The Divine
Warrior: Palm Sunday
Matthew 21:1-11; Psalm 118:1-2, 19-29;
Isaiah 50:4-9a; Psalm 31:9-16; Philippians 2:5-11; Matthew 26:14-27:66;
Matthew 27:11-54
Matthew’s gospel packs a great deal into the last week of Jesus’s life
after his “triumphal entrance into Jerusalem” – five chapters of
teachings and stories, very little of which can be directly attributed
to Jesus. The story is lifted wholesale from Mark, but Matthew
conforms it with a prophesy from Zecharaiah and to images in Psalm
118. Even though Matthew’s story is based on Zecharaiah 9:9, the
Elves do not suggest we read that passage until much later in this Year
A. When we look at Zecharaiah 9, we find an Oracle
about a Divine Warrior, who arrives “humble and riding on a donkey”
instead of imperial chariots and war horses – actually, the colt of a
donkey, which is even less threatening. (The writer of Matthew’s
gospel seems to have misunderstood the translation, and places Jesus
atop two donkeys! So
much for literalism.)
Because it is highly likely that none of this story ever actually
happened, and because the only reading that changes each year is the
one from the synoptic gospels (Matthew in this Year A), it may seem
pointless to revisit the scriptures that reinforce the tradition.
As with all stories, however, the point is not whether or not they are
factual, but what they mean. Perhaps we do not read Zechariah
because the imagery does not match the traditional concept of Jesus as
the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah. Instead of being humiliated
and vindicated, the Divine Warrior arrives with predictions of victory,
pledges of security, and renewal of Covenant. Instead of passive
acceptance of a preordained fate that supports the doctrine of
substitutionary atonement, the Divine Warrior models resistance to
empires that reject God’s justice: “Then I will encamp at my
house as a guard, so that no one shall march to and fro; no oppressor
shall again overrun them, for now I have seen with my own eyes.”
The Divine Warrior is a classic masculine archetype– not restricted to
gender, of course. Warrior Energy is the energy of leadership, of
protection, of moving outward, of exploration – as well as defense and
conquest. Warrior energy inspires us – especially when we are
young – to seek out adventure, to explore strange new worlds – to
boldly go where no one has gone before ... Those strange new worlds
might be galaxies, solar systems, planets, ecosystems, and they might
be that spark of creativity that propels us outside the ordinary boxes
of thought and into new paradigms, such as a commitment to the ongoing
work of restoring God’s realm of distributive justice-compassion.
The Warrior is single-minded in his (or her) dedication to a cause that
transcends Self, and is steadfast on the journey.
The Hero is another masculine archetype that according to Robert Moore
and Douglas Gillette (King Warrior Magician
Lover, HarperSanFrancisco
1990), is more concerned with Ego. The Hero’s loyalty is
to himself (or herself); the concern is with appearances, with
impressing others with one’s power. When paired with
cherry-picked Paul, Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem seems to
mirror the imperial heroism and theology of piety, war, victory,
leading to uneasy peace. But as Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan
remind us, Mark’s original story is a caricature of the imperial
parousia, the ticker-tape parade through the open gates of the city in
honor of the returning conquering hero. Jesus’s entrance is a
deliberate parody – a political demonstration
Like all archetypes, the Divine Warrior has two sides – a healthy,
nurturing, positive side, and a negative, shadow, demonic side.
Because the Divine Warrior is committed to a transpersonal purpose, and
will give up his or her life in the service of that purpose, the Divine
Warrior risks betrayal by the forces of conventional powers and
principalities, and enslavement by its own demonic shadow. The
Warrior denies himself for the good of the team. The Warrior
believes what her leaders tell her. The dark side, the Shadow
Warrior, may be seen in global warming, Native American reservations,
South African Apartheid, religious intolerance, nationalism, and empire.
