That same night the LORD said to him, “Take the second bull from your father’s herd, the one seven years old. Tear down your father’s altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it. – Judges 6:25

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 31, 2019): Judges 6

Leo Tolstoy in his “Confessions” wrote that “wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” Our culture seems to like to confuse the idea of what is right with that that is popular. President Donald Trump often conflates the two. He is right, and his opponents were wrong because he won the election. A border wall between the United States and Mexico is right because the people support the idea (Donald Trump) or wrong because the people oppose the idea (Democratic Party). But righteousness and popularity seem to seldom coincide with each other. And a real leader must find a way to lead the people out of the error that the majority find popular and into the truth, which is often much harder to find.

Israel was under attack. The enemy had a strategy. They would leave the nation alone while they planted and cared for the crop. But when the crop was ripe and ready to be harvested, then they would swoop in and take the crop away, leaving Israel perpetually hungry and living off of the remains of what their enemies had left behind. According to the people, this was the problem. It was the reason why Gideon had been driven to threshing wheat in a winepress, a very ineffectual way to thresh the grain, in the first place. He was trying to hide the crop from those who wanted to take it from him.

But if the nation had bothered to ask God what the problem was, God would not have pointed at the Midianite and Amalekite raids on the crops. God would have pointed at the altar the people had built to Baal and the poles they had placed around them to honor Asherah. So as God moves into the neighborhood, he calls Gideon to be his warrior. In the opening conversation with Gideon, the Angel of the Lord recognizes the issue of the people; the problem was the raids of the eastern invaders intent on stealing the crops. But before the eastern peoples could be dealt with, the spirituality problem of Israel had to be confronted. God instructs Gideon to tear down the altar built to honor Baal and the Asherah pole that stood beside it.

The thought of what God was asking scares Gideon. After all, the destruction of the altar built to honor Baal and the poles placed to honor Asherah are not going to be popular decisions. The majority would oppose the action. But Gideon seems to understand that if the eastern peoples were going to be dealt with, that this unpopular action must come first. Gideon, the scared boy, hiding in the winepress, trying to keep his crop out of the hands of his enemies, was going to have to be transformed into the warrior the angel had insisted that he was at their first meeting. He was going to have to be a leader, and do what was unpopular because he knew it was right.

The altars built to false gods had to come down before the nation could deal with the invaders coming in from the east.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 7

In the days of Shamgar son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the highways were abandoned; travelers took to winding paths. – Judges 5:6

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 30, 2019): Judges 5

Have you ever googled your name? It is always an interesting experience. I have googled mine. And when I do, the first person to come up is a Freddie Mercury Tribute singer in the United Kingdom; his band is called “Gary Mullen and the Works.” (His twitter name is @realGaryMullen, which always makes me feel like the rest of us are fakes.) Gary Mullen is also a former American Football player who had short stints with the Detroit Lions, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the Chicago Bears. Of course, neither of them are me. I distinguish myself by having two rs in my name which, for some reason, make people question how to pronounce it. (Hint: Garry sounds exactly like Gary and rhymes with Barry, which also has two rs.) I am sure history will struggle to try to figure out who is who. Or maybe we will become one super person; Garry (Gary) Mullen was a pastor who plays American football and sings “Queen” songs with a healthy British Accent on the side. Welcome to future history.

I wanted to finish the uncomfortable saga of Shamgar, the son of Anath. We have a short statement about Shamgar at the end of Judges 3. But this passage at the end of Judges 3 feels strangely out of place. Judges 4 picks up the story referring back to what had happened previously before the Shamgar verse and ignores the passage about Shamgar completely. In discussing that passage, it feels like maybe the short stub of a verse would belong better placed at the chronological end of Judges, after the story of Samson.

However, the reason the verse about Shamgar is placed where it is in our Bibles is likely because of this verse in Judges 5, which seems to refer to the same person: Shamgar, the son of Anath — confused yet? That’s okay, so are the rest of us. But the problem of Shamgar, the son of Anath, deepens here because it does not seem to be the same person. In Judges 3, Shamgar is an Israelite hero who killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad. The story sounds suspiciously like that of Shammah, the son of Agee, who fought the Philistines during the time of King David.

In Chapter 5, Shamgar, the Son of Anath, sounds more like a foreign oppressor of Israel. It has been suggested that this Shamgar might be the Hittite King, Sangara, although the time frame does not fit. But one thing that we do know is that it does not make sense that the Israelite hero of Judges 3 could be the oppressor of Israel that we find in Judges 5. Here we have two Shamgar’s, both are called the Son of Anath, and both are very real and very different people. Or maybe the real Shamgar, the son of Anath, is found here in Judges 5, and the mention that we have in Judges 3 is really an allusion to Shammah, the son of Agee, and at some time in ancient history the two got confused, as many who have the same name get confused today.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 6

But Jael, Heber’s wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to him while he lay fast asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into the ground, and he died. – Judges 4:21

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 29, 2019): Judges 4

I love fantasy author C. E. Murphy’s description of the difference in hospitality in Ireland than in the United States.

“In Ireland, you go to someone's house, and she asks you if you want a cup of tea. You say no, thank you, you're really just fine. She asks if you're sure. You say of course you're sure, really, you don't need a thing. Except they pronounce it ting. You don't need a ting. Well, she says then, I was going to get myself some anyway, so it would be no trouble. Ah, you say, well, if you were going to get yourself some, I wouldn't mind a spot of tea, at that, so long as it's no trouble and I can give you a hand in the kitchen. Then you go through the whole thing all over again until you both end up in the kitchen drinking tea and chatting.

