Do not eat any detestable thing. – Deuteronomy 14:3

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 31, 2015): Deuteronomy 14

The Arrogant Worms a number of years ago released their song “Carrot Juice is Murder.” I have a weird sense of humor, so I immediately played the song for all my friends. The Chorus of the song is quite straightforward –

I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream scream scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stir fry are sealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob)
How do you think that feels (leave them out in the fields)
Carrot Juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes your compost's a grave)
It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macramé)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade...)

Unfortunately, every time I read Deuteronomy 14:3, this is the song that plays in the background of my mind. For me, Deuteronomy 14:3 provides the reason why no one should make me eat my vegetables (okay – I admit that I am going a little overboard here).

But the reality is that what we eat speaks volumes about how we intend to live our lives. Vegetarian and Vegans not only adopt a specific eating pattern, they also share a common outlook on life and life issues. I recently met a Vegan who really wasn’t a Vegan (at least not as evidenced by what we ate for lunch.) What she did do is have a Vegan outlook on life without being chained to a specific eating pattern. For her, being a Vegan was more about her political and social beliefs than it was about the food she put in her body. (To be fair, I am sure that most of the time she also ate a strict vegetarian diet, but she allowed herself to take a vacation from the diet on occasion – but not from the ethical philosophy that comes with the diet.)

Much has been written on the health benefits of the food restrictions placed on Israel by strict adherence to their food laws. Books like “Daniel’s Diet” has even been used as a weight loss plan. But what we sometimes miss is that the health benefits of the dietary laws of Israel was only part of the reason for the food laws. They also produced a very specific lifestyle. The people of Israel could be easily identified by their eating patterns. They had a specific worldview that came along with the diet – and a different idea of what it was that was considered to be “detestable” than those of their neighboring nations. The diet was just another way of being holy and set apart. It was another reminder that they were a people under the command of God.

And this might have been one of the more significant ways in which  the dietary laws influenced Israel – that even the food they ate was an act of worship that that were giving to the God that they served.    

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 15

You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt … - Deuteronomy 13:16

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 30, 2015): Deuteronomy 13

Kevin Wheatcroft of the United Kingdom is owner of what is probably the largest Nazi Germany collection of memorabilia in the world. His collection, which includes a number of vehicles and tanks, and he is currently working on restoring the only known remaining German Kriegsmarine S-Boat or German Fast Attack Boat, is valued at just over $160 million. The Wheatcroft collection began when Kevin’s parents bought him a very unusual birthday gift when he was five years old – a bullet-pocked SS Stormtrooper’s helmet with lightning bolts on the ear-flaps. He had specifically asked his parents for the helmet. From there, the desire to collect the artifacts simply escalated.

What makes the collection unusual, and even more valuable from a monetary standpoint, is that the trade of Nazi relics has been banned by several European countries – including Germany and France. And it is not only nations that have banned the sale of these artifacts; no major auction house will handle any memorabilia connected with Nazi Germany and E-bay has recently followed suit and will not allow any of these items to be sold over its web services. The trade of Nazi Germany war artifacts has largely become a black market endeavor, which has produced a side effect of raising the value of the items in question. But even today, the memory of the evil committed under the Nazi insignia is simply too great and there are those that simply believe that these artifacts should be destroyed – and it is often holocaust deniers, such as David Irving who owns one of the most visited World War II websites, that argue for the protection of Nazi artifacts.

The destruction of the artifacts was the instructions that Moses wanted to leave with Israel. There would be towns who would rebel against God, and there would be those who would do great evil in the land, and they would have to be destroyed. But it was not just the ones who rebelled that were marked for destruction. Moses seemed to believe that the evil committed in these places would seep into the very ground. These centers of rebellion and evil would have to be totally destroyed. Any artifacts would have to be piled up and burned. And the area was to become off limits, it could never to be rebuilt on again.

Moses instructions provided an accurate understanding of evil. It seeps, maybe not into the ground, but definitely into our lives. It doesn’t take much of it to totally destroy us. We are all like an alcoholic when it comes to the evil we allow into our lives. One failure explodes into many. The only effective way to keep evil out of our lives is to abolish even the smallest evidences of it. It is hard, but it is necessary if we want to keep our lives on track.

For Israel, these empty places would serve as a reminder of the effects of evil, both on the land and in their lives. And they would provide a picture of the desolation that evil brings with it. Evil is always the enemy of life. And it always will be.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 14

Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places. – Deuteronomy 12:3

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 29, 2015): Deuteronomy 12

Outside of the incredible loss of human life, maybe one of the most disturbing actions of the Islamic State is the destruction of cultural and religious sites and the theft of cultural artifacts inside of the territory that they control. The Islamic State seems to have proven themselves as the great destroyers of modern times. Much of what had been preserved of the Middle East’s incredible cultural and religious past appears to have been either destroyed or is set for destruction. The artifacts have been stolen and sold covertly to finance the Islamic States War machine, and the religious places have been destroyed, apparently in an effort to rewrite Mid-East history. As an amateur student of history, it is something that I believe needs to be mourned.

But it might be that we do not have much of a say about the action. It seems that Moses tells Israel to do the exact things in antiquity that the Islamic State is practicing in modern times. Israel was instructed to go into Canaan and break down the great places of religious significance and to burn the idols. Anything that does not honor the God of Israel could prove to be a trap to Israel’s affections – and for that reason they could not be allowed to stand.

Israel, however, failed in accomplishing the same task at which Islamic State seems to have developed an expertise. They did not destroy the pagan holy places. And because of their failure, the people of Israel seem to have been continually tempted to worship at the feet of the pagan gods.

Maybe the more important question for the Christian is simply this – shouldn’t we be cheering the destruction of religious sites that do not honor the God that we serve or selectively mourning the destruction only of sites that pertain to our history. In light of Deuteronomy 12:3, I think an argument could be made for this reaction. But I believe it would be a wrong – and a selfish - response. These destroyed sites are important because they tell the story of human civilization and of all the things that we have accomplished together as a race. I mourn not only the Christian buildings that have been destroyed, but also the Shiite Mosques, and the ancient pagan sites such as the Temple of Bel in Palmyra which was blown up in August 2015. These sites, and many others, are important to our story as the human race together.

