But I Say: Love Your Enemies

My emotions have ran the gamut with the shooting at the Amish School in Pennsylvania. At first was the shock and horror, and then anger as yet again, girls were the target. And then I felt awe as the Amish embraced the family of the man who had slaughtered their daughters. It is very rare we see Christ in action–even from those of us who say we are part of his body: the church. When I look at the Amish community and see their actions, I see Christ. And I see what it means to be Christ in this world. I catch a glimpse of how the church is to be the body of Christ in this world.

Ben Witherington has an excellent evaluation and response to the Amish love, grace, and forgiveness in Lessons from the Amish—the Power of Pacifism.

God, make me more like the Amish. Make more like Christ. Amen.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Sermon: The Old Testament Says That?

I love the Old Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures for one simple reason: I love a good story. And over half of the Hebrew Scriptures is story or narrative. A lot of times we just look at the stories in the Hebrew Scriptures as straight history–this is what happened. We tend to view them with Dragnet eyes: “Just the facts, ma’am.” It’s one more history lesson to be put beside the Revolutionary War and the Civil Rights Movement. But that’s not why Israel remembered these stories as Scripture. The reason these stories have been kept and passed down through the generations for three millennia is not just to keep track of family or national history.

These stories were kept and passed down for two reasons: the first is to show what being in a relationship with God looked like in the everyday world. The second is to show what walking away from God into sin looked like in the everyday world. These stories have been remembered and passed on to visually show what living the 10 commandments looks like in the ordinary, everyday, messy world we call life. Stories are also easier to remember than a bunch of rules and regulations–so by putting the Torah into story form to show how it worked in everyday life, the Israelites made it easier for their children and succeeding generations to remember the right way to walk with God. Let me illustrate: how many of you know the laws which govern being a kinsman-redeemer in Leviticus? Anyone know those off the top of your head? Yeah, me either. In fact, I would need a concordance to find where the kinsman-redeemer regulations are in Leviticus. But how many of you know the story of Ruth? How many of you could tell the story off the top of your head? What was Boaz in the story of Ruth?

The story of Ruth is the first one I want to look at. We’re going to be looking at several biblical stories today that illustrate what we’ve been learning on the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7). We’ve been studying what is known as the antitheses–where Jesus said “You have heard it was said, but I say to you” (Matthew 5:21-48). These are the three I want to cover:

You have heard it was said to those of ancient times (notice Jesus does not say it was said in Scripture) “You shall not murder.” But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister you will be liable to judgment. You have heard it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

The two sayings of Jesus the book of Ruth illustrates are do not look on a woman in lust and love your enemy. Ruth has traveled to Bethlehem with Naomi because their husbands are dead, and Naomi wanted to return to her homeland of Israel. Ruth would not leave her and followed her. In order to feed them Ruth starts gleaning wheat in the fields that was left behind by the harvesters. She doesn’t know she’s in a field of a man who is a relative of Naomi. Boaz sees the new woman in the fields and wants to know who she is. He is told that she is the Moabite who returned with Naomi and is now gleaning wheat for them. She’s a hard worker–in Ruth 2:7 the servant tells Boaz, “She has been on her feet from early this morning until now, without resting even for a moment.” Ruth was a foreigner, a Moabite. Boaz was not obligated to let her glean his fields: he was only obligated to the children of Israel. Technically Ruth was part of the enemy–part of the nations that had harassed Israel and would for sometime. But Boaz treats her with dignity and respect: he tells her to only glean in his fields, and he orders his men not take advantage of her because she is a foreigner. His compassion surprises Ruth who says, “Why have I found favor in your sight, that you should take notice of me, when I am a foreigner?” But Boaz has heard Ruth’s story: how she left everything to follow Naomi and taker care of her. He looks past her nationality to the woman she really is. Not only does Boaz, not take advantage her of because she’s a foreigner, he makes sure no one in his employment does either. Boaz could have looked on this foreign woman with lust and did pretty much what he wanted to with her. But he didn’t. He did everything in his power to provide for both her and Naomi: he fed her at his table and gave her extra wheat to take home to Naomi.

When Ruth made it know that she and Naomi wanted him to act as a kinsman-redeemer by marrying Ruth and taking both her and Naomi into his house, he didn’t balk at marrying a woman who was technically his enemy. In fact, he took care of the matter the next day. There was a closer relative than Boaz, but that relative did not want to jeopardize his inheritance. Boaz married Ruth and fulfilled his obligations as a kinsman-redeemer to a foreign woman whose nation had been and would continue to be Israel’s enemy many times over. In this story we see that Boaz did not take lustful advantage of Ruth but treated her with dignity and respect, and he married her although she was from enemy territory.

The next story I want to look at is wholly about loving your enemy. It’s found in 2 Kings 6:8-23. Elisha is one of Israel’s finest and most powerful prophets. In this story he keeps telling the king of Israel where the king of Aram is going to set up camp and attack, so Israel can win. This hacks off the king of Aram who decides he’s going to get this prophet, so his plans stop being thwarted. He sends soldiers to find Elisha and seize him, so that Elisha would be a prophet for him instead of against him. The soldiers hunt Elisha down and surround the city he is in. Elisha’s servant sees the army and freaks out while Elisha prays for his eyes to be opened to see God’s army encircling them as well. Elisha then prays for the soldiers to be struck blind which happens. Then Elisha leads the soldiers of Aram to Samaria, Israel’s capital city. The king of Samaria wants to kill the enemy. But Elisha retorts in v. 22, “No! Did you capture with your sword and your bow those whom you want to kill? Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink; and let them go to their master.” That’s what happens–the enemy who had come to kidnap Elisha and carry him off to Aram is fed and then let go to return to Aram. I love the last part of verse 23: for some strange reason “the Arameans no longer came raiding into the land of Israel.” Aram was no longer Israel’s enemy.

