CHAPTER X

EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

1. Old Testament Resources for Education with regard to Peace and War-2. Suggestions as to Curriculum Policies

OLD TESTAMENT RESOURCES FOR EDUCATION WITH REGARD TO PEACE AND WAR

Is the God of the Old Testament a God of war? Yahweh nowhere appears as a God concerned only with war, like Mars, whose significance for mankind would be lost if organized fighting could be abolished. Even in the early poems, or the earliest hero tales in Judges, or such prophetic books as Nahum and Obadiah, in all of which Yahweh figures chiefly in warfare, it would be unfair to say that in the mind of the writer this was the only important attribute or function of his God. The essential character of the Hebrews' God abides through times when His people are at peace, and would stand if peace were indefinitely continued.

In the sense, however, of a God who Himself participates in battle, who instigates His own people or others to fight, who strengthens the side He approves, or in some way decrees the victor, and so can and does use warfare as an effective means of achieving His purposes, Yahweh has been found to be a God of war throughout most of the Old Testament material. In fact, the book of Ruth is practically the only entire document in which Yahweh is not directly or indirectly associated with warfare.1 Occasionally, as in Jonah, it is only suggested by a vague threat of destruction, and the wisdom literature has only a few scattered references to it, but in the great majority of the Old Testament writings there is no uncertainty as to Yahweh's

1The Song of Songs, of course, is a secular anthology, and does not deal at all with Yahweh's relation to life. Esther does not mention Him, but our deductions as to His part in the story would not require our considering this an exception to the proposition regarding Yahweh's relation to warfare.

use of war. The distinction is that war is not here a good in itself, or per se a necessity for divine self-expression-but as the result of Yahweh's partisan interest in one people or as the result of His zeal for righteousness He is involved in struggle against those who oppose His purposes, and the generally accepted method in such a situation was to resort to warfare. Or, viewed from a slightly different angle, that Yahweh fights is the natural deduction from the fact of warfare in the experience of His chosen people, as long as the "progressive revaluation of values" has not wrought out and conceived as "respected and provided for" by God some social value inconsistent with warfare. Given the acceptance of the idea of Yahweh's participation in war, it is natural, further, that in the danger and excitement of battle His presence should be felt with peculiar vividness.

For educators to use these writings without historical background and independent ethical judgment, and hence to teach children that God instigates or uses warfare is, to say the least, not likely to develop aversion to war.

However, as indicated in the introduction, the problem involves much more than the mere question whether God makes use of warfare. We have tried to determine also whether the conception of God in any writing is such that belief in Him on the part of any social group would tend to induce attitudes that would engender war. The three tests proposed were the degree of impartiality in God's treatment of different nations, the nature of His attitudes toward men, and the methods used by Him in His dealings with men. We may now examine our findings on each of these three points.

In all the writings up to the time of Amos, and in some of the psalms, which may come from this earlier period, we seem to have plain henotheism. Yahweh is the God of the Hebrews alone, and, except insofar as His control over forces of nature

gives Him wider influence, He does not dominate other peoples. Indeed, as late as the time of the Elisha stories, Yahweh seems to be a God associated with a definitely limited territory, as well as one of purely national interest. Other nations have their own gods, who are real entities possessing some power, though again and again shown to be inferior in power to the God of the Hebrews. The implications of such a henotheistic idea have been indicated in the introduction. The Yahweh of the Hebrews is, in relation to other nations, not essentially different from the Chemosh of the Moabites as represented by King Mesha in the inscription on the Moabite Stone. Impartiality in treatment of nations is not yet even a problem, for Yahweh has no dealings with other nations, except as He overpowers their gods and so enables His people to subjugate the others.

With Amos, we reach a new stage in the conception of Yahweh. As we have seen, through belief in a God of righteousness solely, he moves out beyond the limits of Israel and finds Yahweh dealing directly with other nations. The long line of prophets, historians, poets, and sages that followed Amos never relinquished the thought of a God in control of other peoples besides His own. The question as to how He treats other nations now assumes ethical significance.

