Copyright. Permission to reprint required.

Article. The Jewish and Christian scriptures invite us into the stories and intrigue surrounding the statesmen and foreign ministers of the ancient Middle East. This neglected old-world narrative and its wisdom tradition provides a source of ideas and possibilities for U.S. foreign policy in today’s Middle East. Published in the Baylor University journal Christian Reflection (“Christianity and Islam” issue, 2005).

(Back to Articles)

Wise Foreign Relations
by Charles Strohmer

Reasons for the severe downward spiral in international relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world have become the subject of dinner table conversation, bitter public debate, and academic wrangling. This article isn’t going to reiterate these. What I hope to accomplish in this limited space is to start a conversation, setting out some provisional ideas to show that the much neglected wisdom tradition of the Scriptures can be a source of fresh possibilities in U.S. foreign policy vis à vis the Muslim World. Such an approach would not only ease tensions but more importantly help promote just policies in this conflicted region of the world.

Initially, three objections may arise to this approach to foreign policy. 1) The Bible is an ancient book, people say, so how can it have any contemporary relevance? Political science classes today, however, still include works like Plato’s Republic; and Sun Tzu’s Art of War—the oldest military treatise in the world (5th century, bc)—is required reading at military academies such as West Point and Annapolis. Antiquity, therefore, is not anathema to modern learning. 2) It is also assumed that the Scriptures can’t gain any traction on the political road because it speaks only to an individual’s personal devotion and moral instruction. This reductionist view fails to appreciate the Scripture’s multi-aspected wisdom for life, such as for education, aesthetics, communications, politics, and, we shall see, for foreign policy. 3) Too, the Bible as a source of ideas for U.S. international relations might be seen to violate separation of church and state. This is another common misunderstanding. As this article will show, “the wisdom way”—as the Scriptures understand it as it functions under God—does not arise from the church or from religion as institutions.

The wisdom way and its practitioners
When hearing the word “wisdom,” people tend to think of the Book of Proverbs and its clever sayings. But we need to think outside the box, here. Although proverbs are integral to the wisdom tradition, they are only a part, and not that part emphasized in this article. The wisdom tradition comprises a wealth of literature that, for this conversation, invites us into the stories, intrigue, and policies surrounding the statesmen, diplomats, and foreign ministers of the ancient Middle East. Those international actors were educated in the tradition of wisdom as a paradigm for conducting the diplomacy, negotiations, and mediation of international relations, treaties, and settlements.

Of the many characteristics of wisdom literature, three indicate why it can function as a paradigm for foreign policy. 1) It is connected with public affairs, especially with people in authority, such as in law, commerce, and statecraft. 2) It has close associations with the non-Jewish world. 3) It focuses on conditions that are universal to the entire human family, which places the literature at the service of humanity as a whole, before any distinctions are made between believers¹ and those who would not consider themselves believers. In other words, as Nietzsche might have said, it is for people who are human, all too human. Or as the writer of Ecclesiastes did say (12:13), when summing up the concern of wisdom literature: this is the sum of man’s duty. Literally: this is all mankind; or: this is [for] humanity as a whole.²

The great historic difficulty surrounding foreign relations, of course, which the wisdom tradition itself acknowledges, has always been how to arrange and sustain geopolitical alignments and agreements among nations who frequently press their conflicting national interests and values against each other. A geopolitical way of “getting along” was therefore necessary, a paradigm for the give-and-take of matters of state and foreign policy as it was lived out side-by-side in the sometimes contentious, sometimes cataclysmic, and sometimes peaceable and prosperous relations between old-world nations. In biblical history, the wisdom tradition provided that way. And like all nations, it became necessary for ancient Israel, too, once it became a nation, to develop its own wisdom paradigm for conducting its international relations. That paradigm arose amidst, and was partly drawn from, the reputed ancient wisdom traditions of the time, such as were well-established in Egypt, Persia, Babylon, and elsewhere in the region.³ Within Israel’s own wisdom tradition, two of the more prominent classes of men and women were the hakamim and the soperim. (A hakam or a soper is the individual within the class; the class being represented grammatically by the suffix im.) Hakamim is from the Hebrew root hkm, for “wise” or “wisdom”; and occasionally the term “the wise” appears as a shorthand for lists of hakamim, often in political and geopolitical contexts.

