Advent 4B: Defiance and Hope on the Land

By Sylvia Keesmaat

In light of the current conflict over land in Palestine, some of this week’s readings with their promises of unconditional presence on the land have tragic overtones. Mary’s brave song, and Paul’s assertion of a different gospel, promise liberation for all people and all land suffering under imperial occupation.

Commentary

  • Background: In the Ancient Near East the temples of the gods were complex social structures that legitimated the servitude of the people. In some larger cities, up to a third of the population were required to work in the service of the temple elite. In Babylonian and Assyrian mythology, where the earth was created out of violence, human beings were created to be the slaves of the gods, engaging in the intense and oppressive agricultural practices that depleted the land so decisively. Such an origin story authorized both a cumbersome temple hierarchy staffed by an elite priestly order, and the servitude of the peasant class, who laboured to provide daily feasts for the gods and those who tended to them. The environmental impact of such temple structures has been well documented, with intensive agriculture leading to soil salinization and infertility.

    In ancient Israel, however, the creation stories told a different tale of a world created not out of violence, but out of the breath of God, that spoke the world into being. Human beings were created to be the image of God, living in a creation that was understood to be God’s temple. No one in this creation account is intended to be a slave—weather to the gods or to the elite. Because all of creation was God’s temple (see below), there was no creational justification for an enormous temple with its supporting hierarchy.

    vv. 1-3: When David notes that he lives in a house of cedar (note that cedar was an expensive wood not native to Israel but was imported from Lebanon), while the ark of God has been living in a tabernacle all this time, he is suggesting that he needs to build a house — a temple—for God. Nathan initially tells David that his intent to build a temple meets with God’s approval. This suggests that Nathan is a bit of a “yes-man” for the monarchy, as some scholars have pointed out. For David this is partly a question of piety but also one of legitimation. If he builds the temple for Israel’s God, his rule is legitimated. In addition (as happens later in the narrative with Solomon), the temple officials would become closely allied with his own officials, and the enslaving of the population to provide food for his table as well as the temple would become acceptable.

    vv. 4-7: God’s word to Nathan indicates that the God of this people has deliberately chosen to live in a tent and tabernacle. The mention of the tabernacle is significant: various scholars have pointed out how the building of the tabernacle mirrors the creation account: the seven days of creation, the seven repetitions of “Let there be” and “It was so” are paralleled by the seven commands to Moses about how the tabernacle should be built in Exodus 25-31. In addition, the rûah 'elohīm (the Spirit of God) in Genesis 1:1, is paralleled by Bezalel whom God calls by name and fills with the Spirit of God (rûah 'elohīm) in Exodus 36:30-31. The Spirit of God in Genesis moves over the water at the start of creation; the Spirit of God fills Bezalel with skill, intelligence and knowledge for creating artistic designs in stone, wood, yarn, and linen. The creation of the tabernacle is a microcosm of the creation of the world, with a lamp stand made to look like an almond tree (is this the tree of life?) in the middle of the tabernacle.

    The parallel of the building of the tabernacle with the creation of the world reinforces texts found elsewhere in scripture, namely that the Creator God regards all of creation as God’s sanctuary, as God’s temple.

    Isa 66:1-2, which introduces a longer passage that condemns the sacrifices in the temple begins this way:

    Thus says the Lord:

    Heaven is my throne,

    and the earth is my footstool;

    so what kind of house could you build for me,

    what sort of place for me to rest?

    2 All these things my hand has made,

    so all these things are mine,

    says the Lord.

    Where does God live? In the creation that God has made as a home for God and all creatures (compare Psalm 104).

    vv. 8-11; 16: The passage then pivots to assure David that even without a legitimating temple, his “house,” his throne will be assured throughout history. God promises a land for the people, where they will be planted. This promise, of course, tied in with the promise of a throne that is established forever, can lead to an ideological legitimation of a right to the land with, as we have seen in Palestine, oppressive implications.

    This promise is, in fact, in tension with the Deuteronomic covenant in Deuteronomy 28-29, where the shape of the community and the calling of the people to practice justice and care for the vulnerable and the land will determine how well they are able to live in the land. In Deuteronomy, failure to practice justice, failure to give rest to all creatures and the land will result in drought and infertility.

    This tension between the unconditional promise, and the conditional promise is one that runs throughout the Hebrew Bible.

