Perfidy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the context of war, perfidy is a form of deception in which one side promises to act in good faith (such as by raising a flag of truce) with the intention of breaking that promise once the enemy is exposed (such as by coming out of cover to attack the enemy coming to take the "surrendering" prisoners into custody). Perfidy constitutes a breach of the laws of war and so is a war crime, as it degrades the protections and mutual restraints developed in the interest of all parties, combatants, and civilians.
In practice, combatants find it difficult to respect protected persons and objects if experience causes them to believe or suspect that their adversaries are abusing a claim to protection under international law to gain a military advantage.
_________________________________________________________________________________
You might have noticed the rather cartoonish image at the top of this page. I picked it because most adults today think of the story in 1 Samuel 17 as a children's story. Like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, we tell kids all kinds of outlandish stories. Some are old wives' tales. Others may have been written initially to make a point. Some of the stories we tell because we hope to instill in our children certain character traits, like courage in the face of danger, not giving up when facing seemingly insurmountable odds, or being prepared in any situation. This kind of thinking reduces the historical accounts in the Bible to mere myths. Instead, we ought to hold these biblical characters out to be heroes of the faith.
In any case, the scene begins when David's father sends him to see how his older brothers are doing. They have joined the army of King Saul, who has engaged in a seeming never-ending battle with the Philistine army. (Side note--the region of Philistia was by the sea, and the term "Philistine" literally meant "Sea Peoples". It is also the root word for the modern term "Palestinians". But I digress.)
David approaches the battle lines, which have been drawn up on opposing ridges overlooking a valley. Neither army seemed to be willing to give up their position on what they saw as the high ground. Eventually, they would probably have come together in the valley, which would have made an excellent battlefield. Saul apparently has lost his nerve, because he has not made the first move. The Philistine army must have sensed that fear, because they were standing on the mountain taunting the Israeli army. It sounded like they were ready to descend into battle, but they sensed that Saul's army was frozen in place. If one side went down into the valley alone, without the other side coming down as well, then the attacking army would literally have an uphill climb. The army that didn't move would literally have the high ground, and thus the advantage.
David heard the taunts, and asked his brothers and their comrades in arms why they didn't go down to engage their opponents in battle. Just about that time, the Philistine champion, a man named Goliath, rose up on the opposing precipice. A huge man, over eight feet tall, with a booming voice. He didn't taunt them. He issued a challenge. Like David, he probably was tired of the taunting, done with words and ready for some action. He said he that Israel should pick a champion, and the two of them would fight to the death. His proposal was that the winner of this epic death match would see the losing side lay down their arms. "If your champion wins," he bellowed, "we will be your servants. However, if I win, you all will be our servants."
Am I the only one who, upon reading this, thought that he was sincere? Maybe the Israelite army, having grown up under the Law of Moses, believed that if they chose a champion who lost to Goliath, then Israel would be enslaved to Philistia. Sizing up the situation, they didn't like the odds. Maybe I am naive, but I always thought that Goliath was proposing the rules of engagement, and that by sending David out to fight him, both parties were agreeing to those terms.
Read further into the story, however, and we see that the Philistine army did not think that way at all. When Goliath fell, they ran. Why would they run? Hadn't they agreed to be servants to the Israelites if he lost? However, "When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled." (1 Samuel 17:51). Why would they run? Because they thought that the Israelite army would slaughter them. Why would they think that way? Because that was their plan if Goliath had defeated David. All that discussion of disarmament and detente was disinformation designed to dull their senses.
It was all a lie.
How many times do we find ourselves in the same situation? The world tells us to "coexist". We are encouraged to lay aside our Bibles and not be so intolerant, in order to get along with the world. Yet the Muslims still pray six times a day. LGBT folks use the symbolism of a rainbow to appear tolerant, but they still bring lawsuits against a Christian baker who said she would rather not bake them a cake for their gay wedding (while suggesting six other local bakeries where the customer could get exactly what he was asking for.) Atheists ask Christians to ignore a God that they apparently cannot ignore, or they wouldn't be so offended by Him.
Jesus faced a situation much like this. He came to do good. He was literally bringing God to the masses, performing miracles, showing them that God wanted relationship with them, not just religion. The religious leaders of the time, however, did not agree. Look at John 11:47-50:
Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man (Jesus) is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that whole nation not perish."Caiaphas was hoping that they could betray Jesus to the Romans, and that Jesus would be killed; with that one death, he thought that they could return to the status quo: they would still be in charge, Israel would be intact, even if they were in subjection to the Romans. In essence, he thought that if he threw Jesus down into the battlefield, that He would be extinguished, and that the Romans would see it as the Jews laying down their arms. No insurrection here, no sir! That one fellow, He was kind of a nut. We're glad you guys took care of Him. Now we can go back to offering our sacrifices and forcing the people to follow the Law.
It didn't turn out that way. Jesus wasn't forced to die, He went there voluntarily. He became our sacrifice. Then, when He was resurrected, He became the hope of our salvation. The Jewish leaders were no more--by 70 AD the Roman army killed them all and drove all the Jews out of Jerusalem. The followers of Jesus, however, flourished. They became aware that one Man did have to die for the people, not so the Romans would spare the Jewish leaders and their capitol city, but that the world through Him might be saved.
No comments:
Post a Comment