4

the unspecified future. Otto Kaiser maintains that a literal translation of these words indicates “the backward side of days.” Thus translations such as “in the future days” or “in the days to come” (NRSV) are more appropriate. See Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary, Old Testament Library, 2nd ed., trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), 49, 52. 5. Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press), 28. 6. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, 51. 7. Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Response to Hans Walter Wolff,” in The Meaning of Peace, 229. 8. Hans Walter Wolff, “Swords into Plowshares,” in The Meaning of Peace, 219. 9. Millard C. Lind, “Perspectives on War and Peace in the Hebrew Scriptures,” in Monotheism, Power, Justice: Collected Old Testament Essays (Text Reader Series, 3 [Elkhart: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1990], 17576); Dempsey, The Prophets, 163; Marvin Tate, “War and Peacemaking in the Old Testament,” Review and Expositor 79 (1982): 594-5; Andrew Chester, “The Concept of Peace in the Old Testament,” Theology 92 (1989): 471. 10. Wolff, “Swords into Plowshares,” 222. 11. Lind, “Perspectives on War and Peace in the Hebrew Scriptures,” 176. 12. Carol J. Dempsey, The Prophets: A Liberation-Critical Reading (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 163. 13. “Study War No More,” Rise Up Singing: The Group Singing Songbook, ed. Peter Blood and Annie Patterson (Bethlehem, Pa.: Sing Out, 1992), 163-64. 14. Leiter, “Visions of Peace in Isaiah,” 245. 15. Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993), 86. 16. Donald E. Gowan, Theology of the Prophetic Books: The Death and Resurrection of Israel (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), 73. 17. Kaiser issues caution in bringing this text into the Christmas message. He writes, “If the Christian church once again finds the birth of Jesus prophesied in this text, though in a different way from Matthew 4.21ff., it must be clear about the presuppositions on which it can do this, so as to meet the demands of intellectual honesty and of the purity of the gospel with which it has been entrusted. There is obviously a difference between the king of the time of salvation depicted here and the Christ whose kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). If that is overlooked, it can happen that the expectation expressed here overlays Christian hope and thus falsifies it by turning it, among other things, into a political programme.” Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, 217-18. 18. Isaiah 9:2-7 is the Old Testament reading for Christmas Eve/Day for

Notes: Chapters 4—5

175

the Revised Common Lectionary—Cycle B and is read every third year at this time. 19. A similar description of this vision can be found in my earlier work, “Visions of Peace in Isaiah,” in Inspired Speech, 244-52. 20. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary, 435. 21. Bruce C. Birch, Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics, and Christian Life (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 302. 22. John J. Collins, “Isaiah,” in Collegeville Bible Commentary (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 449. 23. Paul D. Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1995), 246. 24. Leiter, “Visions of Peace in Isaiah,” 250. 25. Allen R. Guenther, Hosea, Amos, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1998), 68-69. 26. Dempsey, The Prophets, 155-56. 27. R. E. Clements, Jeremiah, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), 190. 28. Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 611-12. 29. David Adams, The American Peace Movements (Middletown, Conn.: David Adams, 2002), 15. 30. J. Milburn Thompson, Justice and Peace: A Christian Primer (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1997), 146-47. 31. Business Session, 218th Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren (audio tape), July 6, 2004, Charleston, W.Va. 32. David Portorti with Peaceful Tomorrows, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows: Turning Our Grief into Action for Peace (RDV Books, 2003), 24. 33. Ibid., 24-25. 34. For more information about Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), visit www.cpt.org. Two recent books chronicling the work of CPT in Hebron and Iraq are Art Gish, Hebron Journal: Stories of Nonviolent Peacemaking (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2001), and Peggy Gish and Kathy Kelly, Iraq: A Journal of Hope and Peace (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2004). 35. Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, A Human Being Died That Night: A South African Woman Confronts the Legacy of Apartheid (New York: Mariner Books, 2003), 14-15. 36. Ibid., 94-95.

Chapter 5 Mandates for Peace 1. Exodus 21:1-6 is an example of case law.

