I went to Jerusalem, and after staying there three days … - Nehemiah 2:11

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 30, 2020): Nehemiah 2

American Author Courtney Stevens, in “The June Boys,” reminds us that if “you meet Noah after the flood, you think, That brave, faith-filled, visionary man. You meet him before and you're like, What a nut job. Perspective and timing matter. Sometimes you have to accept that you might not be able to see the truth from here.” It is one of the realities of life, and timing is everything. Noah’s position was not unique. Visionaries are often thought to be nut-jobs in the before because they see something that we just don’t see.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that the visionary often has to choose their moment. In the aftermath of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, it is notable that she saw her losses as opportunities to change the future. In the writing of her Supreme Court dissents, her messages were not just that the majority court opinion was, in her opinion, wrong. Her legal dissents were meant to encourage some unknown jurists in the future to reconsider the decision and change the law. She had proven to be a visionary who saw something different, and better, in our future. I am not arguing that RBG was infallible; I do not agree with all of her opinions, but, sometimes, her thought-provoking writings have proven that she saw something different in the future that the rest of us missed.

God gave Nehemiah a vision for the future. Nehemiah leaves the comfort of his life, lived in the palace of the King in Persia, and goes to the broken city of Jerusalem. Interestingly, he does not ride into town announcing that God had given him a message and that this was the course of action that the city needed to achieve. Nehemiah takes the time to get to know the leaders in Jerusalem, realizing that the city did not need a savior from Persia ready to solve the city’s problems. It was likely that the plan of action he had received from God would be the dissenting opinion in the city. And to succeed, Nehemiah was going to need allies.

Nehemiah arrives in Jerusalem. He comes to the city with a military escort and lumber that came from the personal forests of the King of Persia. No one missed the entrance of this man as the cupbearer to the King arrives at the city. But Nehemiah allows them to get to know him while assessing the situation present in the city before he gets down to the vision that he has received from God and presents the plan of action that the city would need to follow. In the waiting, he allows the people to get to know him before they can respond that the visionary from Persia is really just a nut job because it might have been entirely possible that the people of the city could not see God’s future from for Judah from the place that they stood.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Nehemiah 3

They said to me, "Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire." – Nehemiah 1:3

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 29, 2020): Nehemiah 1

Poet Clementine von Radic writes in "Mouthful of Forevers" that "The good news is you survived. The bad news is you're hurt and no one can heal you but yourself." The bottom line is that all of us are survivors. We have survived what life has thrown at us. And the universal truth is that we are all broken, whether we want to admit it or not. And the even more uncomfortable truth is that nobody can fix us. Social media friends can't heal us by responding to our pleas or liking our posts. Healing begins with us.

Oh, it doesn't finish with us. God brings others into our lives as they can help. But first, we have to be willing to receive that help, and to do something, walking in faith with God, that will heal our brokenness. Survival is good, but it is definitely not the end of the journey.

Those that came to Nehemiah came with a powerful message. "Those who survived the exile …" This is the good news of the passage, that there were those who survived the exile, and they were back home. But things had changed. The survivors were home, but not to the Kingdom of Judah that their ancestors had left a couple of generations ago. They were back in the province of Judah. And they were broken, hurting, and disgraced.

The walls of the city were broken. Only backwater towns with nothing to protect existed without walls. Walls were needed to keep the thieves and the murderers out and to preserve everything good that existed within the city. The idea that Jerusalem was without walls meant that it was no longer important. People could no longer find refuge in the city. And the city's brokenness was reflected by the brokenness of the people.

And as Nehemiah received the message, he is broken. And he wants to do … something. Maybe in the description of the survivors of the exile, Nehemiah recognizes that he numbers among them. He may have risen to a high position in the house of the king, but he is still nothing more than a survivor of the exile. And only he can decide to go beyond just being a survivor toward something more. Only he can choose to leave the comfortable place where he finds himself and go to Jerusalem to heal himself of his brokenness and help others heal. The answer to Nehemiah's brokenness began with Nehemiah.

But this is also our identity. We are broken survivors, but that is not the end of God's plan for our lives. If we decide to be more, God has promised what he wants for us; for Jerusalem, for Nehemiah, and for everyone who reads this blog. God has a plan, and Paul outlined it. "No, in all these things we are more than conquerors [maybe we could say that we are more than survivors] through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:37-39). This is God's plan for us, but what our life actually looks like is up to us. We can stay as survivors, or we can become more than conquerors. God will accomplish this in our lives, but the decision of who we are and the basis for our identity remains with us.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Nehemiah 2

Only Jonathan son of Asahel and Jahzeiah son of Tikvah, supported by Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite, opposed this. – Ezra 10:15

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 28, 2020): Ezra 10

Winston Churchill said that "A kite flies against the wind, not with it." The idea is that we cannot reach the most incredible heights of what is possible for us without the presence of opposition. Any great idea needs to be opposed, and this need exists so that the insignificant things that will tend to drag the action down can be washed away. I think we need to be suspicious of any decision that garners unanimous consent without a long and hard season of compromise, worked out between the two sides. The best decisions are the ones we haggle over, which originates not just from one theoretical framework, but from two or more differing backgrounds.