  • The journey that Mary made from her home in Nazareth to Elizabeth in the hill country of Judea would have taken about three or four days. She would have gone on foot. While walking she would have seen the oppressive environmental impact of Roman occupation on her land. The “wilderness” that King David had hid in to escape Saul was largely gone; small subsistence farms were in the process of being replaced by larger estates farmed by slaves or day labourers for export crops (wine, grain, olive oil). Men stood around in the village squares waiting for work. She would have realized that the proud were those who had seized land through excessive taxation and extortionate interest on debts. The lowly were those grieving the loss of their land, grieving the loss of their life ways on the land, grieving the loss of the care and affection that they shared with the creatures on their land. She would have realized that those who without food were hungry not because there was a lack of food, but because the wealthy had been harvesting what they did not sow.

    This song is rooted in what she would have seen as she walked, deeply rooted in the landscape of her land, deeply rooted in the injustice and oppression she saw on the land as she walked.

    Note that Mary also echoes the Song of Hannah from 1 Samuel 2, particularly vv. 4-8:

    The bows of the mighty are broken,

    but the feeble gird on strength.

    5 Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread,

    but those who were hungry are fat with spoil.

    The barren has borne seven,

    but she who has many children is forlorn.

    6 The Lord kills and brings to life;

    God brings down to Sheol and raises up.

    7 The Lord makes poor and makes rich;

    God brings low and exalts.

    8 The Lord raises up the poor from the dust;

    and lifts the needy from the ash heap

    to make them sit with princes

    and inherit a seat of honour.

    For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s,

    and on them God has set the world.

    Note that Hannah grounds the actions of God for the hungry, the poor and the needy in God’s creation of the earth. Because God is the generous creator, who has established a world of abundance, God will act to ensure that no one goes hungry, no one goes without.

  • These verses are hard to preach in the midst of the genocide in Gaza. Passages like this have formed the basis for current Israeli policy for crushing down their enemies (v. 23). Note also v 25: “I will set his hand on the sea, and his right hand on the rivers,” which is echoed in the first article of the Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party:

    “The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”

    The Palestinian cry “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free” is a direct challenge to this oppression.

    The lectionary has omitted vv. 5-18, where God is praised as the Creator.

    vv 14 is pivotal for the whole passage: Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you, emphasizing the justice, righteousness, steadfast love and justice that characterize God and by extension, God’s people.

    That said, the verses that are in the lectionary from this psalm highlight one side of the tension we find throughout the biblical story: the tension between whether those who are not part of the people of Israel are to be destroyed, or whether they are to be welcomed into the community of those who follow the Creator. By the time we get to the gospels, we find that this tension has been resolved in a community of welcome rather than vengeance.

  • This fragment of Romans concludes the letter by highlighting themes from the beginning of the letter, particularly the challenge of the “gospel” of Jesus the Messiah over against that of Rome. Whereas the “gospel,” the “good news” that Rome proclaimed was one of military victory over enemies, and the depletion of their land and resources, including animals, wood, spices, fruit, and grain, the good news of Jesus is one of welcome for the gentiles and restoration for all of creation (Paul’s reference to the “mystery” is explained elsewhere as the welcoming of the Gentiles into the community of faith and the reconciliation of all things in heaven and on earth: Eph. 1:8-10; 3:1-6; Col. 1.15-29)

  • Nazareth was in Galilee, an area that had suffered greatly as a result of Herod’s penchant for reducing rebellious towns to rubble and rebuilding along Roman lines. Sepphoris, a mere 10km from Nazareth, had been completely destroyed at around the time of Jesus birth, the women and children enslaved, the men killed. When Mary is promised a son who will be named Jesus (the Lord sets free), who will be set on the throne of David and who will be called son of God, she would have heard this as a challenge to the oppressive Roman rulers who occupied her land through the puppet-King Herod. She also would have heard this as a confirmation of the promise of God’s steadfast love to the line of David proclaimed in 2 Sam. 7.16.