In America, someone asks you if you want a cup of tea, you say no, and then you don't get any damned tea.

I liked the Irish way better.”

The idea of hospitality changes through time and from culture to culture. It wasn’t that long ago that you made extra food on Sunday’s because you didn’t know if there might be visitors at your table to share the meal with you after church. But slowly that has changed to sharing a meal in a restaurant. Today it seems rare for anyone not related to us to end up in our homes at meal time. Hospitality is still offered but in a very different way.

I believe that we are supposed to struggle with the story of Jael and Sisera. And every time I read the story, I wonder what the moral is that I am supposed to take away from the story. The story is a cautionary tale, but about what I am not always sure.

Here is the story. Sisera is a god-like figure who wins every battle he fights. One story asserts that on a certain day he took a bath in a neighboring river and caught enough fish in his beard to feed his army. Sisera is a legendary figure. People around him fall over each other to make their alliances with him. But when he fights against Israel and their God, his army is destroyed. It is the first loss for a mighty man. Sisera flees from the battle on foot. And he runs to a place where he believes that he will be safe. The Kenites have made a treaty with him, and he has honored that treaty.

So he shows up at the home of Heber and Jael. The Kenites are a nomadic tribe who live in tents, and it was the custom at the time for a husband and wife maintained different tents. Sisera feels safe because he has a treaty with Heber. But he does not hide in Heber’s tent. His enemy might search there for him. But they are unlikely to explore his wife, Jael’s, tent.

Sisera is tired, but according to Jewish tradition, Jael welcomes him into her tent and makes love with him seven times to ensure that he is really tired. And then she kills him, driving a stake through his temple into the ground. The stake is a weapon of convenience. It would have been Jael’s job to put up the tents, and so driving stakes was a task at which she would have had much practice.

But here is the problem. The story is a huge violation of hospitality. First, a treaty exists between Sisera and Heber. Second, hospitality has been offered and accepted in many ways. In the biblical story, it is offered in a place to stay and the consumption of drink. In the extra-biblical story, hospitality is found in the sexual interaction between Sisera and Jael. Or maybe Sisera breaks hospitality by accepting Jael’s advances. Either way, the story is messed up.

Some would argue that God is okay with the story because it advances his purposes. But that doesn’t sound like the God of the Bible. With God, the end never justifies the means. So what do we do with the story?

I don’t think it is right to condone the actions of Jael, even though the death of Sisera was good and the cause of God is advanced. I believe that God mourns even right results when they are gained by immoral actions. And hospitality is important to God and should be important to us. The moral might be about the loss of power and the way that people treat us, but that does not make it right. At best the story of Jael and Sisera is simply a description of what happened. And while Jewish texts laud Jael for her actions, and absolve her of guilt regarding her sex with Sisera, I am not sure that such a resolution to the story pleases God. Everything worked out, but maybe it could have been accomplished differently. And as Christians, we should always strive to uphold hospitality and achieve our God-given goals in a way that brings praise to him.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 5

After Ehud came Shamgar son of Anath, who struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad. He too saved Israel. – Judges 3:31

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 28, 2019): Judges 3

Winston Churchill once remarked, “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” If only it worked that way. History tends to change with the whims of those who follow us. I have always been intrigued by the role of King John of England, also known as John Lackland. But part of my interest in the ancient king arises out of the Robin Hood stories, in which King John is painted as the villain of the story. Over the centuries since his reign (1199-1216 C.E.), we have seen the ebb and flow of John’s reputation. At first, the legacy of the monarch was fairly negative, but it had grown more positive by the 1600s before it took another dip into the negative once again. The general impression of John Lackland today is that he was largely an unsuccessful monarch for England, but that his failings have been exaggerated by historians, especially those who wrote in the century after his death. Maybe the unanswerable question is simply this; how much of John’s negative reputation is actually due to the fictional representation of him that exists in the Robin Hood stories – or the Rocket Robin Hood cartoon I used to enjoy watching as a child. None of us write our histories. That task is often left to those who follow us, and the accuracy with which we are remembered depends on the story that those historians wish to tell.

The story of Shamgar, the son of Anath, presents us with a bit of a historical puzzle. In the case of Shamgar, it is not so much a legacy question as it is a placement question. The problem is that the entire story of Shamgar is found in one line of text. We have no start date, length of term, or conclusion to the story. Just a comment that Shamgar existed and defeated 600 Philistines with an ox goad. Complicating the story of Shamgar is the fact that the story is found in two very different places in existing manuscripts. Some place the story here, while other manuscripts place the story after the story of Samson, which chronologically is likely the last tale to be told in the book of Judges. To some degree, this short statement fits better after the tale of Samson. There we would have Samson’s death while destroying of the Philistine temple with the people and the rulers of the Philistines caught inside, which would then be followed by this note about Shamgar killing of 600 Philistine men.

Another complication to the story of Shamgar is that Shamgar’s story also resembles the story of Shammah, one of David’s mighty men. Shammah stood his ground in the middle of a field of lentils, while the rest of Israel retreated, killing many Philistines. Some have wondered if it might be possible that this short comment about Shamgar is actually a mention of David’s mighty man who would have appeared on the scene of Israel a couple of generations after Samson. The short statement here about Shamgar is a note to readers that Samson killed Philistines just like Shammah or Shamgar, who would have been more contemporary examples, killed Philistines.