But spiritually, as Christians, we understand that these sites are more cultural in nature than anything else. We serve a God who makes us his temple. Jesus words to the Samaritan Woman at the well might be appropriate here:

“Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

“Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.  Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” – John 4:19-24.

When God makes his home inside of us, we no longer have to fear the sites of other gods. They simply become part of the story – and the cultural mosaic of which we are all a part. And for that reason they must be preserved.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 13

… then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and olive oil. – Deuteronomy 11:14

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 28, 2015): Deuteronomy 11

Hadad was the storm God in Canaan. The story of Hadad is fragmentary, but the story that we can discern is that Hadad was a God in conflict with the rest of gods of the early pantheon. But one of Hadad’s primary enemies was Mot, the son of El and the god of the underworld. (Maybe of some significance is that El is one of the names that descendants of Abraham had for Yahweh, the God of Israel.) The war between Mot, the son of El, and Hadad doesn’t end until Mot learns that El has decided to side with Hadad. At this point Hadad the storm God, who is often referred to by the name Ba’al, becomes known as Ba’al the king.

Hadad or Ba’al the king was responsible for the life cycle in Canaan. The rains were something that made Canaan different. At this point in her history, the rains fell. The droughts of the past were unremembered. There was no need for irrigation to make the land able to support life. The early rains came from October until the end of December and the late rains came in March and April. And as a result of these rains, the Land of Canaan sprang to life. All of this was the work of Hadad.  

So maybe it isn’t surprising that when Israel entered into the Promised Land, they felt the rains comes – this had never happened in the desert – and they watched the land spring to life and they listened to all of the stories that this was because of Hadad. He was the supreme God to whom even El gave his support. So Israel bowed down and worshipped Hadad, and they called out to Ba’al the king.

It seems that Moses in his final speech to the people of Israel was possibly afraid of this outcome. Deuteronomy hits all of the notes that Israel seemed to miss. God is one, not many. You will have no other Gods before the God of Israel. You will not make idols of this God, for he is holy and supreme. And when you come into the land that he is giving to you, know this – it is God, Yahweh, El, Elohim of Israel that sends the rain, not Hadad or Ba’al the King. The stories of Canaan are not true. You have experienced this God in the desert. Every morning when you woke he was there and every night when he went to sleep he was there. Give your worship only to him – he is the bringer of the rain and of life.

Jesus supported this teaching of Moses as he taught his own disciples -

Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well – Luke 12:27-31.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 12

At that time the LORD said to me, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones and come up to me on the mountain. Also make a wooden ark.” – Deuteronomy 10:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 27, 2015): Deuteronomy 10

Rudyard Kipling wrote “The Ballad of King’s Mercy” about the Afghanistan Emir Abdur Rahman Khan. Abdur Rahman ruled over Afghanistan in the closing years of the nineteenth century and the Emir’s legacy is mixed. In his favor, Abdur Rahman brought elements of modernization to Aghan people. He also succeeded in unifying the nation and kept Afghanistan unoccupied during the geopolitical period known as the Great Game – a rivalry between the Russian Empire and the British Empire for supremacy in Central Asia. But his detractors also note that he was brought to power by Britain and concentrated his war efforts on the tribes within his own nation rather than on removing himself from the British sphere of influence. Abdur Rahman was weak geopolitically and he appeared to just allow Britain to decide Afghan foreign policy. But maybe worst of all, Abdur Rahman was violent, and the object of his violence was often his own people.

And this violence was the subject on which Rudyard Kipling centered his poem. The “Ballad of the King’s Mercy” is about the execution of a foolish young man who cries out for mercy from the King – Abdur Rahman. The king bestows his mercy only to snatch it away again and orders the captain of the bodyguard in demeaning terms to execute him. The Captain capitulates to the King’s command, but later is subjected to ridicule over the incident. He decides to kill the king, but fails. His punishment, given to him by the king, is that he is to be stoned, but not killed. For three days the Captain is kept alive while being stoned, an image of unbelievable torture, until finally the king gives the Captain his mercy and decrees that he should be allowed to die. The poem captures the cruelty of Abdur Rahman in his relationship with the people under his rule.

Moses is given the Ten Commandments and then on his way down the mountain he sees the Golden Calf that has been formed as an object of worship in his absence. To say that Moses is upset at the actions of the people is probably an understatement. The actions of the people may have been one of the clearest violations of the Second Commandment in scripture – the people had built an idol and declared that the idol was Yahweh – the God of Israel who had brought them out of Egypt. Essentially, they were murdering God in the memory of the people and attempting to replace him with something else. In Moses anger, he breaks the tablets that he holds in his hands listing these Ten Commandments of God. But the breaking of the tablets was also symbolic of the actions of the people – they had already broken the covenant God had made with them.

It would have been well within the rights of God to have destroyed Israel on the spot. But instead God decides to do something else – he chooses to restore them. And the symbol of the restoration of Israel and of the mercy of God was found in these two new tablets. In a moment when the people could have been tortured by their own disobedience, God gives them an example of a different way. He knits the commandment that they had broken back together and offers his people just what they needed – real mercy in the form of a clean start.  

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 11

Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people. – Deuteronomy 9:6

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 26, 2015): Deuteronomy 9

We have been led to believe that Marriage is all about love. It might be that one of the highest ideals of developed society is that we marry for love. We do not really understand cultures where this is not the case. Somehow they are considered to be inferior or backward. People who have not evolved in their relational understanding as we have – people who do not understand the power of love.

But we wrong. Love may lead us toward this idea of wanting to spend time together, to build a home and start a family. But my culture seems to have proven that while love may start the process, love is too weak to finish it. There has to be something else – something other than love.

I believe in the power of love, but I also know that the real power in every marriage is not the existence of love – but the existence of choice. When we stand in front of the minister, prepared to marry that one that we have fallen in love with, we are making a choice. Of everyone on this planet that we could be happy being with, on this day we choose each other. And that marriage will last as long as we are willing to make that choice for each other.

