Ten Theses on War and Peace in the Bible
A blog storm rages over questions of war and
peace. Check out an earlier
post (and comments!) on this blog. In addition, Stephen, Doug
Chaplin, Peter Kirk, and Tim Chesterton have been going at
it, and have attracted fervent and sometimes thoughtful comment.
In this post, I set out the first of ten
theses on the question. My goal is to explore the subject matter with the help
of the Bible and two traditions, Judaism and Christianity, whose
self-understanding and understanding of the world depend on specific
interpretations of the shape of history and life within it insofar as biblical narrative,
law, and prophecy reveal it to them.
Of course, there is no such thing as the
biblical take on war and peace, or the Jewish or the Christian
stance on same. I am suspicious of claims to the effect that the Bible or the
Jewish or the Christian faith, properly understood, would make us all into Mennonite
pacifists or Augustinian realists, or of the party of Hillel rather than
Shammai with respect to capital punishment. I am impatient with anyone who
constructs an argument such that one or the other position is not wrong-headed or
dangerous in this or that set of circumstances, but in all times and all
places.
Thesis #1:
(1) Violent and non-violent responses to
violence are held up as models of faithfulness in the Bible. Even those in the
Bible who are reported to have thought of a non-violent response to violence as
the appropriate one for them in their circumstances looked back on and looked
forward to a violent response to violence in specific instances as a concrete expression
of God’s lovingkindness.
Those who think they can improve on the Bible
in this respect – Simone
Weil thought she could – would do well to consider the unintended
consequences of a pure position. Are forgiveness and non-retaliation the alpha
and omega of mature humanity’s response to the violence of others? Is it not
rather the case, as Emmanuel
Levinas put it, that “the possibility of infinite pardon tempts us to
infinite evil”?
Some propose that a morally offensive stance
on violence is found in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, but not in the New /
the Talmud. Recently, James Kugel has argued in this fashion (online here).
The proposal reveals a profound ignorance of
the contents of later tradition, and a profound misunderstanding of the thrust
of earlier tradition. More on that in the conclusion to this post.
To begin with, I will give examples of models
of faithfulness from 1 and 2 Maccabees. These books are overlooked by many,
with the result, I think, that certain themes of the Hebrew Bible / Old
Testament on the one hand and of the New Testament / Talmud on the other are
imperfectly understood.
In the days of Antiochus IV a decree went out in Jerusalem and Judah that everyone who possessed the book of the covenant or adhered to the nomos of Jewish custom should be put to death. Inspectors, whose ranks included apostate Jews, put to death women who continued to circumcise their children, and with them, their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from the mothers’ necks. Many in Israel chose to die rather than eat the flesh of swine or profane the holy covenant. And they did die. Very great wrath came upon Israel.[1]
Since the young man would not listen to him at all, the king called the
mother to him and urged her to advise the youth to save himself. After much
urging on his part, she undertook to persuade her son. But, leaning close to
him, she spoke in their native language, derided the cruel tyrant, and added: “My
son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months in my womb, nursed you at my
breast for three years, reared you and brought you up to this point in your
life, and have taken care of you. I beg you, my child, look at heaven and earth
and everything in them, and remember: God made everything out of nothing. In
the same way, the human race came into being. So then, do not fear this
butcher, but prove yourself worthy of your brothers. Accept death, that in God’s
mercy I may get you back again along with your brothers.”
While she was still speaking, the young man said, “What are you all
waiting for? I will not obey the king’s command. Rather, I obey the command of
the teaching given to our ancestors through Moses. But you, who have contrived
all manner of evil against the Jews, will certainly not escape the hands of
God. We are suffering because of our own sins. And if our living Lord is angry
for a little while, to rebuke and chastise us, he will again be reconciled with
his own servants. But you, unholy wretch, you most defiled of all mortals, do
not be elated without cause and puffed up by uncertain hopes, while you raise
your hand against the children of heaven. You have not yet escaped the judgment
of the almighty, all-seeing God. Our brothers after enduring transitory
suffering have drunk of ever-flowing life, under God’s covenant; but you, under
God’s judgment, will receive just punishment for your arrogance. I, like my
brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our ancestors, appealing to God
to show mercy soon to our nation and by trials and plagues to make you confess
that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the
wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation.”
The king fell into a rage, and handled him worse than the others, being exasperated
at his scorn. So he died in his integrity, putting his whole trust in the Lord.
