Joining The Dots - Day 12

So yes, once again, I'm just going to open in prayer. Good afternoon. How many parent nature parents? We're here again joining the dots. We want to invite you now to join us as we receive this content from Uncle William. We're just very grateful to express our thanks for this opportunity. Thank you all very much, and it's nice to see you again. Thanks for coming for this third week. I'm amazed you've got the endurance. I really enjoy teaching this, and I hope you're enjoying joining these dots together as well.

Okay, so what we're talking about is political philosophy. Obviously, when you talk about political philosophy, there are a variety of themes or concepts that are really important. One is the relationship between the individual and the whole. So, what is the individual? Nowadays, you talk a lot about human rights. That's one of the important concepts within political philosophy about the role of the individual and the value of the individual. The story of Abraham and Isaac gives you a philosophical and theological grounding for the value of the individual and the incredible supreme importance of the individual's Divine unique value.

Other important concepts, obviously, when you're talking about political philosophy, include the state. What is legitimate authority? Where does that authority come from? What makes it so that I should obey the king? Why should I obey the government? These are all important questions. So, we're looking at what the Hebrews, or the Israelites, are trying to do, or you could say what God is trying to do through them, which is to create a national foundation to receive the Messiah. We're talking here about nation-building.

This is one of the other incidents that took place when they were wandering around in the desert. This occurs just after they built the golden calf. We read about this yesterday: Moses came down, and 3,000 Israelites were put to death. It's also at that time that God revealed His character, revealing that He is a God of love and a God of justice. This is part of that same extended episode. It says that when Moses goes up the mountain again, the law would speak to Moses face to face as one speaks to a friend. That's really interesting. God says there that the law would speak to Moses face to face as one speaks to a friend. That was the kind of intimate relationship that God had with Moses and Moses had with God.

When you read the dialogues and the conversations that Moses had with God, they're incredibly intense, honest, and profound in what they reveal about both God and what it reveals about Moses. The rest of the Israelites, though, were terrified. They were awestruck by God's majesty. When God spoke to them and they heard His voice, they said, 'Moses, you go up and talk to God and make all the arrangements.' They were really awestruck. Anyway, when Moses is up there the second time to talk to God, before he gets the commandments, God says to Moses, 'Look, Moses, you led the people out of the land of Egypt. Now get ready to lead them to the land I promised our ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'

There's always this personal relationship that God has; it's a personal thing. He knows Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then God said to Moses, 'I will send an angel before you, but I will not go up among you, or I will consume you on the way, for you are a stiff-necked people.' Here, God is speaking; Moses is speaking face to face with God. God says, 'Look, Moses, I'll send an angel along instead of me. I'll just send an angel because God is so perfect in that sense it's kind of too uncomfortable; I'll consume you on the way.' Sometimes people think, 'Well, that's not a very nice God in the Old Testament.' That's why sometimes people say God was an angel, but actually, that is God.

As I said last time, God may not be how we think He ought to be. It's really important to remember that we often have concepts of what God is like, and we expect God to fit those concepts. If we come across something that doesn't fit that idea, we might say, 'Well, that's just an angel; that's just a misrepresentation of what God is like.' Jesus is also pretty harsh at times. Anyway, Moses then wasn't happy with this and said to Him, 'If your presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here.' In other words, if you're not present with us, the Israelites do not want to go. They want to create a God-centered society; they want God to dwell and live with them.

Moses continues, 'How will anyone know that you're pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?' After that conversation, the Lord said to Moses, 'Okay, I'll do the very thing you've asked because I'm pleased with you, and I know you by name.' That's why, when people get baptised, Christians are baptised to get a Christian name because the idea here is that God knows us personally, individually, by name.

What happens next is that God says, 'Build me a tabernacle.' God said to Moses, 'Let them build for me a sanctuary, and I will dwell among them.' That's very important just to look at the language here. God says, 'Let them build for me a sanctuary; I will dwell among them.' God doesn't say, 'Let them build me a sanctuary, and I'll live in it.' This is the tabernacle, the sanctuary which they built for God, but God doesn't suggest at all that He's going to dwell and live in this little smoke-filled sanctuary. This is always the biblical tradition. This is Solomon after he built the temple in Jerusalem, the magnificent building. He stood back and looked at it and said, 'Behold, the heavens and the heavens of the heavens cannot encompass you; how much less this house.'