And this is exactly what God seems to be saying to Israel. It wasn’t that Israel had done anything to attract God. They were a stubborn people from the very beginning. They had barely been released from their slavery when we find them unrealistically remembering their days in Egypt. Moses goes up on a mountain to speak with God, and they built a golden calf. God gives them a land in which they can live and grow, and they refuse to believe that God will help them through the obstacles (it was like the miracle at the Red Sea never happened.) They wandered through the desert fed by God, but they wanted more. They were a whiney, stubborn and hard headed people. They did not deserve God, but God had chosen them. In this moment Israel realized that this God of love was also a God of choice.

All of this is good news for us. We don’t deserve God either, and yet he has chosen us. His love is a result of that choice. And all that is left for us is to do is to choose him. In the end, we will order our lives as a result of how we see his choice – and with what we decide to do with ours.       

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 10

You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today. – Deuteronomy 8:17-18

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 25, 2015): Deuteronomy 8

There are objects on Mars, the planet next door. And by objects, I mean things besides the Mars Rovers which are presently running around the red planet taking pictures. We created the Rovers, but these objects on Mars are truly without explanation. So far these things have included a large floating spoon, a ghost like apparition that seemed to be wandering over the surface of the planet, and now what looks like a Giant Buddha. With all of the evidence that has been gathered, one might expect NASA to finally conclude that not only is there a possibility that Mars once hosted life, but there is also a probability that there was once an intelligent civilization living right next door.

NASA, however, has been slow to jump to the same conclusions. They just don’t seem to see what the enthusiasts seem to think that they are seeing. And for good reasons. The human mind is very good at connecting the dots, even when there are really no dots to connect. It is the reason why we are able to develop great thought cases on nothing but circumstantial evidence. We find patterns and interpret those patterns into something that makes sense to us – we make even what is unknowable into something that we have seen before, like a woman with a flowing gown, or a floating spoon, or even a Giant Buddha. If we want to see something bad enough, our minds will allow us to see it.

It is probably the reason why we believe in the myth of the self-made person – the idea that we don’t need anyone else in order to be a success. The truth is that we do. No one is a success by themselves. We do everything by team.

But not only that, we do everything by the will of God. We look at the course that our lives have taken and we have the ability to simply connect the dots of our personal history and then come to the conclusion that we were the ones who did it. We see what we want to see, and our success becomes because of the things that we have done. But what we miss is the hand of God moving through our personal histories. And that is exactly what Moses warns Israel about – they must not miss the hand of the God in their history.

The biblical example of this principal is the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. The story is told in the book of Daniel.

… as the king (Nebuchadnezzar) was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, ³⁰ he said, “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?”

³¹ Even as the words were on his lips, a voice came from heaven, “This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you. ³² You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like the ox. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes” –Daniel 4:29-32.

We need to understand that our nature is such that we will always see patterns, and sometimes the patterns will only exist in the space between our ears. But if we ever see patterns where the hand of God is missing, then we are echoing the mistake of Nebuchadnezzar – and the patterns we are seeing are only real in the realm of our imaginations.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 9

This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. – Deuteronomy 7:5

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 24, 2015): Deuteronomy 7

This past summer, long before the Canadian Federal election that took place this week, a cartoon appeared showing the incumbent Prime Minister Stephen Harper bowing down before the statue of another politician. The caption read “What now, O Great One.” But the punch line was found in the identity of the politician that the statue honored – and that politician was clearly Richard Nixon – a President whose legacy has been all about political corruption and feigned ignorance. It was not the first time Nixon and Harper found themselves as comrades in a political cartoon. Sometimes they talk on the phone and sometimes it is the ghost of Nixon that seems to haunt Harper, but the common denominator seems to be a Harper – Nixon connection and an implied message about political corruption.

Harper’s problem is that he promised to take care of Canadian Governmental corruption at the beginning of his reign as Prime Minister and yet most of the corruption that has been uncovered during his reign has been within the Prime Minister’s own party and his appointments. But the Prime Minister has always maintained his own ignorance on the issue. It seems that Harper knows nothing on the subject of corruption. How much he really knows is probably a story Harper will never tell. But what the evidence lead us to believe is that Harper failed to crush the corruption. Instead he ignored it.

Ignoring something is probably the most human of activities, especially for those of us who hate conflict. We overlook it, somehow believing that what we can’t see, can’t hurt us. But the truth is that the things we don’t see usually blindsides us.

When Israel moved into the Promised Land, they were not to overlook the gods of their new homeland. They were to crush them at every opportunity. These gods would become a noose around the neck of Israel if they decided to overlook them. They had to be destroyed.

Unfortunately, Israel failed at the task. Instead, they chose to ignore the altars – and in some cases they even rebuilt them. And instead of being a potential noose, these altars became a very real trap for the people of Israel. A trap that would one day threaten the very existence of the nation.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 8

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. - Deuteronomy 6:4

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 23, 2015): Deuteronomy 6

Donald Trump has accused George W. Bush for the events 9/11, Bush was the President and so, at least according to Trump, Bush is responsible. And brother Jeb has once again been forced into the position of being the protector of his brother. The accusation actually came last week, but the effects might be much more lasting. I am not sure if it is a Trump strategy, but the observer has to wonder how often Jeb can step into the fight between Trump and his brother’s legacy before the public begins to paint Jeb with the same brush as his unpopular brother. But what Trump is missing is that the damage that is being inflicted might go even deeper than just cutting Jeb Bush. The political picture right now is of a deeply fractured Republican Party, and it seems that George W. Bush is a big part of the fracture. The political reality is that accusations like Trump’s against the former president benefit the Democratic candidates much more than they benefit the Republican candidates, because all the accusations to is deepen the fracture.

It is not that the Democratic Party remains free of any splintering. Fracturing is one of the unfortunate realities of every nomination process. But at this moment in time the fractures that are present within the Democrats are not as deep as the self-infected cuts of the Republicans. That might change, but what is not going to change is that it will be the Political Party that can heal the fractures that is likely to form the next government. Unity is not an option, it is essential. And the party with the fewest fractures are much more likely to be able to heal them in time.

This passage is called Shema, which means Hear in Hebrew. This was a message that needed to be heard by the nation. It was a message of unity. God is one. This is the passage that is most often used against the ideas presented in the Christian Testament. God is not three, he is one – and we know this because the Shema says so.

