The priests, who were heads of families, numbered 1,760. They were able men, responsible for ministering in the house of God. – 1 Chronicles 9:13

Today's Scripture Reading (June 30, 2025): 1 Chronicles 9

A colleague of mine passed away recently. He was an excellent pastor but spent a life fighting his various disabilities. And I am sure that there were people who looked down on him because of his limitations and the way he looked. I am also sure that there were people who looked at him and never gave him a chance. I think that these people who rejected him and refused to give him an opportunity robbed themselves of having a wonderful person in their lives; their prejudice made them less. In demeaning my friend, they ended up only demeaning themselves.

Having said that, it wasn't that long ago that someone with a visible disability, even if it was something as minor as having a lazy eye, was disqualified from being part of the clergy. In some places and sections of the church, women are still excluded from holding positions of leadership within the Christian Church. Part of the reason for this exclusion is the misguided belief that they aren't strong enough to do the job. Ministering God to the people was a job that required strength. It needed men who could minister with strength and authority. And we mistakenly began to believe that excluded some people.

I have long taught that we need to recognize the strength of the women who came before us. Regardless of our beliefs about strength and the need for able men, much of the progress that has been experienced in areas once called "the mission field" was possible because of the strength of women who entered these areas early in history and won the hearts of the people. Yes, being a pastor or a missionary requires a great deal of strength, but excluding people with a disability or because of their gender is a significant mistake.

As Chronicles begins to tell us about the early priests, the author refers to them as "able men." While accurate, the phrase is also somewhat unfortunate. Elsewhere, when we are not discussing priests, the exact phrase, translated as "able men" here, is rendered as "mighty men of valor." I'm not sure about you, but given the choice between being called "able" or a "mighty person of valor," I think I would like to be known as a mighty person of valor. It also describes several pastors and missionaries that I know, and it is a list that includes women and my recently deceased colleague. These people are not merely able; they are mighty people of valor because anyone who was any less would have never been able to complete the tasks that God had laid on their strong shoulders.   

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 10

 

These were the descendants of Ehud, who were heads of families of those living in Geba and were deported to Manahath: - 1 Chronicles 8:6

Today's Scripture Reading (June 29, 2025): 1 Chronicles 8

Israel. The name alone is enough to evoke conflicting views on the Middle East situation. Its people are fiercely independent and self-aware. In an ocean of Arab States, Israel seems to exist on its own little island, set apart and different from all their neighbors. The nation itself was reformed in 1948, following an almost 1,900-year absence from the world stage. (Israel ceased to exist in the early 70's C.E. as the Roman Empire decimated the nation and pulled down her walls and temple). However, the Second World War revealed that, as a planet, we had a problem. The Jews were a people without a homeland, and they were under attack. They needed a place to call home, and their ancestral land beckoned. Israel was not replanted easily. The opening moments of the new nation meant that she was immediately embroiled in a new war against neighbors who wished that she didn't exist. But for those first inhabitants of the land in 1948, any fight seemed worth the attempt to finally have a place where the Jews could once again call their own.

I am not sure that Israel has ever been a safe place. She has developed some positive ties with some of her neighboring countries, but there are still many in the area who wish that Israel would cease to exist. But for this moment in time, at least Israel's people have a place to stand and a place to claim as theirs. Israel is part of the area of the world that is known as The Levant, a term that has inserted itself into our culture with the growing presence of the rebel states, which also call this part of the world theirs. However, for now, Israel still has a place to exist, if not a place to be in relative safety.

This passage in 1 Chronicles is a troublesome one, and there is a high probability that the passage has suffered from at least some kind of corruption. At the very least, we see the story of the deportation of some of the tribe of Benjamin from their native lands to Manasseh, a town within the tribe of Judah. Judah and Benjamin shared a border, but more than that, the two tribes shared a future. After the death of Solomon, Israel would be divided into two nations, Israel in the north and Judah in the south. While the northern nation would comprise the vast majority of the tribes of Israel, the southern nation would consist of only two tribes: Judah and Benjamin. The story we have in the books of Chronicles is aimed at those two tribes who chose to stand together. This story of the deportation of the descendants of Ehud forms one of the early interconnections between the two tribes.

What we don't know is why this portion of the tribe of Benjamin was deported into the territory of Judah. However, the likely result was that within Judah, this portion of the tribe of Benjamin found a haven to thrive and grow. They would help Judah tame the land, and in return, they would be kept safe from all who wished to cause them harm. It was the beginning of what would become a lasting friendship, culminating in the two major forces that would shape the Christian Church: Jesus the Messiah, a descendant of the tribe of Judah, and Paul the Apostle, a descendant of the tribe of Benjamin.  