176

Notes: Chapter 5

2. Micah 6:9-16 is an example of a prophetic judgment speech. Verses 9-12 designate the signs of the wicked and the wealthy while verses 13-16 announce the coming judgment. 3. Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1995), 89-90. 4. J. J. Finkelstein, “Some New Misharum Material and its Implications,” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-fifth Birthday, eds. Hans G. Güterbork and Thorkild Jacobsen (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1965), 243-45. 5. David A. Leiter, “The Year of Jubilee and the 21st Century,” Brethren Life and Thought 47 (2002): 169-70. 6. Christopher J. H. Wright, “What Happened Every Seven Years in Israel? Old Testament Sabbatical Institutions for Land, Debts and Slaves,” The Evangelical Quarterly 56 (1984): 130-31. 7. Jim Wallis, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005), 48. 8. Christopher J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 148. See also D. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, n.d.), 369-70; August Dillmann, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1886), 307; and Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, 1976), 236. 9. S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909), 106. See also Anthony Phillips, Deuteronomy, Cambridge Bible Commentary (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 77-78. 10. Shebi'ith X. 11. Rifat Sonsino, Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law: Biblical Forms and Near Eastern Parallels, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 45 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 110-15. 12. Wallis, God’s Politics, 272-78. 13. The following summary and discussion of Leviticus 25:8-55 is adapted from an earlier work: David A. Leiter, “The Year of Jubilee and the 21st Century,” Brethren Life and Thought 47 (2002): 165-86. 14. The topic of food provisions and land cultivation appears in verses 18-22, but these verses refer to the sabbatical year as outlined in Leviticus 25:2-7, not to the Jubilee year. 15. E. Neufeld, “Socio-Economic Background of Y¥b‰l and Shemitta-h,” Revista degli studi orientali 33 (1958): 67. 16. Jacob Rosenberg, “The Jubilee as Antitrust Legislation,” Debt and the

Notes: Chapter 5

177

Jubilee: Pacing the Economy, ed. Jean-Michael Bonivin (Geneva: Observatoire de la Finance, 1998), 38. 17. Raymond Westbrook, “Jubilee Laws,” Israel Law Review 6 (1971): 223. 18. Rifat Sonsino, Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law, 110. 19. Ibid., 112. 20. The power and scope of this symbol was limited because the distinction between hired servants and slaves applied only to Israelites. NonIsraelites could be treated as slaves (see Leviticus 25:44-46). 21. Susan Briehl, “Proclaim Jubilee,” sermon at the Festival of Homiletics 2004, First Baptist Church, Washington, D.C., May 20, 2004. 22. Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary (New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 137-38. 23. Susan Niditch, “The Wronged Woman Righted: An Analysis of Genesis 38,” Harvard Theological Review 72 (1979): 149. 24. For more information on levirate marriage, see Deuteronomy 25:510. Genesis 38 is an excellent story about levirate marriage, especially the great pains that one family takes to avoid it. 25. Terrence E. Fretheim, Exodus, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991), 247. 26. Sarna, Exodus, 138. 27. Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), 29. 28. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, 31. 29. Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, The Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), 20. 30. Gene M. Tucker, “The Book of Isaiah 1-39: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. 6 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 56. 31. Ibid., 58. 32. Dale W. Brown, Another Way of Believing: A Brethren Theology (Elgin: Brethren Press, 2005), 19. 33. Carl F. Bowman, Brethren Society: The Cultural Transformation of a “Peculiar People” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), 46-50. 34. Hans Walter Wolff, Micah: A Commentary, Continental Commentaries (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 176. 35. Ibid., 180. 36. Daniel J. Simundson, “The Book of Micah: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. 7 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 580. 37. H. J. Zobel, “Chesed,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, eds. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 64-65.