Within the broad class called hakamim were high-ranking government officials—cabinet ministers, policy makers, statesmen, foreign ministers, secretaries of state, diplomats, political advisors, and suchlike—who specialized in matters of state and international relations. Functioning alongside were the soperim, a class that traditionally included political secretaries and professional writers called scribes. The word often refers to a prominent leader’s master scribe, or to a master secretary, such as Baruch (Jeremiah 36), or to a royal scribe or secretary (2 Samuel 20:25; 1 Kings 4:3; 2 Kings 18:37).⁴ Included among the soperim, therefore, were ancient Israel’s professional political writers, without whom, as with the hakamim, the nation would not have been able to function in matters of state and international relations. For example, when referring to Israel’s political reorganization under David and Solomon, within the context of international negotiations and the council of kings, William McKane writes that a sōper (scribe)

had to master foreign languages for the purposes of diplomacy, and that in doing so he acquired a knowledge of foreign literatures and assisted in their dissemination.... [In both] Egypt and Babylonia wisdom is located in the circle of a high establishment which plays an important role in the political and cultural life of the time [and] these scribes have to be distinguished from mere writers. This seems to me to put the matter in the right perspective and it may not be going to far so say ... that these men, although primarily statesmen and administrators, were “born middlemen in the international exchange of literature.”⁵

Israel’s hakamim and soperim, as well as the wise of surrounding nations, were therefore indispensable for running governments, fostering international relations, and advising rulers. Examples abound. When an Egyptian ruler makes Joseph prime minster, he acknowledges before all of his officials that they will never find anyone as wise (Genesis 41:39; see also v. 33). In an ominous crisis, a later Pharaoh summons hakamim along with sorcerers and magicians in hopes of thwarting a clear and present danger from a foreign power (Exodus 7:11; compare Isaiah 19:11-12). In the delicate matter of a legal political decision that will decide Queen Vashti’s fate, King Xerxes of Persia sends for the hakamim to advise him (Esther 1:13). Even some kings themselves were notable for having characteristics of the hakamim. David, for one, was praised for having “wisdom like that of an angel of God,” and Solomon was known for his “wise and discerning” heart (2 Samuel 14:20; 1 Kings 3:12; see also Proverbs 20:26 in contrast to Ecclesiastes 4:13).

McKane writes that there is “a particular mental climate which is congenial to these soperim and hakamim; there are well-defined intellectual attitudes which they cherish in connection with the maintenance of high professional standards.”⁶ Women, too, are numbered among them. Second Samuel 14 describes a wise woman from Tekoa, whom Joab (David’s commander-in-chief) summoned to act out a dramatic scene before the king, which resulted in a later political decision by Absalom that had grave consequences for the government. Second Samuel 20, describes a wise woman in the besieged town of Abel Beth Maacah who negotiated with Joab to find a way to prevent his army division from destroying her town; and she is successful. It is probable that both women were among a class of professional political negotiators, for it seems unlikely that, given the high level of diplomacy required in each crisis, anyone who was not functioning within that capacity would have been a very foolish choice. Also, the remark that the woman went “in her wisdom” (2 Samuel 20:22; kjv) is a kind of technical expression which “indicates that she was a recognized leader with professional standing, perhaps like the ‘wise women’ who were found in the Canaanite court, according to the Song of Deborah (Judges 5:29).”⁷

The diplomatic mind
Foreign policy workers are tasked with developing geopolitical common ground on which to frame policies that are as just and as good for all sides as they can be. This can be extremely difficult, for there is no central government in international politics, and the parties often come to the table, as the Mideast conflict witnesses, terribly alienated and without any trust in each other, and they may seek to remain that way. I agree with Middle East negotiator and rabbi Marc Gopin that perhaps the greatest obstacle to be overcome, here, is “the ubiquitous human psychology of othering, the need to distinguish and exclude.”⁸

Because diplomats and international negotiators must frequently work within such a group psychology in hopes of reaching agreements, the wisdom way in foreign policy therefore requires its own style of approach and communication, one quite different from preaching, teaching, apologetics, or polemics. It is different because it must be, for it serves a different function than these other styles. An electric guitar hammering out heavy metal riffs is quite different from a classical instrument on stage playing Vivaldi. The tone must agree with the tradition. Because actors in international diplomacy work toward non-martial geopolitical agreements, this entails ways of thinking and communicating requisite for the calling. (Imagine the disastrous outcomes if diplomats every nation met in crises to vent polemics or to engage in religious apologetics.)

Being about diplomacy, foreign policy requires its professionals to exercise great tact and sensitivity in dealing with others. Take international negotiators as but one case in point. They must demonstrate a professionalism that submerges their own ideologies to the good of the negotiating parties. They must show themselves evenhanded, gaining the confidence of all sides, while helping the parties see reality as it is and adjust to it. They must help negotiations to reach midpoints that both sides can accept, often by challenging what seasoned Mideast negotiator Dennis Ross calls their “comfortable myths.” And they must be able to show empathy for the suffering and needs of the parties, helping each side “get” the other’s grievances. In short, the wise must be diplomatic.