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 9

Originally Published on February 28, 2016

The Shuppites and Huppites were the descendants of Ir, and the Hushites the descendants of Aher. – 1 Chronicles 7:12

Today's Scripture Reading (June 28, 2025): 1 Chronicles 7

Over the past year, I have had two friends lose their daughters way too early. In both cases, the deaths of these extraordinary young ladies were unexpected. It is another reminder that this life is a very fragile thing, and none of us are guaranteed tomorrow. If for this reason and no other, we need to ensure that our lives are right with God. I can't imagine life without my children and grandchildren. The horrible experiences of these friends make me want to hold on to my children and grandchildren just a little tighter.

One of the slogans we often use is the idea that the ones we have lost are "gone but not forgotten." There are many people in my life who fall into this category. They are gone; they have died, and I can no longer go to them for advice, help, or even friendship, but they are not forgotten; they live in my memories, and when I close my eyes, I can still see them. Maybe these are the two deaths that we suffer on this earth. The first is the loss of our physical lives, but the second death happens a little later when there is no one left to carry us in their memories. For now, I am committed to carrying the memories of the significant people in my life who are no longer with us. But eventually, most of us will suffer both kinds of deaths.

The name Aher in this passage presents us with a significant mystery. Aher is a word used to indicate "another." It is also used to describe something detestable. So pigs, which are seen as very detestable animals by the Jewish community, are often referred to as 'aher' or 'another thing." Aher, then, might mean something other than the name of a person.

So, what does Aher mean in this passage? Many find that the obvious answer is that it is a name used to indicate the Tribe of Dan. If Aher does not point toward the tribe of Dan, then Dan is completely missing from this list. And the reason why they would be called Aher instead of Dan is that through their idolatry, they made themselves unmentionable. But there is some other evidence that it is Dan that is mentioned here.

First, as has already been mentioned, unless this is Dan, then Dan is entirely omitted by the writer of Chronicles in this listing. Second, the following verse talks about the descendants or sons of Bilhah. There were two sons of Bilhah: Dan and Naphtali, although only Naphtali is mentioned in this passage. Third, Genesis tells us this: "The son of Dan: Hushim" (Genesis 46:23), which compares favorably with "the Hushites the descendants of Aher" (1 Chronicles 7:12).

Together, all of this supports the idea that Dan is the unnamed tribe that is intended here. Perhaps the hope of the nation and the author of Chronicles is that Dan would be both gone and forgotten.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 8

The children of Amram: Aaron, Moses and Miriam. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazer and Ithamar. – 1 Chronicles 6:3

Today's Scripture Reading (June 27, 2025): 1 Chronicles 6

In a preaching class during my seminary studies, I decided to tell a Pentecost story from the perspective of one of the witnesses. When I floated the idea with my professor, he asked me whose point of view I wanted to use. I told him, and his only response was, "Well, that should be interesting." The character I had chosen was a prophet named Agabus. When I preached the sermon, I heard one of my classmates mutter, "Is that even a real person?" The answer to my classmate's question is yes, but he is only mentioned twice in the Bible; both mentions are in the Acts of the Apostles. One of the reasons I chose him was to provide me some extra leeway in how I treated him and the story. But there is no doubt that much of my presentation would be a fictional account of a real event. (In the sermon, I also gave James the Lesser a new fictional nickname, Theodore.) I found it to be an exciting project

It is sometimes a fun exercise to examine some of the extrabiblical material about certain minor characters of the Bible, for which the Bible itself provides very little information. However, once again, these extrabiblical accounts are likely to be highly fictionalized. There might be a core truth hidden somewhere in the stories, but we have to be extremely careful in what we do with this information. Much of this literature aims to teach a lesson to God-fearing people through a fictional account of these individuals, much like my sermon from the point of view of Agabus. Agabus existed, but that is all we know about this early Christian prophet.

Stories exist about Amram outside of the Bible, but little is known about this patriarch of an essential Israelite family, and some of the information is contradictory. The Bible tells us that Amram married his aunt, Jochebed. Amram and Jochebed had three children: Aaron, Miriam, and Moses. But that is really the extent of our biblical knowledge of the man.

Outside of the Bible, we seem to have contradictory stories about the father of Aaron and Moses. One story insists that Amram lived a sinless life and that because of his godly life, his body was protected from decay. But another story tells a very different tale. This story insists that when Jochebed was three months pregnant with Moses, Amram divorced his wife, declaring that he had no desire to bring babies into the world if they were only going to die. According to this tale, it was his daughter Miriam who shamed Amram into remarrying Jochebed. (Why do I hear someone singing "Daddy don't You Walk So Fast").

