T.T Hobbs, “Old Testament Warfare and New
Testament Insight.” In item: A Time For
War : A Study of Warfare in the Old
Testament (Wilmington, Delaware : Michael Glazier, 1989), 208-233
Introduction
The author start with a sketch of
basic problem of warfare in OT from a Christian perspective and try to see it
in propoer historical perspective. It is necessary because when people read the
bible, they already have pre-suppositions
and prejudies. People ignore or even avoid the historical dimension of warfare,
and read it in another concept. People try to spiritualise the words used in
term of warfare like victory, deliverance and salvation which already
war-words.
Anachronism
This
is a common approach called History of Ideas. Facts about the past are
not sought out and examined in their own context, but used to illustrate ideas
which have come about in quite different circumstances and for very different
reasons. They are forced to answer questions which are imposed on, and often
alien to the literature itself, or it is a drawn into a historical scheme which
is more propagandistic than historical. Also it can make bible reader being
misguided when reading the OT’s texts.
The
commandment “do not kill” which is used in dicussion of two topics : capital
punishment and in connection with warfare. In the first case, since the bible
prohibits killing of another, then capital punishment is wrong since killing of
another is prohibitted. The pinalty for breaking that law must be exacted,
though not all cases in the bible has a death pinalty as a punishment. For the opponents of capital punishment, to
use the text in this way is a misuse of the text. In this context, this text
does not refer to offically imposed penalties, and in the same collection of
law, the death penalty is invoked frequently.
When we examine the law on murder in OT, the issue become more
complicated. The law is changed, on occasion, to accomodate different social
circumstances. What T. T Hobbs wanted to say is the issue is extremely
complicated, and to use the text simply as prop for one’s own disposition and
attitude, is an abuse of the text.
Understanding
obout modern warfare. The Hebrew word used in ten commandement is ratsach. One of Hebrew words that applied
to the murder of a fellow Israelite. The law applies to internal relationship
between Israelites as a closely bonded
community, at a time when there was no war. So when there was a war, different
law would be executed. When there was a war, it seems killing was accepted and
even encouraged. People will treat others specially enemies less than human.
About
the ideas of peace in OT. There was no such modern understanding about peace
can be found in OT. There was no term pacisifm can be found in OT. The
propethic criticism of the monarchy is understood as a criticism of warfare.
The prophets see warfare simply as a
tool of judgment on Israel and Judah, also on the enemies of Israel and Judah
in the oracles against the foreign nations. What the prophets object wWarfare
as a tool of imperial expansion but as a misuse of power. often said as a
Yahweh’s war that interpreted as wars fougth miraculously by Yahweh.
Selectivity
In selectivity approach people use
selective reading of the OT either deliberately or unconsciously, so that the
main issues are side-stepped. People avoid any discussion of basic issues of the
topic by choice. They take “relegious
themes” and trace them through the OT, more or less as an exercise in “form-”
or “tradition-critisim”.
For
example warfare. God participates in human history, through sinful human being,
and through what have become the “normal” forms of human activity. Such
partisipation by God reveals, not his being, but his action which takes place
in a world as it is. There is much more at stake here which ought to
acknowledged, like why does God’s activity have to be seen i terms of human
violence? It is not that easy said that world is populated by sinful and
imperfect human being than some kill each other, but others love each other and
care for each other. We can not make such simply generalization. Or by
de-sacralizing the concept of Holy War so we can see how bad war can be.
However, the fact, warfare is always bad. How can be a slaughtered of entire
populations of cities, including women and children, not seen as a bad things
in the name of Holy War? To be sure, Israel was condemned for being “like the
nations” and for practising the “abominations of the nations”, but nowhere are
there abominations equated with warfare.
The
“Prophetic Vision of Peace”
One
of the most famous part of OT about peace is the passage which appear in both
Isa 2:1-4 and Mic 4:1-4, parts are also repeated in Joel 3:10, but in reverse
order. One point we should address is the understanding of shalom which
is often translated “peace”. But there was an irritating modern tedency to
interpret shalom with a modern psychological understanding, like the
idea of integration or wholeness. In fact, shalom has a very wide range
of meaning in Hebrew. Like just a simple greeting and not to be translated into
“peace” (2 Kings 9:17, 19), or “to pay” as in the property laws of Exodus 21
and 22. So the word has meaning like repayment, recompense, restoration of
something damage.
The
Restoration Vision of the Prophets
The
prophetic tradition spoke much about the judgment of Yahweh on His people for
their apostasy and social evils. Micah’s repeated appeals to the “heads” of
Judah and Israel (Micah 3:1,9) and Jeremiah’s oppostion to the rulers and
administrators from the outset of his ministry ( Jer. 1:17-19) are some
illustations of this posture. Beyond all of that, prophets looked forward to a
period of restoration, when Israel (now the religious community, not the
nation) will be restored, granted rest from aggresive neighbours and will
embark on a period of blessing and prosperity.
Vision
of the prophets about the restoration is localized in Zion, is particularized
for Israel, and is achieved at the expense – or subjugation – of Israel’s
neighbours. In the vision of the book of Isaiah for the future we have a
projection of imperial, “centre-periphery” model. The centre is Zion, the
beneficiaries of blessings brought to the centre are the restored Israel, and
the non-Israelite nations surrounding Israel are perceived as a threat and are
dealt with by often brutal subjugation. Blessing of the restoration in the
future are Israelite alone (see Isa. 26:15, 32:8, 35:4, 44:24-28, 45:4, 53:4).