In other words, Solomon is under no illusions that God will actually live and dwell in a house. You don't go to the house to meet God because that's not where God lives. God lives everywhere; God is omnipresent. Then God said through the prophet Isaiah, 'The heavens are my throne, the earth is my footstool. What house shall you build for me? Where can be my resting place?' Again, God is saying, 'Well, it's very nice of you to build this beautiful house, but let's not pretend that I'm actually going to live in it.' This is Solomon: 'Wealth and honour come from you; you are the ruler of all things. Who am I, and who are my people that we should be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand.'

Here's a basic recognition: actually, God owns the universe. God created the universe; God owns the universe. God owns the world, God owns all the land and the sea, all the fish, all the animals, and also God owns every single human being. God owns everything; God is the creator and the owner of everything. This recognition raises the question: how is it that we can give something to you? What's going on here? It's important to try and figure it out. God tells Moses to say to the Israelites to bring me an offering. 'You are to receive the offering for me from everyone whose heart moves them to give.' In other words, the sanctuary is built on a voluntary basis. People who want to give some cloth or their skills or gold or silver or whatever it is, anyone whose heart moves them to give can give freely their skills and whatever they have to give.

You might wonder what's going on here. Up until this point, God liberated them and took them out of Egypt. It was God who arranged all the ten plagues, God parted the sea, and God gave them manna when they were thirsty. God told Moses to strike the rock, and water appeared. But over and over again, they've been complaining. Even though God is doing all these things for them, they're basically in a state of dependency, and in a state of dependency, it's very easy to start complaining. 'Oh, why isn't it being run very well? Why this? Why that?' You're always expecting to be on the receiving end of everything. So, what God is doing here is giving the opportunity to give something back. By building the sanctuary, by building the tabernacle, it's their opportunity to say thank you to God by giving something back to God.

As it says here, Jonathan Sacks said, 'It's not what God does for us that transforms us, but what we do for God.' Sometimes it's not receiving love that changes you; it's actually giving love. It's actually loving. What they're doing here is moving from a position of being recipients to becoming creators or co-creators. It's a bit like a child; children like Christmas, they like to get birthday presents, they like to get sweets, they like to get things. At some point, a child wants to give something back to the parents. They come back from school or the playgroup with a piece of paper with all these nice colours on it, and they're so proud of their painting. They go to the parents, and the parents are so happy and express so much joy to receive this beautiful painting.

Of course, if you entered into an art competition, it wouldn't get anywhere. But from a child's point of view, the child is giving something back to the parent, even though the child didn't actually go and buy the paper or the paints. It's the opportunity to give something back that makes a child beam and smile and be filled with joy. This ability to give love back to their parents, who created and made them, is what happens. When that happens, you receive it; you don't think, 'Oh, I bought the paper and I bought this and this.' You just receive a great joy and stick it on the fridge with a fridge magnet. That's what's going on here. God is giving the people the chance to give something back.

Through building the tabernacle together, the people learn to work together. When they came out of Egypt, there were ten tribes, and each of these tribes had their own identity. They weren't a nation; there were 12 tribes competing with each other, and there were all kinds of issues among them, which, of course, many of them probably stemmed all the way back to the issues and arguments that Jacob's own sons used to have with each other. These things often get passed on. What Moses is trying to do here is twofold: first, to get them to give something back so they're moving from a state of dependency to becoming independent and interdependent. But at the same time, by working together, they're moving from being 12 tribes to becoming one people.

It doesn't mean they become one tribe with them all wearing exactly the same uniform and the same clothes, the same traditions. Each tribe keeps its own way of doing things, its own customs, traditions, and clothing. But then they go beyond that to form one people. How do they do that? They don't all sit down and discuss how they're going to unite. They don't say, 'We all have to wear the same clothes, or we all have to eat the same food, or we all have to pitch our tents in the same way.' The way they're learning to unite with each other is by making friends with each other. The way they're making friends with each other is by working side by side to build the tabernacle together.