Throughout Holy Week, beginning with Palm Sunday, runs the theme of the
end of the way things have always been, the beginning of the
transformation from oppression to liberation, from darkness to light,
from sin to salvation – i.e.,
eschatology. The question is, what kind of eschatology? Apocalyptic – God alone suddenly
intervenes; or Participatory –
human action in partnership with God changes the paradigm?
Apocalyptic eschatology is by definition violent. God’s direct
intervention overthrows everything and forcefully establishes God’s
Kingdom on earth, ready or not. The prime example is found in the
Revelation to John. By contrast, participatory eschatology –
which Jesus taught – establishes God’s Kingdom – God’s Realm – of
justice-compassion through human action in partnership with God.
Whether participatory eschatology is violent or non-violent may depend
on the nature of the god that humanity is in partnership with.
Covenant, non-violence, justice-compassion, and peace is the theology
of God’s realm as taught by Jesus. The clue to the difference
with imperial theology is found in Zechariah’s Divine Warrior, who does
not arrive as a conquering hero. Instead the Warrior has finished
his work, and can now turn those energies to bringing God’s peace to
the people by restoring distributive justice-compassion with a sweeping
demilitarization (Zecharaiah 9:10).
Because of the covenant relationship that God has with the people of
Israel, God will restore the people to the land, and will continue to
raise up divine warriors as partners with God to assure future peace
and security. The evidence points toward non-violence throughout
the Old Testament, and in everything Jesus taught, and in every action
he took – even the trashing of the merchants in the Temple
courtyard. As Marcus Borg points out, “. . . because some
Christians have occasionally used Jesus’s prophetic act . . . as a
justification for violent action, it is important to underline that
minor property damage in a symbolic act is very different from lethal
violence against persons.” Jesus: Uncovering the
Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religous Revolutionary (HarperOne, 2006) p. 247.
In late 2005, a Christian Peacemaker Team was
captured in Iraq and held for 118 days. On March 9, 2006, Tom
Fox, one of the team members, was shot and killed execution style, and
his body dumped in a residential neighborhood in western Baghdad.
On March 23, the three remaining team members, Jim Loney, Norman
Kember, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, were released by British
forces. The captors had left before the soldiers arrived.
The surviving team members refused to testify against their captors,
and as a result, the people who murdered Tom Fox have been
released. The reasons for not testifying include that their
captors would be subject to the death penalty, and that they – like we
– are involved in a struggle for survival. James Loney writes in Sojourners Magazine,
“We were given birth to give birth, and every body is holy. The
hardest birth of all is dying. . . . Our job is to allow God to breathe
us through, together, in the mystery of incarnation . . . And peace –
the birthright . . . of every human being . . . I have come to cherish
as the dearest and most essential of all things, even more than life
itself. The gun, the bomb, the military-industrial office chair,
the words that carpet-bomb the garden God gave us to share: These are
anti-Christ indeed . . . .”
In a time of bellicosity on the part of the last remaining 21st century
super power, as in the 1st Century, perhaps it is time for Zecharaiah’s
Divine Warrior to join forces with Isaiah’s suffering servant.
Non-violence does not preclude aggressive action in restoring
distributive justice-compassion. Aggressive action does not
necessarily mean physical action, such as pouring pig’s blood on
missile nose cones. Aggressive action means commitment to the
restoration of distributive justice-compassion by pledging resistance
to the whole theology of imperial violence, as suggested in the
following portion of the Litany
of Resistance, created by Jim Loney
All: With
the help of God’s grace
One: Let us
resist and confront evil everywhere we find it
All: With
the help of God’s grace
One: With
the waging of war
All: We will
not comply
One: With
the forces of fear
All: We will
not comply
One: With
laws that betray human life
All: We will
not comply
One: With
governments that are blind to the sanctity of life
All: We will
not comply
One: With
economic structures that impoverish and dehumanize
All: We will
not comply
One: With
the perpetuation of violence
All: We will
not comply
One: With
the help of God’s grace
All: We will
struggle for justice, we will stand for what is true, we will love even
our enemies, we will resist all evil.
One: Let us
abide in God’s love
All: Thanks
be to God