This work is an exegetical study of Isaiah’s vision of peace (Isa 2:1-5) from the backdrop of eschatology. Therefore, it will be necessary at this point to examine some theories that will help us explain Isaiah vision of peace. This study follows two theories:
Galtung’s Theory of Positive Peace and the Disarmament Theory of peace.
One of the significant inputs to the discussion on peace is the contribution made by the Norwegian scholar, Johan Galtung, founder of the discipline of Peace and Conflict Studies. For Galtung, there are different conceptions of peace. Galtung regards peace as a synonym for “stability or equilibrium”. Galtung proposed an important distinction between two typologies of peace: “positive peace” and “negative peace”.
Positive peace is structural integration, peace by peaceful means. According to Galtung, positive peace denotes the simultaneous presence of many desirable human and societal values such as harmony, justice, equity, and so on. Galtung conceived of negative peace as the absence of direct violence of violence, absence of war (Galtung, 2007; cf. Tilahun, 2015; Lau, 2017). Such a cessation of war can be achieved, for example, through a ceasefire. It is negative because something undesirable has stopped happening, such as violence, oppression and structural injustice (Dijema, 2007).
Galtung (1969) distinguished between three typologies of violence: direct violence, structural violence and cultural violence. In direct violence there is an actor
that commits the violence as personal or direct. In such a case individuals may be killed or mutilated, hit or hurt physically and psychologically. Physical violence is the exertion of physical force so as to kill, injure or abuse, such as murder or forceful human destruction of property or injury to persons, usually intentional, and forceful verbal and emotional abuse that harms others. Structural violence could be expressed in the existence of various forms of political repression and economic exploitation. Structural violence denotes a form of violence which corresponds with the systematic ways in which a given social structure or social institution kills people slowly by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. Structural violence inevitably produces conflict and often leads to direct violence, including racial violence, hate crimes, terrorism, genocide, and war.
Cultural violence refers to aspects of culture that can be used to justify or legitimize direct of structural violence such as religion, ideology, etc. Cultural violence makes direct and structural violence look, even feel, right - at least not wrong. In brief, for Galtung negative peace means the absence of direct violence; positive peace, on the other hand, is absence of structural and cultural violence.
Positive peace is defined as “a state of social justice, with the democratic settlement of conflicts and conciliation in a lasting development of all” (Moltmann, 1989, p.39). Without these positive elements the negative concept of peace does not function either. This implies that peace is a continuous process. Peace, in the Judeo-Christian understanding, unites both definitions. Peace is the absence of force, suffering and injustice, and the presence of justice. Moltmann (1988) stresses that “the service of peace then means resistance to force and war, and is a service to justice and to life”
(p.113). Moltmann held that peace is “not a condition but a process, not a possession but a way.”
Positive peace is when social justice has replaced structural violence. While getting rid of structural violence or social injustice, positive peace implies the presence of social justice. Galtung (1969) explained that ending direct violence alone is not enough to bring about positive peace; it is necessary to bring an end to cultural and structural violence which are an integral part of the violence.
Peace does not mean the total absence of any conflict. It means the absence of violence in all forms and the unfolding of conflict in a constructive way. Peace, therefore, exists where people are interacting non-violently and are managing their conflict positively - with respectful attention to the legitimate needs and interest of all concerned (Dijema, 2007).
Peace may also be defined as “the absence of organized collective violence between major human groups; particularly nations, but also between classes, racial and ethnic groups. Galtung refers to this kind of peace as negative peace. According to Galtung, negative peace is the absence of organized direct violence whereas positive peace is the absence of structural and cultural violence and prevalence of justice, harmony and equality. Structural violence is built into the very nature of social, cultural and economic institutions. This development has an effect of denying peoples important rights, such as economic wellbeing, social, political and sexual equality, a sense of personal fulfilment and self-worth etc. (Tilahun, 2015).
Accepting peace as an absence of violence or war begs many questions. The fact that there is no direct violence or conflict does not mean that there is wholesome peace.
There may be the absence of direct violence but structural violence is still prevalent during the negative peace (Galtung, 2007). Galtung held that the traditional concept of peace as absence of violence or war is inadequate.
Galtung defined “positive peace” as a state of peace where both direct and structural violence are absent or reduced. Positive peace does not mean only the absence of all forms of structural and direct violence; it also emphasizes on the presence of justice to each and every individual member of the society in an indiscriminate manner (cf. Pandey, 2015). It imagines a society where all forms of discriminations, inequalities and violence are absent; a society built upon the foundations of cooperation, harmony, tolerance and respect.
Positive peace does not mean there is completely no kind of conflict of any kind.
Conflicts may erupt sometimes. The only difference is the conflicts are resolved in a constructive way, and the legitimate demands of each party are met mostly through structural reforms. Positive peace is transformative; it tends to change the structures of society to eliminate oppression and injustice (cf. Dijema, 2007). Negative Peace Studies is concerned with how to reduce or eliminate negative relations. Positive Peace Studies is interested in how to build ever more harmonious relations (Galtung, 2007).
Galtung’s theory of peace is corroborated by Jeong (2000). Like Galtung, Jeong emphasized that negative peace focuses on the absence of direct violence such as war.