It's exactly what Father did when he sponsored the Religious Youth Service. He had young religious leaders who were Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and from many different religious traditions. But he didn't say, 'Oh, sit down around the table and talk theology together.' He didn't say that. He just said, 'Go and build a school for some deprived community or go and do something together.' When people of different faiths are not talking to each other and trying to explain themselves to each other, they're just working together. When you're working together with somebody side by side, you learn a lot about that person's character. You learn a lot about the way that person is, and through working together, you're actually making friends with each other. You're learning that you can rely upon each other. This person may believe something completely different from me that I totally disagree with, but this person is reliable; I can trust this person, maybe with my life. I want this person to be a friend.

In that sense, it's this friendship and the love that embodies that friendship which transcends differences of belief, doctrine, way of life, foods they eat, etc. So, that's what they're doing here: they're building a nation, building that sense of making friends with each other across the tribes. They're moving from a state of being dependent upon God to becoming independent, taking responsibility, and contributing something individually, in terms of what they're giving: gold, silver, wood, cloth, and also the skills they have to weave the cloth and everything. They become interdependent; they realise that none of us can build this individually. We have to work together. We have to go beyond our tribal identity to work together to build a sanctuary for God. That's part of leadership: giving people the chance to give something back, becoming co-creators. When you're a co-creator, then you have dignity. Up until this point, they've received everything from God, and instead of complete dependency...

When you're in a state of complete dependency, you have no dignity. However, when you become a co-creator, you are able to give something back, which restores your dignity. This transition is part of growing up, moving from dependency to responsibility. As Jonathan Sanchez pointed out, this is fundamentally about political philosophy. When a central power, whether it be God or the state, does everything on behalf of the people, they remain in a state of arrested development. They complain instead of taking responsibility and tend to sit back rather than take the initiative. This is the reality of our society; those who are in complete dependency often complain the most about not receiving enough. They expect others to solve their problems rather than taking the initiative themselves.

God is helping people to grow up by pushing them out of their comfort zones. Just as Abraham was challenged and pushed out of his comfort zone, so too must individuals be encouraged to take responsibility. There is a principle at play here: there is no freedom without responsibility, and conversely, there is no responsibility without freedom. Some argue that people are not mature enough to handle freedom, but if you do not give people freedom, they will never mature. It is essential to provide individuals with the freedom to take responsibility, to grow, and to learn from their mistakes. Politicians often claim they are wiser and need to make decisions for the people, viewing them as incapable of making their own choices. This echoes the ideas of Plato and the philosopher king, where intellectuals believe they know better than the general populace.

When we do not allow people to take responsibility, we infantilise them and keep them in a state of arrested development. This is particularly evident in societies where the state expands and welfare increases, pushing more people into dependency. Some may argue that this lack of intervention is unloving, but God did not intervene to prevent the fall of Adam and Eve because He did not want to infantilise them. He wanted them to learn through their mistakes. Had He intervened, they would not have been able to become the lords of creation or win the respect of the archangels. If God had intervened, Adam and Eve would not have had the opportunity to experience the sense of accomplishment that comes from overcoming challenges on their own.

The solution lies in encouraging people to become co-architects or co-authors of their lives and society. Government should not be based solely on laws and commands. Laws are general and abstract, outlining what one should not do rather than detailing specific actions. They apply equally to everyone, creating a framework for freedom. This framework allows individuals to plan and act within clear boundaries. The idea of freedom within the law is essential for a functioning society. Hayek, whom I mentioned previously, argues that the ability for people to live together peacefully without a common concrete aim, bound only by abstract rules of conduct, is one of humanity's greatest discoveries.

This concept was established at Mount Sinai, where simple moral rules of conduct were introduced. These abstract rules allowed individuals to cooperate while following their own conscience, forming a nation rather than a tribe. In tribal societies, internal peace is achieved through devotion to common visible purposes, often dictated by a leader. However, this unity around a common purpose cannot extend beyond the tribal level. For nation-building, individuals must be bound by common rules rather than a shared purpose. The twelve tribes of Israel illustrate this; they were united not by a common goal but by observing shared moral rules. This allowed them to cooperate while maintaining their individual plans and purposes.

