There is a terrible topicality and irony in this evening’s readings.
“From the River to the Sea” is one of the chants for which Home Secretaries have sought to have pro-Palestinian protesters prosecuted. Yet we have just heard God declaring that the wandering Israelites are to take all the land from the Great River- that is the Euphrates, not merely the Jordan, to the Great Sea, that is, the Mediterranean. Even Mr Netanyahu does not yet intend to occupy Jordan and Syria.
The relevance of this irony is only enforced by the fact that the Palestinians who call themselves Filastiniun- are the same people as the Philistines, the traditional adversaries of the Israelites. The settlers who would expel the inhabitants from the West Bank justify their desire- and action- saying “The Patriarchs walked on these hills and now we are going to”. History repeats itself in a depressing way in the Holy Land.
And not just the Holy Land; we do not need to look far afield or long ago to see one nation assuming the right to invade another and take its land. Russia invaded Ukraine, with a divine mandate declared by the Patriarch of Moscow. America’s justification for wishing to seize Greenland is unashamedly amoral; it would be an exaggeration to suggest that Mr Trump’s administration had a coherent philosophy, but influential advisers have declared that the New world Order is that Might is Right, and America is able and therefore entitled to take any action in its perceived self interest. As any other powerful country would be. There is, of course, nothing new in that although its nakedness is shocking; such a policy is more usually given some superficial morally acceptable clothing.
St Paul would see nothing new in it either. In his day as ours the struggle is against the rulers, the authorities, the cosmic powers of the present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places. But there’s a perhaps deliberate irony too in Paul’s terrific rhetoric. We are to arm ourselves with weapons (admittedly mostly defensive ones) in order to fight for righteousness and peace. The only offensive weapon is the Sword of the spirit which is the word of God. Even that, however, is heavily ambiguous especially when heard, as we have just heard it, following God’s injunction to Joshua to annihilate the inhabitants of Canaan. But Paul was probably not expecting to be read alongside the Book of Joshua.
Paul’s military imagery is not to be taken too literally; he is clear that the dangers with which he is concerned are spiritual ones. Paul is here is warning against the rulers who would persecute Christians who were threatened- as many are still threatened- in a very real personal sense for their spiritual beliefs. It is tempting but unfair to compare “the cosmic powers of present darkness” that Paul sees threatening the individuals in the Christian community, with the disorder generated in the world now where nationalistic populism is underpinned by the belief that the pursuit of national wealth and power is justified for its own sake. This international disorder affects us all personally- none more so than the innocent victims of bombs dropping on them in Iran. And this disorder is nothing short of a total negation of the the Gospel and two millennia of Judeo-Christian ethics.
There may be no irony in Paul’s imagery; I am not a pacifist, and I believe nations and peoples-and individuals- are entitled to resist violence, inevitably using measured violence to do so. That principle is enshrined in international law which itself is based in the sophisticated philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and other Christian and Jewish thinkers. It is, of course, a principle that applies to all- which includes both Israelis and Palestinians. There may be occasions when a sword as well as shoes are necessary to proclaim, and attempt to establish, the Gospel of peace. I am not however, advocating a return to singing “Onward Christian soldiers “ or Fight the good fight” hymns which were, I suspect, motivated by as much imperialism as evangelism-if those two can separated.
The real danger is in reading the Bible too literally and the assumption that while it is, read as a whole, the Word of God, that does not mean that God intends us to hang on every word, not even every word he is himself recorded as saying. This must be so the least we can expect from God is that he should be consistent and the biblical god is not, or not superficially, consistent. These inconsistencies are easily explained by the fact that the different books of the Bible are written by different human writers writing at different times and circumstances, making their own individual and human attempt to express the ineffable truth about God. We should reflect too that Jesus- the son of God- is recorded as scarcely uttering a word, other than the most mundane, that is not ambiguous in some way. We should not expect unequivocal clarity from his Father.
The naivety of the West Bank settlers is, of course, self-serving; they conveniently ignore the conditions made very plain in Deuteronomy that occupation of the Promised land was to be conditional on observation of all the laws statutes set out in the Mosaic code, including respect for neighbours. And archaeology, insofar as it escapes Israeli censorship, seems to confirm that the occupation of Canaan was always a patchy affair; sometimes violent as recorded in the history books of the Bible but sometimes peaceful too. Let us pray that peaceful coexistence may eventually return. Over literal reading of scripture will not help in that endeavour and some affirmative action as recommended by St Paul may be needed too. Amen.