But regardless of whether Shamgar lived after the reign of Ehud or after the death Samson, or whether Shamgar and Shammah are the same individual or two different people, with the help of God, Shamgar did great things in defense of Israel. And he is worthy of his one-line of history that he receives here.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 4

The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you … - Judges 2:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 27, 2019): Judges 2

The Bible is a book that is filled with angels. They leap out at us from the printed page. Some are warriors, standing guard around the god-fearing or waging heavenly wars against evil that we mere mortals never even knew existed. Some are worshippers who gather around the throne, praising God for all of the good that he has done. Some are messengers, carrying words of wisdom from the heavens to our waiting ears. Some are even more, although how much more is often a debate. What angels never are in the pages of the Bible, is us. That is not to say that sometimes we mistake humans for angels. But it is a mistake. We may think that we bear angelic qualities, but we are never angels. And in the same way, we are also never demons. We are the created progeny of God, separate forever from the angels and demons which may walk this earth.

So, what kind of angel is it that went from Gilgal to Bokim. This angel is a messenger. But there is also an understanding that sometimes the angels of the Bible are real humans who are mistaken to be angels. They are unknown prophets, who walk into a situation with a message and then leave again just as mysteriously. They carry a message from God, and the people mistake what is really human flesh and blood to be a citizen of heaven sent from the throne of God. It is possible that this is the angel that came up from Gilgal, a prophet who appears, and then just as quickly, disappears again.

But it also seems to be possible that this angel is something – more. The argument, as provocative as it might be, is that this angel is not actually an angel, and the angel is also not a human prophet; this angel is Jesus come down to earth before his incarnation in Bethlehem. The reason for this explanation is found in the wording of the angel. First, the angel claims to be divine. His words are clear, “I brought you up out of Egypt.” Those are words that belong to the God of Moses and Burning Bush. God was the ultimate reason why the Exodus succeeded. It could have been an angel charged with the message of God, but the personification here seems to lead us to believe that the speaker was not speaking on behalf of the divine, but rather as the divine. Second, as the divine, the speaker claims ownership over the Mosaic Covenant. It is not “the covenant which God made with you,” but rather the angel speaks of “my covenant with you.”

Third, there is a promise that sounds very Jesus-like in the words of the angel. “I will never break my covenant with you.” For me, the words are a reminder of something else. Jesus made a similar promise to his followers after his resurrection. “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Don’t bother looking for me to leave any time soon. I will never break my promise to you, and I will never leave you.

Was this really Jesus? There is no way to know the answer to the question. But, it is an interesting possibility, and there is no reason why it shouldn’t be. After all, Micah speaks clearly of the pre-existent Jesus who has reigned from old, long before Bethlehem.

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
    one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
    from ancient times” (Micah 5:2).

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 3

The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites. – Judges 1:21

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 26, 2019): Judges 1

Early on in the Star Trek saga (episode number five), Gene Roddenberry’s creation presents us with a story entitled “The Enemy Within.” As a result of a transporter accident, Captain James T. Kirk is split into two inferior copies of himself, one which is good and the other who is evil. The episode explores the necessity for the good and the bad to exist within us. We want to believe that one can exist without the other, but that might not be true, at least not in the Star Trek Universe. Specifically, the episode theorizes that decision making might be a function of what might be considered the evil portion of us. The ability to say “yes” or “no” in spite of consequences or how that decision might hurt is an important function of what we might consider to be the negative part of us. But, at least according to “Star Trek,” courage originates on the good side. The moral that the creators of the story wanted to leave us with is summed up by Dr. Leonard McCoy; "We all have our darker side. We need it! It's half of what we are. It's not really ugly. It's Human."

Is McCoy right? That would probably be a definite maybe. The good and evil that exists within us are often not found in a specific action, but right and wrong are more often a function of purpose. We often play with the idea of killing and murder. The act of killing someone out of anger is almost universally wrong. The idea is often explored in the television that we watch. A good police officer does not kill the criminal because, in a moment of anger, he can. He might be tempted to kill the criminal in a “who would know” moment but, in the end, the good lower their weapons and turn the criminal over the judicial system. But killing in self-defense is rarely considered to be wrong. And one scenario that again finds itself into our television drama’s is that moment when the bad person is about to kill someone, and the good person takes the shot, killing the criminal before he can complete his crime. It does not seem to be the act that is right or wrong, but rather it is the purpose that lies behind the action.

The book of Judges asserts that the Jebusites remained in control of Jerusalem throughout the time of the Judges, and even into the time of the Kings. The blame for the Jebusite presence is laid at the feet of the Benjamites. In our reading, we have placed the stories at the end of Judges before the stories at the beginning. And part of the reason is logistical. Israel’s civil war left the tribe of Benjamin decimated, too decimated to provide for the stories in the 1 Samuel, which includes the story of the first King of Israel, Saul, who happens to come from the Tribe of Benjamin. There needed to be time for the tribe to recover before the stories of the first King make sense. And so we move the stories at the end of Judges to the beginning to provide the necessary time required for the tribe to recover before the time of Saul.

But that might also might give us a reason for why the Benjamites failed at the task of removing the Jebusites from Jerusalem. The tribe was just in the beginning of their recovery from the war; they simply did not have the men to take on the Jebusites. And the longer the Jebusites remained in Jerusalem, the harder the thought of removing them became.

The trap that we can fall into is in believing that the Jebusites remained in control of Jerusalem because removing them was unimportant. But that is probably not true. Diversity can be a strength. But the problem goes back to our discussion of purpose. If the Jebusites were willing to support the purposes of Israel, then their presence might not have been a problem. But that does not seem to be true. The Jebusites were a problem because they were the enemy within who pursued their own purposes, content in the knowledge that Benjamin, and Israel, were too weak to do anything about it. Instead of serving the purposes of the nation, they remained a threat in the heartland of the nation.

