Day 1478 - "We Do Not Turn the Other Cheek"

In case you have been sleeping, last week the  United Nations Security Council passed a resolution  rebuffing Israel's continuing annexation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. This caused a dogmatic response from Prime Minister Netanyahu that forms the title of this post. The object of dissent is something called  the “two-state” solution.

 A little perspective helps appreciate the circumstance. In 1948 at the end of the first modern Arab-Israel war, the United Nations passed a resolution (194) establishing the principles for settlement of the conflict. (For all modern history, Palestinians lived in and owned property in Palestine.) The settlement requires returning Palestinian refugees to their homes at the earliest possible practical date and for the responsible government authorities under the principles of international law to pay any Palestinians who chose not to return for their land or the value of the property or damage to any refugee who returned and found their property damaged. (Of course none of the Arab states or communist bloc states who all recognized Israel as a state supported the resolution, and Israel was not yet a UN member.)

The subsequent Arab-Israeli conflicts have moved the borders significantly from their position in 1948 complicating a resolution even further.  A third source of conflict is that both Israel, Palestine and much of the Christian world reveres Jerusalem as a holy city.

As President Jimmy Carter has described repeatedly, the fundamental danger to the stability of Israel is the lack of a fair and equitable solution to this problem of ownership of land and representation of its citizens. Stripping away all the superfluous debate, there are only two feasible options for peace-loving people,

(1)  Israel forms a representative (democratic) government over all the land of Palestine including all Palestinian people living in the land,

(2)   The land of Palestine and Israel is partitioned into two independent states either according to the 1948 resolution, or boundaries agreed upon by Israel and Palestine.

Of course, there is a third option, that either or both Palestine and Israel seek to form a theocratic government(s) per force with sufficient violence to accomplish the ends of unilateral government.

It is patently obvious to anyone who evaluates the situation with an unbiased eye that the two-state solution is the only viable alternative for Israel, Palestine and peace. Why?

A one-state solution would incorporate Arabs into Israeli citizenship leading ultimately to them attaining majority control of elections.  This is unacceptable to Israel. Establishing, or attempting to establish a theocratic government(s) will lead only to increasing conflict and war.

A two-state solution allows Palestine and Israel to maintain sovereignty over its land, with perhaps Jerusalem established as a holy city cared for by all.  Rationally, this is the only viable alternative. Though one must admit it is foolhardy not to recognize that such an agreement requires mutual consent on boundaries and willingness to be a good neighbor to each party as the Law demands of all observant Jews and Muslims. It also requires religious tolerance on the part of both parties, something that has not been evident.

Nevertheless, the only possible path to peace is the two-state solution. Yet every settlement Israeli’s build on Palestinian territory is a strike against getting to that solution. The path Mr. Netanyahu follows leads to war with ominous global consequences.

It is fundamental to understand the primary motivation of the Jewish settlers, numbering in the 100,000’s who are building homes in Palestine. It is an extreme religious, if not apocalyptic, conservatism that sees all Palestine as part of the greater state of Israel. Yet this conservatism, rooted in historic Pharisee religious tradition, flies in the face of the teachings of the prophet Isaiah and of the commandments of the Law to which they claim allegiance. It also flies in the face of history since 586 BCE.

In the United States, many of the most ardent defenders of the status quo whereby Israel unilaterally seizes Palestinian land for settlements are Christian evangelical fundamentalists. Some even seek to inflame the fires of conflict by moving our embassy to Jerusalem as an act of spite to the Arabs and solidarity to the conservative Israelis.

This may be a good time for Christians to begin reading and embracing what they believe of the teachings of Jesus. We owe recognition of Israel as God’s chosen people but we are not in control of history, of our place in the Kingdom of God, nor do we have the mind or authority of God to know what plan he has for them and us.

Today, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel captured the essence of the conflict and magnified the theological divide between Christianity and parochial Judaism. He said, “Israel is a country with national pride, and we do not turn the other cheek,” he said. “This is a responsible, measured and vigorous response, the natural response of a healthy people that is making it clear to the nations of the world that what was done at the U.N. is unacceptable to us.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu has placed this issue in its fundamental theological context. It is not pretty to embrace power and judgment over grace, but it makes the starkest division of grace as represented by the exposition of the Law by Jesus and that of conservative Pharisee thought. Regardless of how well we practice our Christianity, Mr. Netanyahu has placed our duty to it directly in our face. Christians do not seek revenge for perceived wrongs, violence and theft as balm for injured pride, or seek to impose by fiat their own theological perspective on the world.

I do not see any good argument against the United States abstaining on this vote, but perhaps I do see a theological imperative to have voted “yes” on it. Unless Israel can step up to the plate and offer the hand of friendship to the aliens living in its land, unless it can say, “you are my neighbor and therefore my brother,” there can be no progress on the issue but only conflict. Furthermore, given the almost 70 years of hostility between Israel and the Arab states, it is not clear how long one will need to extend one’s hand or how many miles of walking in another’s shoes are required to find peace. 