But not all opposition is equal. I think our mistake is often to believe that those who oppose an idea are a homogenous group who share the same ideals and reasons for their opposition. But the truth is that resistance to a plan of action is often for many different, sometimes conflicting, motivations. Sometimes we oppose something because we have a personality difference with the person proposing the measure. In this case, our opposition resides more with our dislike of the person than it does with anything in the idea itself. Sometimes, we oppose an idea because it simply goes too far. It is too different from the beliefs that we have held throughout our lives. But the reverse is also true. Sometimes opposition arises because the change is too gentle. There needs to be more change. I used to joke that I knew I got the sound level right for the music portion of a worship service when I had an equal number of people complaining it was too loud as I had complaints that it was too soft. It also sometimes seemed that no one resided in that space. Everyone was angry, but for two conflicting reasons.

Ezra talks about the opposition that existed to the idea that something needed to be done about the intermarriage relationships of the Jewish people. Ezra believed that as long as these relationships existed, there would be avenues open to their enemies, spiritual and otherwise, that could be used to pull both families and the nation apart. Something had to be done.

Ezra mentions four men who opposed the upcoming meeting; Jonathan, Jahzeiah, Meshullam, and Shabbethai. What Ezra doesn't tell us why they opposed. It could be that they had philosophical differences with Ezra. Maybe they disagreed that Ezra should be the one calling the shots. And therefore, anything that Ezra proposed was obviously wrong. It is possible that these were the hard-liners, and they did not believe that Ezra was going to go far enough to punish those who had intermarried with the people around them.

But it seems that the most likely source of their opposition was that they thought the discussion had already gone too far. The conversation did not need to be delayed to a nicer day, but it needed to end. The debate was an afront to the people of the area, and the people of Jerusalem needed to get back to the task of physically rebuilding the nation.

It is not likely that they all agreed as to why they opposed Ezra. But opposition existed, and a conversation was being had around the issue. Most importantly, God was part of the conversation and the reason for the big decisions that were being made in the presence of the people.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Nehemiah 1

They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness." – Ezra 9:2

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 27, 2020): Ezra 9

When I was a teenager, I went into business with a friend. The idea was that we would contract ourselves out to shovel walks for people in the neighborhood. People would hire us for the winter, and we would just show up when it snowed to shovel the walks. At the time, I thought it was a good idea. The problem ended up being my partner. When the snow came, he disappeared, leaving me to deal with both the snow and irate customers I couldn't get to on my own. The deal was one of the worst decisions I had made in my young life. And it cost me my developing reputation.

The Apostle Paul writes about our interpersonal relationships. "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness" (2 Corinthians 6:14)? Paul's words have often been applied to the concept of marriage, but the intent of Paul's words applies to any relationship in which we are contracting to do something together. And the problem is that when we covenant to do something with others, we open ourselves up to their shortcomings. And what they believe and do quickly influences how people see and react to us, and often compromises our beliefs and actions.

Ezra looks out over Israel and realizes that the people, including the leaders of Israel, were compromised. Intermarriage was far from the only problem, but as intermarriage became common among the people, no areas of their lives would be left untouched by the worship of other gods. In every household, in every business, every government office, and every aspect of social life, there was a discussion going on that was pulling people away from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and toward the pagan gods worshipped by the people of the land. The people had begun to depend on their alliances with other nations and people instead of relying on the God who had moved so powerfully in their history.

Does Ezra argue that all alliances are evil? I don't think we need to take it that far. Associations can be useful under certain circumstances. But first, we must be secure in who we are, recognizing that our allegiance to God is our primary alliance, and that, in the end, we are far better off walking alone with God than we are walking with our earthly partnerships and without God.

Ezra recognized that the nation's leaders had led the country into sin through their own intermarriages. He knew that the only path back would depend on the drastic actions taken by precisely those compromised leaders.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ezra 10

I said to them, "You as well as these articles are consecrated to the LORD. The silver and gold are a freewill offering to the LORD, the God of your ancestors. – Ezra 8:28

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 26, 2020): Ezra 8

Is it possible that we are possessions of someone? I know, in our current environment, these are not pleasant words. In the shadow of an ever-present memory of the missteps we have made with slavery, we want to believe that we are the makers of our own destiny and the masters of our own lives. But, at the same time, we are also people who owe our existence to those around us and, at least in some way, we belong to them. One of the hardest things about the current COVID-19 mask debate is that wearing a mask is not something we do for ourselves. I wear a mask because I owe it to you and I want to protect you. And I belong to you; I am your possession, at least in a minor way.