178

Notes: Chapters 5—6

38. Wolff, Micah, 181. 39. Simundson, “The Book of Micah,” 580. 40. Wolff, Micah, 182. 41. “Goals for the 1980s, Church of the Brethren,” Minutes of the 193rd Recorded Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren, Seattle, July 3-8, 1979, 584. 42. Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 3. 43. Leo G. Perdue, Proverbs, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2000), 12. 44. Ibid., 203. 45. Ibid., 180. 46. Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity, 20th anniv. rev. (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 1997), 2-3, 10. Consult Sider’s book for more documentation of poverty statistics and additional figures. 47. For more information, see Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000). The same idea was set forth in Ken Keyes Jr., The Hundredth Monkey (St. Mary, Ky.: Vision Books, 1982), but in this case the “hundredth monkey” was the “tipping point.” 48. Wallis, God’s Politics, 270. 49. Ibid. 50. Jeffrey D. Sachs, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time (New York: Penguin Press, 2005), 24. 51. Ibid., 25. 52. Ibid., 211-12. 53. Ibid., 25. 54. Ibid., 290. 55. Ibid., 288. 56. JoAnna Daemmrich, “This Dentist is Pulling for the Poor, Uninsured,” The Baltimore Sun, 12 December 2005, 1A.

Chapter 6 Piety and Peace 1. Bernard Anderson with Steven Bishop, Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2000), 10. 2. Hermann Gunkel, The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction, trans. T. M. Horner (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 25. 3. Erhard Gerstenberger, Psalms: Part I, with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry, The Forms of Old Testament Literature 14 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).

Notes: Chapter 6

179

4. Patrick D. Miller Jr., Interpreting the Psalms (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 38. 5. Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 265. 6. Craig C. Broyles, Psalms, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), 344. 7. Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 172. 8. Ibid., 173. 9. Notice how many times the words I and my occur in Psalm 120 compared to us and our in Psalm 85. 10. Two such resources are Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Shelia Heen, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most (New York, Penguin Books, 1999); and Kerry Patterson, et. al, Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002). 11. Broyles, Psalms, 446. 12. Anderson, Out of the Depths, 223; Broyles, Psalms, 450. 13. Anderson, Out of the Depths, 154. 14. J. Clinton McCann Jr., “The Book of Psalms: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. 4 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 1184. 15. Broyles, Psalms, 451. 16. Psalms 95–99 are classic examples of enthronement psalms. 17. Dermot Cox, “Peace and Peacemakers in the ‘Writings’ of the Old Testament,” Studia Missionalia 38 (1989): 11. 18. Ibid., 12. 19. Broyles, Psalms, 297. 20. Yoder, “Toward a Shalom Biblical Theology,” 48. 21. Broyles, Psalms, 465. 22. Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 295. 23. Thomas B. Dozeman, The Book of Numbers: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections, The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. 2 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 65. 24. Ibid., 66. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 297. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid., 299. 30. Jane Vennard, Embracing the World: Praying for Justice and Peace (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002). 31. Patricia McCarthy, The Scent of Jasmine: Reflections for Peace in Everyday Life (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1995).

180

Notes: Chapter 6—Bibliographic Essay

32. Ann Weems, Searching for Shalom: Resources for Creative Worship (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991). 33. www.brethren.org/oepa/resources/pastors/worship-aids/ 34. www.brethren.org/genbd/BP/WayOfPeace/index.htm 35. http://peace.mennolink.org/congregations.html 36. www.umcworship.org 37. www.epfnational.org