All we can do is remind Mr. Netanyahu that once his people were slaves in Egypt and the Lord heard their cry.

Day 1471 - Searching for a Righteous Man

Psalm 80

Isaiah 7:1-10

Matthew 1:18-25

The Greek philosopher, Diogenes, searched fruitlessly for an honest man. His behavior was clearly eccentric but guided by the principle that any act one does in private without shame can be done in public. This idea is quite contradictory to the Christian ideal unless we also understand that righteousness should guide our inner activity, and hence, our external activity.

If we read the laments of Psalm 80 we find much in common with a lament for righteousness we may raise today, “Lord come and save us.” The words of the psalmist clearly show that the Hebrews have incurred the ire of God and are oppressed by neighbors and enemies, “You make us the scorn of our neighbors; our enemies laugh among themselves.” The psalmist says the Lord is not happy with their inner self, “How long will you be angry with your people's prayers? You have fed them with the bread of tears."Using honoroific descriptions such as "Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel,” “O Lord God of hosts,” and “You who are enthroned upon the cherubim, he repeats the only pleas available to him, "Restore us, O God, Restore us, O Lord God of hosts,” and “Stir up your might and come to save us!"

The psalmist captures the depths of lament held in common by all of God’s children who feel abandoned or oppressed, yet ends on a note of hope for reconciliation, "Let your face shine, that we may be saved." These words parallel the great benediction of Numbers 6:24-26, (“The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace.”)

Isaiah speaks to King Ahaz of Judah in a similar situation of hopelessness and despair. Although the history of King Ahaz is complicated by the differing accounts in 2 Kings 16 and 1 Chronicles 28, we do know Ahaz reigned in the time of threat by Assyria, Syria, Israel and Egypt. Although he may have only been trying to create alliances to save Judah, he does not present himself as an exemplary righteous king. His congress with the Syrians swayed him to worship and erect idols of Syrian gods in the Temple in Jerusalem indicating he had little confidence in the Lord's ability to save Judah but much confidence in the Syrian king.

Isaiah knows the Lord promised he would defend Judah, so he tells Ahaz not to be fainthearted and calls Judah’s two enemies Syria and Assyria pathetic “smoldering torches.”

Isaiah taunts Ahaz with disgust and sarcasm,  “Why don't you ask the Lord for a sign?” only to have Ahaz say, “I do not want to put the Lord to the test.” Can we conclude anything else than Ahaz doesn't have confidence the Lord will come through?

Exasperated, Isaiah’s sarcasm cuts deeper, “Why do you weary my God?” - a clear slap in the face of King Ahaz who has been worshipping Syrian gods. And then the truth, salvation of Judah will come by a Savior, a child born be born of a young woman who will be named Emmanuel... (Emmanuel means God is with us)... before the child is old enough to know good from evil the kings who threaten Judah will be gone. The lament of Psalm 80 is answered with the assurance that the Lord will be with them in this time of their lament.

Now, about 500 years later, Matthew in the time of the Romans describes the birth ofJesus. Sadly, as far back as in the first 150 years of the Church arguments about whether Mary was a “young woman” or a “virgin” have caused great debate and conflict in the church and cost a few people their life. People argue over the proper translation of the Hebrew and the Greek words for young woman and a virgin expending great energy arguing over the legitimacy or validity of the virgin birth, a relatively inconsequential issue in the face of the core message of the good news in all the gospels embodied in the two names given her child, the absolute measure of our faith, that finally “God is with us to save us.”

It is a divine tragedy when we miss this one common thread in all the Scriptures that Jesus is the answer to the lament of the Psalm, “God come and save us.”  There is more to Matthew than meets the eye on a first reading of this account of the birth story. Yes, we know that Mary found herself pregnant with this young child while she was engaged to Joseph before they began to live together.

This was a very serious, deadly matter, whether intended to preserve family structure or assuage the cuckolded male’s pride.  According to the Law, both the unmarried woman and man who were discovered to have a relationship outside of marriage were to be stoned to death. (If discovered in a field, only the man was stoned with the presumption no one could hear the woman’s cry for help.)

Joseph goes against the letter of the Law and opts to divorce Mary quietly rather than humiliate and expose her, yet Matthew calls Joseph a righteous man. (The traditional reference to “Jesus son of Mary” acknowledges the indeterminate parentage.)

Joseph bears some similarity to Abraham (father of many nations). Do you remember the story of what made Abraham righteous? The Lord told Abram (before he was renamed) to pack his bags, take his belongings and leave Aram for the life of a sojourner, a traveler. Abram packed his bags and left, not questioning the Lord. For that he was reckoned righteous because of his willing obedience.