The open society that we strive for is one where individuals are free, bound only by moral rules that they cannot violate. This society becomes possible when individuals obey abstract rules that delineate the means they can use for their purposes. If someone wishes to use something that is not theirs, they must either ask for permission or purchase it. This demarcation of rules is crucial to prevent conflicts between different groups with varying interests. When a society is mobilised around a common purpose, it often leads to coercion and conflict, as seen in historical examples of fascism and communism. In such societies, politics becomes dominated by a friend-enemy relationship, where dissent is often met with repression.

The rules of just conduct, such as the Ten Commandments, can only be the same for all when particular ends are not seen as justifications for coercion. This principle holds true except in special circumstances like war or natural disasters, where temporary mobilization may be necessary. The Ten Commandments serve as a foundation for creating an open society of free individuals. Hayek posits that this was perhaps the greatest discovery humanity made three and a half thousand years ago, moving away from the previous societal structures of slavery, as seen in Egypt and the pyramids. This new tradition recognises and respects the value of every individual, allowing them to cooperate while pursuing their own purposes within the framework of just conduct. Understanding where laws come from is essential; whether through divine revelation or the customs developed within a community, these laws reflect the collective wisdom and experiences of society.

An established custom, for example, is standing in a queue at the bus stop. There's no law that says you have to stand in the queue; if you don't, you won't be arrested or taken to court. However, everyone does it because it is fair that the person who arrives first gets on the bus first. If I arrive last, I should be the last to board. This understanding of fairness is a common wisdom experience. If I respect the right of the person at the front of the queue, then tomorrow, when I am at the front, others will respect my right to board first. Without such customs, we would have chaos, with people fighting to get on the bus, leading to injuries and damage. Most people prefer a society based on fairness rather than might, which is why customs like queuing exist to regulate the availability of scarce goods in a just manner.

These established customs can eventually become laws enforced by courts. For instance, if someone plants an apple tree outside their house, those apples belong to them. I cannot take their apples without permission, as that would be theft. Similarly, if my neighbour plants an apple tree, I expect them not to steal my carrots. This leads to a basic principle: anything planted in one's garden is theirs. If I want an apple, I can ask, swap for a carrot, or buy it. This understanding becomes an established custom, which then evolves into laws against stealing. If someone breaks this law, a judge can arbitrate and establish a precedent, illustrating how law develops from customs and traditions.

William Blackstone, a prominent common law jurist, described the source of authority for law as moral usage. Laws are not arbitrarily created; they are rooted in the customs and traditions of the people. They exist to protect these ways of life and guarantee legitimate expectations. For example, I have a legitimate expectation that no one will steal my apples, just as my neighbour expects the same for their carrots. If I see someone attempting to steal my neighbour's apples, I have a vested interest in upholding the law to protect my own property as well. This understanding highlights that law is discovered rather than made; it reflects the patterns of behaviour that people follow, creating mutual expectations about conduct.

The law belongs to the people and is meant to protect them, rather than being an imposition. This distinction is crucial. Legislation or statutes imposed upon people without understanding their customs can lead to a disconnect between the law and the people's way of life. The modern theory of the state, which emerged from Roman law during the time of the Justinian Code, claimed that the state has the authority to create laws. This shift positioned the state as the source of legitimacy for social organisation, leading to a situation where the state prescribes conduct and creates rights.

Human rights, for example, are rules that prescribe conduct, stating what one can or cannot do. If the state creates rights, it can also take them away, as these rights are not inherent but granted by the state. This modern concept of rights contrasts sharply with the traditional biblical view, where one's identity comes from being a child of God. In this view, individuals belong to God and cannot be treated as mere property of the state. This relationship with the divine establishes a framework of freedom, as opposed to the totalitarian control seen in some modern states, where the government seeks to regulate every aspect of life.

The biblical principle of loving one's neighbour as oneself is often misunderstood. Jesus reiterated a command from the Mosaic Law, which emphasises the importance of self-love. It is essential to take care of oneself, including one's health and well-being, while also loving one's neighbour. This balance is crucial; one should not neglect their own needs for the sake of others. The Mosaic Law advises against hating one's brother and encourages open communication when hurt. If someone causes pain, it is better to address the issue directly rather than harbour resentment, which only harms oneself.