Even after Benjamin recovered from the war and gave one of their brightest to be the first king of Israel, the Jebusites remained in control of Jerusalem, and the threat would not be removed until David decided to make the city his own.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 2

The men of Israel had taken an oath at Mizpah: “Not one of us will give his daughter in marriage to a Benjamite.” – Judges 21:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 25, 2019): Judges 21

Gandalf, in J. R. R. Tolkien’s “The Fellowship of the Ring,” says “Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.” The comment is made about Gollum, the “Stoor Hobbit” of the River-folk, who became obsessed with the Ring, which he calls his “precious.” The conversation between Gandalf and Frodo is a conversation about justice, specifically if it might be just for Gollum to die. Gandalf replies that if Frodo is unable to give those who die deserving life their life back, then he should not be too eager to give death to those who deserve death. After all, even the very wise struggle with understanding all of the outcomes which life and death present to us.

In the wake of Israel’s first civil war, one tribe, that of Benjamin who was the lone member of the losing side of the war, stands on the brink of extinction. Complicating the dark future of the Benjaminites is an oath that the other tribes had made, refusing to give their daughters in marriage to the sons of Benjamin. It was this oath that made the extinction of the Tribe of Benjamin almost certain. There is no doubt that the sin of Gibeah was deeply wrong. And the city of Gibeah paid for their sin in a manner that was very similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah, except that the destruction of Gibeah was at the hands of the other tribes of Israel rather than God. What is questioned is whether the tribe of Benjamin needed to suffer a similar fate to that of Gibeah. Their wrongdoing was not the lack of hospitality, rape, and murder that was evident in Gibeah. Benjamin’s wrongdoing is that they felt they needed to come to the defense of their brothers in Gibeah, even though Gibeah, at least in this case, stood in the wrong.

Justice, as Gandalf seemed to understand, is tricky. Justice means punishing those who do evil while protecting those who are innocent. But justice also means making sure that the punishment for evil is appropriate. Condemning someone to death for stealing a loaf of bread is as much against the idea of justice as whatever circumstances might have existed to cause the crime to be committed in the first place. And, in the mind of Gandalf, if we cannot enforce justice by giving life to those who did not deserve to die, then maybe we should not be too swift in delivering death to those that we might think deserve to suffer the end of their lives.

In the heat of the moment, the decision not to allow the daughters of Israel to intermarry with the sons of Benjamin might have seemed like justice. But even the wisest among us cannot see all of the ends of such a decision, and there is a great injustice in making the price to be paid for a crime higher than it really needs to be.   

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 1

So all the Israelites got together and united as one against the city. – Judges 20:11

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 24, 2019): Judges 20

Winston Churchill remarked that “When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you.” But the reverse is also true. It is amazing how an enemy lurking on the outside can make the differences inside disappear. In times of crisis, all of our inner conflicts seem to disappear. Even the national borders that exist between friends have less meaning. All that matters is the enemy that is standing at the door. Politics and other conflicts are laid aside so that our energy can be directed at solving the problem.

Repeatedly, the author of Judges warns us that this was a troubled time for Israel. At this point in history, Israel had no national leader, and even the tribes were left without someone who could look at the big things and decide a proper course of action. At this point in the history of Israel, every person decided what was right for their family unit and followed the advice that they gave to themselves.

And for the most part, this was true. But even at this point in the history of the nation, there was something that could unite the tribes; it was an enemy standing at the gates. It is important to note that, at this point, the individual tribes acted as individual nations, sovereign yet with a historical connection that made them somewhat allied to each other. Later, when the need to choose a king arose, one of the problems would be that a king would seem to elevate one tribe over another. In the argument over whether David should be made king was raised the question of why Judah might be more important than Ephraim or Dan. Will a Judean King be willing to argue for what is best for all of the tribes, and not just for what is best for the tribe of Judah?

But as far as the incident at Gibeah was concerned, all of the tribes, with the notable exception of the tribe of Benjamin, were unified against what had happened in the city of Benjamin. The incident at Gibeah was unique in that it raised both an external threat, Gibeah was a city in Benjamin and external to the other eleven tribes, and an internal threat, Gibeah was a city that existed within Israel and was governed by Israel.

So, for the moment, all of the differences of the tribes was laid aside. And each tribe would take part in the punishment of Gibeah. The tribe of Benjamin would stand alone in defense of the city. And the first civil war of Israel was about to take place; a war that would have devastating consequences.   

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 21

But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. – Judges 19:25

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 23, 2019): Judges 19

What would happen if God didn’t move? We can only guess what life might be like if God did not move in various situations that we meet as we progress through this life. In 1984, Amy Grant released her song “Angels,” which poses that precise question.

Near misses all around me, accidents unknown,
Though I never see with human eyes the hands that lead me home.
But I know they're all around me all day and through the night.
When the enemy is closing in, I know sometimes they fight
To keep my feet from falling, I'll never turn away.
If you're asking what's protecting me then you're gonna hear me say:

Got his angels watching over me … (Amy Grant, Brown Bannister, Gary Chapman, Michael W. Smith)

The story of Gibeah, found in Judges 19, is essentially the same story that is told in Genesis 19 and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. We have oversimplified both of these stories and made them about same-sex sexual interaction, but that is not the theme of either story. Both stories are a condemnation of inhospitality and the persecution of the stranger, the visitor or the immigrant. But the significant difference between the stories is that in one, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, God moves and prevents evil from being done and, at Gibeah, he does not. The result in Sodom and Gomorrah is that the visitors and the family of Lot escape the city safely, while the cities themselves are destroyed. But at Gibeah, the concubine of the Levite dies after being repeatedly raped during the night, and a civil war between the tribe of Benjamin and the rest of Israel begins. 

