The king of the Ammonites answered Jephthah's messengers, "When Israel came up out of Egypt, they took away my land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, all the way to the Jordan. Now give it back peaceably." – Judges 11:11

Today's Scripture Reading (March 22, 2022): Judges 11

When I was a child, my aunt gave me a book to read entitled "The Search to Belong." The book was about an adopted child's journey to find his roots. The book impacted me, maybe mostly because I knew that there was a purpose behind my reading the book. Two of my cousins had been adopted into my aunt's family, and my aunt wanted me to understand the journey they were on in some small way. And so, I read the book and tried to understand my cousins, who, to be honest, I loved to spend time with anyway, just a little better.

As I read these passages in Judges, it is this childhood book that comes to mind. As people, the reality is that most of us live in adopted lands. We don't belong here, even though we sometimes think we do. As I have said in this blog, I can trace my roots in the United States and Canada back into the mid-17^th century or middle 1600s. But even though my roots extend back almost 400 years in the New World, I am still a visitor. My ancestors, many generations back, lived somewhere else.

And so, occasionally, the church I serve acknowledges that we live as strangers in a strange land. And as a response to this knowledge, we read a "Land Acknowledgment Statement." The statement reads:

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 greatly 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.

Israel has spent most of its history as a nation with no home. There is a reason for that. The country formed in slavery in Egypt, and therefore, there was no land that they could really call their own. This meant that they had no place to live. Oh, the land in Canaan had been promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But the family was never large enough to become a nation and take the area until after their collective experience of slavery in Egypt.

The solution was to move back into their ancestral grounds or the home of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This was the solution that the world took in 1948 after the Second World War and the atrocities committed against the Jewish people by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. It wasn't, and still isn't, a popular decision for the other nations in the Middle East who felt that they had a historical right to the land, But Israel felt that they also had a historical right to this area on the east side to the Mediterranean Sea

As Israel emerged out of Egypt, they went to the same place, the former home of their ancestors. But the land wasn't empty, so other nations had to be displaced. Centuries later, Jephthah asks the Ammonites why they are so intent at fighting with Israel, and the Ammonite response was simple; You took our land away, and we want it back. Walk away from our territorial land, and we will stop fighting you. Unfortunately, for Jephthah, that request was a non-starter. Israel had no place else to go.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Judges 12

But even before the fat was burned, the priest's servant would come and say to the person who was sacrificing, "Give the priest some meat to roast; he won't accept boiled meat from you, but only raw." – 1 Samuel 2:15

Today's Scripture Reading (March 21, 2022): 1 Samuel 2

Once upon a time (because all of the best stories start with once upon a time), three pastors sat down to talk about how they were paid. The first pastor said that he drew a circle on the ground and then threw the offering up into the air. Whatever money landed inside the circle he kept as his salary; whatever landed outside the circle belonged to God. The second pastor smiled and said that his church had a similar system. They drew a circle on the ground and whatever landed inside the circle belonged to God, and whatever landed outside the ring the pastor kept as his salary. The third pastor just shook his head. He smiled; "You people are just too complicated. I throw the money up in the air, and what God wants, God keeps."

Actually, if you didn't know, Pastors have a negotiated salary, so don't bother coming by my office to watch me throw the money around. And it has always been that way. In the early days of Israel, many of the sacrifices were divided into three portions. The priest received a part of the breast and shoulder. The rest of the sacrifice was divided into an amount given to God as a burnt offering and another portion given back to the one bringing the offering. But according to the Mosaic Law, the order was important. First, the choicest cuts and the animal's fat belonged to God and were burned as a pleasing sacrifice to him. Next, a portion of the breast and shoulder was given to the priest. And then the remainder was given to the worshipper.   

But evidently, after four hundred years, the custom had changed. The sacrifice was boiled, and the priest would take a fork or a fleshhook and drive it into the boiling sacrifice. Whatever the hook grabbed onto belonged to the priest (an old version of drawing a circle on the ground and throwing the offering up into the air).

But during the time of Eli, the priesthood had become even more corrupt. Whatever a fleshhook grabbed hold of as the meat boiled was not enough. They started to demand the choicest cuts of meat straight from the one bringing the sacrifice. And the order changed. The priest wanted their cuts first, with the fat still attached. After the priest received his cut, then a portion was burned to God, and the rest was left with the worshipper.