But the absolute unity of God is something that the Christian Church needs to recover. The Unity of God is the strength in our faith. Yes, we believe in the Trinity, we believe that God is three – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But what we can’t lose in that statement is the absolute unity of God. Even as Christians, we serve the God of the Shema. And we openly affirm the statement. Hear O Church, The Lord our God, the Lord is most definitely one.            

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 7

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” – Deuteronomy 5:21

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 22, 2015): Deuteronomy 5

I love political promises, no matter where they are spoken. In the Canadian Election, it seemed that every politician was promising “lower taxes for the Middle Class” (a phrase that has essentially become a mantra for the modern political campaign) while telling Canadians that all of the other parties are going to raise your taxes. Now that the election is over (with the Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau in charge of the country), we will see if there will be any taxes that are lowered. South of the Canadian Border, Donald Trump continues to make some interesting promises, including stopping the outsourcing of American jobs (although he seems to be convinced that the outsourced jobs are in Mexico while most of the jobs are really in China – so he may have to get his geography straight first), sending all the illegal aliens back to Mexico (and apparently he is going to do this in a manner that will be cheaper than keeping them, which will be an amazing achievement if he can actually accomplish it), and of course the standard lower taxes and balance budget promise that everyone seems to want to make. But maybe one of the most surprising promises is that he is going to find a General who is a modern George S. Patton or Douglas MacArthur. This will be the General who will be able to go into the Middle East and drive the Islamic State out. Somehow, the actual Middle East situation seems too complex even for a new Patton or MacArthur, but maybe Donald knows best.

The command not to covet is the last of the Ten Commandments, but it has been suggested that it is really not a commandment. It is a promise. If we will keep the first nine commandments, we will have no need to covet anything our neighbour might have. In essence, the ability or inability to covet is nothing more than a barometer that measures how well we are doing at keeping the other Commandments. A life lived the way that God has instructed that it should be lived is also a life where coveting should be an unknown concept.

So, essentially what God has given to us is Nine Commandments and a Promise. But for the promise to be one that is fulfilled in our lives, we have to be keepers of the Commandments.   

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 6

 

Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” – Deuteronomy 4:6

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 21, 2015): Deuteronomy 4

I am at war with Facebook. Well, not with the company or the Social networking site itself, but with the people who use it. For those who know me, this statement isn’t much of a surprise. My struggle with Facebook is a long one. Yes, I have a Facebook account. You might have even accessed this blog through it, or through one of my Facebook friends who has posted this link on their page. Facebook has some amazing strengths, including the ability to find and have at least some communication with friends from the past and relatives who live far away. But Facebook has one major flaw, us – the people who use it. And too often we don’t have the slightest idea of how to use it. We are passive aggressive and negative, and I get that we don’t even realize that this is the way that we are coming across. Facebook too often has become a tool of hate, although I know that we would never phrase it quite that strongly. There is one piece of motherly advice that apparently Facebook users never received from their mothers – “if you can’t say something nice, then don’t say anything at all.” Or maybe somehow we have deceived ourselves into believing that writing it down on a Facebook update is not the same thing as saying it. If we have believed that, then we are wrong.

There is absolutely nothing attractive about hate. I know, that almost sounds like an unnecessary statement, but every time I am around someone who simply seems to want to hate, I can’t wait to get away. I know I have been there myself. The problem is that the hate response is too easy. But we need to resist the response because it is also extremely ugly.

Yet it is amazing at how easy it is for religions to go immediately to hate. Even Christianity, a religion that professes to follow the words of Jesus to go and love (“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” – John 13:34-35) seems to find it very easy to go and hate. We hate on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or sometimes just simply sex. And because of our hate, many have turned away from what they call “organized religion” and exchanged it for a more “personal spirituality.”

But it doesn’t have to be that way. In fact, from the mouth of God the purpose of our faith is so that the world will know that the God we serve is Lord over all. Our actions are supposed to prove that he is the Creator. By following his laws, we are supposed to be transformed into a people that possesses great understanding. And at the height of Israel’s reliance on the Laws of God, this was exactly what had happened. Even the Queen of Sheba travelled to Israel to partake of this understanding. But since then, we have failed.

We need a new transformation. We need to be changed into a people that simply refuses to take the easy road into hate. Because I am convinced that if we are willing to really love, then the world will know that the one that we serve is truly God – and God over everything. Love is tangible and it is powerful. But it only works if we are willing to give up our hate.  

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 5

 

Og king of Bashan was the last of the Rephaites. His bed was decorated with iron and was more than nine cubits long and four cubits wide. It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites. – Deuteronomy 3:11

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 20, 2015): Deuteronomy 3

Zombies. Our culture seems to be obsessed with them. Essentially a zombie results from the reanimation of a dead body. The myth of the zombie originated from the idea that there was a magic powerful enough to even make the dead live. Modern tellings of the Zombie myth often rely on a virus that reanimates the human body after death. In appearance, the zombie features the rotting flesh of a dead body. In intelligence, well, that in the current myth tends to be completely lacking along with any speed of movement. But what is left is persistence, great strength and a hunger for human flesh. And of course, while the body might be dead, the virus that caused the zombie to reanimate in the first place is alive and well – and can be transferred from the zombie to the live human in a zombie attack. According to the myth, the appearance of the zombie can be frightening, the persistence and strength can be dangerous, especially when combined with the zombie’s inability to die unless killed in a specific way. But the lack of intelligence and slow robotic movement of the zombie is humanity’s salvation. Zombies usually can be avoided.

Og was a King, but the king had some mythical elements. The first being that he was large. We are a little uncertain about the word that we have translated as bed and some have thought that the original intent of the word indicated his sarcophagus or burial receptacle. But either way, if the bed or the sarcophagus was built to the measure of the man, then Og was huge. In standard measurements the size would have been about fourteen feet (or four meters) by six feet (or just slightly less than two meters.) His width was the height of a tall man in our culture, and his height was twice the height of a tall basketball player (or more specifically he was almost twice the size of Shaquille O’Neal.) Og was a massive man.