Jeong emphasized that the prevention and elimination of manifest use of violence require resolving differences through negotiation or mediation rather than resorting to physical force. Peace is not only concerned about the overt control or reduction of
violence. Positive peace, according to Jeong, means “removal of structural violence beyond the absence of direct violence.”
Another theory which is necessary to our discussion here is the Disarmament Theory of Peace. The positions of two main representative voices will be examined here. These are Ho-won Jeong and John XXIII.
Jeong (2000) hinged global peace on disarmament. According to him, for global peace to be achieved, weapons of war have to be drastically reduced or even eradicated.
A completely arms-free world may seem utopian, but that is what Isaiah’s vision of peace entails – total disarmament. Jeong, however, believed that total disarmament is not possible. Consequently, Jeong advocated for a reduction in the power of attack through qualitative and quantitative control of mutually destructive weapons. Jeong recognized that disarmament alone would not be sufficient to guarantee peace. He, however, acknowledged that a complete removal of threatening weapons was an important condition for diminishing the chances of war and improving human wellbeing. The author stressed that sufficient degrees of disarmament may well be a prerequisite for positive world development. In this way, Jeong agreed with the prophet Isaiah on the necessity of the nations casting aside their weapons of war and embracing peace. According to Jeong, disarmament, even if it involves only the removal of threatening weapons, will go a long way in reducing insecurity, ensuring peace and improving human wellbeing.
Jeong’s call for disarmament may also be appraised from an economic perspective, considering the enormous resources invested in military development among the nations of the world. If the resources used in procuring weapons of war and
in financing military campaigns are used in human and infrastructural development, the problem of hunger and poverty will be significantly reduced. A world free of weapons of war is safer than a weapons-filled world.
Another significant contribution to this theory is presented by John XXIII (1963).
The Pontiff discussed the problem of war and the value of peace in part three of his Encyclical, Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth). First, the Pope said that truth and justice are the main norms by which the relations between states are to be regulated. Secondly, he insisted that the arms race violates justice and breaks down attempts to actualize the solidarity among nations (cf. Shannon, 1983).
The Pontiff spoke in strong terms on the necessity of disarmament for global peace. The Pope wrote this Encyclical at the height of the so-called “Cold War.” The world had barely survived the Second World War (1939-45) with its scars still visible on many countries and on the world as a whole. At the end of 1962, humanity was on the brink of a global atomic conflict, and the Pope made a passionate appeal for peace (cf. Njoku, 2012/2013). The Pontiff noted with deep sorrow the enormous stocks of weapons that have been and still are being made in economically developed countries, with a vast outlay of intellectual and economic resources. According to him, the arms race deprives individuals and nations of the resources they need to develop their own common good and jeopardizes the wellbeing of people by increasing the likelihood of war and by harming the environment in which people live. The Pope remarked that the diversion of these resources to the production of arms is regrettably happening while these countries are loaded with heavy economic burdens (n.109).
John XXIII faulted the arms race for the insecurity and the climate of fear it produces, the economic resources it consumes, and the immoral destructiveness it threatens. The Pontiff called for disarmament as a necessary step to peace. In calling for disarmament, John XXIII maintained that true and solid peace of nations rests on mutual trust, not on equality of weapons of war (n. 112). He called for a peaceful adjustment of relations between nations and communities. Such an adjustment, according to him, must be founded on mutual trust, on sincerity in negotiations, and on faithful fulfillment of obligations assumed (n.117). The Pope’s call for disarmament as a way to peace harks back to Isaiah’s vision of the nations dropping their weapons of war (swords [
tAbr.x ;] and spears [~ytiynIx]
]) and embracing peace (Isa
2:4).
In line with the views of Jeong and John XXIII is the contribution made by Ering (2005). Ering accepts that peace is not merely the absence of war, but he stresses that peace could be promoted through a reduction of the things that cause internal conflicts such as poverty and starvation. Ering considers disarmament as a necessity to peace in the society. Ering argues that a reduction in the size and expenditures of the armed forces and the utilization of the resources used for military purposes into civilian sectors will boost the well being of the people.
The view advanced by Ering agrees with Isaiah’s vision which looked forward to the time when nations “shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks” (Isa 2:4). Ering maintained that such a conversion of weapons of war into implements of agriculture will boost human wellbeing.
Other scholars like Diefenbacher (1988) emphasized the need for disarmament to human wellbeing and development. Diefenbacher emphasized that arms expenditure is non-productive because it weakens the “material development potential of a society”
(p.65). He held that a society can cut down military expenditures without weakening public security.
Isaiah’s vision of peace fits into these two models of peace which we shall apply in the course of this work. Isaiah looks forward to a time when the nations will put aside their weapons of war and embrace peace (Isa 2:3-4). Isaiah envisioned a world devoid of weapons of war; a world where human and material resources are channeled to promote human wellbeing. But, is such a total disarmament as Isaiah envisioned it possible? It must be underlined the fact that a total disarmament is not possible in the world. Nations will still need some weapons for security and to maintain law and order.
However, it must be stressed that disarmament, even if it involves the removal of weapons of mass destruction, will go a long way in reducing tensions and ensuring peace to a great degree in the world at large and regions in particular. However, disarmament, does not only mean a reduction or eradication of weapons of war, it also requires a reduction of eradication of the scale of injustice, oppression, hateful and divisive ideologies that pervade the society.