Is the Hebrew Bible Anti-Imperialist?

I'm framing this thesis as a question because it's the kind of thing that argues mostly through absence, so I could probably be debunked pretty quickly.

I was reading some blog posts about violence in the Koran and, naturally, conversation attempted to compare violence in the Old Testament to violence in the Islamic holy book. It occurred to me, however, that the Old Testament seems perhaps surprisingly anti-Imperialist when compared to other major works from the ancient world.

The Hebrew Bible is largely the story of Israelity occupation of the Holy Land...and that Holy Land seems to have fairly precise borders. God does not appear to give the Promised Land to the Jews as some kind of staging ground from which they will launch a global conquest.

Early on, the Jews have to do some conquering to claim the Holy Land, but there are limits to what they are given. For the most part, Old Testament violence seems primarily geared towards preserving national identity and keeping Israel out of harms way. It is about maintaining the Chosen People in an isolationist utopia, not about dominating other nations on an religious crusade or quest to glorify God.

When conquest and expansion does appear in the Old Testament, it is generally negative. Other nations actively seek to dominate, often leading to ancient Jewish suffering as the Jews are typically the ones being colonized (or resisting invasion). Esther might be an exception here, but it still seems as though Jewish independence would be preferable and safer than Jews depending on the mercy of a benevolent emperor.

The closest passage that I could find that seemed to advocate Jewish imperialism (after a quick Google search, I will confess) is Isaiah 60:

10Foreigners shall rebuild your walls, and their kings shall be your attendants; Though I struck you in my wrath, yet in my good will I have shown you mercy.

11Your gates shall stand open constantly; day and night they shall not be closed But shall admit to you the wealth of nations, and their kings, in the vanguard.

12 For the people or kingdom shall perish that does not serve you; those nations shall be utterly destroyed.

That doesn't sound too friendly.

An Augustinian re-interpretation of these passages would most likely require us to read it figuratively. The point is not that the U.N. should crush any enemy to the nation of Israel, but, rather, all nations are drawn to Christ or His Church. We now read these passages as a call to evangelize, not to conquer. We read the punishment for nations opposed to Christ as spiritual suffering...or even the self-inflicted turmoil that arises from a lack of true social justice. We don't believe that God sends natural disasters against nations that do not worship him, and we certainly don't think our role is to be God's scourge.

Even so, this passage, in its original context, still doesn't seem to really be about Jewish conquest.

First of all, the immediate literal context is a message of hope for a conquered and oppressed people: "The children of your oppressors shall come, bowing low before you; All those who despised you shall fall prostrate at your feet."

This is not the voice of God granting the Jews a manifest destiny. It's a kindly father telling his awkward and depressed daughter to keep her chin up. She might have embarrassed herself at the recent dance, but she's still the prettiest girl at school, and all the boys will be lining up to ask her out some day.

Rhetorically, Isaiah sounds a little hyperbolic, if read literally.

And it certainly isn't a call to take action against other nations: "I, the LORD, will swiftly accomplish these things when their time comes." The Jews are called to reform themselves and put their faith and trust in God...not to arm themselves for violent revolt or take pre-emptive strikes against future aggressors.

This is a post that perhaps requires more thought...but I thought I'd get conversation rolling.