Bibliographic Essay 1. Waldemar Janzen, Still in the Image: Essays in Biblical Theology and Anthropology, Institute of Mennonite Studies Series 6 (Newton: Faith & Life Press, 1982), 193. 2. Gerhard von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel, trans. Marva J. Dawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). 3. Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 28-77. 4. Janzen, Still in the Image, 193. 5. Ibid., 206. 6. Ibid., 207. 7. Millard C. Lind, “Perspectives on War and Peace in the Hebrew Bible,” in Monotheism, Power, Justice: Collected Old Testament Essays (Elkhart: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1990), 171. See also Millard C. Lind, Yahweh Is a Warrior (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1980). 8. Ibid., 175. See also Walter Dietrich, Jesaja und die Politik, Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie, 74 (München: Kaiser, 1976); and Friedrick Huber, Jahwe, Juda und die anderen Völker beim Propheten Jesaja (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976). 9. Vernard Eller, War and Peace from Genesis to Revelation: King Jesus’ Manual of Arms for the ‘Armless’ (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1981), 65. 10. Ibid., 90. 11. Ibid., 104. 12. Dianne Bergant, “Peace in a Universal Order,” in Biblical and Theological Reflections on the Challenge of Peace, eds. John T. Pawlikawski and Donald Senior (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984), 19-24, 25-28. 13. Ibid., 24. 14. Albert Curry Winn, Ain’t Gonna Study War No More: Biblical Ambiguity and the Abolition of War (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 8. 15. Ibid., 200-2. See also Paul D. Hanson, The Diversity of Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982). 16. Ibid., 198-99. 17. Marvin E. Tate, “War and Peacemaking in the Old Testament,” Review and Expositor 79 (1982): 593.

Notes: Bibliographic Essay

181

18. Ibid., 593-94. 19. Kurt Henning, “Der Friede Gottes und der Friede der Welt - 18 biblische Thesen zum Frieden,” in Christen im Streit um den Frieden, eds. Wolfgang Brinkel, B. Scheffler, and M. Wächter (Freiburg: Dreisam-Verlag, 1982), 48-49. 20. Henk B. Kossen, “Der Friedensbegriff in der Bibel,” in Christen im Streit um den Frieden, ed. Wolfgang Brinkel, B. Scheffler and M. Wächter (Freiburg: Dreisam-Verlag, 1982), 36. 21. Ibid., 37. 22. Ibid., 37-39. 23. Walter Brueggemann, Peace, Understanding Biblical Themes (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2001). This reprint was originally published as Living Toward a Vision: Biblical Reflection on Shalom (Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1976). 24. Ibid., 15-19. 25. Ibid., 26-27. 26. Ibid., 28-32. 27. Douglas Gwyn, et al., A Declaration on Peace: In God’s People the World’s Renewal Has Begun (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1991). 28. Ibid., 12. 29. Perry B. Yoder and Willard M. Swartley, eds., The Meaning of Peace: Biblical Studies (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992). 30. Robert W. Neff, “Paradigms of Peace in the Book of Genesis,” Brethren Life and Thought 23 (1978): 42. 31. Ibid, 42-43. 32. Carroll Stuhlmueller, “The Prophetic Combat for Peace: Struggling in the Name of a Compassionate God,” The Way 22 (1982): 79-87. 33. Carroll Stuhlmueller, “The Prophetic Price for Peace,” in Biblical and Theological Reflections on the Challenge of Peace, 31-44. 34. Dermot Cox, “Peace and Peacemakers in the ‘Writings’ of the Old Testament,” Studia Missionalia 38 (1989): 1-20. 35. Ibid., 20. 36. J. J. Collins defines an apocalyptic text as “a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an other-worldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation and spatial, insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.” See Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, 9. 37. Although numerous scholars question the validity of the term “proto-apocalyptic,” Towner uses Paul D. Hanson’s phraseology as developed in The Dawn of Apocalyptic: the Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 25-31.

182

Notes: Bibliographic Essay

38. W. Sibley Towner, “Tribulation and Peace: The Fate of Shalom in Jewish Apocalyptic,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 6 (1984): 4. 39. Ibid., 13. 40. Ibid., 22. 41. Ibid. 42. Hans Walter Wolff, “Swords Into Plowshares: Misuse of a Word of Prophecy?” in Yoder and Swartley, The Meaning of Peace, 110-26; and Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Response to Hans Walter Wolff,” in The Meaning of Peace, 127-32. 43. Wolff, 112. 44. Pannenberg, 130. 45. Ibid., 130-31.