But it was not just the King’s size that might have struck fear into the hearts of Israel. Og was reportedly the last of the Rephaites or Raphaim. And the word Raphaim appear to have two definitions. The first, and definitely the one that is intended by this verse, is that they were a race of ancient giants. This passage describes his bed (or sarcophagus) as being ‘decorated with iron’ but it might be closer to the original intention of the words to say that they were made of Iron. Nothing else could have been an adequate support for the sheer weight of the king.

But Raphaim, or more specifically Rapha’im, is also the name of the undead members of the Netherworld – or zombies with brains. These were literally the long dead ancestors or dead kings that still inhabited the earth. Ancient Israel seems to have had an active belief in the ability of the dead spirits to either bless or curse the living. And if you had to fight against a member of the undead legions, well, even the bravest warrior would likely find his moment of weakness.

Og and the Raphaites may have even played up this part of their reputation. But Moses makes it clear that even Og – regardless of whether he was a giant or a dead king, or both – was unable to stand against the God of Israel. And if Og had failed, who exactly did Israel believe could defeat their God?

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 4

 

This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you.” – Deuteronomy 2:25

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 19, 2015): Deuteronomy 2

There is a theory that Israel’s original Exodus out of Egypt was not the single event that is told by the biblical account of Moses, but rather it was a progressive one. The idea is that for decades before the time of Moses, the children of Israel had been leaking out of Egypt - escaping from the tyranny that they had experienced under the Pharaoh’s of Egypt to live as foreigners in the lands just to north, including the land of Canaan – the land that God had promised to Israel. In the theory, these escapees still identified as Israel, they listened with interest to any stories that were told by the travellers of the day – and they told their own. Especially they told a story of a God who had promised that one day they would come into their own land, a God who had sent Joseph – one of their number – to Egypt to help escape a famine. They told of Joseph’s rise in the Egyptian government and of the great things that he had accomplished because of the hand of God that rested on him. And they wondered about this new man named Moses – who also seemed to have the hand of God resting on him – and about the importance that he might bring to their former nation.

And it is likely that, at first, the stories were received as being quaint relics and legends of a nation that never quite made it. They were slaves after all, and while a few might leak out, as these strange storytellers had, it was unlikely that the slaves of Egypt would ever escape the grasp of the Pharaoh en masse.

But then they escaped. The unimaginable became a reality, the great slave rebellion had taken place and Israel (as well as a number of other slave nationalities) had left Egypt. Now they wandered the desert to the south. But the other reality was that this race of slaves never made a move toward the civilization in the north. They had become nomads. They didn’t live in cities and towns, living behind great walls as the civilized people did. They eked their survival out of the sand of the desert, living in moving communities. The great educators of the day probably explained this phenomenon as a result of their years of living as slaves. They were the street people who no longer wanted to depend on anyone for their life – they would put up with a lack of conveniences in the desert as long as it meant that they were free.

Then, one day, the story was told of this wandering communities move toward the North. And once again the story began to circulate as told by the foreigners who lived in their midst – the ones who had leaked out of Egypt. Stories of this nation as a nation who God had promised the land that was now occupied by other people groups. The exiles probably began to tell the stories hesitantly, not wishing to earn the disdain of the culture in which they had made a home – but tell the stories they did. Maybe it wasn’t their land but rather the land of their neighbors. But as the stories were told, the listeners couldn’t help but wonder if it might have be their land that was promised to these people.

The result of the stories was fear. Just as God told Israel, they began to really hear the stories – and they found themselves in fear and anguish because of them. Maybe the time had come for the God Israel to allow his people to rise up and attempt to take the civilized land of the north. Maybe the wanderers had grown tired of wandering. Maybe the slaves who had triumphed in their rebellion against Egypt were now coming to rebel against them. Maybe the end was near. Maybe God was finally coming. Maybe …  

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 3

These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the wilderness east of the Jordan—that is, in the Arabah—opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab. – Deuteronomy 1:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 18, 2015): Deuteronomy 1

There is a question as to whether William Shakespeare was actually the man that is responsible for writing the Shakespearean corpus. The problem seems to be that the historical William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was a businessman who has left absolutely no record of being interested in writing at all. The real William Shakespeare left no library in his will and no record of who would be responsible for managing his writing – even though many of his plays were actually first published after the author’s death (including ‘Macbeth’ and ‘Anthony and Cleopatra’). The Shakespeare of literature wrote well and seemed to know about the palace intrigue of his day, and yet the historical Shakespeare seemed to have absolutely no connection with the court of Elizabeth I. Shakespeare also seems to have been invisible to his contemporaries. Almost everyone knew the name, but almost no one seemed to know the person. To be clear, there is no doubt that William Shakespeare existed, but there seems to be controversy as to whether he actually wrote the words that are credited to him.  

Moses existed, and he is credited with being the author of the first five books of the Bible, but there are those that question that assumption, and maybe specifically they question the Mosaic authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy. Essentially, the book of Deuteronomy consists of three sermons that were preached by Moses. The first sermon recounts that adventures of Israel in the wilderness, the second sermon stresses Israel’s need to rely on God and God alone for the collective future of the nation, and the third sermon promises that even if Israel fails God, that they can repent of their sins and God will restore them and heal their land. The ideas are definitely that of Moses, they match up well with the other Mosaic books, but that may not mean that Moses was the actual person who wrote the ideas of Deuteronomy down.

A competing theory is that Deuteronomy was likely the book that was found in during renovations of the Temple that took place during the reign of Josiah. Israel had just gone through a very dark period of its history. It had forgotten God. The Temple in Jerusalem had become rundown and the people were chasing after other gods. And then a book, possibly this book, was found. And the finding of the book changed the worship of the people. The book seems to be precisely what Judah needed, in the moment that Judah needed it the most. But the question on some people’s minds is simply this – was the finding of the book in the Temple a coincidence, or was it written from Mosaic ideas at this moment of time when Judah needed it the most?

Is there a possibility that Deuteronomy was written during the reign of Josiah? Sure. But we don’t really know. And the answer to the question probably doesn’t really matter. The problem is that we live in a society where what is written down matters. But even during the reign of Josiah, the culture that existed was in Israel was still an oral culture. People told the stories long before anyone thought to write them down. So when something is written becomes less important. The more important question is this – are these ideas consistent with the teaching of Moses. And the answer to that question is a resounding yes – these are the ideas of Moses.   