And maybe the deep mystery is wrapped up in the question “why?” Why did God move at Sodom and Gomorrah and not at Gibeah? The question might be unanswerable, but let me give it a try. At Sodom and Gomorrah, the presence of God was totally absent. And so God decides to move and destroy the cities because of the evil that they had committed, saving those who are faithful to him.

But the story of Gibeah is even sadder. These were not people who did not know God. The Levite passes up staying in a foreign city so that he could spend the night in a town that was governed by the people of Israel. The tribe of Benjamin, along with the rest of Israel, had been charged to be the presence of God among the people of the world. So the evil at Gibeah was not committed by people who did not know God, but by the same people who were supposed to be the presence of God among the nations. God leaves Gibeah so that it can stand as an example of what happens when the people of God abuse their position in the world and commit evil in the name of God. The ripples of the evil at Gibeah were not contained within the town. The evil at Gibeah resulted in a civil war that almost wiped out the tribe of Benjamin.

It is a result to which we need to give attention. When we refuse to carry out the hospitality of God, when we lie in his name, or believe that our concerns are automatically his, then we are endangering not just ourselves, but the church and society at large. And maybe God will move to stop us before the damage becomes irreversible. But the story of Gibeah reminds us that maybe he won’t.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 20

So the Danites went their way, and Micah, seeing that they were too strong for him, turned around and went back home. – Judges 18:26

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 22, 2019): Judges 18

Once upon a time, a long time ago, there lived a nightingale who sang happily in the forest, going about her duties, singing her song, and making both man and animals happy. Everything went well for the Nightingale until, one day, a Hawk spied the smaller bird sitting on a tree in the forest. The Hawk dove from his place high in the sky and grabbed the nightingale in his powerful talons. Then the Hawk flew back high into the air. The higher the hawk flew, the louder the smaller bird shrieked and cried. Finally, the hawk responded to the nightingale. “You silly bird, why do you bother to scream? Someone much better and more powerful has caught you. So you will go wherever I decide to take you, regardless of how pretty the song that you sing might be. If I want to, I will make you my dinner, or maybe I will decide to let you go, but the decision will be mine. It is useless for anyone to go against the ones more powerful, because you will never be victorious, and your cries just multiply your own pain and grief.”

The original version of this story is found in the poem “Work and Days,” written by the Greek poet Hesiod around 700 B.C.E. And Hesiod’s point was that right is often defined by those who have power. In an age where Kings created the laws, Kings were also above the laws that they created. Laws applied increasingly to those who were without power. Those with power did not have to worry about something as silly as law. They did what they wanted. It is an idea that is summed up with the words “Might makes right.” If you are strong, you are right. If you are weak and without power, then you are in the wrong.

The story of Micah and his idol highlights the lawlessness of this period of Israel’s history. The lawlessness starts with Micah and his idol. Idolatry is forbidden in Mosaic Law, and yet Micah had created a family idol and had even hired a priest in an attempt to legitimize his idol. The priest Micah hired did not have any intention of conforming to the Law of the nation; his concern was money. Then the Danites enter into the story and steal the idol and the priest away from Micah, and their justification for their action is that they are more powerful than Micah. In this story, the Danites play the role of the Hawk, and Micah is the nightingale. And even Micah recognizes that he simply is not powerful enough to protect his possessions from those more powerful than him.

I wish that our world had progressed past this kind of lawlessness, but in reality, we all know that it hasn’t. Headlines from our news sources show that those with power are seldom held responsible for their crimes. This lawlessness is reflected in the racial differences in conviction rates. The crimes of the dominant race and those with money and power are often either ignored or given light sentences, while those without power are made to pay heavily for similar crimes. And this is not the way that it is supposed to be. The story of Micah and the Danites is not the way Israel was supposed to be governed. But again, the theme of judges, which is repeated throughout what we have as the final chapters of the book, is simply stated: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.”

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 19

Then Micah said to him, “Live with me and be my father and priest, and I’ll give you ten shekels of silver a year, your clothes and your food.” – Judges 17:10

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 21, 2019): Judges 17

Mark Shuster loves it when people at dinner parties start to throw around statistics. He says it gives him a chance to throw out his favorite statistic – that 73.6% of all statistics are made up. He offers the stat in a deadpan, and very serious, manner. The conversation stops. Often someone will interject with a questioning “really?” Mark continues the conversation with a straight face saying something like “Nielsen just released the number last month.”

And the conversation pauses. No one recognizes the irony. There is no doubt that a good portion of our statistics are fictitious, although how much is probably up for debate. But Mark Shuster’s 73.6% is definitely part of the fake side of the statistics nightmare.

During my college days, I was forced to read a book called “How to Lie with Statistics.” I still have the book somewhere in my library. It is not a very big book, but it tells the story of how to take even statistics that are true and use them to give a false message. We all do it. Whether we make up the statistics or use numbers that someone else has made up, or simply mislead by the way that we use our true statistics, we all use statistics to get our point across. And usually to legitimize our position on some subject.