Last of all, the mother died, after her sons.[2]
At that time many who were seeking righteousness and justice went down to
the wilderness. They chose to dwell there, they, their sons, their wives, and
their livestock, because evils pressed heavily upon them. And it was reported
to the king's officers, and to the troops in Jerusalem the city of David, that
men who had rejected the king's command had gone down to the hiding places in
the wilderness. Many pursued them, and overtook them; they encamped opposite
them and prepared for battle against them on the sabbath day. And they said to
them, "Enough of this! Come out and do what the king commands, and you
will live." But they said, "We will not come out, nor will we do what
the king commands and so profane the sabbath day." Then the enemy hastened
to attack them. But they did not answer them or hurl a stone at them or block
up their hiding places, for they said, "Let us all die in our innocence;
heaven and earth testify for us that you are killing us unjustly." So they
attacked them on the sabbath, and they died, with their wives and children and livestock,
to the number of a thousand persons.
When Mattathias and his friends learned of it, they mourned for them
deeply. And each said to his neighbor: "If we all do as our brethren have
done and refuse to fight with the Gentiles for our lives and for our
ordinances, they will quickly destroy us from the earth." So they made
this decision that day: "Let us fight against every man who comes to
attack us on the sabbath day; let us not all die as our brethren died in their
hiding places."
Now the days drew near for Mattathias to die, and he said to his sons:
"Arrogance and reproach have now become strong; it is a time of ruin and
furious anger.
Now, my children, show zeal for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of our fathers. "Remember the deeds of the fathers, which they did in their generations; and receive great honor and an everlasting name. Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness? Joseph in the time of his distress kept the commandment, and became lord of Egypt. Phinehas our father, because he was deeply zealous, received the covenant of everlasting priesthood. Joshua, because he fulfilled the command, became a judge in Israel. Caleb, because he testified in the assembly, received an inheritance in the land. David, because he was merciful, inherited the throne of the kingdom for ever. Elijah because of great zeal for the law was taken up into heaven. Hannaniah, Azariah, and Mishael believed and were saved from the flame. Daniel because of his innocence was delivered from the mouth of the lions. “And so observe, from generation to generation, that none who put their trust in him will lack strength. Do not fear the words of a sinner, for his splendor will turn into dung and worms. Today he will be exalted, but tomorrow he will not be found, because he has returned to the dust, and his plans will perish. My children, be courageous and grow strong in the law, for by it you will gain honor. "Now behold, I know that Simeon your brother is wise in counsel; always listen to him; he shall be your father. Judas Maccabeus has been a mighty warrior from his youth; he shall command the army for you and fight the battle against the peoples. You shall rally about you all who observe the law, and avenge the wrong done to your people. Pay back the Gentiles in full, and heed what the law commands." Then he blessed them, and was gathered to his fathers.
He died in the one hundred and forty-sixth year and was buried in the tomb of his fathers at Modein. And all Israel mourned for him with great lamentation.[3]
We live in a world in which “the violent
carry it away,” or, as Flannery O’Connor put it, “A Good Man is Hard to Find.” In
this context, when one’s entire identity before God and man is called into
question by powers beyond one’s ability to effectively oppose, the most
effective opposition of all consists of the path of martyrdom. It is absolutely
clear that martyrdom is barred to all except those who put their whole trust in
God. On the other hand, in altered circumstances and on a more level playing
field, non-violent resistance and martyrdom, historically speaking, give way to
armed resistance and retribution.
That is the logic of the Maccabean period. It also helps explain why, in later times, Jochanan ben Zakkai advocated non-violent resistance to Rome in one circumstance and Akiva armed resistance in another. In hindsight only, it is easy to say that Akiva was wrong, and praise him as a martyr at the same time.
According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus looked forward to a situation beyond the cross and a period of tribulation, to a time in which “my kingdom” would be inaugurated with the Son of Man coming with a mighty host and in great power. His disciples, in exchange for their perseverance under trial in the present, were going to sit on thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:30). In accordance with the book of Daniel on which the hope of Jesus is based, this can hardly be understood as a pacific scene.
In accordance with Daniel and other
apocalyptic traditions - Enochic literature, in the case of Jude 1:14; Ezekiel 38-39,
in case of Revelation 20 – it was universally held that martyrdom and
tribulation, the reality of the cross if you will, represents God’s penultimate,
not ultimate will. At the end of times, a violent response to violence again
finds a place, before giving way, finally, to a peaceable kingdom.