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 2

Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father’s tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of their ancestors. – Numbers 36:8

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 17, 2015): Numbers 36

Edward VIII grew up knowing that one day he would be king. At the time of his birth, during the reign of his Great Grandmother Queen Victoria, Edward was third in the line of succession for the throne, behind only his grandfather (who would become King Edward VII) and his father (who would become King George V). And as a young boy he probably began to dream of the things that he could do and what would happen when he was crowned king.

When he was six, Queen Victoria died moving him one step closer to his throne. And then a month and a half before his sixteenth birthday, his grandfather, Edward VII, died. His father became King George V and Edward became the heir apparent. And for the next quarter century, that is what Edward would remain, patiently waiting for the day that he would become king.

But by the time the forty-one year old Edward took the throne following his father’s death, things had changed. Being King did not mean as much to him as maybe it once had. Edward had fallen in love, but the love of his life was a divorced woman who was currently separated from her second husband. If Wallis Warfield could obtain her second divorce from Ernest Simpson, there was no question that Edward would invite her to marry him and become his queen. The problem was that Britain and the Commonwealth were not ready to have a twice divorced woman sitting on the throne as the Queen of England. During the first few months of Edward VIII’s reign, that was the only question that seemed to be discussed in the media and the centers of Government of the Commonwealth was about the King’s romantic entanglements. How could Edward have both the throne that he had waited so patiently for as well as the woman that he loved? Edward himself floated a few possible answers, including him marrying Wallis without her becoming Queen – instead she would take a lower royal title. But all of his solutions were rejected. In the end, Edward was given three choices – leave Wallis, marry Wallis and remain as king – a choice which would result in the resignation of the government and a constitutional crisis and likely a political backlash from most of the commonwealth countries, or abdicate the throne. In an ending that is fit for any fairy tale romance, the King of the United Kingdom chose his love and rejected his kingdom.

It is a similar choice that was left to the daughters of Israel who inherited land from their fathers. In a male dominated society, land followed the male. If a woman who possessed land married, the land would be passed on to her new husband. But if the husband was from a tribe different from the tribe of the daughter’s family, then land from one tribe would essentially be handed off to the other tribe – something that was not allowed under Mosaic Law. The reverse was not a problem, again because land in the society followed the man. So the result was that a man was able to marry anyone, even someone from another tribe, but the woman could only marry within her tribe. And if she did insist on marrying outside of her tribe, she would have to leave her inheritance behind – just like Edward VIII.

But for the daughters of Zelophehad, they chose to keep the kingdom – and the husbands that they chose were members of their father’s tribe, just as the law specified that they had to be.       

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 1

Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. They are to be put to death. – Numbers 35:31

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 16, 2015): Numbers 35

A quick look at the headlines might lead you to believe that the Death Penalty debate is about how we kill those guilty of capital offenses. Headlines seem to feature a discussion of what drugs are used and how much pain the drugs create. The idea is that to put someone to death in such a way that creates undo pain for the one being killed would be considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. But while that might be the grounds on which our debate is based as people continue to be led to the death chamber, the method of death really isn’t the issue. The issue is whether or not the Death Penalty is just.

Those who support the Death Penalty often point to the Bible or other ancient literature for a model concerning capital crime. It would seem from a quick reading that the biblical ideal is that blood must be avenged by blood. But that is not actually the biblical message. The biblical ideal is actually placing a limit on punishment. The message is that no punishment should be enforced on the perpetrator that exceeds the crime. So blood avenges blood, a life taken means that a life must be given. But even here there are exceptions. A life that is taken accidentally does not mean that a life must be given. In that case, the life of the one who killed in a just society must be protected from the vengeance of the family of the one who died.

But justice is the real issue. For a life that is taken in anger, a life can be demanded. The principal is that we need to be in control of our emotions if our society is going to survive. But this can only be considered justice if the standard can be applied to everyone within the society. And this is where we fail. A survey of those that actually receive the death penalty in contemporary society often reveals a racial story. In the United States, there is a better chance of someone receiving the death penalty if they are black and they kill someone who is white. And as long as that is true, then the death penalty cannot be a tool of justice. Justice would mean that the penalty must be equally applied.

And this is the warning that is found here. No one who is guilty of a capital crime can be allowed to buy his life and still have be considered to live in a just society. True justice must be blind to different economic realities or racial differences or it simply is not justice.

But there is also another alternative. There is absolutely nothing in the Mosaic Law that prohibits the giving of mercy. But again, to be just mercy must be given regardless of any economic realities. The rich cannot be able to buy mercy, because if justice can be bought, then it isn’t really justice.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 36

These are the names of the men who are to assign the land for you as an inheritance: Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun. – Numbers 34:17

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 15, 2015): Numbers 34

Leopold II became King over Belgium in 1865. Even before he became King, Leopold was obsessed with the idea of making Belgium a European colonial leader. He made several attempts to buy the Philippines from Spain, but was unsuccessful. But in 1885, he finally got his wish and The Congo became a Belgium colony. The understanding of the other European powers was that Belgium would work to stabilize government of the Congo and to help the nation move into the future. Instead, Leopold plundered the Congo of its resources to fund his own private dreams. When the global demand for rubber exploded, Leopold forced the Congolese into forced labour and was often responsible for the mutilation and deaths of the workers when quotas were not met. We don’t know exactly how many people were killed by the Leopold regime, but estimates range from one to fifteen million Congolese died because of Leopold. John Harris, a missionary in The Congo, was so shocked by what he witnessed that he wrote a letter to Leopold’s chief agent in the Congo saying -

"I have just returned from a journey inland to the village of Insongo Mboyo. The abject misery and utter abandon is positively indescribable. I was so moved, Your Excellency, by the people's stories that I took the liberty of promising them that in future you will only kill them for crimes they commit."