A couple of week’s ago a friend of mine sat down in my office with the important news that President Trump’s approval rating had hit 50%. He was a Trump supporter and was trying to legitimize his belief in the American President. I am not a Trump supporter, but my disdain for the President has nothing to do with statistics. I believe that our political leaders should be the best of who we are. I may not agree with their policies, but I want, at least, to consider them to be honorable people, upstanding and worthy of my support. I hate the phrase that I hear too often. “We didn’t elect Donald Trump to be our pastor, but our President.” The statement makes no sense to me. We pray that our leaders will be people with a good and strong character, whether they are President’s or pastors, or leaders of the local sports league. These are the best that our race has to offer, ones that are willing to speak the truth even if the truth does not advance their personal aspirations. This pursuit of the best is probably why Jimmy Carter is one of my favorite President’s; he has always seemed to be a person who wanted to do what was right no matter the consequences. For my friend, the 50% approval rating meant that he was no longer in the minority when it came to Donald Trump. If he had told me the approval rating was 90%, it would not have changed my mind about the American President. Character, for me, is more important than policy. I want a person of great character to be in a position of great leadership.

Micah hires a Levite to be his personal priest. Much is wrong with the hiring, but from Micah’s point of view, he was trying to legitimize his personal shrine. He knows that the shrine is wrong, and he hopes that the priest will make it right. But just like the statistics that we use to legitimize our believes and positions, the presence of the priest does nothing to legitimize Micah’s shrine. The shrine is wrong because God had declared that anything was wrong that stole worship away from him - God. His instructions were clear, you shall not worship idols, and the presence of a priest was not going to change that one fact. What the presence of the priest in Micah’s home does tell us is that the priest was not a person of a good and strong character. Instead, he was someone who was willing to sell out what was right for what would make him money, or his life easier. He would not speak truth to Micah as long as Micah was willing to pay for his presence. As the troubled period of Judges begins, the priest fits right in. “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (Judges 17:6).

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 18

Israel served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had experienced everything the LORD had done for Israel. – Joshua 24:31

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 20, 2019): Joshua 24

Max Lucado argues that “A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the crowd.” A true leader does not discern where the river is running and then sets a course that follows the river’s path. A true leader decides where the river needs to go and then takes the necessary measures to encourage the river to take that path. And a true leader never points toward a goal that they are unwilling to pursue in their own lives.

Joshua had never tried to discern the will of the crowd. He had been a follower of Moses who had blazed a new trail for Israel, often against the complaints of the people. Joshua wanted to continue to follow Moses’s trail. He was an able administrator who took the model that was given to him by Moses and made that dream a reality. Joshua was not the visionary that Moses had been. He didn’t have to be. He just had to find a way to complete the path that had been started by the great lawgiver of Israel.

And every step of the way, Joshua looked to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to help him with the task that had been set before him. This was another lesson that he had learned from his experiences following Moses. Joshua had come to believe that no task was too big for Israel to undertake if God was on their side.

Joshua led Israel and the elders who led the nation with him, by turning his back on the whims of the crowd and demonstrating the behavior that he wished Israel to follow. And as long as Joshua and the elders who led the nation lived, the nation followed God, keeping his instructions and decrees. The strength of Joshua is found in this willingness to follow God and the ability to set a path for the nation also to follow.

But after Joshua and the elders who outlived him died, all of that changed. Israel became a very different nation; one that followed whatever it believed was right. The theme of the next book containing the history of Israel, the Book of Judges, was very different from the one that was demonstrated during the days Joshua. The Book of Judges is summed up with these words. “In those days Israel had no king [and no Joshua – or Moses]; everyone did as they saw fit” (Judges 17:6). In those days Israel lacked the one who would turn his, or her, back to the crowd and simply do what was right. They lacked the one who dared to decide where the river should run. Everyone decided what was right in their eyes and, as a result, the nation descended into dark and evil days.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Judges 17

After a long time had passed and the LORD had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them, Joshua, by then a very old man, summoned all Israel—their elders, leaders, judges and officials—and said to them: “I am very old. – Joshua 23:1-2

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 19, 2019): Joshua 23

My favorite song off of Bon Jovi’s 2000 CD release “Crush” was not one of the ones that the band decided to release as singles. My favorite track, and one that I admit I find myself singing quietly to myself throughout the day, is a song called “Just Older.” In the chorus, Jon sings these words, which seem to speak directly to my life experience:

            I like the bed I’m sleeping in

            It’s just like me, it’s broken in

            It’s not old – just older

            Like a favorite pair of torn blue jeans

            This skin I’m in it’s alright with me

            It’s not old – just older

In a world that sees to want to chase after youth, there is something decidedly healthy about Jon Bon Jovi’s words. (Admittedly, I wonder, almost twenty years after the release of the song and after all of the struggles that Jon has gone through over that time, if he still feels that way.) But whether or not Jon feels that way, it is the way that I feel. I am not old, just older.

Joshua has reached a point in his life when maybe he gets to admit that he is not older, or even old, but rather very old. Even just the numbers sound exhausting to our contemporary ears. The Exodus, under the leadership of Moses, had begun seventy-six years earlier. Joshua had been chosen as a leader of his tribe and sent into Canaan as one of Israel’s twelve spies seventy-five years earlier. It had been thirty-five years since Moses had died, leaving Joshua in control of the leadership, not just of his tribe, but of the nation. The truth is that Joshua was not just old, but he was tired and had given all that he had to give. It was time for Joshua to rest from the fight, and maybe just enjoy his family and his inheritance for a few years before he died.