The law advises against seeking revenge or bearing grudges. If someone has wronged you, it is important to express your feelings honestly. Most people are unaware of the hurt they cause, and addressing the issue can lead to resolution. By communicating openly, you prevent bitterness from taking root in your heart. The biblical command to love your neighbour means addressing wrongs directly and constructively, fostering a community built on understanding and compassion. This approach not only benefits personal relationships but also contributes to a healthier society overall.

Instead, correct him, reason with him, tell him what you believe he has done and how you feel it has harmed you. You may apologise and seek to make amends, even if he does not. At least you've made your feelings known to him; that in itself is cathartic. It will help you to avoid nursing a grievance, and that's what it means to become sin because of him. It also works in another way as well; it refers to someone you see acting wrongly, committing a sin or a crime. Suppose you see somebody misbehaving. When you see someone doing something wrong, whatever it is, to somebody else, you recognise that person did something wrong and automatically you criticise and judge that person for their actions. The command tells us not to be content with passing a negative judgment on his or her behaviour, that is, with hating him in your heart. You must get involved. You should approach him, pointing out in gentle and constructive ways what he is doing is against the law, civil or moral. If you stay silent and do nothing, you'll become complicit in his guilt; you'll bear sin because of him because you saw him do wrong and did nothing to protest. That's what's called the sin of omission.

You see somebody walking along a cliff path and you can see they're going to walk over the cliff, and you say nothing; you're guilty. It's a duty of care. If you see someone who needs help and you walk by on the other side without doing anything, that's a sin. If you see someone acting in an unjust and wrong way, it's important to get involved. You shouldn't just be an observer watching people getting beaten up; you should somehow get involved. Of course, you have to do it very carefully, in a gentle and constructive manner, to avoid getting harmed yourself. It's really important to say something if you see someone misbehaving. Sometimes people aren't even aware of the hurt they cause. It's crucial to give the person the opportunity to apologise and say sorry. That's what it is to love someone; you care about them. This is why Jonathan Sacks says the disciple may criticise his teacher. Whenever I'm teaching workshops, I always tell people, if you think I've got something wrong, please tell me; I want to be corrected.

A child may challenge a parent; a child sees a parent doing something wrong. A prophet may challenge a king, as in the famous story of Nathan when King David took Bathsheba. He challenged him in a clever way so he didn't get thrown into prison himself. We are all summoned to wrestle with these issues. By bearing the name Israel, which is the name that God gave to Jacob, we are called to wrestle with God and our fellow human beings in the name of what is right and good. It's important to wrestle with things we don't understand in the Bible or elsewhere. We need to try to figure them out and make sense of them before we can make a proper evaluation. As Father said, the conscience is more important to us than our parents who gave us birth, more important than any teacher, and more important than the king of any country. What Father is doing here is reiterating the Mosaic Law: follow your conscience, which is what Jonathan Sacks is unpacking.

Next, after the break, I will explain how Jesus applied this law in his own time. It's really important to understand how Jesus put this into practice while dealing with the enemy, the Roman occupation. How did Jesus find a way to apply this in his own time? Two thousand years ago in Israel, there were huge political problems due to the Roman occupation, which was incredibly harsh and exploitative. The Romans operated on the idea of might is right. They invaded other peoples, exploited them, and transported slaves back to Rome along with goods. They invaded Egypt because it was where all the food was, needing to secure food supplies for Rome. The Roman Empire was very oppressive, and they came to occupy Israel, which was on the route between Asia, Europe, and Africa. They violated the temple, went into the Holy of Holies, and stole money from the temple. They controlled the high priest Caiaphas, who was a Roman appointee, and taxed the people heavily with land tax, income tax, poll tax, and city tax. It was an incredibly exploitative empire, and the Jewish people living there were not happy with this.