I called these tales contradictory. However, some scholars don't see the contradiction and hold that both these stories could be true. Or neither. The choice of what we choose to believe really does lay with the reader. But maybe Amram deserves our grace, living in a difficult time for all of Israel, as the nation waited for the one that would lead the country out of slavery and into a home of their own.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 7

Personal Note: Happy 66^th Anniversary to my parents, Duane and Shirley

And many others fell slain, because the battle was God's. And they occupied the land until the exile. – 1 Chronicles 5:22

Today's Scripture Reading (June 26, 2025): 1 Chronicles 5

We often use shorthand when we speak to each other. The problem is that this shorthand assumes we understand the frame of reference. In the United States, often due to media and other fictional stories, we are familiar with the shorthand that the country uses for some of its military and spy services. NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) may be a somewhat obscure military organization, and it often plays up that fact in the fictional television series. Still, most of us know, or at least think we know, what the real NCIS stands for and does. The same goes for organizations like the FBI and CIA, although it sometimes seems that our fictional universe sometimes confuses the two. Even regional variants, such as the GBI (Georgia Bureau of Investigation), have made appearances in our fictional novels (consider Karin Slaughter's "Will Trent" character).

Because of “Bond, James Bond,” we know all about MI6, Britain's spy agency, although we shouldn't tell them that, as they might not appreciate that terminology. But do you know what MI5 does? The primary difference between MI5 and MI6 is that MI5 focuses on domestic threats within the United Kingdom, while MI6 is a foreign intelligence-gathering service. MI5 is roughly the British equivalent of the American FBI, while MI6 is the British equivalent of the CIA. But all of this is nothing more than a shorthanded.

Have you ever heard of the CSIS? Probably not. I don't know of any hit television series that takes place in the CSIS, although there are a couple who have advertised the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police). CSIS is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Before we write them off as insignificant, the truth is that the lower-profile CSIS can often obtain information where the more well-known spy services fail to do so. It is one of the reasons why all allied foreign intelligence agencies need to communicate with each other, ensuring that everyone has the necessary information to maintain a safe world.

The reason for this trip through some of our alphabet groups is that a bit of shorthand is used here, and it was a shorthand that, on first read, I misinterpreted. I had to stop and think about what this passage said and connect it with the rest of the passage before I understood the message. The shorthand is at the end of this verse. "And they occupied the land until the exile" (1 Chronicles 5:22). The words, likely written by Ezra as the nation returned to Israel and Jerusalem from their Babylonian captivity, would seem to reflect the Babylonian experience. But that doesn't make sense.

Ezra didn't say it, but the reality is that the exile indicated here in a kind of shorthand was not the Babylonian experience from which Israel was just beginning to return but the Assyrian Exile from which the Northern Tribes never returned. It was that exile of which Ezra writes. And even as the Babylonian Exile came to an end, it was the Assyrian event that laid heavy on the heart of a Second Temple Priest named Ezra.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 6

The descendants of Judah: Perez, Hezron, Karmi, Hur and Shobal. – 1 Chronicles 4:1

Today's Scripture Reading (June 25, 2025): 1 Chronicles 4

I live in North America. Of late, those of us living in what has been called the New World have begun to recognize the debt that we owe to those who came before us on this land. I can trace my heritage in North America back about four hundred years, and while that seems like a long time, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the First Nations people who have inhabited the land for multiple times longer than my family. And so, although not everyone agrees, we take time to recognize those who have come before us and made their homes in this incredible land long before Europeans like me arrived. The form we use at various times of the year is as follows:

VantagePoint Community Church is located on Treaty 6 land, the traditional territory of the Cree, Saulteaux, Blackfoot, Métis, Dene, and Nakota Sioux.

We echo the words of those who have said, "We are all treaty people." As a church organization, we acknowledge that we benefit significantly from treaties with Canada's First Nations.

We share responsibility for respecting and honoring treaty relationships in this generation and those to come.  We recognize the teachings and wisdom of Indigenous elders and knowledge-keepers as we seek reconciliation with this place and all creation. Our commitment includes living in balance with the land and with nature.

Not everyone agrees with me, but I believe these words serve as a good reminder that we were not the first.

However, it does not appear that intelligent life originated on this land. Someone, and I don't know who emigrated from Asia (likely) first. They somehow crossed the Pacific Ocean and made a home in this new place. My ancestors made a home here 400 years ago, but the first visitors came thousands of years ago, and even they were visitors to this land.

As to how the first visitors got here, for a long time, we believed that these newcomers came to this place by crossing the Bering Land Bridge, a piece of land that is now submerged between Russia and Alaska in the Bering Sea. However, new scholarship throws doubt on that idea. The most recent scholarship suggests that the first visitors arrived across a different Pacific land bridge, or even a series of now-submerged islands south of the Bering Sea. It is not that no one came across the Bering land bridge, but rather that they were not the first visitors. I wish we had journals from these people so that we could experience how the first visitors arrived and the reason for such a drastic move. But we are left with a bit of a mystery as we try to piece together the early history of this world in which I live.