    Of note is the parallel between this annunciation to Mary and the annunciation to Hagar in the wilderness:

    “Now you have conceived and shall bear a son,

    and shall call his name Ishmael,

    for the Lord has given heed to your affliction.” (Genesis 16.11)

    Hagar was promised a son, whose name means, “God hears.” Mary was promised a son whose name means “The Lord sets free.” “God hears” and “The Lord sets free.” The two names are linked, for God sets free those whom God hears crying out in need.

    v 35- Note that Caesar was also called “son of god.” When an imperial ruler died, they were drawn up to the realm of the gods where they became a god (apotheosis was the term for this). So the current emperor was called a “son of god.” At the time of Jesus’ birth, this term was applied to Augustus, who was encouraging the worship of the Roman deities across the empire, while placing his own statues in these temples.

    See notes on the Magnificat above for the kinds of situations that Mary would have hoped that her Son would come to alleviate.

Preaching and Teaching Ideas

Where are we likely to meet God?

Are we more likely to meet God in temples, in the holy sites that are legitimated by the powerful and are often sites of cultural oppression? What about churches that harken back to these temple constructs? 

  • The emphasis on God’s presence in a tent and the tabernacle grounds God’s presence in the midst of the people in the places of wandering, in the context of wilderness.  God’s intent from the start of the biblical story was to live in a beautiful diverse creation with all the creatures, including the human creature. Perhaps this is why, as the story progresses, God most often meets people in the wilderness. Hagar, in her need, is met twice by God in the wilderness and even names God, once she discovered that he is the God who sees and the God who hears (Genesis 16 and 18). Jacob, running away from family violence, meets God in the wilderness, and on the way back to reconcile with his brother meets and wrestles with God on the way. Moses has a long sojourn in the wilderness in preparation for leading the people of Israel through the wilderness, where they discover both who they are and who their God is. David discovers that he is not a killer in the wilderness, when hiding from Saul. Elijah is comforted in the wilderness where Ravens bring him food, and where, later, angels minister to him. John the Baptist, of course, undergoes his training in the wilderness, and Jesus, after being baptized in his watershed, heads out to the wilderness to discover who he is.

    It is in these wilderness places that we most often meet the longing and prayers of the oppressed, it is in walking through the fields and trees that Mary sings her song of liberation, it is in the wilderness that Jesus feeds the people. 

    The challenge, of course, in a time of climate crisis and creational breakdown, is what happens when the wilderness disappears? If we learn something about who God is from being in the wild spaces, if we learn who we are called to be from other creatures, if we discover that the wild spaces are where we find comfort and strength for the challenges we face on our journey, what happens when those spaces are disappearing?

    Does this theme lead to a call to re-wild our cities, our suburbs, our farmland? Do we need to create the spaces where we can meet God, learn about who God is, and learn who we are called to be?

    Does this say something about the deep grief we feel as our wild spaces are lost and we are unable to see God in the creation the way that we should?  Or the grief we feel because the solace of wild spaces are no longer available to us?

Mary’s Song of Defiance and Hope was Rooted in Her Long Walk on the Land

It is important to remember that Mary’s song was not something that happened in her head. It was born out of her embodied presence in the landscape, shaped by her feet walking the roads, given passion by the land she saw, the farmers she saw, the oppression she saw as she walked through an occupied territory on her way to Elizabeth’s.

  • But I also think that walking on the land shaped the hope in Mary’s song: the Psalms are clear that creation shows us God’s steadfast love, God’s compassion, God’s justice, and God’s faithfulness. (eg. Psalms 33; 145). Surely Mary recalled these Psalms as well as she walked through olive groves, as she walked along the riverside, as she saw birds in the trees, and insects flying in the air. 

    In order to sing Mary’s song today, what are the walks we need to take? Who are the people we need to see? What is the creational destruction that will put a fire in our belly so that we can’t help but sing out? What are the places we need to immerse ourselves in so that we are reminded of God’s faithfulness in creation, God’s great love for beauty and weirdness, God’s compassion for even the smallest creature? When the Creator God acts in faithfulness to the oppressed of the earth, which creatures will be lifted up? Are we singing a song of liberation on their behalf?

Tension in the Biblical Text in relation to Rootedness on the Land.

These texts heighten the problem of the land as contested space that we see throughout the biblical story and into our own day, particularly the land of ancient Israel / Canaan and modern-day Israel / Palestine. 