Ezra's words to the Levites echo those of Isaiah, "Come out from it and be pure, you who carry the articles of the Lord's house" (Isaiah 52:11). Ezra looks at the wealth of silver and gold, which had been freely given for the Temple, but he understands that the real treasure was the men who would serve in the Temple. They were the descendants of Levi, and Ezra reminds them that they were consecrated to God from the very beginning, just like the silver and gold that would be used in the Temple. These men were the possession of God, and they needed to "come out" from among the rank and file and be pure.

Ezra's words contain a message that the contemporary church needs to hear. Peter reissues the command of Ezra and Isaiah for the Christian Church.

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:4-5).

You belong to God and to each other. We are the possessions of someone else. That means we need to live our lives with that fact in mind, concentrating on the task that God has set before us, and understanding our responsibility to those living around us. It is time that the Christian Church began to examine what it might mean for them to "come out and be pure" and to understand what Ezra meant when he spoke the words "You as well as the articles are consecrated to the Lord."

The biggest problem that the world has with the Christian Church is that the church has forgotten to do just that. We have forgotten to whom we belong and that we are commanded to be salt and light in a world that needs it. We are to respond to the world with the love that God will place inside us, bringing unity and healing, and not division, wherever it is that God, the one to whom we belong, places us.  

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ezra 9

After these things, during the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah … - Ezra 7:1

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 25, 2020): Ezra 7

American Author Dave Eggers argues that “books have a unique way of stopping time in a particular moment and saying: Let’s not forget this.” They can gather our attention and point them at things that we might have missed, or maybe even have forgotten that they ever happened. But, while reading a book can often focus our attention on something, it can also take our attention away from some events often considered to be insignificant by the author or not part of the story the writer is trying to tell. Sometimes the story can leap over years in a single paragraph or even decades in the space that exists between two sections.

The author of Ezra leaps over sixty years in the space that exists between Chapter six and chapter seven. It is in that space that the events of the book of Esther take place. But the Xerxes of the Esther tale is assassinated in 465 B.C.E., leaving the empire to his son, Artaxerxes, also known as Artaxerxes Longimanus or Artaxerxes the long-handed because his right hand was longer than his left. Artaxerxes reigned for forty years, long enough for Ezra to begin the work in Judah, likely arriving in Palestine around the year 458 B.C.E. and then continuing to reign throughout the story of Nehemiah, which follows the tale of Ezra’s beginnings.

So, the chronicler draws our attention to the beginnings of the return of the exiles under the reign of Cyrus, and then skips over the largely uneventful rules, at least from the point of view of the Jews, of Cambyses II (who reigned for eight years), Bardiya, the brother of Cambyses II (who reigned for a few months), Darius the Great (who reigned for thirty-six years), Xerxes I (reigned for twenty years and featured the events recorded in the story of Esther), and then, finally, the long forty-year reign of Artaxerxes the Long-handed.

But what the story of Ezra does well is it reminds us that God plays a long game. His presence works over the decades and through many leaders and events. What we often see as the inactivity of God is actually the deliberate action of God, but following God’s timetable and not ours. Moses argued that “a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night” (Psalm 90:4). It is something that we need to remember, as we consider the moves of God. What might seem to be a long time in our eyes could be insignificant to our God, who has his focus further down the road, maybe like the work of a writer, who allows sixty years to pass in the space that exists between the chapters.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ezra 8

They also killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha, Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha, Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai and Vaizatha, the ten sons of Haman son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews. But they did not lay their hands on the plunder. – Esther 9:7-10

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 24, 2020): Esther 9 & 10

Life was filled with guns and war
And everyone got trampled on the floor
I wish we'd all been ready
Children died, the days grew cold
A piece of bread could buy a bag of gold
I wish we'd all been ready

The words, written in 1969, belong to Jesus People singer Larry Norman. The song was one of the first to cross over from the emerging Christian Culture into the established church. "I Wish We'd All Been Ready" was widely used in movies that described the coming rapture of the church, scaring many teens into heaven. Ironically, that was not a use that Norman had intended for the song. "I Wish We'd All Been Ready" is a song about priorities and recognizing that sometimes there are more important things than the things we often think are critical. And when you are fighting for survival, money is one thing that becomes very unimportant.