So Joshua begins his farewell address to the nation. We do not know how much longer Joshua would live after this grand goodbye to Israel, but tradition says that he died at the age of 110 (Joshua 24:29) after a life of service to both his God and his nation.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Joshua 24

And the Reubenites and the Gadites gave the altar this name: A Witness Between Us—that the LORD is God. – Joshua 22:34

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 18, 2019): Joshua 22

What happens when a river, which forms a border between two nations, moves? The question was tested on the southern border of the United States when the Rio Grande at a point between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, moved during the 19^th century. For a hundred years, the question over the placement of the border between the U.S. and Mexico was an open question and the cause of a serious conflict between the two nations. The Rio Grande moved between 1852 and 1868, with the biggest shift in the river taking place in 1864. But the issue was not settled with a redrawing of the border between the United States and Mexico until 1963. In the agreement, the boundary of between the United States and Mexico was changed to reflect the change in the Rio Grande, ceding 366 acres of land from the United States to Mexico, and 71 acres changed from Mexico to the United States. And, as part of the solution, changes were made to the Rio Grande itself to make sure that the river did not move again in the future, renewing the conflict. Today, in El Paso, Texas, the Chamizal National Memorial stands to mark both the conflict and the solution to the problem. The memorial is a reminder of what has caused conflict in the past, and a reminder that, even if it took a hundred years, a solution was found and applied to the conflict.

Israel seems to have originally been intended to exist on just the west side of the Jordan River. But as Israel began to move into Canaan, the tribes of Reuben and Gad, as well as half of the tribe Manasseh, decided to take their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan River. But in spite of building their homes on the east side of the Jordan, they also made the promise that their men would still cross over the river to fight in Canaan.

Eventually, the men were sent home. And, after they had returned, they built an altar on the east side, their side, of the Jordan River. It was not intended to be an altar where sacrifices would be made to God. Those sacrifices would take place at Shiloh, where the Tabernacle currently resided, on the west side of the Jordan River. But the altar was set up as a memorial and a reminder. Unlike the Chamizal National Memorial, which marks a dispute between two nations over a boundary based on the course of a river, this altar on the east side of the Jordan River was intended to be a reminder that this river did not form a boundary between two nations. At least on this spot, Israel existed on both sides of the Jordan River.

The truth is that rivers make easy boundaries. But in this case, the nation existed on both sides of the river, and a “Witness Between Us” was erected to remind the people that Israel existed on both sides of the river; that they were united, and together formed the nation of Israel.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Joshua 23

The first lot came out for the Kohathites, according to their clans. The Levites who were descendants of Aaron the priest were allotted thirteen towns from the tribes of Judah, Simeon and Benjamin. – Joshua 21:4

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 17, 2019): Joshua 21

Vera Nazarian in “The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration” writes that “neither sugar nor salt tastes particularly good by itself. Each is at its best when used to season other things. Love is the same way. Use it to ‘season’ people.” Personally, my cravings tend toward the salty rather than the sweet. But Nazarian is right, sugar and salt are seasonings; they work best when they are spread out over something else that we are enjoying (and yes, I appreciate a generous application of salt on my French Fries).

There was never any intention that there would be a tribe of Levites, at least not one that was gathered on one territorial space. When Jacob claimed Manasseh and Ephraim, the two sons of Joseph, as his own, he essentially became of the father of thirteen sons and changed the way that the descendants of Levi would be treated. The adoption of Manasseh and Ephraim allowed the Levites to become the possession of God, and the Levites were intended to be the seasoning for the nation of Israel. In this way, God’s presence would be spread among the people, and his love would be shared with all of the people.

The presence of the Levites throughout Israel also argued against the idea that God was only present in his tabernacle, and later only in the Temple of Jerusalem. God was spread throughout all of Israel, symbolized by the presence of his Levites. 

I recently visited a Jewish Synagogue for worship and was impressed, once again, by the ministry of the Levites in the service. The descendants of Levi, more than 3000 years after the taking of the Promised Land, are still symbols of the presence of God among the people. And as Christians, we believe not just that we are the adopted children of God, but that we are the Levites adopted by God. Our purpose is not to be heaped up in one place, but rather to be spread out amidst God’s creation, symbolically reminding all of creation that the presence of God is in their midst, and practically loving all of creation with the love that we reflect from the Creator of the World. 

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Joshua 22

If the avenger of blood comes in pursuit, the elders must not surrender the fugitive, because the fugitive killed their neighbor unintentionally and without malice aforethought.- Joshua 20:5

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 16, 2019): Joshua 20

Justice in the culture in which I live depends upon the idea of the presumption of innocence. Sometimes we seem to think that this idea is a recent development in our societies, but it is an ancient idea. Most succinctly, the idea is stated with the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who accuses, not on the one who denies).

The Presumption of Innocence is not universal, but it appears in some possibly surprising doctrines. It was introduced into Roman Law in the Second Century C.E. by Emperor Antonius Pius, one of the Five Good Emperors who reigned from 96 to 180 C.E. It is also part of Islamic Law with teaching that instructs the followers of Allah to condemn suspicion and teach them to overturn prescribed punishment if it is built around doubtful evidence. But during the feudal governments in the Middle Ages, most of Europe fell back into the custom of the presumption of guilt.

And it is that presumption which seems to reign over our emotions today, even in the culture in which I live. As I write these words, Democratic hopefuls and supporters in the United States are crying out for the impeachment of their President. One of the new class of 2018 members of Congress put that desire in rather vulgar terms earlier this month, as in “We are going to impeach the mother******.” All this before the contents of the Mueller Probe have even been released. It is not an example of the presumption of innocence that is on display by the American Democrats elected to government positions of oversight in the United States, nor is it the presumption of innocence that is portrayed on our evening news; it is the presumption of guilt.