One of the things we must keep in mind as we read the history we call 1 Chronicles is that this history was written very late in Jewish history. It is the result of some written records, but it also incorporates a generous amount of oral history. These were stories that the people knew; they had told these stories around campfires and passed them from generation to generation.

We believe Chronicles was written by a man named Ezra, a priest who was an instrumental leader at the beginning of the Second Temple era (c. 400-300 B.C.E.). And so, he develops a bit of a shorthand. Ezra opens this section of Chronicles with the words "The descendants of Judah: Perez, Hezron, Karmi, Hur and Shobal" (1 Chronicles 4:1). He assumes that his reader will understand that he is not speaking of a group of brothers, but of fathers and sons. Judah was the father to Perez, Perez was the father of Hezron, and so on down the line.

However, because Ezra and the scribes who copied this book wrote it so far down the line, errors do creep in. I know some can't believe that I would say that, but the errors are minor and easily understood. In this case, the problem is with Karmi. This name looks like an error. We are not aware of a son of Hezron named Karmi (or sometimes Carmi). We do know that Hezron had a son named Caleb and that Caleb had a son named Hur. So, it seems that Karmi should be Caleb.

Or maybe we are missing something. And it would be so much easier if we had a journal written by Caleb to tell us the story rather than having to piece things together from a book written a thousand years later.  

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 5

And these were the children born to him [David] there [Jerusalem]: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. These four were by Bathsheba daughter of Ammiel. – 1 Chronicles 3:5

Today's Scripture Reading (June 24, 2025): 1 Chronicles 3

From 1950 until 1997, Reader's Digest published a series of abridged or condensed novels. Each book, published between four and six times a year, contained four or five stories. The stories had been condensed, meaning that they were much shorter than the original. I remember the advertising at the time stating that "you won't even know what's missing." I suppose that's true if you've never read the original. However, if you had read the original, why would you bother reading a condensed version of the same book?

Admittedly, as an avid reader, some books could be shortened a little without sacrificing the story. One of those might be Herman Melville's "Moby Dick." Moby Dick has several editorial chapters that address the political situation of the day. These chapters serve as asides that essentially preach a brief sermon but don't significantly advance the plot. Unless you have read the book, you probably won't miss these "asides." But even with "Moby Dick," I don't think you could make it short enough that you could put it in a book with three or four other novels without leaving out something essential. On the other hand, Stephen King's "The Stand" is over a thousand pages, and I can't imagine wanting to shorten it at all.

There might be reasons for shortening a novel, and first among those reasons might be expanding their readership beyond the avid reader. However, if you want everything the author envisioned for the story, I would recommend ditching the condensed book and reading the original author's intended story.

Does the Bible condense the story? The surprising answer is yes. There are several instances where the Bible condenses the story, and one of those instances would seem to be regarding the children born to David and Bathsheba. (Note: Bathsheba in this text is actually "Bethshua," which we assume is an alternate spelling of Bathsheba.) Here, we find that David and Bathsheba had four sons: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon. The surprise isn't the number of sons the couple had but the order in which they were listed. Shammua, the oldest, might have been the child that David and Bathsheba conceived on the day David saw Bathsheba bathing on the rooftop unless that son died before he was named. But the reality is that we know relatively nothing about Shammua, Shobab, and Nathan. But if these sons are listed in order of birth, one of the big surprises is that Solomon is listed as the youngest. That is not what Samuel seems to tell us. In the aftermath of the death of the first son born to David and Bathsheba, Samuel says this:

Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and made love to her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The Lord loved him; and because the Lord loved him, he sent word through Nathan the prophet to name him Jedidiah (2 Samuel 12:24-25).

Some argue that in the light of this passage, Solomon must have been the second son born to David and Bathsheba. That might be true, although then we have to decide why the order is presented as it is here and in 2 Samuel 5, which reads, " These are the names of the children born to him there [Jerusalem]: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet" (2 Samuel 5:14-16). In both passages, Solomon is mentioned in the fourth spot.

Why? I think the account in 2 Samuel 12 may be abridged, just as the chronology given in Matthew 1 is also condensed. It might even be that none of the Shammua, Shobab, and Nathan lived past their childhood. Solomon might have been the only child of David and Bathsheba to survive childhood, thereby strengthening the cherished relationship that David had with Solomon, who was even chosen to succeed him rather than one of his older brothers. It might also be that the tragedy that is told in 2 Samuel 12 is much more profound than just the death of one child and the life of the next. However, there was a pain in the relationship between David and Bathsheba that was much deeper and more unspeakable than the narrative lets on. And a suffering that matches the depth of some of our worst pains.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Chronicles 4