Unfortunately, this kind of situation seems too often to be the result of a dictatorship. Some dictators are evil (Adolf Hitler). Some are incompetent (Kaiser Wilhelm II), some are mentally ill (Kim Jong Un), and some are moved by their greed to do things that they would not normally imagine that they could do. Murder and mutilation become normal and the dictator genuinely believes that there is no other way to conduct business. (The gun control debate in the United States takes on some of these characteristics. It is not that those who oppose stricter control on gun sales are evil, but they appear to be unable to imagine a United States that exists in any other way than it exists right now. The excuse “there will always be the mentally ill walking among us” masks the reality that every nation has its mentally ill, but not every nation allows them to have gun with which they can commit mass killings.) All dictators share the fact that there is no one that has to approve of what they do. For this reason, democracies are often proud of their system of checks and balances. The system slows down some decisions, but it helps to prevent at least some of the abuses of a more dictatorial system.

God introduces a system of checks and balances for Israel. The division of the land among the tribes was potentially divisive and explosive for the fledgling nation. Each tribe would want not only more land than they were entitled to, but also the best land. And human nature has proven to us over and over again that the best land available is always the land that someone else possesses. And so the task of dividing the land was given to two men. Eleazar represented the priests and God in the process. Because Eleazar was a Levite, he had no horse in the race – the Levites were not receiving any kind of land inheritance. He was essentially the impartial judge. The second man was Joshua. Joshua was the military and civil leader. He would want to divide the land in a way that benefitted national security. Joshua was a member of the tribe of Ephraim, but God had placed him in a position where he was entrusted with the concerns of the entire nation. Because of this, Kemuel, the son of Shiphtan, would take over Joshua’s leadership role within the tribe of Ephraim. Together, Eleazar and Joshua would lead the tribes into a new reality – and together they would take the land that had been promised to them.

But this was not just a momentary event. The idea that the ruling of Israel would be shared between the king and the High Priest would become essential for the Israel of the future. Repeatedly Israel would fail when it fell into a dictatorship. Its success was always based on the shared power between the priest and the king.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 35

At the LORD’s command Moses recorded the stages in their journey. This is their journey by stages: - Numbers 33:2

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 14, 2015): Numbers 33

Last week the Seattle Seahawks and Detroit Lions played American football in the Monday Night Game and there was an odd play at the end of the game that was actually called wrong. I admit that I missed it - and if I was playing the game I would have done exactly what the Seahawk’s player did. A ball was fumbled on the playing field and then bounced into the endzone and was heading out of bounds. If this had been done anywhere else on the field, then a fumbled ball that is heading out of bounds would be the possession of the team that touched it last. Football strategy in such a case is to just make sure that you touch the ball last, or often that you hit the ball out of bounds. But apparently in the endzone, for a reason that no one has been able to explain to me, the rule changes. You can’t hit the ball out of bounds. In this case the ball is given to the team who did not hit it out at the point where it was fumbled. In last week’s game, Detroit fumbled the ball at the half yard line and Seattle hit the ball out of bounds. According to the rules the ball should have been given to Detroit at the half yard line. But no one seemed to understand the rule, so the play was adjudicated as if the ball had been batted out of bounds in the field of play – Seattle ball on the twenty. (It seems likely that the rule was made to prohibit a team from fumbling the ball into the endzone and then trying to score by hitting the ball out of bounds, but there is a different rule that actually covers that situation - a ball may not be advanced by a fumble. In that case, if Detroit have been the last to touch the ball, the ball would have been given to Detroit Bat the point of the fumble and no score would have been recorded.)

As far as I am concerned, the rule is stupid. I don’t understand why the same action is legal at one place on the field and illegal at another place. Our lives are built around the idea of consistency and what some would call “the Law of Repeated Events.” My favorite definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The quote has been attributed to Albert Einstein, although it is not likely that he actually said it (at least we can’t find it in any of his writings.) As one person observed, it is not surprising that it has been attributed to Einstein, since it seems everything but the book of Genesis has been attributed to him at some point. The quote has also been attributed to Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain, but they are even more unlikely authors of the quote than Einstein. But the statement is true. The same action should provide the same result. If you want a different result, then you must do a different action. It seems fairly simple – but in American Football, apparently it is not.

God instructs Moses to record the stages of their journey. And there is a grand purpose to the recording. Israel is about to step out into yet another stage in their journey. There is no doubt that this next stage is going to be a dangerous one. There will be times when Israel may want to give up and go back into the desert. So God wanted to give them a list of where they had been. Let them remember the stories of the journey together. Help them to understand that they had met the dangers that were in front of them in the past, and that they will do so again in the future. Why would Israel do things in the future the same as they did in the past and suddenly expect a different result? God would be with them in the next step the same way that he was with them in all of the previous steps. Apparently unlike American Football, the rules have not changed simply because we have entered a different area of the field. God is still God, and God would still be with them.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 34

Why do you discourage the Israelites from crossing over into the land the LORD has given them? – Numbers 32:7

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 13, 2015): Numbers 32

In the days since the Oregon shooting there has been an open question on the lips of some watchers – who exactly does the National Rifle Association speak for? The N.R.A. says that they speak on behalf of the American gun owner, collector, hunter and outdoor enthusiast. But some argue that that is simply not the case. Some of the N.R.A.’s moves seem to lead the observer to belief that the N.R.A. works for those who do not want to obey the law with their gun purchases. In fact, the group that benefits the most from the N.R.A.’s lobby of Washington does not seem to be the gun owner, it is the gun trafficker.

Alan Berlow in “The New York Times” recently commented on some of those N.R.A. decisions, which include the N.R.A.’s opposition to criminal record checks in order to purchase a gun (the “Brady” check) which a vast majority of gun owners in the United States actually support, their opposition to online sales monitoring (so that a person buying a single gun from several different stores could be identified and checked by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives – commonly referred to as the A.T.F.) and their opposition to any kind of mandatory inventory records for gun shops (apparently because stolen guns must be reported to the A.T.F., but you can’t report guns that you don’t know are missing.) A lack of inventory records also facilitate the sale of guns “under the counter” by legitimate stores. The N.R.A. also has developed a fondness for the A.T.F., an organization that it has effectively hamstrung. The N.R.A. consistently opposes any moves to decommission the A.T.F. and have their responsibilities handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the F.B.I.). Taken together and the integrity of the N.R.A. is definitely something that needs to be examined.