The author of Esther repeats three times that the Jews "did not lay their hands on the plunder" (Esther 9:10, 15,16). The first mention accompanies a note that involves the fight against the sons of Haman. Haman was the instigator of the plan to exterminate the Jews. But Haman, himself, was no longer a problem; the King had executed him. The sons of Haman, however, had decided to carry on the campaign against the Jews, likely blaming them for the death of their father.

And they were not alone. Other residents in Susa and around the empire had taken up the cause of Haman, for whatever the reason, which meant that the lives of the Jews, living in exile in the middle of the Achaemenid Empire, were in danger.

The response of the Jews to the clear and present danger around them was to band together and fight for their lives, taking on anyone who decided to move against them. Sometimes, there is something more important than money, and this was one of those times. As a result, the Jews did not take the riches of their defeated enemies, even though the proclamation of the King allowed them to profit off of their successful battles. The reality was that the fight for their lives was much more important. It was a day that reflected the post-apocalyptic lyrics of Larry Norman. Life was filled with war, and because of their current fight for survival, bread was much more valuable than gold. The plunder of the enemies of the Jews was unimportant because wealth would not help them to survive. In fact, it would probably only increase their danger. And so, the Jews fought to live, leaving the riches of those that they defeated behind them so that others might profit.  

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ezra 7

The king’s edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate the armed men of any nationality or province who might attack them and their women and children, and to plunder the property of their enemies. – Esther 8:11

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 23, 2020): Esther 8

God issued the decree to Adam in the beginning. “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:16b-17). From the very beginning, the penalty for wanting to go our way and against God’s way has been death. We can argue over how that death might take its final form in our lives; is sin the reason for the presence of physical death at the end of our lives or is God referring to the spiritual death that we suffer while we are still alive because of our decisions to sin. But the bottom line is that God decrees that the direct result of our sin is death. The Apostle Paul agrees; “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

It is a decree that God has never rescinded. What was true in the Garden of the Eden was still true for Paul in the first century C.E. and is still true for us. The result of our sin is death. The difference, while admittedly something that we don’t totally understand, is that Jesus, the perfect Son of God, has taken the prescribed penalty on himself, dying in our place despite the fact that the sin is ours and not his. He became death so that we might live. And so, our hope is not in God changing his original decree issued in the Garden of Eden. Our hope is and always will be placed solidly on the sacrifice of Jesus.

King Xerxes issued a decree. We can discuss the merits of the King’s proclamation, but the reality is that the decree, once issued, could not be taken back. And part of the reason for this likely has to do with ancient communication. It was hard to get the message out in the first place, rescinding an order once it had been given was almost impossible. And the resulting situation was often muddy, with people unsure of what to do. To make that situation clear, once a proclamation was issued, it could not be rescinded.

The only thing that Xerxes could do was issue a second proclamation. The purpose of the second proclamation was to minimize the effects of the first. In this case, the second proclamation gave the Jews the right to defend themselves. They were allowed to kill any who attempted to kill them, regardless of their nationality. They were also given the right plunder the riches of any who tried to harm them. Originally, none of the Jews had possessed these rights. But now they did.

The hope of the edict was that those who had thought to follow the original command, would be given a reason to pause, considering the cost that their action might visit on them. The edict to eliminate the Jews was still present, but now the Jews could fight back, and the hope was that that would present a significant deterrent to anyone who might want to follow the demands of the first proclamation.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Esther 9 & 10

King Xerxes asked Queen Esther, "Who is he? Where is he—the man who has dared to do such a thing?" – Esther 7:5

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 22, 2020): Esther 7

Sixteenth-century Renaissance writer, Francois Rabelais, argued that "ignorance is the mother of all evils." Sometimes that ignorance is hard to explain. The problem is that we should know, but, for some reason, we don't. Or maybe we do know, but we willingly turn our back on that knowledge because not knowing is easier. But the difference between real ignorance and feigned failure to understand might be only recognized by the person claiming ignorance. After all, the central questions of the Watergate investigation were who knew what and when did they know it.

There seems to be a gap between what King Xerxes knew and what he should have known. After all, Haman came to Xerxes to ask that a proclamation be issued that would, in the send, exterminate the Jews, the same crime that Esther is alleging. So that leaves us with a question; is it possible that Xerxes did not connect the accusation of Esther with the request that Haman had made of the King and the proclamation that Xerxes issued, or is he just pretending to have not known. At least on the surface, it would seem that Xerxes was as guilty as Hamon was about the Jewish situation. No, it was not Xerxes's idea, and Haman was guilty of exaggerating the danger to the empire, but, in the end, Xerxes did issue the order. The bottom line was that Xerxes trusted Hamon. Hamon failed the King, but because of Xerxes's trust, Hamon's error became the King's.