The angel tells Joseph not fear taking Mary as his wife because this child will save his people from their sins, instructing him to name the child Jesus. The angel repeats the verse from Isaiah that he will be Emmanuel or God is with us. Joseph names the child Jesus, as instructed.

Have we found the righteous man (besides Abraham)? Joseph finds himself in quite a predicament. As I said under the law a woman and a man having been discovered in a relationship outside of marriage especially if the woman was betrothed to another, are to be punished by stoning. The Law prescribed a rigid solution for the circumstance. It seems to me by conventional wisdom that if Joseph was a righteous man, he would have led Mary out to the gate and perhaps picked up the first stone himself. Or perhaps fear that people might decide even to stone him as the other guilty party. This alone might fuel the desire to divorce Mary quietly and not call attention to the matter.

What more is buried in this birth story by Matthew?  Certainly, Joseph shows compassion for Mary, and willingly follow the word of the Lord. But the birth story reveals another part of his righteousness. In the time of Jesus, a man naming a son, regardless of parentage, was a public sign and covenant with the child that the son was recognized as kindred son. The child is thereby accepted fully into the family. We discover another facet of his righteousness.

But there is more to the outcome of the righteous acts by Joseph.  Joseph named the boy Jesus as told. What is in the name Jesus? The name “Jesus” has an interesting history. The Hebrew word, Yahoshua evolved into the word Yoshua, or Joshua, that the Greek translates loosely into Jesus. The Hebrew meaning of Joshua is, “O Lord, Save us!”  or, “the Lord, saves us.”  

Even if the angel had not told us that this young child is Emmanuel, “God is with us,” the angel made sure by the child's name that we would get the message that this child will be “the Lord who saves us,” and therefore he will be also “the Lord who is with us.”

So, we see several perspectives of righteousness in Joseph. He exhibits a fatherly righteousness that Jesus will speak about later during the confrontation with the scribes and Pharisees, when he takes them to task for trying to live the literal word of the law rather than the law that is written in their hearts. If that rigidity happened with Mary, Jesus would not be here.

Throughout his ministry Jesus will drive home over and over a simple point about righteousness.  Righteousness, the manifestation of a life lived under the law, is not found by what is written on paper or stone but by what grace is written in one’s heart.”

Sin and the written Law binds and condemns us. Matthew gives us Joseph, another example of a righteous man who did as the Lord instructed. He  embraced his son as Jesus who came to hold out the hand of righteous grace to save us, not to judge us.

After sorting through Isaiah and Matthew, it is hard to miss what the hope in the lament by author of Psalm 80, “God come and save us.” The psalmist expected divine grace. Isaiah prophesied divine grace to a generation that did nothing to justify the steadfast lovingkindness of the Lord bound in the covenant that he made with the Hebrews, “You will be my people, always.”

That covenant rings in the air as Isaiah tells Ahaz that he had too little faith in that covenant to ask for grace. “Is it (grace) too little for you to weary my God so?”

I wonder if that is not so different from our own world where the rush to judgment is often cloaked in a mantle of self-defined righteousness? That is our nature. We go about the world inclined almost reflexively to judge people, or our own self. Some time we say it alound, at other times we say it under our breath, "they don't deserve it, I can’t believe they did that," “I don’t deserve grace,” and so on.

But, even when we are self-righteously, pridefully, floundering in our own trials, tribulations and judgment, who among us does not hope, “Lord please save us,” from the person a righteous man named “The Lord Saves Us.”

The part of our liturgy called the prayer of confession is tied fundamentally to the whole principle of our Christian belief. Paul says we've all as sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Yet confession only requires us to proclaim that Jesus is Lord, and act that way.

Righteousness sounds so simple, doesn't it?  Micah (6:8) tells us how simple it is. Micah asks, “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you? Only to do justice to love kindness and walk humbly with your God.

I think finding righteousness is so hard because like Ahaz, we find it hard to acknowledge that we can accept and trust grace rather than judge our own selves. That message is the heart of this person called God save us and God is with us, this Jesus, this Emmanuel. This is the One to whom the psalmist laments, “Restore my soul, Lord God of hosts let your face shine that we may be saved.”

Next Saturday evening and Sunday Christians celebrate the response found in the heart of God, that this child born on Christmas day is the answer to that lament to the Lord, "Stir up your might, and come to save us!" The response relied on the compassionate righteousness in the heart of Joseph, for Mary and for this fatherless child that he named him Jesus and took for his own.

For me, the antidote for this world of anger and hostility and judgment and finger-pointing is to live with the grace and model of righteousness found in two people, Joseph and Jesus.

When you celebrate these remaining days before Christmas remember that you're celebrating the season of the righteous man, you're celebrating the proclamation of Micah (6:8) who said "…He has told you Oh mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

Is there anything else we can say than, "Merry Christmas and God be with you." Amen.