In the meantime, the great warriors of the
past, alongside of and mixed in with the non-resisting martyrs, are held up as
models of faithfulness in Hebrews 11:32-38.
This is not to say that violence in the Bible
is not seen for what it is: a great evil. It is also understood that the
fundamental principle of the state is violence. The realism of this
understanding is foreign to many moderns (despite Hobbes). On the one hand, state
violence is divinely sanctioned (Romans 13; the Hebrew Bible, to be sure, is
more nuanced than Paul on this point), and on the other, it is subject to God’s
judgment.
Violence is to have no place in the new
heavens and new earth, according to the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity. A
prophetic or eschatological horizon judges all of present reality. On the other
hand, both the giving and taking of violence are of the essence of things between
the times. I will explore the details in future theses.
John,
As always, you've got me hooked. I'm interested to see where this goes, especially if you return to Romans 13.
-JAK
Posted by: Justin (koavf) | January 06, 2008 at 03:44 PM
I'm sure this will be a thought-provoking series, John. I'm glad you're going to tackle the topic in greater detail. Clearly there is significant interest in it.
• On the one hand, state violence is divinely sanctioned (Romans 13; the Hebrew Bible, to be sure, is more nuanced than Paul on this point).
A couple of caveats on your reading of Paul. First, the alternative Paul has in view is a state of lawlessness. It is sometimes said that the first responsibility of government is to establish order; I've always understood Romans 13 in that way.
"Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad" (vs. 3) is not universally true, but it's defensible as a generalization. We saw a real-life example of disorder in Iraq after Saddam was deposed. A breakdown of the rule of law means people can't go about the basic tasks necessary to sustain life without constant insecurity and fear. In that respect, life under a despot may be (marginally) better than life amidst violent lawlessness.
That's the alternative Paul has in view. In a territory contended for by competing warlords, most of us would be losers, not winners. Hence government is deputized to bear the sword on God's behalf, in order to establish order.
Second, nothing that Paul says in Romans 13 justifies (a) wars of aggression or (b) holy wars.
That is, (a) the state wields the sword to establish order within its own territory, not to aggress against other states. And (b) the church is emphatically not mandated to wield the sword.
The text from Maccabees clearly is in the category of a defensive struggle in a context of religious persecution. In that context, I agree with your first thesis: both martyrdom and armed resistance have biblical precedents in their support.
Here's another argument in support of armed resistance. James D.G. Dunn did a careful study of the word "zeal" in one of the chapters of Jesus, Paul, and the Law. (I mention it here because "zeal" makes an appearance in the texts you've cited from Maccabees.)
"Zeal" is often a code-word for violent action in defense of the faith. One example that comes to mind is Phinehas in Numbers 25. I wouldn't generalize from such examples, but it's certainly a thread which runs through the biblical and intertestamental literature.
Third — now returning to my anti-violence predilections — I don't accept your argument from the eschatological texts. It would be presumptuous for anyone to suppose that what God intends to do at the eschaton is a precedent for us human beings to imitate during ordinary history.
I understand you're reaching for a principle here — you're arguing that God's opposition to violence isn't absolute. However, I think it's a dangerous mistake to extrapolate from Mark 13 that God approves of violent aggression on the part of the state and/or the church.
Posted by: Stephen (aka Q) | January 06, 2008 at 04:06 PM
Stephen,
I think you're right that it's dangerous to extrapolate from Ezek 38-39 and many other future-oriented texts in the Hebrew Bible which describe some kind of war to end all wars and on that basis, to develop a scenario akin to a war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness - as did the Qumran covenanters, or in a different way, Thomas Muntzer, and once again, Cromwell and company.
It's dangerous, very dangerous, to exegete in this way, but it has been done, and recently, was tried again in some theologies of liberation.
It might even be argued, on account of Cromwell and the conflicting approaches and world-views that came into play on that occasion - all, in some sense, based on a specific understanding of the shape of history informed by biblical categories and religious tradition - that we are, historically speaking, indebted, whether we like it or not, to the "heavenly prophets" (Luther's pejorative term for millennialists) no less than we are to the Quakers and to others with more typical views on this subject matter.
Posted by: JohnFH | January 06, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Concerning the argument from eschatology, see Romans 12:19-20, especially the last part of v.19: the fact that God can be violent does not justify human violence.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | January 06, 2008 at 05:38 PM