We can see this general psychology of the wise in Daniel’s long and distinguished political career.⁹ Even when he is battling severe persecution from his counterparts, Daniel seeks what is good for all parties—even for those political advisors called astrologers! In some cases he seems to bend over backward to seek resolution to contradictory situations and predicaments. In this sense, the wise may be likened more to dialecticians than to apologists or polemicists. They have an esprit de corps that includes a clear respect of the “other,” even when the topics are very pointed, as the common phrase “O King, live forever” and similar language in the book indicate (Dan. 3:8, 17, 24; 6:6, 21).

The wisdom way is not a theological way
Besides requiring its own form of communication, the wisdom approach has a family resemblance closer to philosophy than to theology. In other words, the approach to foreign policy through wisdom is not the same as an approach through theology—a significant point in today’s deteriorating relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world, especially in the Middle East. Difference between the two approaches can be seen if we see theology as a ready-made provider of answers, as dogma, and if we understand philosophy in its function as asker of questions and in its meaning as “love of wisdom” (from the Greek philos = love, and sophia = wisdom). I don’t want to draw too stark of a distinction, but if, when confronted with foreign policy problems, we see wisdom in its role as asker of questions and theology in its dogmatic role, then it becomes clear why the two approaches to U.S. foreign policy have quite different starting points and destinations.

A theology falls within the purview of a particular covenant community, thriving among people who believe its dogmas. History reveals not only how theological bickering factionalizes believers within the same religion, but how theology can make enemies of people of different religions. This is why as a foreign policy approach it is not in the nature of theology to accommodate the common ground necessary for bringing rapprochement and peaceableness between peoples holding different religious beliefs, such as between the Jews and the Palestinians. This, then, is the great category mistake made by the theology called Christian Zionism.¹⁰ I know that this conclusion will be strongly resisted in some quarters because Christian Zionism seeks to influence U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and because its promoters hopes and fears about America are tied up with those of modern day Israel and America’s attitude towards it. Nevertheless, in the Scriptures it is the wisdom tradition that functions as a paradigm for foreign policy and international relations. Theology has a different purpose.

The paradigm shift from theology to wisdom would not hurt Israel and it would be good for the Palestinians, who, like Israel, have a profound sense of attachment to the land, for it would raise the legitimate claims of the Palestinians onto equal footing with those of Israel. Christian Zionism, though applauded by Israel’s conservative Likud Party, is anathema to the Palestinians, who see it as an anti-Muslim theology seeking to crush them through American foreign policy in league with Israel. Again, I’m not wishing to stir up controversy but merely to point out the limitations of a dogma-driven foreign policy versus the wider possibilities of the wisdom way.¹¹

Moderate and progressive Islamic reformers are well aware of the restrictions implicit in theologically driven foreign policies, but they would be receptive to the wisdom way, which, as far as I have been able to discover, corresponds in part with the Islamic tradition of ijtihad. Popularly translated as “independent thinking” or “critical reasoning,” ijtihad as a way of reasoning and negotiating became marginalized within Islam during twentieth century dominance of a strict black and white fundamentalist worldview within the religion. But ijtihad as a viable intellectual tradition is now being revived by Muslim reformists as a key to solving knotty problems faced by Muslim societies when interfacing with the West.

Ijtihad, which is not limited to a fundamentalist reading to the Qur’an, the shari’ah, or the hadiths, would be an able negotiating partner in the Middle East with the wisdom way. It seems to dovetail with what the Qur’an calls bani Adam (“children of Adam”), which Omid Safi, a progressive Islamic scholar and professor of philosophy and religion, says refers to “the totality of humanity” (recall Ecclesiastes 12:13, above).¹² This is significant because it is Muslim reformers, not the radical fundamentalists, who seek rapprochement and dialogue with Western powers and with whom those powers will find ways ahead. There is much untapped potential here, and Safi is typical of desires within the rising Muslim reform movement when he writes:

For progressive Muslims, a fundamental part of our struggle (jihad) to exorcise our inner demons and bring about justice in the world at large is to engage in a progressive and critical interpretation of Islam (ijtihad). An essential part of the progressive ijtihad is to account for and challenge the great impoverishment of thought and spirit brought forth by Muslim literalists-exclusivists.”¹³

The wisdom way in action
Practically speaking, how might a gospel-shaped wisdom way inform U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East? We have space for one illustration.