And more evidence of the priesthood's corruption at the end of the era of the Judges was that if the worshipper insisted on doing it differently, wanting to follow the Mosaic instructions, then the priest would take the sacrifice by force (1 Samuel 2:16). The reality was that in this Israel, the center of worship had become the priest instead of God.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Judges 11

 

Hannah was praying in her heart, and her lips were moving but her voice was not heard. Eli thought she was drunk. – 1 Samuel 1:13

Today's Scripture Reading (March 20, 2022): 1 Samuel 1

There is an old joke about two men with differing theologies talking about the place of women in the church. For one, the position of women in the church was equal to that of a man. They were an invaluable part of the contemporary church. I have to admit that some of the best pastors I know are not men, and I can't imagine the church without them. Anyway, these two men were arguing, and the first man makes it clear that he believes that a woman is equal to a man and women in leadership are essential to the future of the church. The second man responds that he, too, believes that women are indispensable to the church. And to prove his point, he adds this comment. "In our church, every fifth Sunday of the month, we allow a woman to lead the congregation in silent prayer."

Maybe the saddest part of the joke is that I know some churches actually believe that the appropriate place for a female Christian leader is leading in silent prayer, and even then, only four times a year. It is not that silent prayer isn't good. I believe that God knows our hearts before we even find the words; that his Spirit helps us to pray. There are times, and circumstances in which praying out loud is what is needed. But praying out loud is more for us than it is so that God can hear us. Praying aloud helps us focus our prayers and keeps our minds from wandering. And if we want to be an encouragement to someone else, praying out loud helps the one we are praying for know how we are praying for them.

But there are times when silent prayer is also appropriate. It is not a sign of weakness or a lesser form of prayer. It is prayer, and it should be a big part of our life. The Apostle Paul instructed the Thessalonians to "Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus" (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18). And part of praying continuously is sometimes praying silently.

Hannah was distraught, and she had come to Temple to pray. And she prayed. As Eli, the priest, watched her, he noticed that her lips were moving but that there was no sound coming from her mouth. And he assumed that she must be drunk. But Hannah wasn't drunk, and just because Eli couldn't hear Hannah's prayer didn't mean that God didn't hear it. We know that God heard Hannah and that help was already on its way.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 2

Then they got rid of the foreign gods among them and served the LORD. And he could bear Israel's misery no longer. – Judges 10:16

Today's Scripture Reading (March 19, 2022): Judges 10

One of the Christian doctrines that I really struggle with is the idea that we serve a passionless God. The idea is that God is so high above us, so different, and so focused that he is unmoved by our situations. He is a God who never changes, which sounds good, but I think the belief is actually dangerous. This concept is reflected in many of the assumptions that we accept without question, like a God who is omniscient and knows everything, including our futures. If God wanted to, he could tell us the next ten winners of the Superbowl (admittedly an arbitrary number) or any other sporting event with which we might be interested. God knew months ago whether there would be a Major Baseball League Season and how many games might be played. We believe that God never changes his mind and is never influenced to do something different from what he intended, at first, to do

I am not convinced. A major portion of the Bible seems to be dedicated to the idea that God is free to change his mind. Our lives move him, and because of that, the future just might not be set. One book that I would like to write would carry the title "A God Who Doesn't Know." The book would explore the idea of this passion-filled God. Did God know that Adam and Eve were going to sin in the garden of Eden, an event that would set the stage for all of the evil that has been committed throughout human history? And if he did, then wasn't it a little irresponsible to follow through with creation. I know, the questions can be disturbing, but they are ones that I believe need our serious consideration.

Israel had sinned against God. But compounding their sin was the fact they had also chased after other gods. But then trouble and crisis came upon the descendants of Israel. And in times of trouble, as had happened so many times before, the people ran to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

God was not amused. The Almighty's argument was a simple one, and maybe even a human one, if I can say that without being accused of blasphemy. If you will serve other gods during the good times, why not go to them in times of crisis. And God washes his hands of these fickle people he had brought up out of Egypt. He turns his back and tries to ignore them. That should be a simple task for an omnipotent and passionless being like God.