Scripture Index Genesis 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 13 . . . . . . . . . .36, 63 14 . . . . . . . . . .17, 35 14:1-24 . . . . . .52-55 14:13-16 . . . . . . . .54 14:17 . . . . . . . . . .55 14:18-20 . . . . . . . .55 14:19-20 . . . . . . . .55 15:15 . . . . . . . . . . .27 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 26 . . . .23, 26, 41, 48 26:12-33 . . . . .34, 36 26:26-29 . . . . . . . .36 26:31 . . . . . . . . . .23 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 38 . . . . . . . . . . . .177 43:23 . . . . . . . . . .24 Exodus 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 1:15-22 . . . . . .41, 43 4:18 . . . . . . . . . . . .26 15:1-18 . . . . . . . . .51 21:1-6 . . . . . . . . .175 22:21-24 . . . .113-16, 127 22:22 . . . . . . . . . .114 23 . . . . . . . . . . . .100 23:9 . . . . . . . .113-16 23:10-11 . . . .96, 99, 127

23:10 . . . . . . . . . .124 23:11 . . . . . . . . . . .97

21 . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 25 . . . . . . . . . .25, 51

Leviticus 19:33-34 . . . .113-16 25 . . . . . . . . .18, 110 25:2-7 . . . . . .96, 99, 107 25:8-12 . . . .107, 127 25:8-55 . . . .108, 110 25:11-12 . . . . . . .107 25:13-17 . . .107, 110 25:14 . . . . . . . . . .111 25:18-22 . . . . . . .107 25:20-22 . . . . .96-99 25:23 . . . . . . . . .110 25:23-24 . . . . .107-8, 110 25:25-28 . . . . . . .108 25:29-34 . . . . . . .108 25:35-38 . . . . . . .109 25:39-46 . . . . . . .109 25:39-55 . . . . . . .111 25:42 . . . . . . . . . .111 25:44-46 . . . . . . .177 25:46-55 . . . . . . .109 25:55 . . . . . . . . . .111

Deuteronomy 3:20 . . . . . . . . . . . .57 15:1-3 . . .101-2, 104 15:1-11 . . . . .99-104, 127 15:2 . . . . . . . . . . .100 15:4 . . . . .101-2, 127 15:4-5 . . . . . . . . .103 15:4-11 . . . . . . . .101 15:6 . . . . . . . . . . .102 15:7 . . . . . . . . . . .127 15:7-11 . . . . . . . .102 15:9 . . . . . . . . .101-2 15:10 . . . . . . . . . .102 15:11 . . . . . . . . . .127 20:10 . . . . . . . . . . .26 23:6 . . . . . . . . . . .26 25:5-10 . . . . . . . .177 25:19 . . . . . . . . . .57

Numbers 6:22-26 . . . . .18, 25, 134 6:26 . . . . . . . . . . .29 183

Joshua 1-12 . . . . . . . . . . . .56 1:13-15 . . . . . . . . .57 9:15 . . . . . . . . . . . .23 13-22 . . . . . . . . . . .56 21:43-45 . . . . .54-57 22:4 . . . . . . . .56, 57 23:1 . . . . . . . .56, 57

184

Scripture Index

Judges 3:1-30 . . . . . . . . . .17 3:7 . . . . . . . . . . . .58 3:7-11 . . . . . . . .57-59 3:12-30 . . . . . . . . .58 3:30 . . . . . . . . . . . .59 4:17 . . . . . . . . . . . .29 5:31 . . . . . . . . . . . .59 6-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 6:23 . . . . . . . . . . . .24 8:28 . . . . . . . . . . . .59 18:15 . . . . . . . .22-23 19:20 . . . . . . . . . . .29 1 Samuel 1:17 . . . . . . . . . . . .29 10:4 . . . . . . . . . . . .23 15:3 . . . . . . . . . . . .51 16:4 . . . . . . . .23, 28 20:13 . . . . . . . . . . .26 2 Samuel 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 11:7 . . . . . . . . . . . .28 1 Kings 22 . . . . . . . . . . . .26 2 Kings 2:23-25 . . . . . . . . .39 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 6 . . . . . . . .39, 41, 48 6:8-23 . . . . . . .36-39 6:11-14 . . . . . . . . .38 Job 5:24 . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Psalms 4:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 15 . . . . . . . . .18, 164 24 . . . . . . . . . . . .164