There is a terrible topicality and irony in this evening’s readings.
“From the River to the Sea” is one of the chants for which Home Secretaries have sought to have pro-Palestinian protesters prosecuted. Yet we have just heard God declaring that the wandering Israelites are to take all the land from the Great River- that is the Euphrates, not merely the Jordan, to the Great Sea, that is, the Mediterranean. Even Mr Netanyahu does not yet intend to occupy Jordan and Syria.
The relevance of this irony is only enforced by the fact that the Palestinians who call themselves Filastiniun- are the same people as the Philistines, the traditional adversaries of the Israelites. The settlers who would expel the inhabitants from the West Bank justify their desire- and action- saying “The Patriarchs walked on these hills and now we are going to”. History repeats itself in a depressing way in the Holy Land.
And not just the Holy Land; we do not need to look far afield or long ago to see one nation assuming the right to invade another and take its land. Russia invaded Ukraine, with a divine mandate declared by the Patriarch of Moscow. America’s justification for wishing to seize Greenland is unashamedly amoral; it would be an exaggeration to suggest that Mr Trump’s administration had a coherent philosophy, but influential advisers have declared that the New world Order is that Might is Right, and America is able and therefore entitled to take any action in its perceived self interest. As any other powerful country would be. There is, of course, nothing new in that although its nakedness is shocking; such a policy is more usually given some superficial morally acceptable clothing.
St Paul would see nothing new in it either. In his day as ours the struggle is against the rulers, the authorities, the cosmic powers of the present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places. But there’s a perhaps deliberate irony too in Paul’s terrific rhetoric. We are to arm ourselves with weapons (admittedly mostly defensive ones) in order to fight for righteousness and peace. The only offensive weapon is the Sword of the spirit which is the word of God. Even that, however, is heavily ambiguous especially when heard, as we have just heard it, following God’s injunction to Joshua to annihilate the inhabitants of Canaan. But Paul was probably not expecting to be read alongside the Book of Joshua.
Paul’s military imagery is not to be taken too literally; he is clear that the dangers with which he is concerned are spiritual ones. Paul is here is warning against the rulers who would persecute Christians who were threatened- as many are still threatened- in a very real personal sense for their spiritual beliefs. It is tempting but unfair to compare “the cosmic powers of present darkness” that Paul sees threatening the individuals in the Christian community, with the disorder generated in the world now where nationalistic populism is underpinned by the belief that the pursuit of national wealth and power is justified for its own sake. This international disorder affects us all personally- none more so than the innocent victims of bombs dropping on them in Iran. And this disorder is nothing short of a total negation of the the Gospel and two millennia of Judeo-Christian ethics.
There may be no irony in Paul’s imagery; I am not a pacifist, and I believe nations and peoples-and individuals- are entitled to resist violence, inevitably using measured violence to do so. That principle is enshrined in international law which itself is based in the sophisticated philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and other Christian and Jewish thinkers. It is, of course, a principle that applies to all- which includes both Israelis and Palestinians. There may be occasions when a sword as well as shoes are necessary to proclaim, and attempt to establish, the Gospel of peace. I am not however, advocating a return to singing “Onward Christian soldiers “ or Fight the good fight” hymns which were, I suspect, motivated by as much imperialism as evangelism-if those two can separated.
The real danger is in reading the Bible too literally and the assumption that while it is, read as a whole, the Word of God, that does not mean that God intends us to hang on every word, not even every word he is himself recorded as saying. This must be so the least we can expect from God is that he should be consistent and the biblical god is not, or not superficially, consistent. These inconsistencies are easily explained by the fact that the different books of the Bible are written by different human writers writing at different times and circumstances, making their own individual and human attempt to express the ineffable truth about God. We should reflect too that Jesus- the son of God- is recorded as scarcely uttering a word, other than the most mundane, that is not ambiguous in some way. We should not expect unequivocal clarity from his Father.
The naivety of the West Bank settlers is, of course, self-serving; they conveniently ignore the conditions made very plain in Deuteronomy that occupation of the Promised land was to be conditional on observation of all the laws statutes set out in the Mosaic code, including respect for neighbours. And archaeology, insofar as it escapes Israeli censorship, seems to confirm that the occupation of Canaan was always a patchy affair; sometimes violent as recorded in the history books of the Bible but sometimes peaceful too. Let us pray that peaceful coexistence may eventually return. Over literal reading of scripture will not help in that endeavour and some affirmative action as recommended by St Paul may be needed too. Amen.