  • On the one hand we see the promise of a land to the people of Israel where they can be the people who will demonstrate to the whole world what it looks like when the Creator God lives on earth, with a people who practice care for the vulnerable, justice for the oppressed, and right relation with the land. This promise, however, is rooted in a prior call to Abraham, that this people would be a blessing to all the families of the earth (adamah) in Genesis 12.3. In the tight narrative structure of Genesis, the families of the earth are not only people but also animals, who were brought forth from the earth in Genesis 1:24 and 2:9. As the story continues it is clear that the ability to live long on the land depends upon faithfulness to this calling: while the Creator God remains faithful to God’s people, that faithfulness is in service of a prior commitment to all living creatures and the earth itself, for whom these people were to be a blessing.

    Failure to be a blessing to the land, failure to act with justice for the oppressed (the two are always linked in the biblical story) means that the land can be lost.

    Throughout the Hebrew Bible there is a tension that these readings highlight. On the one hand are the unconditional promises of faithfulness found in today’s readings, with their accompanying assertions of defeat of enemies and others who live in the land. On the other are passages that assert that those who practice oppression toward land and people will lose the land, and that those foreigners who keep the covenant and fulfill this call to bring blessing will become part of the people of God (ie. Isaiah 56.1-8. Isaiah 58 is also relevant here).

    Mary’s song brings these themes to a head by describing God as one who throws down the mighty, lifts up the oppressed, ensures food for the hungry, and sends the rich away empty. While in her own day the mighty would have included the Roman overlords and their Judean accomplices, and the oppressed and hungry would have been her oppressed and displaced neighbours, who might these be today? Dare we hear Mary today bearing witness on behalf of the Palestinian people who have had their land taken, their homes bulldozed, their access to water cut off, and their olive groves sabotaged by the imperially-backed Israeli government and Israeli settlers? Who are the mighty who should be cast down from their seats of powers in the current conflict? Where might Mary see overwhelming environmental damage in the Israel and Palestine of today?

    Closer to home, biblical texts have also been used to legitimate colonization of Turtle Island and the extractive abuse of the land. Can we hear Mary’s words ringing out on behalf of Indigenous peoples on Turtle Island, desperately trying to protect their land from pipelines and mining? Are the Mikesew Cree people singing her song as they walk along the Athabasca River, poisoned by the tar sands? Or the people of Fort McKay? Who are the mighty who should be cast down on Turtle Island today?

    It is also important to remember when exploring these themes in the biblical text and today, that there is no monolithic Jewish or Israeli people, no monolithic Canaanite or Palestinian people. No monolithic settlers or Indigenous communities on Turtle Island. As Isaiah shows, there are those who are faithful to the earth and the oppressed both inside and outside of the Judean community, and those who are unfaithful to the earth and the oppressed both inside and outside the Judean community. In the present conflict, Jews and Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, are working together for peace, for justice, and for the restoration of the land.

Sources and Resources
Eric E. Elnes “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer’s 'Environmentalism'” Horizons in Biblical Theology 16 (1994) 144-55.

Richard J. Middlton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Brazos, 2005), 81-90 (section entitled “Creation as Cosmic Sanctuary”).

Sylvia C. Keesmaat and Brian J. Walsh, Romans Disarmed: Resisting Empire, Demanding Justice, (Brazos, 2019), ch 5: “The Lament of the Land.”

https://radicaldiscipleship.net/2022/12/23/a-dark-virgins-magnificat/

https://scmcanada.org/2017/12/mary-did-you-know-rewrite/

https://radicaldiscipleship.net/2015/10/06/lake-superior-magnificat/

https://radicaldiscipleship.net/2017/12/21/wild-lectionary-mary-hildegard-and-the-anawim/

https://radicaldiscipleship.net/2018/12/20/wild-lectionary-dear-elizabeth/

Contributor Bio
Sylvia Keesmaat is a biblical scholar and permaculture farmer living on the traditional lands of the Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg in Ontario who teaches online at Bible Remixed (www.bibleremixed.ca). She is currently working on a book on ecological grief in the biblical story.

Sylvia Keesmaat

Sylvia Keesmaat is a biblical scholar and permaculture farmer living on the traditional lands of the Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg in Ontario who teaches online at Bible Remixed. She is currently working on a book on ecological grief in the biblical story.

http://www.bibleremixed.ca
Previous
Previous

Third Sunday in Lent, year ‘B’: Bewildered

Next
Next

Advent 3B Love in Action During Precarious Times