There were towns that resisted this exploitative taxation, and the Romans responded by seizing everyone in those towns and selling them into slavery. If you didn't want to pay your taxes, you would be sold into slavery. The bulk of the money collected was sent to Rome and paid into Emperor Augustus's personal account. The Romans built a fortress next to the temple, which overlooked and dominated it. They knew that if they could control the temple, they could control the country because the temple was the centre of the spiritual, economic, and political life of the nation. The Jews responded with several uprisings; they were more rebellious than any other people, apart from the ancient Britons. After King Herod died, there was a rebellion led by Judas of Galilee, which the Romans put down harshly, crucifying 2,000 rebels. Another revolt led by Theudas was also crushed. These are just a few examples; there were many more uprisings, some regarded as messianic.

The Jews hated the Romans and revolted repeatedly because they had a strong religious, national, and political identity. They saw themselves as free people, the people of God, needing only to follow and observe the Mosaic Law. They had a long history and a high culture, and they resented the Romans for their harsh treatment, unfair taxes, and the violation of the temple. The Romans, in turn, looked down on the Jews because they were different. The Jews refused to worship the emperor, would rather die than do so, and had their own religious practices regarding food. The Romans thought they were lazy because they wouldn't work seven days a week; they observed a Sabbath when they refused to work, even at the risk of their lives. This intense political situation was bound to lead to catastrophe. Forty years after Jesus died, there was a massive uprising of Jewish people wanting independence. They defeated a couple of Roman armies, but the Romans responded with more forces, laying siege to Jerusalem, destroying it, and the temple. All the gold from the temple was taken back to Rome and used to build many great buildings, including the Colosseum.

This was the world into which Jesus was born; he did not choose to be born into such a terrible situation, but that was the reality he faced. It reminded me of the world into which Father was born; Korea was suffering under the harsh Japanese occupation. Father also had to deal with the intense hatred Koreans had for the Japanese and the contempt with which the Japanese treated the Koreans. He spent much of his life trying to resolve that reality, which continues to this day. Jesus, too, was deeply involved in the political reality of his time, seeking to bring peace and reconciliation. He was a Jew, thinking about how to apply the Mosaic Law in this situation. He came up with a plan, which is his political manifesto. He didn't run a political party, but if you read the Sermon on the Mount, you see that Jesus was not just a nice teacher; he was a very practical person. His whole teaching is oriented around how to deal with the political reality in which he found himself. Let's unpack a few verses of his political manifesto.

Jesus said, 'You've heard it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' This is found in Leviticus. Some people think that's not very nice, but it's actually quite reasonable. An eye for an eye means if someone pokes your eye out, you can poke theirs out. If they punch you and knock out a tooth, you can punch them back and knock out one of their teeth. However, that's not how people typically behave. This principle establishes appropriate punishment that is proportional to the crime. If you lose a finger, you don't chop off the factory manager's finger; you seek compensation. The punishment should fit the crime, which is the essence of the idea of an eye for an eye. The problem arises when dealing with the Romans, who were very harsh. If a Roman soldier bumps into you and pushes you off the pavement, you might think to retaliate, but doing so could lead to serious consequences. The Roman soldier is not going to respond in kind; he will beat you up. If you don't show respect to the local crime leader, you risk getting harmed. Therefore, Jesus proposed a different reaction. He said, 'Do not resist an evildoer, but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.'

Against injustice, unrighteousness, and evil, let's figure out what Jesus is talking about here. This is all about first-century Israel-Palestine. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also. If I were to strike someone on their right cheek, I would do so with the back of my hand. When someone strikes you like that, they are treating you with contempt, as if you are a lower form of life. The pain from such a strike is not only physical; it also brings humiliation. You feel that you have been treated with contempt, and that pain can be worse than the physical hurt itself. So, how do you deal with that? It's easy to hate, to become bitter and resentful, and to want revenge. You might think about getting back at that particular Roman soldier, but that doesn't solve the problem.

Another way to deal with it is to become subservient, to look up to the Romans and treat them as superior. If you react with hate, the Roman thinks you are just like him, and he won't respect you any more than before. If you become a sycophant, serving the Romans in a servile manner, they will have even more contempt for you. So, neither of these responses solves the problem; they only make it worse. What Jesus is saying is to turn the other cheek. If you turn your left cheek to me, I would have to strike you with the palm of my hand, treating you as an equal. When a friend slaps you on the cheek, it stings, but you don't feel humiliated in the same way. Jesus is teaching us not to hate, not to get angry or resentful, and not to seek revenge, but to keep our dignity and stand up to the Roman soldier.