29 . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 29:1-2 . . . . . . . . .136 29:1-11 . . . . . .136-7 29:3-9 . . . . . . . . .137 29:10 . . . . . . . . . .137 29:11 . . . . . . . . . .137 34:14 . . . . . . . . . . .25 37:11 . . . . . . . . . . .25 41:9 . . . . . . . . . . . .28 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 72:1-4 . . . . . . . . .144 72:1-20 . . . . .144-45 72:4 . . . . . . . . . . .145 72:5-7 . . . . . .144-45 72:8-11 . . . . . . . .145 72:12-14 . . . . . . .145 72:15-17 . . . . . . .145 72:17 . . . . . . . . . .145 72:18-20 . . . . . . .145 73:3 . . . . . . . . . . . .29 85 . . . . . .24-25, 179 85:1-3 . . . . . . . . .138 85:1-13 . . . . .137-39 85:4 . . . . . . . . . . .138 85:4-7 . . . . . . . . .138 85:5-6 . . . . . . . . .138 85:7 . . . . . . . . . . .138 85:8 . . . . . . . . . . . .28 85:8-13 . . . . .138-39 85:9 . . . . . . . . . . .25 120 . . . . . . . . . . .179 120:1-2 . . . . . . . .140 120:1-7 . . . . .140-42 120:2 . . . . . . . . . .140 120:3-4 . . . . .140-41 120:4 . . . . . . .140-41 120:5 . . . . . . . . . .140 120:5-7 . . . . . . . .140 120:6-7 . . . . . . . .141 122 . . . . . . . . . . . .29 122:1-2 . . . . . . . .142 122:1-9 . . . . .142-43

122:3-5 . . . . . . . .142 122:5 . . . . . . . . . .143 122:6-9 . . . . .142-43 128:1 . . . . . . . . . .146 128:1-4 . . . . . . . .146 128:1-6 . . . . .145-47 128:2-4 . . . . . . . .146 128:3 . . . . . . . . . .146 128:4 . . . . . . . . . .146 128:5-6 . . . . .146-47 129:8 . . . . . . . . . .148 133:3 . . . . . . . . . .148 134:3 . . . . . . . . . .148 147:1-20 . . . .134-36 147:1 . . . . . . . . . .136 147:1-6 . . . . . . . .135 147:7-11 . . . . . . .135 147:12 . . . . . . . . .136 147:12-20 . . . . . .135 Proverbs 1-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 3:17 . . . . . . . . . . .27 3:18 . . . . . . . . . . .27 3:28-29 . . . . . . . .125 10-29 . . . . . . . . . . .94 10:6 . . . . . . . . . .125 10:11 . . . . . . . . . .125 10:20 . . . . . . . . . .127 10:31 . . . . . . . . . .127 11:1 . . . . . . . . . .126 11:19 . . . . . . . . . .125 12:18-19 . . . . . . .127 14:21 . . . .94, 125-28 16:11 . . . . . . . . . .126 17:20 . . . . . . . . . .127 22:16 . . . . . . .126-28 22:22-23 . . . .126-28 22:28 . . . . . . .125-26 23:10 . . . . . . .125-26 24:1-2 . . . . . . . .125 24:15-16 . . . . . . .125

Scripture Index 24:17 . . . . . . . . . .126 24:17-18 . . . .94,126 24:18 . . . . . . . . . . .94 24:29 . . . . . . . . . .126 25:21-22 . . . . . . .126 28:3 . . . . . . . .126-28 29:14 . . . . . . . . . .128 30-31 . . . . . . . . . . .94 31:20 . . . . . . . . . .128 Isaiah 1:10-17 . . . . .116-19 1:16-17 . . . . . . . .117 1:16-20 . . . . . . . . .93 1:17 . . . . . . .117, 128 1:19-20 . . . . . . . . .93 1:20 . . . . . . . . . . .93 2 . . . . . .74, 143, 166 2:1-4 . . . .70, 74, 148 2:2-4 . . . . .71-73, 86 2:3-4 . . . . . . . . . . .72 2:4 . . . . . . . . .89, 165 8:5-22 . . . . . . . . . .74 9 . . . . . . . . . . .17, 74 9:1-7 . . . . . . . . . . .70 9:2-7 . . . . . . . .73-75, 174-75 9:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 9:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 11 . . . . . .17, 78, 143 11:1-9 . . . . . . . . . .70 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 26:3 . . . . . . . .25, 28 26:12 . . . . . . . . . . .25 32 . . . . . . . . . .25, 70 32:1-20 . . . . . . . . .70 35:1-10 . . . . . . . . .70 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 42:1-4 . . . . . . .39-41 49:1-6 . . . . . . . . . .40 50:4-9 . . . . . . . . . .40