But it isn't. God turns his back on Israel, but the people get rid of the foreign gods they had served anyway. They threw away their idols and began to serve the God of their forefathers. And God? Well, he was moved by the suffering of his creation. God could not follow through on his decision to leave Israel alone. He grieved for them. And his grief grew until he could no longer stand impartially by.

God, moved by the suffering of Israel, was filled with passion. It was time for him to move once again, even if his movement was something that he had already declared that he would not do.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Samuel 1

But today you have revolted against my father’s family. You have murdered his seventy sons on a single stone and have made Abimelek, the son of his female slave, king over the citizens of Shechem because he is related to you. – Judges 9:18

Today's Scripture Reading (March 18, 2022): Judges 9

On June 15, 1519, Henry Fitzroy was born to Elizabeth Blount, the mistress of King Henry VIII. For the King, his birth must have felt like a cruel joke. Henry the VIII was desperate for a healthy male heir, but that desire had not yet been made a reality. And then his mistress gives birth to what the world would consider an illegitimate boy, one that would bear the name of his father, the King. It seems likely that Henry VIII had other illegitimate children, but Henry Fitzroy was the only one that the King ever acknowledged. And not only did the child bear the King’s first name, but his surname, Fitzroy, literally means “the Son of King.”

Henry Fitzroy was brought up as a prince, educated as a prince, and addressed as a prince. For a time, Henry VIII considered declaring Henry Fitzroy his legitimate heir. And with each passing year, and as Henry VIII's daughters and stillborn sons continued to mount, the pressure to make Henry Fitzroy his legitimate heir grew. Anne Boleyn opposed making Henry Fitzroy the king’s legitimate heir, hoping that the King would make her daughter, Elizabeth, the future Queen of England. Unfortunately, Henry Fitzroy died at the young age of 17, before the issue of who would follow in the footsteps of Henry VIII could be settled. No one knows for sure the cause of Henry Fitzroy’s death, but his death is thought to have been due to tuberculosis. Henry Fitzroy died at about the same age as his uncle, Prince Arthur, and his younger half-brother, born a year after Henry Fitzroy’s death, King Edward VI.

Abimelek is the illegitimate son of Gideon. It is a point that Jotham, a legitimate son of Gideon, wants to make abundantly clear. Abimelek had gone to his mother’s family in Shechem to gain control of the nation. But this is not Gideon deciding that he wanted to make an illegitimate son legitimate so that there would be an heir to the country's throne. Gideon had already refused the honor. “Gideon told them, ‘I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The Lord will rule over you’” (Judges 8:23).

But Abimelek is not happy with his father’s decision. And so, he convinces the people of Shechem to support his desire to rule over Israel as King on the basis that he is one of them. And then he kills his half-brothers, the legitimate sons of Gideon, so that no one can make a counterclaim on the throne of Israel. The only son to escape Abimelek’s murderous rampage was Jotham. And Jotham goes to the people of Shechem with an important question for the people there. Did they really believe that they were honoring the memory of Gideon and showing gratitude for all of the things that he did to save the nation by killing the legitimate sons of Gideon and allowing Abimelek to be King? Would Gideon be pleased with them for doing something he had expressly forbidden?

But the reality in Shechem was that Gideon was dead. And they believed that Abimelek would serve their selfish desires better than anyone else. And so, they had made Abimelek king and gave the era of Israel’s Judges their first king and anti-judge.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Judges 10

Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel. – Ruth 4:7

Today's Scripture Reading (March 17, 2022): Ruth 4

We live in a written society. The cry of students being forced to memorize names and dates, or even mathematical formulas, is that there will be no time in their future when they won't be allowed to look up this information, so why bother with memorization. The day that a spoken promise or an important deal that is completed with a handshake is long past. Today, it is a signature, often one written in the presence of a lawyer, that is needed for the deal to be done. A verbal commitment is not good enough anymore. But it used to be enough, although maybe not as recently as we might like to think.