And it is possible that Xerxes completely understood what was happening, but now that decision wasn't playing well with the people who mattered in the King's court, he denies what is evident that he should have known. His feigned ignorance becomes his excuse. We have all known politicians who have done precisely this, rejecting the uncomfortable truths that were present in their circles of influence because it was easier.

But we can also give Xerxes the benefit of the doubt and argue that maybe the King really didn't know what was in the mandate. Like many world leaders, both past and present, he might have allowed an advisor or advisors to work on the wording of the edict and then have the order brought to him for his final approval. Xerxes might have simply trusted Haman and approved the decree without bothering to read it. And, in that case, it is his ignorance that becomes the root of all of the evil that followed.

It is a politician's dilemma, but it also ours. We frequently have to confront evil in our lives that is a direct result of our wrong decisions. But sometimes, we are forced to confront an evil that is a direct result of our ignorance. Our temptation is to excuse the sin on which we have acted in ignorance; after all, we didn't know. But the truth is that we should have known. Rather than excuse our behavior based on what we didn't know, we need to commit that next time we will know. Because it is not always just who knew what and when did they know it, but it is also what is it that they should have known.  

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Esther 8

When Haman entered, the king asked him, "What should be done for the man the king delights to honor?" Now Haman thought to himself, "Who is there that the king would rather honor than me? – Esther 6:6

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 21, 2020): Esther 6

In 1993, Hans Küng, after consulting with scholars from many of the world's religions, released the "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic." Part of that declaration reads:

We must treat others as we wish others to treat us. We make a commitment to respect life and dignity, individuality and diversity, so that every person is treated humanely, without exception. We must have patience and acceptance. We must be able to forgive, learning from the past but never allowing ourselves to be enslaved by memories of hate. Opening our hearts to one another, we must sink our narrow differences for the cause of the world community, practicing a culture of solidarity and relatedness.

If there is one thing on which we all seem to be able to agree, whether it is as part of a world religion or even as an atheist considering how the world should operate, it is a concept we often call "The Golden Rule." Always treat others as you would want to be treated. Regardless of your political affiliation, regard the opposite side as you would hope that they will consider you. Regardless of which side of the race divide you might occupy, treat people from different races as you would want to be treated. Getting really radical, regardless of what you believe about sexual orientation, treat each other with the respect that you would like them to direct toward you. It doesn't mean that we cannot disagree with each other. But it does mean that we will treat each other with respect and gentleness, listening to the arguments not just so we can respond, but rather striving to understand.

Haman is not a believer in "The Golden Rule." He is a narcissistic leader who believes that the world exists to honor him while taking actions to exterminate a whole race of people who he considers to be unimportant. And so, when Xerxes comes to him asking how the King should honor someone in his kingdom, Haman assumes that the King is talking about him. As a result, Haman gets out a laundry list of the things that he would like to have done in his honor.

Of course, the reader understands the error in Haman's thinking. We know that it is Mordecai that Xerxes desires to honor. And while Haman might have been trying to glorify himself and not fulfill "The Golden Rule," the reality is that Haman is about to give to his enemy precisely what he wished would be given to him. Haman would treat Mordecai as he hoped that he could be treated, but not because "The Golden Rule" is a principle is one on which we can all agree, but because, in his narcissism, he misread the situation and has the principle forced on him by the King.  

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Esther 7

If the king regards me with favor and if it pleases the king to grant my petition and fulfill my request, let the king and Haman come tomorrow to the banquet I will prepare for them. Then I will answer the king’s question.” – Esther 5:8

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 20, 2020): Esther 5

Self-help author, Stephen Richards, in “The Secret of Getting Started: Strategies to Triumph over Procrastination” teaches that “habitual procrastinators will readily testify to all the lost opportunities, missed deadlines, failed relationships and even monetary losses incurred just because of one nasty habit of putting things off until it is often too late.” There is no doubt that delay is often costly. Procrastination is often the main reason that contributes to failure because we end up not even trying. And, the reality is that it is usually better to act quickly, even if it is not the absolute correct action to take; because perfection that comes too late is always wrong.

However, not all delay is procrastination. There is some debate over Esther’s reason to delay her accusation against Haman. Instead of coming into the presence of the King and laying the charge against Haman immediately while alone in his company, Esther appears to procrastinate, delaying the accusation until the time when a banquet could be prepared. For some scholars, this is evidence of Esther’s nervousness, and the banquet represents a delaying tactic, postponing the action she knew she had to take until a later time.