52:13-53:12 . . . . .40, 159 53:5 . . . . . . . . . . . .27 54:1-17 . . . . . . . . .24 54:10 . . . . . . . . . . .29 55 . . . . . . . . . .17, 87 55:1-13 . . . . . . . . .70, 75-76, 78 55:3 . . . . . . . . . . . .76 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 60:17 . . . . . . . . . . .29 60:17-22 . . . . . . . .70 61:2 . . . . . . . . . . .107 63-64 . . . . . . . . . . .77 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 65:17-25 . . . .31, 70, 77-79, 86, 148 65:19 . . . . . . . . . . .78 65:20 . . . . . . . . . . .78 65:23 . . . . . . . . . . .78 65:25 . . . . . . . . . . .89 66:12 . . . . . . . . . . .25 Jeremiah 13:19 . . . . . . . . . . .27 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 15:5 . . . . . . . . . . . .27 16:5 . . . . . . . . . . . .25 28:1-5 . . . . . . . . . .61 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 29:1-14 . . .60-62, 64 29:3-7 . . . . . . . . . .62 29:7 . . . . . . . . . . . .27 29:8-14 . . . . . . . . .61 29:16-18 . . . . . . . .62 29:24-30 . . . . . . . .61 31 . . . . . . .81-82, 85 31:31-34 . . . . .81-82, 87 34:5 . . . . . . . . . . . .27 38:22 . . . . . . . . . . .28

185

Ezekiel 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 34:1-10 . . . . . . . . .84 34:1-31 . . . . . .82-85 34:11-16 . . . . . . . .84 34:17-22 . . . . . . . .85 34:23-31 . . . . .85, 87 Daniel 3 . . . . . . . . .45-47, 50 3:1-7 . . . . . . . . . . .46 3:1-30 . . . . . . .43-46 3:8-18 . . . . . . . . . .46 3:19-23 . . . . . . . . .47 3:24-30 . . . . . . . . .47 6 . . . . . . . . .45-46, 50 Hosea 1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 2:18 . . . . . . . . .80, 89 2:18-23 . . . . . .79-81, 86-87 2:19-20 . . . . . . . . .80 Joel 2:28-3:31 . . . . . .165 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .166 3:10 . . . . . . . .71, 165 Micah 4:1-4 . . . . . . . . . . .71 4:3 . . . . . . . . . . . .165 6:1-8 . . . . . .119-124 6:3 . . . . . . . . . . . .120 6:8 . . . . . . . . . . . .122 6:9-16 . . . . . . . . .176 Zechariah 8:12 . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Haggai 1:3-6 . . . . . . . . . .64

186

Scripture Index

2:1-5 . . . . . . . . . . .64 2:1-9 . . . . . . . . .62-64 2:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 2:6-9 . . . . . . . . . . .64 2:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Matthew 4:12ff . . . . . . . . . .174 John 18:36 . . . . . . . . . .174

The Author David A. Leiter is pastor of the Green Tree Church of the Brethren in Oaks, Pennsylvania. He holds a Master of Divinity degree from Bethany Theological Seminary and a PhD in biblical studies from Drew University. He has taught at New York Theological Seminary and the Ecumenical Institute of Theology in Baltimore. David also has published numerous articles and essays in Old Testament studies. He was born and raised in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania.

187