Some have called Ruth 4:7 the most important verse in the biblical Book of Ruth (admittedly, I find that to be a bit of a stretch). Some view the verse as a possible late addition to the book. The verse is actually an explanation of the text that has been inserted into the body of the story. For some, it is proof of a very late date for the writing of Ruth, maybe even as late as the third or fourth centuries B.C.E. But others aren't convinced of that. They point to a transition toward written contracts in Israel during the beginning years of the monarchy in Israel, starting during the reign of Saul and continuing through the reigns of David and Solomon. And that is in keeping with the tradition that Samuel wrote the Book of Ruth during the early years of David's reign. Even then, an explanation of the execution of a verbal contract executed only a century earlier might have been necessary.

Making the passage even more difficult to read is the similarity of this description of a verbal contract to the tradition of a levirate marriage (described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10). For a levirate marriage, a widow was commanded not to marry outside of her late husband's family. She was to go to her husband's brother and remind him of his obligation to her. But if he refused, she was to take the situation before the elders and tell them that the brother has refused to marry her.

Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled (Deuteronomy 25:8-10).

For a levirate marriage, the whole ordeal was intended to be an insult and to be carried down the family line as an insult to the generations yet to come.

The problem is that the explanation of a levirate marriage doesn't quite fit what happens as Boaz meets with his relative in the presence of the elders. First, Ruth isn't even present. And it is not Boaz who removed the sandal as an insult. Instead, the man takes off his own sandal. Maybe, because Boaz is willing to step in and redeem the land, there is no need for an insult. Or, maybe, this was just a way to conclude a land deal in Israel, which is actually what the passage states. It is possible that it was common to conclude a contract by removing a sandal and handing it to the purchaser in those days. In doing so, the conclusion of the verbal agreement was made obvious to all those who witnessed the event, and, apparently, one man went home without a sandal but with no insult intended.

By the time Samuel wrote the story, society had changed enough that he needed to explain what had happened. He needed to explain that this was a normal occurrence at the end of a transaction and not just the warped execution of the levirate marriage ceremony.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Judges 9

Then Naomi said, "Wait, my daughter, until you find out what happens. For the man will not rest until the matter is settled today." – Ruth 3:18

Today's Scripture Reading (March 16, 2022): Ruth 3

While romantic marriage seems to be the norm today in the civilized world, that is actually a recent development in human history. Often, marriage has been an economic or even a political reality in the lives of very ordinary people. Maybe it is not surprising that someone like King Solomon was involved in hundreds of political marriages, allying Israel with the neighboring tribes and nations. But it was also a reality in the marriages between the common people. Children were promised in marriage often, at a very young age, to bind families together who shared similar socio-economic or other cultural experiences. Marriage was rarely an "I love you and can't live without you" moment. It was simply a monetary and social agreement made between two families. Maybe feelings of love would develop, but that wasn't the aim of marriage; love was nothing more than a possible outcome.

Today such marriages are often viewed as old-fashioned and an act against the person's rights. But supporters of the traditional system of arranged marriages often point to the divorce rate in the modern world, which is dependent on the idea of romantic marriage, and remind the rest of us that romantic marriage obviously doesn't work well either. Maybe the traditional concept of marriage is the ideal way to go.

Ruth and Naomi are in trouble. But Boaz has already been a bright light in their lives. And Naomi has instructed Ruth to go at night to the threshing floor with an interesting proposition for Boaz; marriage. Does Ruth love Boaz, or does Boaz love Ruth? Maybe, but that is not the main purpose of the proposal. Boaz is older than Ruth, and he can care for both Ruth and Naomi. Economically, Ruth has little to offer Boaz. But she will be a faithful wife to the one who will take her. But we can't miss that the main reason for Ruth's proposal is based on an economic principle that says that the late husband's family is responsible for the care of the widow left behind. Naomi, through marriage, is part of Boaz's family, and so is Ruth. Therefore, Ruth comes to Boaz to remind him of his financial obligation to the two women.

Ruth has proposed marriage, and now she waits for the answer. Like anyone, even in our world, that moment between the proposal and the acceptance or rejection of the invitation can be a nerve-wracking time. But this moment is different from any other in modern society. Naomi is sure that the answer to the proposal will be yes. The only real question that is left is actually as to the husband's identity. Ruth will be married, but Boaz might not be the husband. But Naomi is sure that Boaz will settle the matter of who it is that will marry Ruth by the end of the day. But waiting for the answer to the question of who Ruth's husband might be probably makes this proposal even more worrying than it might otherwise be.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ruth 4