An alternative understanding is that Esther was unwilling to bring the accusation before the King without the one accused standing in the room. It appears that it would have been much more comfortable to accuse Haman during a private meeting with the King than to do so before Haman and many other witnesses at a state dinner. The latter seems to be a much more intimidating task.  

But Esther accusing Haman while both were in the room with the King was also the right thing to do. In our culture, we believe that the accused has a right to confront his or her accuser. Esther makes that possible. Instead of taking the easy path and bringing her complaint against Haman in private, she devises a plan where both the King and the man that she was about to accuse could be brought into the same room before the accusation is made. There is no doubt that Esther was nervous about what she had to do. But Esther also had a plan, and she was willing to wait to make sure it was correctly executed.

Because sometimes, a delay is procrastination, but sometimes delay is part of a well thought through plan and part of making the most of the actions we are about to take.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Esther 6

When Esther's eunuchs and female attendants came and told her about Mordecai, she was in great distress. She sent clothes for him to put on instead of his sackcloth, but he would not accept them. – Esther 4:4

Today's Scripture Reading (September 19, 2020): Esther 4

Too often, all we want to do is solve the problems of those close to us. And usually, all that we are really willing to do is address the symptoms of their distress. Think about it. A friend comes to you with a situation that is bothering them. What is your first response? If you are like most of us, the first place to which your thoughts turn to is how you might be able to fix the problem or at least the symptoms of your friend's distress. It seems to be the nature of who we are; at our core, we are fixers.

But, to our detriment, fixing is not always what it is that we need to do. Often, listening and being willing to share the pain is more beneficial than trying to fix it. And, what is often even worse, our attempts to fix the problem often make us look like we weren't listening to our friend in the first place. In the process of trying to fix the problem, we miss that what the people in our social orbit really need is just somebody willing to listen.

Mordecai goes to the king's gates in his sackcloth, indicating his state of mourning. He can go no further. But word gets to Esther that her cousin is at the king's gate, but that he cannot pass through the gate because he is inappropriately dressed. Interestingly, Esther responds, not by trying to figure out what has caused her cousin to be in mourning, but by sending him clothes that would allow him to pass through the gate. The clothes would let Mordecai go to Esther, but the action seems tone-deaf to the reader. After all, she must know that Mordecai has more appropriate attire. Something must have happened that has sent Mordecai into mourning, and new clothes are not going to solve the problem. However, having Mordecai put on the new clothes would make Esther feel better. She is fixing the symptom instead of addressing the cause of her cousin's discomfort.

Mordecai refuses to put on the clothes. He doesn't need the symptoms of his pain addressed. He needs Esther to come and listen to him, and to struggle with the reason why he was in mourning in the first place. There was something that Esther could do to help, but first, she had to be willing to listen to Mordecai, and not just try to fix the symptoms of his distress.   

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Esther 5

The couriers went out, spurred on by the king’s command, and the edict was issued in the citadel of Susa. The king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city of Susa was bewildered. – Esther 3:15

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 18, 2020): Esther 3

They are the familiar words of John Donne.

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”

We are interconnected, not just as a community or a race, but as joint inhabitants of the planet. Racism, in any of its forms, reduces us all, making all of us less significant. There is no room for ideas that put down other people, regardless of the reason. We are on a journey, and the only way that we can make the most of that journey is if we can link arms and walk together into whatever the future holds. Anything else will always be “less than.”

Haman is insecure, and his pride has been wounded because Mordecai refused to pay him honor. It did not matter what Mordecai’s reasons might be. Haman doesn’t care that this was a religious restriction of the Jewish faith that they reserved the action for their God. Haman’s reaction reminds me of ours; Haman would have been comfortable, and in agreement with our ‘if you are going to live in our society, you need to bend to our rules and leave your faith in the land of your origin” argument. But Haman was not getting what he wanted, and he wanted his revenge.

The twist to the story is that Haman wanted his revenge, not just on the offending Mordecai, but on all of Mordecai’s people. And here, he begins to plot his revenge. He portrays Mordecai’s people as a danger to the kingdom. They are a violent and rebellious people who would eventually cause the end of the empire, and the King needed to do something to stop them. In our culture, the same argument has been used against the Muslim people living among us. And the King seems to be oblivious to Haman’s lie, accepting his claims at face value.