In these sentiments we see what we call nationalism.
This
“nationalistic” and “imperial” spirit seen more clearly than in the attitude to
foreigners in this future vision. It is well illustrated by Isaiah 14:1-2 in
which Israel will capture and enslave neighbouring populations, annihilating
their children lest any should be left to rebel against them. Peace for Israel
means utter destruction through invasion and siege of Babylon (Isaiah 43:14,
47). Former enemies are still dehumanized or ridiculed (Isaiah 9:12a, 19:16,
29:5) and fit for menial tasks, subjugation and death. The final vision of the
book of Isaiah is of an Israel glorying in the new-found faithfullness of God,
but at the same time gazing at the bodies of the slain, whose violent deaths
are the cost of the restoration (Isaiah 66:22-24). In the OT context, it is not
through suffering that the restoration comes, but rather through an overthrow
of the enemies of Israel that suffering is given meaning.
Warfare
was part of the ancient world, and very much a part of the life and history of
ancient Israel. In the period of Judges warfare was used as a legitimate means
of defense of the community against agression. In the period of the monarchy
warfare ceased to be used mainly as a means of defense, but instead became a
tool of aggresion against the political neighbours of Israel and Judah. Yet in the post-exilic visions of
restoration, the prophets also resorted to the same language of empire to
envision a restored Judah and Jerusalem. This is a Jerusalem restored at the
cost of the subjugation of the traditional enemies of Israel, at times their
enslavement, and at times their annihilation. This subjugation is seen as the
work oh Yahweh, but it not a miraculous, weaponless victory. It is a victory
for the exiles brought about through warfare in a kind of international lex talionis.
For
sure OT does not present a uniform pattern of behavior with regards to warfare.
We can say that the period of the Patriarchs as a time of pacifism. But it is
not pacifism at all. The social and political conditions of the patriarchs
hardly encourage warfare. Throughout Israel’s history warfare was given, a fact
of life, and it was viewed as an appropriate mean for setting dispute between
people, Israel, like her neighbors, went to war motivated by the perceptions by
statemen of the growth of hostile power and the fear fot he restriction, if not
the extinction, of their own.
In
OT it is found direct instruction about war (in Deut 20:1-20, 21:10-14 and
23:9-14). The instructions are from the time of the monarchy, since they deal
with campaigns into foreign countries outside Canaan.
The
third regulation in Deu. 23:9-14 deals with matters of hygiene during a
campaign and where soldiers can defecate. All these regulations are not for the
control of excess in warfare, but for efficiency. Or regulation about governing
tress (vv 19-20) are quite pragmatic, just for supply. The second regulation in
Deu. 21:10-14 has a single subject matter that of about the fate of captured
women. Women were taken as prizes of war, and their kidnap was controlled by this
regulation. The woman was allowed to mourn the loss of her family, slain in the
siege for one month. But they are treated as a possession, raped then allowed
to leave, not for sale as a slave. The motivation in this regulation is
ambiguous, either because of efficiency or respecting the rights of the woman.
All the regulation about war was a move in the direction of making warfare more
efficient.
In His first recorded sermon
announced that with His coming, the Kingdom of God is also present (Mr 1:15).
Although this term is not used in OT, the image conjured up by the use of term
kingdom is that of the empire established by David. It also was the product of
aggression by warfare. But this word was said on the lips of the man identified
as the prince of peace. What does it mean?
The setting of coming of Jesus was
under controlled by Roman Empire. Land was divided into semi-autonomus regions.
Jewish population also divided into several groups, into class and power and
political allegiance. For Jewish people, their life is their religion and there
was consessions made by the Romans. There are some religious groups within
Jewish population at that time. There are Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes,
Herodians and Zealots who advocated violent to the Romans and their supporters.
So at that time, there are three situations of actions : armed resistance,
opportunistic accommodation or passive endurance.
It is agains this background that
Jesus’ announcment of the coming of the Kingdom of God must be seen. The term
and the concept behind it would have had explosive political implications. In NT the sense of that expectation of common
people was so obvious, like in Simeon and Anna, or in presence of political
fanatic (Zealot) in the company of disiples or the frustation of Judas.
There were several possibilities
open to Jesus. The key understanding of his ministry, his message, and his
death and eventual resurrection, is the transformation which popular and
trational concept undergo in his teaching. Jesus preached no revolution agains
the authority, but instead developed what one could call a subversive tactic.
Jesus always associated with both the marginalised and the powerful, treating
them all alike. Gaining the world is accomplished by giving up one’s life, not
in combat, but by serving others (Mr. 8:36, 9:33-35). The fourth Gospel are in
keeping with his fundamental position : My kingship is not of this world; if
my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be
handed over the Jews; but my kingship is not of this world (John 18:36). So
Jesus belongs to an entirely different order of things, and advocated hereby a
different way of dealing with human relationship.
In the rest of NT there is little
direct teaching on the matter. Paul acknowledges the transformation of the
struggle against evil on the cosmic, supranatural level and uses an OT image to encourage the “soldier” in this
fight (Eph. 6:10-17). In the book of Revelation, there are two extremes are
represented : a victory and destruction of evil and triumph of good. The book
of Revelation becomes a grand synthesis of the triumphalist visions of the
prophets and the catastrophic judgement on evil and sin.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar