“This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites.” And it was done, as the LORD commanded Moses. – Leviticus 16:34

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 31, 2015): Leviticus 16

Mayim Bialik (Amy on “The Big Bang Theory) recently admitted that the entertainment industry does not – and most likely never will – honor those who are religious. The T.V. star said that she has received numerous negative comments just because she went to Israel over the summer break. She also admitted that she shuts down her social media involvement on the Sabbath and spends time studying the Jewish texts. Her faith is important to her – too important not to practice. Bialik also commented that "Being a scientist and a person of faith, people want to know how that is. It leads to a lot of interesting conversations that I welcome but a lot of people want to open up a conversation just to tell you, you're wrong."

While Bialik struggles with the way that we, as fans, respond to her faith, she actually brings up an even harder question, not about her and her beliefs, but rather about the beliefs of the rest of us. What is it that we believe so strongly that it effects our behavior and shapes the way that we spend our time? And what scares me is that I think the list of these things for most people is getting shorter and shorter. I actually applaud Bialik for shutting down her social media on the Sabbath, it is a practice that I wish more Christians were willing to follow. (I do put out info onto social media on the Christian Sabbath or The Lord’s Day, but it is always prepared before the Sabbath and then scheduled for release – my compromise on the issue.) But what are the things that we are willing to say “no” to for no other reason than we find it important to what we profess to believe. Maybe a better way to ask the question is simply this – what are the things that keep us out of church or synagogue on our Holy Days. Because if you can’t sacrifice the time for these things, it is highly unlikely that you will make any sacrifices because of your faith or your spirituality. And a spirituality that does not demand anything from you is useless.

As August closes, we are on the doorstep of Yom Kipper (this year the holiday will celebrated from sundown on Tuesday. September 22 until sundown on Wednesday, September 23). This is the Day of Atonement, one of the few Holy Days that has been celebrated for over 3000 (and maybe over 3500) years. The Day of Atonement occurs once every year, and for the Jewish Faith this Day of Atonement (Yom Kipper) is the holiest day of the year. And why wouldn’t it be. Within the temple era it was the only day that the High Priest would enter into the Holy of Holies to make a sacrifice to atone for the sins of all of the people of Israel.

Today, Yom Kipper is celebrated by many people as a day of fasting and a day of giving up normal activities. In the past, people like baseball stars Sandy Koufax (he refused to pitch in the First game of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kipper) and Hank Greenberg (he refused to play a game on Yom Kipper in 1934, despite the fact that his Detroit Tigers were in the middle of a Pennant race at the time) made sacrifices because their faith meant something to them. But I am afraid that the Sandy Koufax’s, Hank Greenberg’s and Mayim Bialiks are becoming harder to find.

As a Christian, I would hope that we could support our Jewish friends as they celebrate this Holy Day of Atonement – maybe even celebrate with them by joining the fast. But we also have our own Yom Kipper – our most holy day of atonement. And I often surprise people by revealing that the holiest day on the Christian calendar is not Christmas Day and it is not Easter Sunday. Our Most Holy Day is Good Friday – the day that Jesus died on a cross to make atonement for all of our sins – every single sin of every single person.  

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 17

“‘When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. – Leviticus 15:13

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 30, 2015): Leviticus 15

The first recorded outbreak of syphilis occurred among the French troops attacking Naples in 1494 near the beginning of the Italian War of 1494-98. And there are a couple of competing theories with regard to the origin of the disease. The first explanation is that the disease was part of the Columbian exchange – an exchange of diseases as well as plants, animals among other things between the Afro-Eurasian continents and the newly discovered Americas. The theory postulates that the crew of the ships involved in the Christopher Columbus voyage to the New World picked up the disease and brought it back to Europe. And there it spread like wild fire during the late 15^th and early 16^th centuries – especially among the soldiers fighting the various European wars of that era. But the competing theory is that syphilis had always been present within the European populations, but we just couldn’t diagnose the disease until this point in history.

But the reality is that whether or not syphilis existed on the Afro-Eurasian continents prior to the Columbus discovery of America, we do know that various Sexually Transmitted Diseases were present even in the ancient world and on the Afro-Eurasian continents. We can draw up a list of ancient people who we believe may have died from contracting a variety of Sexually Transmitted Diseases – even if the diseases did go undiagnosed.

Yet the Mosaic Law gives guidelines for those who had contracted just this kind of disease. And it is not surprising that the prescription is isolation. To be honest, it is still the best prescription to stop the spread of an STD. There are other precautions that we can take, but none of them have a %100 efficiency rate. That kind of a rate of protection is only available if abstinence is practiced. And so the law specifies that the man with an unusual discharge was to remain isolated (untouched) until the discharge stopped. If the discharge didn’t stop, then this was the only way to halt the spread of the disease from moving through the entire community. And if it did stop, then another week of isolation was required – just to make sure.

Critics will probably note the imperfections of this law with current medical knowledge that we possess, but for an ancient civilization, this instruction was nothing short of revolutionary.       

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 16

The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed and make atonement for them before the LORD. – Leviticus 14:18

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 29, 2015): Leviticus 14

As I write this, Las Vegas seems to be betting on a Green Bay Packers vs. Indianapolis Colts Super Bowl in early February 2016 – with the Packers taking the hardware home with them. Of course, with recent reports that Packers Wide Receiver Jordy Nelson might be gone for the season with a torn ACL, all of that might change. But for right now, Super Bowl odds are a moving target. The problem is that American (and Canadian) Football might be one of the hardest sports to handicap. There are just too many variables. You might have Tom Brady for a quarterback, but someone has to catch the balls that he throws (no matter how much air might be in them.) Or someone has to be able to run the balls to keep the defense honest. The offensive line has to give the quarterback time and running backs holes to run through. And then of course there is the defense. To win, all of this is needed – it is essential and it is all interconnected. One star simply won’t do it – and to be honest, with the right coaching plan, a star sometimes isn’t even needed. But all of the puzzle pieces just simply have to fit. The plan has to be a holistic one. Weaknesses in one area will inevitably have an effect on all other areas. And in that way I think that North American Football mirrors life itself.

The Mosaic Law seemed to understand this picture of life – that every area of life was interconnected. If a person was to be considered healed of leprosy, that declaration had to be reflected in all areas of the person’s life. First, the declaration itself was one that impacted the physical health of the person – they were declared to be healthy and clean. Second, the declaration impacted the social life of the person. A person who was declared to be clean was restored to the community and they were able to rejoin the family unit and the social structure that they had built before they became sick. But even though they had been declared to be healthy and restored to the society, they still had to be restored spiritually. And so they were anointed by the priest with oil.    

The reality was that because leprosy didn’t have a cure, these anointing’s were probably very rare. But when they happened they would have been very special events – remembered by all the participants and even the community at large. And it was then that the people realized that God still walked among his people.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 15

“When a man or woman has white spots on the skin, the priest is to examine them, and if the spots are dull white, it is a harmless rash that has broken out on the skin; they are clean. – Leviticus 13:38-39

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 28, 2015): Leviticus 13

It started in September 1939. On September 1, Nazi Germany invades Poland. Two days later Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany. And two days after that, on September 5, the United States declares its neutrality – they decide they are not going to take sides in the dispute. Five days after the declaration of neutrality, the United States’ northern neighbor, Canada, declares war on Germany and the war in the Atlantic begins – World War II had started.

It all seems so clean, except that this really wasn’t the beginning of the war. Essentially it was just the tipping point. In March 1939, Germany took Czechoslovakia. In January Hitler threatened the Jews. And yet, while these events could have been the beginning, there were even earlier signs of what was to come. Hitler’s decision in 1936 to place the Gestapo above the law, the 1935 stripping of all rights belonging to Jewish Germans or the violation of the Treaty of Versailles by introducing military conscription. In 1934 the Nazi’s murdered the Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss. Even as early as 1933 the first Concentration Camp was opened. Any of these events could have started something. But they didn’t. The entire world watched what was happening in Germany and wondered which events were simply harmless eruptions that would blow over, and which were signs of serious problems that would shape all of our futures. Some believe that the world simply watched and waited too long. The cancer that was Adolph Hitler was known long before we acted – and maybe if we had moved earlier a lot of pain could have been avoided.

Much of life is spent discerning between the harmless eruptions and serious complications. Nazi Germany in the 1930’s or the current status of between North and South Korea all involve careful evaluations of what is innocuous and what is not. Caring for our personal health involves some of the same questions. Was last night chest pains indications of heart problem or indigestion? Or is that thing on your neck just a spot or a sign of skin cancer. We have to continually be on guard, differentiating between what is harmless and what is serious.

Leprosy was a scourge to the ancient world. The disease is contagious and is transmitted from the sick to the healthy. Although we now know that the disease is not highly contagious, the effects of leprosy are severe. In the ancient world, there was no cure – leprosy was a death sentence. And so the only solution was to isolate those who suffered from the disease from those who were healthy.

Yet not every skin eruption is leprosy. There needed to be a way to differentiate between the serious and the “bohaq” – a harmless skin eruption. It wasn’t a perfect system, but it was a system that was designed to minimize the impact of the disease, and to differentiate between the harmless and the serious.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 14

He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. – Leviticus 12:7

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 27, 2015): Leviticus 12

Black lives matter. There is something incredibly sad about the phrase. Maybe it is simply that we live in a culture where we actually need to speak those words. It seems to be me that this is such a simple truth. And it is not just that Black lives matter, it is all life. I almost hate, at times, to turn on my computer (most of the news that I read I find online) and read about the murders in Baltimore, or the shootings in Chicago, or maybe an increase in violence in New York’s Central Park. Black lives matter! White lives matter! Yellow lives matter! Red lives matter! Brown lives matter! Whatever shade of life you might be – you matter. Life is precious and in whatever form we might find it, it matters.

So I struggle with this passage in the Law. I love a lot of what David Guzik writes on the Bible, but I have to admit that I shuddered when I read his words on this verse. According to Guzik (and he is definitely not the only one who takes this stand on this passage), “This was a fairly standard sacrifice for atonement, holding the woman symbolically responsible for bringing another sinner into this world. The required sacrifice was the same for her who has borne a male or a female.” Those words “holding a woman symbolically responsible for bringing another sinner into this world” somehow shake me to my core. I understand that this fits perfectly with David’s words “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me (Psalm 51:5), but maybe we need to give David a poetic break here. These words are written as a confession for his sins with Bathsheba – there is little doubt that in this moment David probably felt like the worst sinner on the planet (and this should be a great source of hope for Josh Duggar as he deals with the uncomfortable place that he finds himself in.) I guess what I don’t understand is that God commands Noah and his family (and descendants) to “be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it” (Genesis 9:7) but then at the same time says that he will hold women accountable for following his direct command. To me, it just doesn’t make sense.

But I think that there may be another explanation. I am convinced that God’s grace is always extended to us long before we need it. God’s grace is primary, it is first and it is “original.” There is no sin that we can commit where God’s grace has not already gone before us. And maybe this atonement is symbolic of that grace. The child will grow, and the child will fail, but the atonement has already been paid. I mean, isn’t this similar to what we already believe about the atonement of Jesus – that he has already paid in full for the sins of each one of us. He has died so that we might be at one with God. And maybe, just maybe, what Jesus did on the cross on a global scale, moms did on a personal scale within Mosaic Law – they paid the atonement price in advance. After all, life – all of it – matters.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 13

You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. – Leviticus 11:3

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 26, 2015): Leviticus 11

I recently read an online article entitled “8 Things that Happen When You Finally Stop Drinking Caffeine” (from Women’s Health). What I was expecting was an article on the eight great ways that my life would change once I got rid of caffeine out of my diet. But the article was actually a little mixed in its opinion about the substance. And, to be honest, the article was speaking almost directly to coffee drinkers, so my daily habit of Diet Coke simply did not apply. Still, there were some interesting arguments about the negative and the positive effects that the drug has on our lives.

On the positive side, if you cut out caffeine you may just lose weight, although admittedly that weight loss effect only applies to those among us who drink our caffeine with lots of added sugar - a Tim Horton’s double-double is not an effective weight loss strategy. A second positive was that you will sleep better and have more energy – probably one of the more obvious effects of removing a stimulant from your diet. Third, you will feel calmer – once again this is due to the removal of the stimulant from your diet. The fourth positive was that your tummy will be happier. Caffeine is acidic and it speeds up your digestive system (this I did not know). Therefore, eliminating caffeine will also most likely eliminate your emergency trips to the bathroom.

But not all of the effects were positive - some were negative. To start with, you are going to feel horrible, at least for a while. Caffeine is highly addictive and it will actively fight its removal from your life. While you might lose weight, especially if you add a lot of sugar to your coffee, you might also gain weight because caffeine is a very powerful temporary appetite suppressant. As well, if you drink your coffee black, it might be burning more calories to process the drink than the drink actually provides. Another negative effect is that your workouts will suffer. Again this is tied to the stimulating properties of caffeine - it gives you the energy you need for workout that lies ahead of you. But maybe one of the most surprising negatives for me was that to stop drinking coffee will remove the number one source in North America for those precious antioxidants (hmm, maybe I need to start drinking coffee.)

The problem with Israel’s dietary laws is that they are also a bit of a mixed bag. The eating of animals that chew their cud actually makes some sense. Animals that chew their cud have multiple stomachs and digest their food more completely. The result is that the meat of these animals has more nutrients and less poisons then the meat does in animals that do not chew their cud. But arguments for the eating of only animals that have a divided hoof somehow seem contrived and silly (at least to me personally.)

So some scholars have wondered if rather than a strictly health principle at work with the dietary laws (which is definitely there – we could probably all use less bacon in our diet) there just might be a spiritual principle. Their argument goes something like this. When an animal chews his cud, they stop actively grazing, often they lie down and concentrate on the contents that are being brought up from the first stomach into the mouth to be chewed and then sent back down to the second stomach. Is it possible that the spiritual lesson that we are to learn is that this law which God is giving to us is not to be simply followed, we are to meditate on it and understand the reasons behind it. Only then will we be able to make informed choices as we apply the law to our lives. The spiritual lesson from the divided hoof (and Moses makes it clear that the hoof is to be fully, not just partially, divided) is that Israel was to exist as a people that were separate from the nations around them. They were to provide the example for the world and not conform to it. The goal was always that the world would be transformed by the power of God – and through the example set by Israel.

And the goal has never changed. The Christian church exists as an extension of, and never a replacement of, Israel. We are to meditate and understand how Jesus law of love is supposed to shape our decision making. We still exist as a separate and holy people whose goal is nothing less than the transformation of the world from a secular worldview based often on hate and greed to one that functions on love and acceptance. And on this we must never waver.

In the end God would stress to Peter that nothing that he has created is unclean. And in this conversation he makes it very clear that we are to love all people – not withstanding all of those things that we sometimes mistakenly believe that separate us.  

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 12

Aaron replied to Moses, “Today they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, but such things as this have happened to me. Would the LORD have been pleased if I had eaten the sin offering today?” – Leviticus 10:19

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 25, 2015): Leviticus 10

In 1963, Leslie Gore released her hit song “It’s My Party.” The song itself tells the story of a teenage girl whose boyfriend Johnny disappears on the night of her birthday party. When Johnny reappears, the young girl finds that she has been replaced by someone else. All in a sudden the party, which should have been a happy occasion, becomes a sad one – and a reason to cry. The phrase “It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to” has entered into pop culture as a phrase that describes any humiliating event that occurs at an occasion which should have been a happy one – a sad experience in what should have been a happy situation.

Aaron’s oldest sons, Nadab and Abihu, have died. They died because of their own disobedience of God’s Law. Essentially they did not give the respect to the Tabernacle of God that this holy place deserved; and as a result of their sin, their lives ended. And because Nadab and Abihu died as a direct result of their sin, Aaron and his sons were forbidden to mourn the deaths.

So a sin offering was offered, and the appropriate parts of the sin offering were burned as the Mosaic Law demanded. But Moses instructed that the rest of the sin offering was to be eaten by Aaron and his sons, Eleazar and Ithmar. But when Moses asks Eleazar and Ithmar if they consumed the offering, the sons of Aaron admit that they burned the whole offering and that none of it was eaten by the three priests. Moses is not amused. For the prophet, this is nothing more than further disobedience of God by the family of the High Priest.

But Aaron steps up for his sons. The sin offering was supposed to be consumed by the priests with joy and thanksgiving – after all, the sacrifice erased the sin of the people, it was a vehicle of God’s grace. But in this moment, that just wasn’t possible. Even though they were forbidden to mourn the deaths of Nadab and Abihu publicly, they couldn’t help mourn the deaths of these sons and brothers in their heart. And God knows the state of the heart. So Aaron’s question is simply this – would it be right to eat a meal that is supposed to be consumed with joy when there was simply no joy in their hearts. They might be able to put on a happy face for the people, but inside the mourning was very real. And because of this, the offering was not consumed.

But essentially Aaron is telling his brother exactly what Leslie Gore told us in 1963 – It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to. When bad things happen, sometimes there is simply no other choice.   

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 11

Fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar. And when all the people saw it, they shouted for joy and fell facedown. – Leviticus 9:24

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 24, 2015): Leviticus 9

Fire. Life just wouldn’t be what it is without it, and yet it has the capacity to scare us like nothing else can. Historically, fire was essential to the development of the human race. We used it to cook our meals, to keep us warm on a cold night and to scare away predators that might want to attack while we were resting. But we have also used it as an instrument of torture and execution. I am not sure that I can think of a worse way to die than to be burned. And when fire gets out of our control, it is very hard to stop. Over the summer months there are usually a few “smoky days” – evidence that somewhere a fire is burning out of control. Uncontrolled fire has a tendency of destroying the very things that are precious to us.

From a natural side, fire is simply part of the cycle of life. Old forests with dead dry wood burn down, destroying what it is that is present inside of them. But in the wake of the fire is this awesome potential for new growth – including plants that would never have been able to grow in the old forest. It is this concept that causes some fires to be just left to burn – to allow this natural cycle of life to occur.

But historically it has been the control of fire that has been of the utmost importance. We needed fire, but we needed it on demand. And when the demand was completed, we needed the fire to go out. To be honest, the idea of controlled fire is something that we still struggle with even today. With all of our advancements, the simple idea of controlling fire seems to be just outside of our grasp.

The Bible also uses fire in many ways. Some cling to the idea of “hell fire,” a description that actually comes from Jesus description of hell as a place like the burning garbage dumps that surrounded Jerusalem. The garbage burned continuously, and the fire never went out. It is found in John’s description of the “Lake of fire” or the “Lake of Burning Sulphur” described in Revelation, a place where John says that Satan, the Beast, the False Prophet, Death and, interestingly, hell are all to be cast at the end of time. This would seem to be their ultimate destruction.

But maybe fitting our own need and hate of fire, this fire in which we see punishment is also seen as being an essential part of God. The Holy Spirit is sometimes described to be a burning fire, taking away the impurities and leaving us as God intended us to be. And in this passage, it is fire that proceeds from the presence of God and burns the offering. God is the “all-consuming fire.” And Leviticus tells us that when the fire of God fell on the offering and consumed it, and the people were overjoyed and fell down and worshipped this God of the fire. And maybe not just the God of fire, but the God of the controlled fire. As hard as they might work to try and control this thing needed for life, God seemed to have no problem. Even fire went out and did exactly what it was that he asked it to do.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 10

He then presented the bull for the sin offering, and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on its head. – Leviticus 8:14

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 23, 2015): Leviticus 8

The phenomenon of the radicalization of believers in any religion is one that has mystified us. Our current emphasis is on radicalized Muslims being recruited to Isis, but it would be a mistake to believe that this is the only radicalization that is happening. Every religion or faith that attempts to create a counter cultural movement, a movement in a different direction from that of the majority of the society, makes radicalization possible. Within Christianity that radicalization often seem to take us to the extreme fundamentalist right. And I struggle trying to understand the violence perpetrated by some Christian groups on the far Christian right in the same way that my Muslim counterparts fail to understand violence within their own faiths. We are just not all that different.

This radicalization seems to be an increased possibility when the faith group begins to see the dominating culture as being sinful, because as a person of faith we believe that we have to deal with sin. Homosexuality, music, movies are among the cultural elements that many different faiths identify as serious sin in our culture, and these create a lightning rod attracting our violent behavior – we begin to believe that God justifies violence against the sinner, and so when we are violent, we can begin to believe that we are simply carrying out the work of God (or Allah). And it is in this moment that radicalization has become a reality. But it is essentially a world dominated, not faith dominated, ideal that we are following. It is a secular view that says that we must take care of sin by attacking the person we believe is guilty of the sin. When we perpetuate violence as the solution to spiritual problems, we have left the faith and joined with the beliefs of the world at large. Yet this is exactly what seems to happen – especially within a radicalized faith.

And as much as the sacrificial system seems a little archaic to us today, it was designed to take the violence that might otherwise be visited on each other – and hopefully stop the radicalization of the faith. In this instance, Moses stood in the place of the High Priest, but after this it would always be the High Priest who would offer the sacrifice. And Aaron and his sons came as the offenders, the ones guilty of the sin. Sin always results in some kind of punishment. But in this case, the violence would be borne by the bull.

The passage says that Aaron and his sons laid hands on the bull, but a better description might be that they pressed down on the bull – that they impressed upon the animal their sins. The bull became the substitute, and we sometimes still really seem to need one.

In our contemporary society the image is often lost, but the sacrificial system would become an important cultural element in the society. The sacrifice took the sin and allowed the person to function normally in their day to day lives, hopefully without violence being brought on them because of their own failures. The debt was paid and the book of wrongs was closed until the next sacrifice.

But, unfortunately, the reality is that the sacrificial system failed on almost every point, including its desire to stop the radicalization of the Jewish faith. In New Testament times, the Zealots and, to a certain extent, the Pharisees seem to have functioned as radicalized Jews. And the result of the radicalization was the destruction of the temple in Rome in 70 C.E. But by this time the Christian Church had begun to believe in the perfect sacrifice which could bring a perfect peace – Jesus Christ. And the truth is that for Christianity to become radicalized, first we have to demote Jesus to a lesser status in our thoughts – because he continues to stand between us and the violence we would bring onto the world. A radicalized Christian has to be one who has forgotten the sacrifice that Jesus made for this world – and that is simply something that none of us can afford to forget.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 9

These are the regulations for the guilt offering, which is most holy … - Leviticus 7:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 22, 2015): Leviticus 7                                        

In the musical movie “Grease,” Olivia Newton-John sang her country rock classic song “Hopelessly Devoted to You” to a small pool with an imagined image of her co-star John Travolta. The message is clear, Danny (the character played by Travolta) doesn’t deserve her love, but she has no choice - her devotion belongs only to him.

To the outsider, Sandy’s devotion (the character played by Newton-John) to Danny makes no sense – or maybe it only makes sense in a teenage sort of way – and since Grease is a movie about teenage love, maybe that does make some kind of teenage sense. But, for Sandy, her devotion is hopeless, because all Danny will ever do is break her heart. He does not deserve her devotion, and yet, at least according to the song, that is what she says that she has to give to him. In fact, Sandy is not just “hopelessly devoted,” she is also wholly devoted – no one else deserves what it is that she has. She is willing to give herself to Danny, and only to Danny.

Okay, the movie is kind of cheesy, but it illustrates an interesting point when we are trying to understand some aspects of the Mosaic Law. Some regulations, and places, we are told are “most holy.” In English it almost sounds like a hierarchy placing these things that are most holy at the top of a long list. In regard to the guilt offering, when we read the words “most holy,” we think that means that nothing can be holier. And while that is true, it isn’t exactly what the words “most holy” really mean.

In Jewish thought there seems to be two categories of things that are called holy. Some were “most holy” but others were “light holy” – and the difference was that “most holy” meant that these were to be wholly (but not hopelessly) devoted to God or the priesthood for sacred use. For the things that were light holy, that was not true. So a Fellowship or a Peace Offering was considered to be light holy, because the sacrifice was to be shared between the God, in the form of the priests, and one who brought the offering. It was a great offering, one that honored God, but the offering was not wholly devoted to God or the priests, so it could not be most holy.

The Guilt Offering, on the other hand, was to be “most holy.” The whole offering had to be wholly devoted to God or the priests – it could not be given to anyone but God. The guilt offering was totally sacred. It could be nothing else and still make atonement for our sins. Only this devotion, unlike Sandy’s, was not hopeless – it was the design of God.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 8

… when they sin in any of these ways and realize their guilt, they must return what they have stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to them, or the lost property they found or whatever it was they swore falsely about. They must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day they present their guilt offering. - Leviticus 6:4-5

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 21, 2015): Leviticus 6

The story of President Warren G. Harding and Nan Britton was been part of political gossip for decades. The question – did Warren G. Harding have an affair with Nan Britton, a woman 31 years younger than he was, and father her only daughter Elizabeth-Ann? The politically correct answer until very recently was “we don’t know.” Britton authored the first kiss-and-tell book in 1928 (five years after Harding’s sudden death ending his Presidential career after just over two years in office at the age of 57) and titled the book “The President’s Daughter.” In the book she tells of her love affair with the President, including a famous passage about their love making in the coat closet of the Executive Office. Britton insists that she wrote the book only so that she could earn the money necessary to support her daughter. The book and the rumor (Nan Britton insisted that the story was true right up until her death in 1991 at the age of 94) have created a barrier between the two families that has lasted for almost a century.

But recent DNA testing has revealed that the story Nan Britton is true – well, at least partially true. We have no idea whether the sordid details of the President’s love life with Britton happened the way that Britton insists that they did. But we do know that her daughter Elizabeth-Ann is the daughter of Warren G. Harding. The families are still struggling to come to terms with what this means for them, but the reality is that for most of her life, Nan Britton was considered to be a liar and a gold-digger, inventing stories at the expense of a President of the United States for her own material gain. She was a woman without honor until the day that she died. And now, finally, that honor needs to be returned to her.

Mosaic Law specifies that stolen property must be returned with interest. Restitution is not enough. And the principal applies even when the theft is accidental, or if we are ignorant of the theft until later. Once we realize that we are in possession of something that does not belong to us, we make restitution and we add a fifth – what belongs to someone else, always belongs to someone else. Even if they don’t remember, when we remember we are to do the right thing and return the property – with interest.

The principle with property work’s well. But it is not just property that we steal from others – and it might be the other things that are more important. What do we do when it is honor that we have stolen? How do we return that? When we think of Nan Britton, this becomes the real question. And it is not just the family squabble which to a certain extent continues today even after the DNA verdict – it is the way that history has viewed this young woman whose life direction and public image became fixed when she slept with a President who was 31 years her senior. It is time that history restores the honor of this woman – with interest.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 7

If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. – Leviticus 5:11

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 20, 2015): Leviticus 5

Plus sized model Ashley Graham may be on top of the modeling world right now, but she isn’t impressed with the title that she carries. “Plus sized” would seem to bring with it a number of ancient assumptions. We have come to see plus sized as “fat” and “lazy” and not willing to “give the discipline” necessary to live life. But that does not describe Ashley Graham who works hard and is extremely confident. The reality for Ashley is simply this, take away the “plus sized” title and really look at Ashley and we see something quite different – we see what it looks like to be normal.

We are all created equal. Say it with me – equal. In reality, that simple statement is the highest value of our society – at least in principle. It is this value that forms the basis for our fight for equality regardless of such superficial things as race and sex and faith and even sexual orientation. To our culture, even the suggestion that someone is of less value because of any these attributes is extremely offensive.

And yet as much as we insist that we are equal, we don’t really believe it. As a culture we continue to retain some of the ancient dividing lines and two of them are looks and wealth – and often those have been linked. Our culture seems permanently bent to give advantage to the ones we consider to be pretty, and the ones who control the world’s wealth. As offensive as inequality has become, to say that Donald Trump and the homeless man standing on the corner of any of our cities are somehow equal is ridiculous. Or maybe the description that we need is the one used by George Orwell in “Animal Farm” – “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

This might be true everywhere except in the area of our religious belief. Our Christian Communities should be the one place where people of different economic realities meet on equal ground. In the eyes of God we are all simply his children. In the early Christian Community, the community was the one place where slaves met as equals with their masters – the economic differential was completely wiped out.

The Mosaic Law specifically isolates this economic reality. And when it came to the idea of sacrifice for sin, this economic reality became concrete. For the top economic level, a lamb was to be offered as the sacrifice for sin. But if the one offering the sacrifice could not afford the lamb, then two doves or two pigeons were to be offered as the sacrifice for sin. But if even that was too expensive, then even fine flour could be offered as a sacrifice. The Mosaic Law effectively created an economic zone where everyone was truly equal. It is time that we leave all of our descriptive labels behind. After all, we are all created very equal – and in the sight of God no one is “more equal” than anyone else.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 6

If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. – Leviticus 4:3

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 19, 2015): Leviticus 4

The street fight we know of as the Republican Leadership race continues. News sources are lapping up who the next victim is in the latest comments spoken by one of the candidates – often Donald Trump, but not limited to him alone. The fight itself brings in readers for various news outlets and political video outlets available to whoever wants to search them up. But there is a problem. If we pause for even a short amount of time we quickly realize that the behavior we are witnessing on almost a daily basis would be not tolerated if it was coming from one of our children. On every public stage we have lost the idea that we, as adults let alone national leaders, are to be setting the example for those that come behind us. And it is not just a Donald Trump or a Republican issue. Over the past week we have had an investigation into Hilary Clinton private email server wondering how she has lied or possibly mishandled Government secrets (an accusation that seems even more serious when we consider the family history of deception that seems to follow the Clinton’s), the NFL and Tom Brady have fought a very public fight over deflated balls that has left us with no winner, more women have stepped forward to accuse Bill Cosby of sexual misconduct, and these are just a few of the highlights. We have forgotten that what our leaders do effects all of us.

It is no wonder that the Mosaic Law contains different set of sacrificial instructions when it comes to the sin of an anointed priest. But maybe the most surprising element is that the Law specifically states that the sin of the priest brings “guilt on the people.” As a culture I am not sure that we understand that. How can someone else guilt become mine – I am in control of my own life. Except that we also now the impact of a leader’s sin. The problem when a sports hero hits his wife or his girlfriend is not only the endangerment of the woman involved; the problem is that it sets the stage for others to follow in the behavior and believe that such behavior is normal. The problem when an entertainment Icon drugs and rapes women is not just confined to the women that he has assaulted; it sets the stage for others to do the same thing and believe that the behavior is considered to be acceptable.

So Moses brings the law to the priests and he stresses that their sin causes a problem of guilt for all the people – and because of that, the sin has to be dealt with publically. We recognize that none of us are perfect and that all of us mess up. The Law contains no allusion to the excommunication of priests for their sin. But it does insist that when a priest sins, it must be called what it is and dealt with through the sacrificial system. Otherwise bad behavior will become normal practice.

And if I could remind our leaders (and potential leaders) of anything – this would be it. I have no expectation that wrong will never be committed, but when it is, stand up and tell us that you were wrong. You might be amazed at the positive difference that one act might make in your relationship with all of the people – and as a result increase your influence and your job possibilities.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 5

From the fellowship offering you are to bring a food offering to the LORD: the internal organs and all the fat that is connected to them, both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the long lobe of the liver, which you will remove with the kidneys. – Leviticus 3:3-4

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 18, 2015): Leviticus 3

Did you know that Jesus had a bit of a reputation as a party animal? Maybe the most famous instance is told in the book of Luke and it involved a tax collector named Levi (elsewhere in the Christian Testament he is known as Matthew – and he is thought to be the author of the Gospel of Matthew.) In Luke, Levi was throwing a party, but because he was an outcast from Jewish society, it is very likely that everyone invited to the party was also an outcast – everyone that is other than a Jewish Rabbi named Jesus. And the idea that any Jewish teacher would party with this group was simply unheard of – and yet Jesus responded to the invitation and came to the party.

The Jewish religious leaders were not impressed and they voiced their objection to Jesus disciples - “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 5:30)? The idea was revolutionary – and many took from this and other instances that this meeting between Jesus and these outcasts was absolute proof that Jesus could not have been sent from God. Why would God eat with a sinner?

The idea might have come from the Fellowship or Peace Offering. The concept behind the offering was that this had nothing to do with sin – it was simply what it indicated, a meal of fellowship and peace. According to the rituals, the organs and the fat connected to them were to be burned – the resulting smoke was a fragrant offering to God. Then the rest of the meat was to be cooked and shared between the one offering the sacrifice and the priests who sat in the place of God. The result was a feast – and a party - between God and man. The Fellowship Offering was thought to have been one of the most precious to God – because no sacrifice for sin was involved.

But the question that needs to be asked is simply this – does the existence of the Fellowship offering mean that there was no need for a sacrifice for sin. It might be that the fellowship offering was often paired with the sacrifice for sin, but the life of Jesus shows an image of a God that enjoys fellowship with his people in spite of their sin. The life of Jesus might indicate that the Fellowship Offering was something that God enjoyed regardless of the sin that might have been present in the life of the one who offered the sacrifice.

Maybe the bigger question is this – if Jesus spent so much time simply enjoying the fellowship of the outcasts of his society, why does his church spend so much time excluding the outcasts of our society? Why are we not, as the priests of God, taking the time to have fellowship with the ones who feel they are our outcasts – with us standing in the place of God? Why aren’t we partying with our outcasts like Jesus did with his?

It is just something that I am wondering about.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 4

Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings. – Leviticus 2:13

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 17, 2015): Leviticus 2

Rick Perry and Donald Trump seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum as they continue their run for the Republican nomination. Perry has moved at least some of his staff from being paid by the campaign to working as volunteers – and they have been freed to look for other jobs. Apparently money is slow coming in for the Perry campaign (although Perry’s PAC seems to be flowing with funds to spend on the campaign – of course, these funds are to be spent as PAC feels is necessary). Donald Trump, on the other hand, has apparently revealed that as long as he remains in a strong position in the polls, he is willing to spend over $300 million of his own money in the campaign (sounds like a lot of money, but Trump claims that his yearly salary is $400 million - I guess he will have to decide how he can live this year on only $100 million if his poll number remain strong.) But then, maybe that is not surprising – many are willing to exchange money for power. And as expensive as political campaigns tend to be, it is the cost of maintaining our societies. Expensive campaigns are not required by dictators and military leaders. They are also not necessary for campaigns run on a small scale. But for real democracy to work in large society, the expensive campaign has become a necessary evil.

Ancient societies ran on something different – and often that something was salt. Cultures developed at different rates and those rates were often fueled by the availability of salt. In fact, salt was so valuable in Roman times that soldiers were often paid in salt. (I wonder what $400 million in salt looks like?) The root of the word salary is actually found in this practice of paying wages with salt. The magic of salt was that it allowed for meat to be preserved. This preservation meant that there was food even in times of famine. Salt allowed for travel. Without it a major portion of every day would have been spent in the pursuit of food – and much of the food that was obtained would rot before it could be eaten. And because of this, cultures would have been severely handicapped – and the cultural development would have been slowed.

So it is not surprising that salt plays a major role in the biblical narrative. Jesus said that his followers were to be “the salt of the earth,” probably indicating that they were to be the preservers of society. In the practice of giving a grain offering, salt was forbidden to be excluded. Moses calls it the “the salt of the covenant of your God,” and as such it had certain properties. The salt of the covenant reflected that it was a pure covenant just as salt remains pure and it was also an enduring covenant just as salt allows things to be preserved and to endure. This covenant, preserved by salt, would never be corrupted over time. But it is also a valuable covenant, just as salt at the time was expensive. This was a covenant that needed to be valued by the people because the God of the covenant valued the people – much more than the salt.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 3

If the offering is a burnt offering from the flock, from either the sheep or the goats, you are to offer a male without defect. – Leviticus 1:10

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 16, 2015): Leviticus 1

Sports seems to be filled with great one liner helps for life. If you are going to bother to play the game, you need to make sure “that your head is in the game” and that you are willing to “leave it all on the field.” The time has come to “bring your best” because we all know that “there is no tomorrow.” Yes, the one liners can be a bit trite, but the bottom line is that they are true. If you are going to live life, why would we aim at anything less than everything – after all, this is our one chance.

And the idea of making the most of life is in keeping with the biblical directives. Life is a gift that has been given to us from God, but it also comes with a bunch of next steps. And one of the next steps is highlighted in the law that God gave to Moses. We are to go for the best that this life has to offer, but because life is a gift from God, we also need to remember to give the best of what we have back to God, recognizing that he is the reason for everything that we have. Because God has given to us, our next step is to give back to God.

There are a couple of repeated instructions as the book of Leviticus opens. One is the idea that the gift we are to give to God is to be from the ‘flock’ or the ‘herd.’ The point God seems to be making is that the sacrifice that you are to offer to God is to come from what it is that you own – it is to carry a cost to the one who is giving the gift. A wild animal that is caught and sacrificed is not a suitable offering to God because it didn’t cost the donor anything. Maybe today this is a little like saying “when I win the lottery, then I will give to the work of God (and give big.)” But God’s instructions have always been that the people called by his name are to be generous with what they have – no matter if what they have is big – or small. We give of what we own, no matter how much we own

But the second repeated instruction is simply that being part of your herd or flock (your possessions) is not enough. It must also be the best of what you have. Offerings that are of no value to you are of no value to God. When I was a youth pastor, people seemed to love to bring their old furniture into the church for the youth to use. Sometimes the furniture still had some life left in it, but often it seemed that the purpose of bringing the furniture to the church was because it was easier to leave it there than to make a trip to the dump. But what was often even worse was that sometimes they even wanted a tax credit for the furniture – and we quickly adopted a policy that we would not issue receipts for the furniture received. The giver felt that they were giving a gift to God, but the gifts value had already been used up before it was donated.     

The bottom line is that life has great value, and offering God a gift of no value for the gift of life that he has given to us is simply wrong.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 2

May the favor of the Lord our God rest on us; establish the work of our hands for us—yes, establish the work of our hands. – Psalm 90:17

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 15, 2015): Psalm 90

The Roman Coliseum was built as a physical symbol of the glory of Rome. And it was a major engineering undertaking even for the knowledgeable Romans. It is estimated the Coliseum would have held up to 80,000 people, rivaling some of the modern sports stadiums. It was more than 157 feet tall and 620 feet long. But it was more than just a box where people could gather to watch ancient sporting events. The coliseum was a significant architectural achievement. It is likely that the Roman Coliseum was built as a celebration of a major military victory by Emperor Vespasian – possibly even as a celebration of his own ceasing of power in Rome. If it was built to honor Vespasian’s rise to power, it is also very possible that Vespasian never actually saw the completed building – the very one who started the project died before the Coliseum, which took about a decade to build, was completed.

Psalm 90 was written by Moses, and as with many of the Psalms it is hard to date accurately when the Psalm was written. But it makes some sense to place Psalm 90 here after the close of the book of Exodus. Up until this point, the building of the tabernacle – this movable temple – was the most complex construction project that Israel had attempted. The cost had been high, but it was finally finished. And unlike Vespasian, Moses was able to contemplate the finished structure. And it is possible that as Moses was taking his first trip through the completed tabernacle that the seeds of this Psalm formed in his mind, and especially this closing thought - God, may you bless us, and bless the work of our hands – this tabernacle that we have just finished for you.

And this might be one of the biggest differences between the Coliseum and the tabernacle – the underlying reason why these ancient building projects were started. The Roman Coliseum was built to be a symbol of the glory of Rome while the tabernacle was designed to be the glory of God. So Moses prayer was not just an adornment to the process, it was an essential ingredient for all that was to come. Unless God answered Moses prayer, then everything that was accomplished by all of the artisans involved in the project was a waste. God needed to establish what the Israel had completed with the work of their hands.

It might be that principle that we have forgotten in the contemporary church. Whatever task it is that we decide to undertake, it can’t be for our own glory. Everything that we set our hands to must glorify God, and our prayers needs to echo the prayer of Moses as we ask God to “establish the work of our hands for us—yes, establish the work of our hands.”   

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Leviticus 1

Place the ark of the covenant law in it and shield the ark with the curtain. - Exodus 40:3

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 14, 2015): Exodus 40

Henry McCarty, better known as William Bonney or Billy the Kid, died of a gunshot wound on July 14, 1881 - he was 21 years of age. But in those 21 years Henry McCarty had built up a reputation. It is extremely unlikely that everything that we think we know about Billy the Kid is true. McCarty enjoyed a reputation that was, at least partially, built around exaggerated accounts of his exploits. But there is no doubt that many people at that time enjoyed sitting around their various meeting places and telling the many stories of Billy the Kid.

So maybe it shouldn’t be surprising that after The Kid died, people still wanted a piece of him. As a result, Billy the Kid’s grave marker has been stolen several times since he died. Once it was taken because it was apparently going to be kept safely in a museum, but the grave marker never arrived at the museum – it simply disappeared into someone’s collection. Today there is a chipped stone marker in the Old Fort Sumner cemetery indicating the place where Billy the Kid is buried. And around the grave is an Iron fence protecting this marker from the collectors that still exist wanting to have a piece, not of the historical Henry McCarty, but rather of the legend of Billy the Kid.

God has the Ark of the Covenant placed inside of the temple. But it wasn’t just placed into the temple, it is shielded or hidden in a special area of the temple where it would not be seen. There was no doubt that the legend of the Ark of the Covenant would grow, and that people would want a piece of it (the first Indiana Jones movie “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was built around just this very premise), so the Ark needed to be protected. It was a cloth curtain, not an iron fence, but it was usually an effective barrier. A tradition was built up around this small area which was called the “Holy of Holies.” And according to that tradition, only the high priest could enter into this place – and then only once a year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).

But this protection for the Ark was violated – and when it was violated, the Ark was lost. Both the Philistine’s and the Babylonian’s took possession of the Ark because someone forgot about this protective barrier that God had placed around the Ark. The Sons of Eli forgot and carried the Ark into battle before the Philistines took possession of it – and Hezekiah showed the envoys from Babylon all of the Treasures of Israel before the Babylonians tore down the temple and took the Ark of the Covenant for a final time.

But the legend of the Ark had grown. And according to the legend the Ark was endowed with supernatural power. But that was just the legend. The power had always belonged to the God who had instructed Israel to build the Ark – and the power of the Ark really belongs only to him.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Psalm 90

 

Moses inspected the work and saw that they had done it just as the LORD had commanded. So Moses blessed them. – Exodus 39:43

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 13, 2015): Exodus 39

The political debate season has started with people tuning in to see – okay, I have to admit that I don’t think that I have ever understood this next part – what was it that we wanted to see again? The problem is that the debate structure has a fatal flaw. It puts one man on a stage to describe what he thinks should happen, should he ever become President. But elections should never be thought of as the choosing of one man. The Republican debates feature several types of people from the charismatic and flamboyant Donald Trump, to the highly intelligent and thoughtful (but apparently not spontaneous) Jeb Bush, to Carly Fiorina, an accomplished (somewhat at least) business woman whose whole purpose in this affair is counterbalance Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the protectors of the religious right – enter Mike Huckabee. And the list goes on. In some way every one of the Republican Candidates have something good and strong to offer the Office of the President of the United States – but they also carry with them a weakness. And the mission of each of them during the debate is threefold – 1) project their strength, 2) protect their weakness, and 3) expose their opponent’s weakness. If you can do these three things you have a chance of winning the debate.

But none of this has anything to do with being President (and that is probably why some Presidents have been miserable failures – they have continued the practice of the debate once the election was over, continually doing nothing but projecting their strengths, protecting their weaknesses, and exposing the weaknesses of those around them at every opportunity – this does not make an effective President.) To be honest, I am not even sure that I care what it is that you think you should do in 2017, should you take over the office from Barak Obama. I am sure that there are realities that none of the candidates know anything about that is going to severely shift their positions on that first day when they get to sit in that chair behind the desk in the Oval Office. And in that moment all of this becomes less about you and more about the team that you have assembled around you. The President of the United States has to be the great collaborator, he or she needs to be able to recognize good ideas, and leave behind bad ones in the face of new realities – even if these bad idea was promised to the American People during the campaign. A good President has the ability to form the brain trust and has the courage to do what is right – no matter what that might entail. These are the things that make up a good President – or even just a good leader – and none of these attributes are tested in the grand debate.

Moses was the carrier of a vision. It was a vision that was handed to him by God. But the reality was that, as good a leader as Moses was, he did not have the ability to complete the task. What he could do was form the team that could do the job. And that is precisely what he did. He handed off the day to day responsibility to his young nephew Ithamar, and let the team that he had chosen do their job. No doubt Moses excitedly examined the task periodically during the process, but the team completed the vision. And when the job was done, Moses inspected the God vision that the team had made a reality.

Whoever wins the election next year, this is the leader that we need. Not some politician who thinks he has all of the answers, but the one with the ability to put the team together to accomplish the dream. Because every one of us is smart enough to realize that big dreams are never accomplished by just one person – in order to complete them, it takes us all.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Exodus 40

These are the amounts of the materials used for the tabernacle, the tabernacle of the covenant law, which were recorded at Moses’ command by the Levites under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron, the priest. – Exodus 38:21

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 12, 2013): Exodus 38

The youngest son is a stock character in a number of folk stories. Typically the youngest son is seen as weak and unable to do the task that is given to the older brothers. Overlooked, the youngest son usually waits until the end of the story to emerge as the hero of the tale, accomplishing what the older brothers couldn’t – in spite of his youth and weakness. Biblically, maybe the best example of the youngest son is King David. As Samuel comes to the house of Jesse to look for the new king, and Jesse parades before the prophet his seven oldest sons. The one son that he doesn’t parade in front of Samuel is his youngest son – a little boy named David. Samuel passes by all of the seven sons Jesse presents to him, and asks Jesse if he has any other sons. Jesse does, his youngest who is out in the field taking care of the sheep. But he can’t be the one that Samuel wants to see – except that this young, weak boy is the one that Samuel seeks. And Samuel anoints David as King.

The story of David and Goliath again features a David who is once again too young to fight in the war that Israel is involved in with the Philistines. His brothers, however, are part of the army, but none of them are willing to take on the giant Goliath. But David takes on the giant with just a slingshot and five stones.  David succeeds where his brothers fail – and once again the youngest son is the hero.

Ithamar was just another youngest son. In this story there is no mention of his inability, but rather his ability. The youngest son of Aaron was placed in charge of the most important project that Israel had ever attempted in its young history – the building of the Tabernacle. There is no mention of why the job didn’t go to one of his three older brothers, but Ithamar excelled at the task that he was given. And the experience may have proven to be an important experience for the young priest, who would one day rule with his brother over all of the priests of Israel, but only after his two oldest brothers were disqualified from the task. In the end, Ithamar and his slightly older brother Eleazar would succeed where the two oldest sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, would fail.

And once more, the youngest son would become the hero of the story.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Exodus 39

The cherubim had their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim faced each other, looking toward the cover. – Exodus 37:9

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 11, 2015): Exodus 37

Richard I of England apparently lived for the fight. From the beginning of his reign until the end all we really know of Richard is that he was a military mastermind that seemed to not know how to run away from a good fight. In fact, nineteenth century historian Steven Runciman (or more properly Sir James Cochran Stevenson Runciman) comes to this conclusion about the king - "he was a bad son, a bad husband, and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier" (History of the Crusades Vol. III). He loved to fight.

His desire to fight actually made him a very bad king from the beginning of his reign. Violence perpetrated by the king early in his reign prompted the Archbishop of Canterbury, Baldwin of Forde, to remark that “if the King is not God’s man, he had better be the devil’s.” But Richard repented of all of this in order to be considered worthy of participating in the Third Crusade and use his talents to fight for God. But the truth is that the lure for Richard had very little to do with God, and absolutely nothing to do with conquest – he simply desired and focused himself on the battle, and the victory that came after the battle was well fought. This was the only thing that the king wanted to know.

Here Moses describes the Mercy Seat, literally the cover that was placed on top of the Ark of the Covenant. And on top of the mercy seat were two angels (cherubim). These angels covered the entire mercy seat with their wings which touched in the middle of the seat. And the angels faced each other, or maybe more precisely they faced the center of the seat. As a whole, the Mercy Seat with the angels stretching out over the top of it signified the presence of God. And some have suggested that the angels were there as military protectors of God’s realm; that they were maybe there for the fight. But there is a problem with that interpretation. If this is true, then the angels should have been facing the other way, ready to fight, just like King Richard, any evil that came near to the realm of God. But the angels aren’t pointing outward toward the source of the problem, but rather inward toward the source of the solution – God’s mercy. Whatever evil might come, God was big enough to extend mercy to those in need of it.

For the Christian, Jesus has become our mercy seat. And our focus was never supposed to be on the fight, although you might not know that from listening to some Christians. Our focus is on the mercy that extends from Jesus and covers all who stand in need of it. Christians have never really needed the soldier for which King Richard stood; we have always been in need of the forgiveness and mercy for which Jesus stands. God’s mercy and grace has always been the solution for the world’s problems. We have just sometimes gotten so excited about the King Richard’s in our midst that we have forgotten that one fact.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Exodus 38

Then they made for the tent a covering of ram skins dyed red, and over that a covering of the other durable leather. – Exodus 36:19

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 10, 2015): Exodus 36

Idaho native Sabrina Corgatelli is being forced to defend the pictures that she has posted on Facebook of her kills taken during a legal hunt in South Africa. Some Facebook watchers are simply not amused, especially after the illegal murder of Cecil the Lion. For many, the hunting of these animals amounts to nothing more than senseless bloodshed. One of the animals that Corgatelli poses with is an African Giraffe which was killed by her bow on July 25, 2015. In her Facebook post she speaks of the Giraffe as “an amazing animal” and that she “couldn’t be happier” after the kill. As she defends the kill she speaks of her relationship with the animals that she hunts. “There is a connection with the animal, and just because we hunt them doesn’t mean that we don’t have respect for them.” Her detractors want her to know that the giraffe would probably rather be alive than respected.

The problem would seem to be that there is a disconnect between us and the animals that we hunt (personally I would much rather hunt with a camera, but for many that just makes me weak.) There is no biblical injunction against the killing of animals. In fact, the sacrifice of animals for many purposes was a natural part of life. But for the most part, the sacrifice was done for a purpose. There was a reason for the kill. And the various parts of the animal’s body was used. We actually see the same practice among the North American Indians. Until the European man arrived in North America, animals were killed, but almost every part of the dead animal was also used. The Native North Americans lived in much closer harmony to his environment than the European did. The American Bison were never threatened until the European arrived. It was only then that the disconnect seemed to take hold in North American society.

Moses begins to repeat and give a detailed description of the tabernacle – although there are still gaps in the description. And here he mentions the four coverings for the tabernacle. The first was of linen and ornately designed, the second goatskin, the third was ram skin dyed red, and then finally a layer of tough durable leather. Some argue for an aquatic animal, other specifically say that this outer layer was made from the skin of the European Badger. But the point is that the skin had to be durable – this was not something that they wanted to have to repeat often.

So badger skin seems appropriate. It is a tough skin that would have borne the weather well. But it was ugly. This was not a majestic skin. And the surprise is that it was this layer of badger skin that the people saw on a daily basis as they came to the tabernacle. Most would never enter in and see the delights that existed on the inside of the tabernacle (you had to be of the tribe of Levi to possess that honor.) All they would see on a daily basis was this tough, durable and ugly badger skin. Giraffe skin might have been much more beautiful to look at, but it would have been less durable fit the purpose less than the skin of the badger.

It has also been noted that the temple shares this outer appearance feature with the Messiah that was to come. The prophet Isaiah wrote these words - “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2b). Neither the tabernacle nor the Messiah were to be beautiful in their appearance, but rather they were designed to be functional in their purpose.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Exodus 37

Then the whole Israelite community withdrew from Moses’ presence … Exodus 35:20

Today’s Scripture Reading (August 9, 2015): Exodus 35

When I was sixteen, my family made the move from the city to the country (cue the music for “Green Acres” – and yes, I know that many of you will have to Google “Green Acres” in order to understand the reference.) But life, for a while, was a little like a sitcom. The assets that I possessed in the city no longer served me in the country. For country living I needed a totally different talent set. And so the learning process began.

But one of steepest learning curves occurred the spring following my big move to the country. They called the event the “May Queen Competition.” Basically the senior grades of the High School (grades 9 through 12) chose a princess and then competed with each other to make money for the school. The grade which earned the most money had their princess named “May Queen.” In reality, it was a competition between the two highest grade levels because they were the ones in possession of the cars and trucks and could go anywhere to get the jobs. So as a sixteen year old I mucked out my first (and second, third and fourth) horse’s stall, went rock picking (who knew that fields that produces all kinds of various crops also grew rocks), and painting various fences (finally a job for which I could claim that I had some experience.) All to earn money for the school.

It is not an unknown method of fund raising. Many fundraising activities come with some sort of prize or recognition for those that earn the most. And every one of them is just a replay of the “May Queen” competition of my High School years. Even in church we often find ways to emotionally manipulate the situation in order to get the people to give more money.

Moses refuses to play the manipulation game. He simply outlines the need, shares the request that God has laid on his heart, and then he removes himself from the situation. He could have set the tribes against each other and created a contest as to which tribe could donate the most. He could have increased the guilt of the tribes by telling them how much the others had given. But he refuses the temptation and leaves it in hands of God and the tribes, trusting that they would bring in what was needed in order to complete the tabernacle.

In the contemporary church, often we seem to forget about Moses’ example. It almost seems more natural to follow the example of our culture and use manipulation to get the money that we need to operate - especially against the onslaught of those who believe that the church has too much money already. But the Moses model tells a different story. If we outline the need, and are accountable with money that is raised, we can trust God and the people of God to bring in the money that is needed. Probably not much more, but then Moses was not trying to do any more than what God had asked him to do. And in the end, that is all that we are trying to do as well.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Exodus 36

Note: We remember the bombing of Nagasaki on this day 70 years ago, and we weep for all those who were lost on every side during that terrible war. This was the second and last time a Weapon of Mass Destruction was used in war.