But the people knew differently. These people were their neighbors and friends, and their children played with the other children of the neighborhood. They had never been anything but good, supportive people and good citizens of the empire, strengthening the Kingdom of Xerxes. They weren’t the enemies that Haman had described them to be. And the credibility gap that resulted was what was really dangerous to the empire. The people understood what Haman had missed; the death of Jews would diminish the nation and weaken it, making the country vulnerable to real dangers that surrounded them daily.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Esther 4

Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, named Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, among those taken captive with Jehoiachin king of Judah. – Esther 2:5-6

Today's Scripture Reading (September 17, 2020): Esther 2

Nebuchadnezzar II rose to power in 605 B.C.E. after the death of his father, Nabopolassar, due to natural causes. As soon as his father died, Prince Nebuchadnezzar was rushed home to Babylon to secure the throne. But Nebuchadnezzar does not appear to have stayed in Babylon for long over the next twenty years. Instead, he continued to expand the Empire of his father. And at least twice, but possibly three times, Nebuchadnezzar found himself outside the walls of Jerusalem. And each time, Nebuchadnezzar took back with him to Babylon some of the best and brightest that the nation of Judah had to offer. And one of these times, in 597 B.C.E, during the reign of Jehoiachin, the King who Jeremiah often refers to as "Coniah," a man named Kish was taken to Babylon, among the many others captives stolen from their homes by the Babylonian King.

The author of Esther specifies that it was Kish who was carried out of Jerusalem and into exile. That means that his son, Shimei, was born in exile, as was Shimei's son, Jair, and Jair's son, Mordecai. Only Kish had any memory of what Jerusalem and its Temple had looked like before the fall of the city at the hand of the Babylonians. It was Kish that might have heard the words of the Prophet Jeremiah, explicitly written to the exiles, in the early days of their captivity. "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future" (Jeremiah 29:11). Likely, Kish never went home again, and neither did his son, and grandson, and even great-grandson, Mordecai.

What the family of Kish did do was build their lives and connect with the Jewish community that was being formed outside of Judea. Mordecai, Kish's great-grandson, was a man who was deeply connected with his Jewish heritage, and yet had no connection with Jerusalem or the land of this fathers. The descendants of Kish had settled in the vital community of Susa, located in modern-day Iran. Incidentally, Susa is built adjacent to the modern city of Shush, which is also the place where the Tomb of the Prophet Daniel is thought to be found. In fact, it seems likely that Kish and Daniel were removed from Jerusalem at the same time, and neither of them would see home again. Instead, they would build their lives and form their families in a land that they did not know, among people who were strangers to them.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Esther 3

For the queen's conduct will become known to all the women, and so they will despise their husbands and say, 'King Xerxes commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, but she would not come.' – Esther 1:17

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 16, 2020): Esther 1

Nineteenth-Century poet and philosopher, David Henry Thoreau, taught that "if you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. But do not care to convince him. Men will believe what they see. Let them see." People learn more by watching our lives than they will ever know by what we verbally tell them, maybe partially because what we tell them is often the opposite of our actions. "Do what I say, not what I do" has never been great parenting advice, and it is not the motto of an influencer. Those who seek to influence us, walk the path in front of us and invite us to follow. It is because of this that the Apostle Paul offered this simple advice to the Corinthian Church; "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). The words of a true leader are always, "don't do what I say, do what I do. Just follow in my footsteps, and I will lead you to where we need to go."

Memukan was a trusted advisor of King Xerxes and one of seven vice-regents of the Kingdom. Scholars have openly wondered if Memukan could have been another name for Haman, that arch-villain of the story of Esther, although that connection is made nowhere in the book. But Memukan understood the precedent put forward by both Thoreau and the Apostle Paul, that people believe what it is that they see. And when Queen Vashti refused to answer the call of King Xerxes to come into his presence, Memukan became concerned.

For feminists, Vashti is a hero of the movement. Her crime was that she refused to obey her husband and perform her duties by being a beautiful ornament at the side of the King for a public occasion. According to contemporary standards, Vashti had every right to refuse her husband, regardless of the reason for the Queen's disobedience. But by ancient standards, she was expected to appear at the King's beck and call.

Vashti's refusal was problematic for Memukan. The King had just spent a substantial amount of time, a little more than half the year, showing off his power and prestige before the people of the empire. Vashti's disobedience was proving the limitations of Xerxes' power. Xerxes may well be in control of the nation, yet, he couldn't control the actions of his wife. Memukan was afraid that Vashti's disobedience would become an example for other women to follow. In his mind, the direct result of Vashti's disobedience was the disobedience of other women in the empire. Men were about to lose control over their homes, all because the queen refused to obey a command issued by the King.

We may disagree with Memukan's premise, but that doesn't really impact the story. All we need to understand is that Memukan saw a severe problem, and that required a drastic solution. And Memukan is about to propose that very solution.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Esther 2

Before she goes into labor, she gives birth before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. – Isaiah 66:7

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 15, 2020): Isaiah 66

American fantasy and science fiction author Brandon Sanderson, in "The Way of Kings," argues that "sometimes the prize is not worth the costs. The means by which we achieve victory are as important as the victory itself." Every victory carries with it a cost, and one of the big questions that we have to ask ourselves is whether or not the cost is too great for the victory that we win by paying it.