As Israel prepared to enter into Canaan, the tribes of Reuben and Gad approach Moses with an idea – why don’t we (Reuben and Gad) settle with their herds on the east side of the Jordan River? Land was available here for them to develop, and the decision of Reuben and Gad (and eventually half of the tribe of Manasseh) to settle on the east side of the Jordon River would open up more land for the other tribes to divide amongst themselves on the west side of the Jordan.

But when Moses hears the request, he hears something very different. This is a question of integrity. His fear is that the message of the Transjordan tribes is very similar to the reaction of the tribal leaders forty years earlier – they were scared to enter into the land. And if the report was heard among the other tribes that Reuben and Gad had decided not to enter into the Promised Land, then fear would spread to them as well. The action of Reuben and Gad would be a discouragement to the other tribes. And Moses was not about to allow the dissenting voices of Reuben and Gad to effect what Israel needed to accomplish with their next step. Moses truly needed to speak, not for any one tribe, but for the good of Israel. His words were filled with concern for all of the members of the nation. After all, no one wanted to spend another forty years wandering around the desert.

Eventually Reuben and God would stay on the west side of the Jordan, but their men would join the combined army of Israel as they entered into the land that had been promised to them. The people and their leaders would remain on the same page and pushing toward the same goal. And the integrity of the nation was protected as Israel took their next step.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 33

Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. – Numbers 31:8

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 12, 2015): Numbers 31

A couple of years ago, Christian musician Steve Camp published a blog post about “ministry for sale.” The post, and most of the responses to the post, took issue with idea of selling God in the form of mp3 messages for sale and pastors exorbitant salaries (I don’t know many of those), but also at issue were Christian musicians who charged more than normal amounts (and I have no idea how you can define that) for their CD’s and concerts. The question that seemed to lurk beneath the words of the post was “has God simply become something that we have learned to sell?” And what exactly is appropriate compensation. For Camp, all true ministry is free. We raise funds through donations from people who believe in our ministries and then offer the product of our labor to anyone who would like to partake. And this describes most Christian ministries that I am aware of – the only holdouts to this would seem to be elite ministries, Christians Music artists and Christian book sales. It is the way that the ministries that I am associated with, which includes this daily blog as well as videos or attendance at our weekend services, are conducted. We are run on a donation basis by the people who believe in the ministry.

But I also understand the other side. There are costs associated with ministry. Camp argues that with the advent of mp3’s the costs can be minimized, but ministries routinely underwrite the costs of production and distribution of their materials. The question is not whether or not Camp is right, he definitely is. But the question is where exactly we need to draw the dividing line between proper ministry and selling God? Camp says ministry is always free, but is that always true. When does God cease to be about ministry and start to be about profit? While I am not sure exactly where the line might be, we can often identify ministries that fall on either side of line. Maybe part of the identification of where the line might be begins with the intrinsic purpose of the ministry.

Balaam was a prophet God. God spoke to him, he directed him and as we read the story of Balaam and Balak there is no question Balaam understood the purposes of God. Balak wanted something that was contrary to what God wanted, and Balaam repeatedly told Balak that what he wanted violated the will of God. But Balaam was paid for, and he was willing to sell out God. What Balaam did was tell Balak what to do to get around the will God. Balak could have what he wanted if he would only do what Balaam told him – if Balak could get the women of Midian to tempt the men of Israel into sexual sin, then God would stop protecting Israel. Balak did what Balaam told him and the men of Israel fell into the trap. The plan worked perfectly, except that that God was not amused.

I have to admit that stories like this make me more than a little uncomfortable. It is easier to think about the love of God, then it is too confront the vengeance of God. But then again, maybe we should be made a little more uncomfortable about the things that we do in the name of God – and all of the ways that we attempt to sell him.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 32

Personal Note: Happy Birthday, Mom

But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her. – Numbers 30:8

Today’s Scripture Reading (October 11, 2015): Numbers 30

Maybe one of the shortest marriages in history was between Britney Spears and her childhood friend, Jason Alexander. The marriage took place in January 2004 and it lasted for 55 hours. Officially the reason for the annulment was that “Spears lacked understanding of her actions to the extent that she was incapable of agreeing to the marriage.” Translation: someone among her handlers decided that the marriage was not a good career move and pushed to have the marriage overturned. Britney Spears, at the age of twenty-two was deemed not old enough or responsible enough to make a vow on her own – she needed permission get married.

The idea is an ancient one. Some people before a certain age would be considered incapable of making a promise. And with good reason. It takes a certain amount of “growing up” before we are able to make good cause and effect decisions. A child is much more likely, at least usually, to make rash or incorrect decisions. It is the idea behind an “Age of Majority” law. If you are below that age, there are certain decisions that you are unable to make (marriage is often one of them.) There are also certain crimes for which you can’t be charged. The Age of Majority is often somewhere between sixteen and twenty-one, but it can be as low as twelve. And the reality is that those ages are actually all probably low. We really don’t begin to the see the world as an adult until we are somewhere around twenty-five.

In male dominated societies, that idea of being able to make vows is shifted from a set age to the idea of a relationship with a man. For a woman within these societies, they are deemed incapable of making their own decisions if they have a significant man in their lives – a father when they are younger and a husband when they are older. And although I admit that the idea of a position of majority, the ability for a person to make a vow on their own initiative, based on sex sounds primitive, it is still a reality for women in many parts of our contemporary world. It also might not be a bad idea, although I would widen the idea.

The reality behind the law as it is applied to a marital unit is that both partners in a marriage must be pulling in the same direction if the marriage is going to work. In a male dominated society, the direction is set by the man and the woman is expected to comply. But in egalitarian societies that is not the case. In these societies, it might not be that this rule needs to be tossed out, but rather that it needs to be extended. Both people in the marriage still need to agree on decisions, because even in egalitarian societies the marital unit needs to pull together in the same direction – the only thing that changes is that it is no longer exclusively the job of the male to set the direction. So unity in decision making remains essential.

Some institutions are responding to this reality and require the active of agreement of both the husband and the wife before a decision can be made. The idea is nothing more than an extension of this law – and both the husband and the wife need to agree before any promise is considered to be valid.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 31