The most common view in the Old Testament is that this God cares for only one nation, and that His dealings with others are therefore determined by what He purposes at the time concerning Israel. When His people please Him, any nation that blocks their progress is defeated and either destroyed or kept in subjection. If, on the contrary, they have been disobedient, other nations may be used as instruments of punishment. These nations may be required to recognize Yahweh's supremacy, an idea found frequently from Ezekiel on, and reaching a climax in Daniel, but they are of no worth in themselves and may be used or cast off as Israel's situation requires.

Against the background of this usual view, certain writings stand out as offering a different idea of Yahweh's relation to other nations.

The most challenging thought on this point is developed in Amos, Deutero-Isaiah, Jonah, and Isaiah 19: 18-25. We have found that according to Amos Yahweh is practically impartial, and is about to punish all nations for unrighteous conduct.

Deutero-Isaiah uses the idea of Yahweh's special relationship with Israel, instead of declaring it annulled. Not impartial punishment for unrighteousness, but universal salvation to righteousness, is his theme, and Israel is to mediate the true moral religion to all nations. In Jonah, we have a concrete example of Yahweh's saving compassion for an enemy nation, which would justify the inference of a large degree of impartiality, and in the fragment in Isaiah 19:18-25 we reach the high point in the development of the idea of impartiality.

Besides these four outstanding contributions, a number of other writings portray Yahweh as desiring the worship of all peoples, though these vary greatly as to the nature of his concern for them. Some indicate that one day other peoples will be gathered in with the group of His own favored ones, as in a few passages in Zechariah, or in Isaiah 56: 6-8, where the Temple is to become "a house of prayer for all peoples." In the interpolation in Zephaniah 3:9-10, Yahweh will give the peoples a "pure language" to worship Him. About six entire psalms, and several glosses in other psalms, represent Yahweh as worshipped and praised by all peoples, sometimes connoting universal gratitude for impartial beneficent acts, but elsewhere just homage in recognition of His marvelous works for the Jews. Trito-Zechariah's picture of the defeated nations compelled by Yahweh to participate in the Feast of Tabernacles at Jerusalem is almost void of significance here.

The wisdom literature gives a general impression of divine impartiality, through dealing with universal problems of individual life. In Job, the fact that the characters are nonIsraelites strengthens this impression.

Besides portrayals of Yahweh's treatment of other peoples, we should note the human generosity toward foreigners found in varying degree in the Elisha stories, the J strand in Genesis, and the stories of Ruth and Jonah. Occasionally, too, we have marked a freedom from vindictiveness toward other nations where the situation might lead us to expect it, as in Isaiah 63: 7-64: 12 (almost entirely), Isaiah 21:1-15, and Isaiah 15-16.

In brief, Yahweh's interest and care seem equally limited in the early henotheistic stage and in the latest writings, with their absolute, transcendent, partisan deity. The writers who portray a wholly or partly universalistic conception come at

various points between, and seem to represent individual protest against contemporary thought, rather than to indicate a steady development. These generous spirits may have influenced one another; they seem to have influenced the general trend of thought but little.

The degree of impartiality represented in Yahweh's treatment of different nations has an important bearing on the educational problem of developing warlike or peace-making attitudes. If the passages presenting a God who does not treat all nations alike are taught as giving a true conception of God for to-day, the pupils' natural inference is that they, too, need not regard all nations as equally important. In that case, their own would easily seem the most important. On the occasion of any clash of interests between nations, their own would be insisted upon, even at the expense of others. By that illogical transference repeatedly demonstrated, they come to think of God as entertaining for their nation the same partisan interest that He once had for the Hebrews. If the clash of interests leads to actual war, they may easily believe that God and their nation are fighting together, without dependence upon the ethical merits of the case.

If, on the other hand, passages presenting Yahweh's impartial dealings with all nations are stressed, and other ideas are frankly contrasted with this, with illustrations of their actual application, students may come to assume an attitude of equal regard for the rights of all nations, and to view their own as one among many nations all equally important in the divine plan, having no special claim upon God for assistance in enterprises that disregard the interests of others.

Turning now from the degree of impartiality to the nature of God's attitudes toward men, we should distinguish three somewhat related factors which enter into this conception-what He is considered to have done up to the present, what His purposes for the future are conceived to be, and what requirements He is thought to impose upon men.