Maybe the military practice of the United States is an excellent example of this principle. There is no doubt what constitutes a win for the American government. They seek to expand their influence over the world in opposition to the ever-expanding influences of nations like Russia and China. With influence comes access to overseas markets necessary to the bottom line of the country. The American government has been accused of being present in the Middle East only for the oil that is present in the region, but that is just part of the motive behind the nation's presence outside of its borders. The economic access that comes with influence pays the salaries of the nation's multinational companies, a source of income that would dry up if the influence of the United States suddenly disappeared. There is also a strong belief that their presence plays a part in stopping terrorist attacks, like the one on 9/11, at home. And there is a genuine feeling of responsibility to help ally nations with their struggles and to help protect them against their adversaries. All of this supplies at least part of the motive.

But it also comes with a cost. Soldiers die every month on foreign ground. The United States has always had a strong desire to keep within themselves, building a wall between them and the rest of the world (no, this was not something new with Donald Trump.) And when things go wrong abroad, or when the American military is forced to take action in support of the motive, the national image takes an international hit, building a strong sense of hate against the Americans in foreign lands, wherever you might find them. The question the American Government is left with is whether the cost is too much to pay to achieve the intended gains. We have all gone through that calculation. We want something, but we have to decide whether or not the price tag is within our ability to pay.

Isaiah switches the conversation. What if you could achieve what you want at no cost. He uses the image of a child being born. One of the fears of many prospective first-time mothers is the pain of childbirth. I have heard more than one young girl proclaim that they don't want to have children because they don't want the pain involved in the process of giving birth. In the end, most mothers will tell you the gift of the child is well worth the discomfort of the birth process. But what if all that was taken away. What if there were no pain in childbirth, and what if victory could be gained without a cost.

Isaiah's prophecy is precisely that for the nation of Israel. The time is coming when you will gain your victory, and it will cost you nothing. I am pretty sure that we have not seen that glorious day yet. Everything that Israel gains now comes at a very high price, and the question of the price for existence is one that seems to be continually evaluated. But Isaiah says that one day that question will disappear, as God gives the victory without a price to be paid.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Esther 1

… who say, 'Keep away; don't come near me, for I am too sacred for you!' Such people are smoke in my nostrils, a fire that keeps burning all day. – Isaiah 65:5

 Today's Scripture Reading (September 14, 2020): Isaiah 65

In 1981, the Canadian rock band Klaatu released their album, Magentalane. And one of the tracks included on the album was entitled "Blue Smoke." It is a song that, for some reason, has stuck with me.

When that blue smoke gets in your eyes
You'll choke, choke 'til you cry
Oh, you'll die
Hey, where you gonna hide
Well, you can talk about the fog in London
But listen, mister that ain't nothing
When that blue smoke gets in your eyes

And it is John Woloschuk's words that return to me as I read these words of Isaiah. God is speaking about self-righteous people who think that they are better than everyone else. If you listen to them as they talk, no one measures up to the standard that they project. Charles Spurgeon writes this about this kind of person. "Self-righteous men, like foxes, have many tricks and schemes. They condemn in other people what they consider to be very excusable in themselves. They would cry out against others for a tenth part of the sin which they allow in themselves." And, maybe, that is the part of the problem. Self-righteous people see the error in themselves, but they struggle to maintain their worth by condemning the same faults in others, even when those faults occur in lesser degrees while pretending that these same faults are absent in their lives.

And maybe that is why God reacts so strongly against these self-righteous people. He says that they are like "smoke in my nostrils" (cue the John Woloschuik lyrics.) The smoke starts in the nostrils as an irritant, and then it gets into your eyes and your throat, causing fits of coughing and gagging, stealing away from you the air that you need to live. And there is nothing that you can do except get away from the offending smoke.

One of our biggest problems is that there is nothing about us that has anything to do with righteousness. Any righteousness we possess, we gain from our relationship with God and, therefore, it is rightly "his" righteousness. Left to our own devices, we will always act out on the same error that we despise in the people around us. We can pretend that we are righteous, but we will forever be just actors on the stage, playing out the role that we have set before us.

Charles Spurgeon goes on to say that, "This weed of self-righteousness will grow on any dunghill. No heap of rubbish is too rotten for the accursed toadstool of proud self to grow upon." He draws a horrible picture, but one that we know is true because we recognize our self-righteousness in the description, which means that we all have the opportunity to become the "blue smoke" in the nostrils (and eyes) of God.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Isaiah 66