If someone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Under Roman law, a soldier could demand that any Jew carry his heavy rucksack for one mile. Imagine a Jewish man just out to get some bread suddenly being forced to carry a soldier's luggage. It's understandable to feel annoyed and resentful. The Roman soldier thinks, 'He's no better than me; I would feel the same way.' This doesn't change the relationship between the soldier and the Jewish man. Jesus says to go the second mile. This is about loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you. You don't have to like them, but you must love them.

When the Roman soldier demands you carry his luggage, you can respond with enthusiasm, asking him about his day, his family, and his life. By engaging him in conversation, you show interest and love. Over time, the soldier may start to see you as a nice person, and you might even carry his luggage for a second mile. This act of kindness can change the soldier's perception of you. He may begin to feel guilty for treating you poorly and might even reconsider how he interacts with others in the future. By loving your enemies, you transform the relationship, turning enemies into friends and changing the dynamic between Romans and Jews.

This was Jesus's political plan: to resolve the intense hatred and contempt characterising the relationship between these groups. He was applying the Mosaic Law to the situation he found himself in 2000 years ago. At the end of the second mile, the Jewish man might even offer to pray for the Roman soldier and his family. This is how love can work to transform relationships. You might think this is impractical, but Mahatma Gandhi, a student of Jesus, applied these teachings in his work for Indian independence. He believed in achieving independence through non-violence, understanding that violence would only lead to more violence in leadership.

Gandhi's philosophy was that if we change ourselves, the world will change. He objected to violence because any good it might do is temporary, while the evil it creates is permanent. He believed in the power of non-violence as a force greater than any weapon of destruction. It is easy to be friendly to friends, but true religion is about befriending those who see themselves as your enemies. Non-violence requires faith in both God and humanity. Gandhi's teachings have influenced many, including Martin Luther King Jr., who led a non-violent civil rights movement in America during the 1960s. Despite the abolition of slavery, discriminatory laws persisted, and King advocated for change through peaceful means, ultimately leading to significant legal reforms.

Martin Luther King gave speeches primarily for his own followers, educating them about non-violence. This was crucial for transforming both the people and the country. Gandhi, during his movement, faced instances of violence and insisted on waiting until people were ready to embrace non-violence. He dedicated much of his time to teaching how to deal with conflicts in a non-violent manner, which was transformative for those involved. King articulated that non-violence is an absolute commitment to love, which is not merely an emotional response but an active concern for the well-being of others, even those we may not like.

King's vision included a future where former slaves and slave owners could sit together, rejecting the notion of eternal opposition. He dreamt that his children would be judged by their character rather than the colour of their skin, highlighting the importance of treating individuals as human beings. He noted that while the law cannot compel love, it can prevent acts of violence, creating a safe space for all. This framework is essential for resolving human conflict through methods that reject revenge and aggression, with love as the foundation.

In examining Jesus' influence in Palestine, we can refer to the writings of Josephus, a Jewish Roman historian. He documented events surrounding the Roman-Jewish War and described how Pilate, the governor, introduced images of Caesar into Jerusalem, violating Jewish law. When the Jewish people protested, Pilate initially refused to remove the images, citing concerns for Caesar's feelings. However, after days of persistent petitioning, the Jews demonstrated their commitment to their laws, even willing to face death rather than allow their beliefs to be transgressed.

This act of defiance can be seen as an example of turning the other cheek, reflecting the teachings of Jesus about loving one's enemy. It suggests that Jesus' message may have inspired people to respond to Roman oppression in a non-violent manner. However, despite these efforts, Jesus was ultimately arrested and executed by the Romans on political charges. This highlights the complexities of biblical political philosophy and the challenges of resolving social and political issues through love and non-violence.

As the Israelites were on the verge of entering Canaan, the discussion of their journey and struggles continues. The exploration of these themes is significant, and while there is much more to cover, it is essential to reflect on the lessons learned from these historical and theological contexts.