A central tenet of negotiations in any final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is the formula “land for peace,” which became a principle of UN Security resolution 242, in November, 1967, after the Six Day War: Israel would relinquish control of territories it had occupied in that war in return for recognition by the Arab world. In 1978, this principle was successfully used as the basis of Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt, and it played a role in the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in Gaza in 2005. Foreign policy advisors seeking insight from the Scriptures, here, have horizons available to them through the spirit of jubilee. (To my knowledge this has yet to be explored in this context.)

Leviticus 25 (the jubilee chapter) is still part of the Hebrew Bible, and so is Ezekiel 47:21-23, which states that Israel may allot land to “‘the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give him his inheritance,’ declares the Sovereign Lord” (vv 22-23; see also Isaiah 14:1; Leviticus 19:33-34).¹⁴ The phrase “consider them as native-born Israelites” indicates that those to be included in the giving of land do not have to meet a requisite qualification of first being an Israelite. And by reference to their progeny, the phrase “who have settled among you and who have children” protects two important areas: 1) it clarifies and strengthens the thought of settlements held well into the future by “foreigners,” and 2) it precludes land-grabbing by non-Israelites seeking a temporary home or wanting to manipulate the housing market. So it reinforces the notion of permanent settlements.

The jubilee principle in this context, as established by Yahweh through the prophet, seems to be a gesture of common grace, which brings us full circle to the common ground principle within the wisdom tradition. With creative thinking from today’s hakamim and soperim, might not jubilee grace be promoted as redemptive policy towards some of the land issues, perhaps even to some aspects of the right of return of Palestinian refugees? Further, a significant meaning of grace, as I understand it from the word Hebrew word chen, carries the idea of “moving people to places of well-being.”¹⁵ Would not the outworking of some practical injection of the jubilee principle into “land for peace” issues therefore be an authentic gesture of grace to the Palestinians, having a redemptive effect on the psychology of othering?

There is much uncharted territory to be discovered by exploring this neglected literature for clues to increase possibilities for just U.S. foreign policy goals and decisions today in the Middle East. Of course the region remains explosive, especially after the election of Hamas as the majority political power in the Palestinian government. Who really knows what will happen? Nevertehless, it is in a volatile context like this that today’s soperim and hakamim may find their greatest successes. Their efforts would be just and, if successful, the fruit peaceable, the future brighter. The stakes are high and the wise are needed to influence the outcome. (Charles Strohmer is the author of seven books and a contributor to Dictionary of Contemporary Religion in the Western World. He is writing a book on international relations and U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and the Middle East. Edited for the Web.)

1. John Peck & Charles Strohmer, Uncommon Sense: God’s Wisdom for Our Complex and Changing World (London: S.P.C.K., 2001), 31-45. - Back to Article
2. Ibid, 37. - Back to Article
3. This has been well documented. See, e.g., Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986); Leo G. Perdue, et al., In Search of Wisdom (Louisville: Westminister/John Knox Press, 1993); William McKane, Prophets and Wise Men (London: SCM Press LTD, 1965). - Back to Article
4. Willem A. VanGemeren, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), vol. 4, 1289. - Back to Article
5. Prophets and Wise Men, 43-44. - Back to Article
6. Ibid, 46 - Back to Article
7. Bernard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 492. - Back to Article
8. Marc Gopin, Holy War, Holy Peace: How Religion Can Bring Peace to the Middle East, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 58. - Back to Article
9. Daniel’s calling is inspiring for Christians working in foreign affairs, for he is a believer serving in a pagan government through several different administrations, sometimes under the severest personal ordeals. Yet he remains faithful to Yahweh in matters of policy when expediency or ungodly compromise would have saved him from terrible personal grief. Yahweh vindicates such dependence by giving Daniel great favor in each administration. - Back to Article
10. A key dogma of Christian Zionism holds that modern day Israel has a divine right to all of the land promised it in the Old Testament. A maximalist interpretation insists that this geography extend from Egypt to Iraq, following a literal rendering of Genesis 15:18, which speaks of boundaries between the Nile and the Euphrates. A minimalist version includes the Gaza strip, the West Bank, and Jordan. - Back to Article
11. Christian Zionism is in fact out-of-step with agreed upon international foreign policy in the region. E.g., Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan; American and British policy working towards a Palestinian state; the Sharon government’s dismantling of settlements in Gaza. - Back to Article
12. Omid Safi, ed., Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2004), 12. - Back to Article
13. Ibid, 8. - Back to Article
14. I wish to thank Calvin Seerveld for pointing me to Ezek. 47:21-23 in this context. - Back to Article
15. Charles Strohmer, Explaining the Grace of God (Tonbridge: Sovereign World, 1993), 10-12. - Back to Article

(Back to Articles)