The essential problem with the idea of the presumption of innocence is that it requires us, at least for a time, to occasionally protect the guilty. It requires that we cease to condemn those that we believe to be guilty until after that guilt can be proved in a court of law. And if that guilt cannot be proved, we must be willing to say that we would rather a guilty man go free than to proclaim guilty someone who is innocent (enter the trial of O. J. Simpson).

While the idea of the Presumption of Innocence seems to have entered into Western Law in the middle of the Second Century C.E., the concept is even older. It is found in the Law of Moses and the idea of Sanctuary Cities. It was in these cities that both the innocent and the guilty could be protected until after a trial and a time when the guilt was proved by the accuser. There is no doubt that some guilty found solace with the Sanctuary City network in Israel, but so did many innocents. And unlike our images of the Old American West, Israel was not supposed to be ruled by a frontier justice that meted out its punishment without the benefits of a trial. Every life was valuable, and everyone accused of a crime deserved their day in court.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Joshua 21

They gave him the town he asked for—Timnath Serah in the hill country of Ephraim. And he built up the town and settled there. – Joshua 19:50

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 15, 2019): Joshua 19

The fourteenth-century Persian poet Hafez wrote that “even after all this time the Sun never says to the Earth, ‘You owe me.’ Look what happens with a love like that, it lights the whole sky.” The relationship between the Earth and the Sun is a special one, especially if we bestow upon the two celestial bodies some human characteristics. After all, the earth adds very little, really nothing, to the existence of the sun. But life on earth could not exist without the presence of the sun. The sun is forever giving, and we are forever receiving, offering nothing back to the one who gives us life. And yes, in this I am still speaking of the Earth and the Sun.

Joshua receives his inheritance last. He has requested land around the town of Timnath Serah, in a mountainous region within the allotment of land given to the tribe of Ephraim; the tribe of which Joshua is a part. Timnath Serah means “Portion of Abundance.” The name of the town probably impacted Joshua as to what God had done for all of Israel. He had given them Canaan. Israel had received their “Portion of Abundance” directly from their God who had been with them every step of the way.

But the people of Israel seem to have quickly begun to refer to the town by another name. They seem to essentially invert “Serah” calling the town “Timnath Heres.” This inversion is revealed in Judges 2:9 where Timnath Serah is called Timnath Heres. “Heres” is often translated as “sun” making the name of the town “Portion of the Sun.” According to Jewish tradition, this is recognition of the day that Joshua, with the help of God, made the sun stand still. In fact, this moment in Israel’s history became the symbol that summed up the role of Joshua in his relationship with Israel. Joshua was Israel’s sun. For all of Joshua’s shortcomings, he was the general that had led the successful attack on Canaan and the administrator who had fulfilled the task of dividing the land among the twelve tribes of Israel. Joshua took care of all of this, often giving everything that he had to offer before he finally rested and took his own inheritance among the tribes of Israel.

Joshua, strengthened by his relationship with the God of Israel, had been the sun shining over Israel, revealing the path that they needed to follow and keeping the nation on that path when they seemed to want to change directions. And now he was ready to settle into his own inheritance in Canaan. Joshua was ready to end his nomadic life on land that had been given to him by his Sun, the God of Israel.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Joshua 20

Note: The Hafez poem is better and more traditionally phrased this way:

“Even
After
All this time
The Sun never says to the Earth,

"You owe me."

Look
What happens
With a love like that,
It lights the whole sky.”

… but there were still seven Israelite tribes who had not yet received their inheritance. – Joshua 18:2

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 14, 2019): Joshua 18

In his epic novel “Crime and Punishment,” Fyodor Dostoevsky argues that “taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” Dostoevsky reveals what is a reality for most of us. And if we do not feel that way, we know someone close to us who does. We fear change, even when change is good. And maybe that is part of the reason that many people’s New Year’s resolutions are no longer in force a short two weeks into the New Year. As people, we find great comfort in the way that things have always been done and change, which includes a fear of the unknown, is simply scary. When times get tough, we always return to the way we have always responded to things in our lives. There is great comfort in tradition.

When considering the taking of Canaan, one of the questions that we need to ask is why had seven tribes not “received their inheritance.” Were they unable to displace the inhabitants of their inheritance? Or was there some other reason. Less than half of the tribes of Israel had received their land. And the most obvious reason for the delay is simply this; the tribes were afraid of taking that next new step. They were afraid of change.

No one in Israel had any idea what it meant to live in permanent dwellings. They had existed as a large group of people living in tents, moving about the land for their entire lives. Every morning when they rose, they looked toward the Tabernacle to see if today they would be packing up and moving on, leaving the area for someplace new. They were nomads, and it was not that they had grown to like the nomadic life; they didn’t know any other way to live. They had lived all of their lives as nomads.

And now they were being asked to change. Israel was being given a specific plot of land where they would be able to build a house and farm, growing grains in season and feeding and caring for their animals throughout the year. They would no longer move from place to place. They would possess the land that they would be able to pass down to their children. And this was something that they had never experienced.

It was not that this change bad. In many ways it was good. But it was a life that they had never experienced, and the descendants of Israel were finding it hard to adapt to the change.

Change is hard, but it is also necessary. I am convinced that God continually leads us into change as we grow more and more like Christ. And often we reject the change god places into our lives and fall back on tradition because it is comfortable, and not because the traditional is what God desires from us. We all have to face change as we grow in our faith. It is an inevitable part of life. And how we react to that change is often the best descriptor of how much faith we really have placed in our God.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Joshua 19