We’ve looked at two stories that positively illustrate what Jesus was teaching on the Sermon on the Mount–they’ve showed what it looks like when we obey God in our everyday, ordinary lives. We’ve looked at two of the three sayings we want to cover: Don’t commit adultery by not lusting and love your enemy. Now we’re going to look at the third–It’s not enough not to murder, but don’t be angry. But this time the person doesn’t obey; he chooses to sin, and anger, which is not dealt with but indulged, leads to murder. This story is found in Genesis 4. Cain and Abel are the sons of Adam and Eve. Cain is a farmer; Abel is a rancher. They both bring offerings to God: God accepts Abel’s and rejects Cain’s. Cain gets angry. God doesn’t let him sulk but says to him in verses 6-7, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” I want you to notice something–Cain hasn’t sinned yet. He’s angry, but God tells him to deal with his anger before he sins. Which he could have done: he could have offered the right sacrifice and got on with life, but he didn’t. He stayed angry at God for rejecting his sacrifice. The only problem was is he couldn’t get his hands on God. But he could get his hands on God’s favorite: Abel. He leads Abel out to field and murders him giving into his anger. When God confronts Cain with his sin, he tries to pass it off, but God doesn’t let him. We find his punishment in verse 12, “When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” God marked Cain so no one could kill him in revenge, but he would be a fugitive for the rest of his life for not dealing with his anger when he had a chance to.

The last two stories I want to look at deal with all three sayings we’ve been looking at. One shows what happens when the commands aren’t obeyed: lust leads to adultery which leads to murder. The other shows a man who chose to walk with God and obey Him although he would have been justified in indulging in anger, revenge, and murder. I like how both of these stories show how the commands intertwine around one another–how breaking one leads to breaking another, or how obeying one gives you the foundation for obeying the rest. They also show how these commands work in our everyday life in the messy world of reality.

The first story we’ll look at is the negative one: the man who chose to disobey God because he was king and thought he could do whatever he wanted and get away with it. This man was David, and he thought he could take another man’s wife and no one would be the wiser for it. The story is found in 2 Samuel 11–12. Instead of going with his men David stays in the palace. One night he gets up and goes for a walk on the palace roof where he sees a woman bathing. A note here–this was part of the culture. What was basically big barrels were kept on the roof to collect rainwater and then the people would bathe in them. Right then David should have turned around and walked away. But he didn’t and he noticed she was beautiful. Again he could have turned away and worked out his lust on one of his many wives or concubines, but he didn’t. Even after finding out she was the wife of one of his soldiers, whom he had sent out to war, he still commanded her to be brought to the palace. He committed adultery then sent her home thinking that would be the end of it. But Bathsheeba is pregnant. David calls her husband home in hopes he will sleep with her, and everyone will assume the baby is Uriah’s. But Uriah doesn’t cooperate: he will not sleep with his wife while his brothers are still fighting. So David gets him drunk and Uriah still doesn’t go home. David then sends him back to the frontline and has him murdered. And here is the greatest irony. Jesus said “You have heard it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you love your enemy.” Uriah wasn’t the enemy–he was the neighbor. He wasn’t just a soldier either. Uriah was one of David’s 30 mighty men–he was part of David’s inner circle. David took a friend’s wife then had him murdered to cover his own sin. If we choose to sin–one act of sin doesn’t stay one sin for long. It also affects everyone around us. One of the reasons this is one of my favorite biblical stories is it shows the corporate nature of sin: sin is never personal, and it’s never private. If we choose to sin, it will affect the lives of everyone around us. Look at the rest of 2 Samuel. Look at David’s children. A son rapes his daughter. Another son kills the rapist. That son then leads an insurrection against David tearing the country apart, and that son dies as well. I see this in my own family where my parent’s generation has quite a few alcoholics and my generation has drug addicts. Sin multiplies itself and it spreads. That’s why it has to be nipped in the bud while it’s temptation. That’s why it’s so important for us to walk away from temptation and do what God wants us to do. That’s why Jesus said it’s better to gouge out an eye or cut off a hand to keep from sinning. Once an act of sin is committed it will grow and multiply. David committed one act of sin he thought he could get away with, and look at what happened. The sad thing is all David had to do to avoid all of this was turn around and walk away.

David decided to walk in his own ways, but Joseph decided to walk in God’s ways. Joseph’s story is told in Genesis 37–50. If anyone had reason to give into hate and vengeance it was Joseph. Thrown into a pit and sold into captivity by his own brothers, he had good reason to hate them. After he arrived in Egypt he was sold to Potiphar. Things went well in Potiphar’s house. In fact Potiphar places Joseph over his household, and things are looking up for him. Until Potiphar’s wife sees him. She likes what she sees, and she decides she wants Joseph and goes after him. Joseph refused. But she kept on the offensive, and one day devised a plan to get him into her bed. She sent all the servants away so it would be just the two of them. When he came into the house she grabbed him and urged him to lie with her again. Joseph scrambled out his garment and ran out of the house. Potiphar’s wife decided that was the last time that slave would slight her, so she concocted a story of Joseph attempting to rape her. And for being an honest man who would not betray his master and sin against his God, Joseph was rewarded by being thrown in prison.

While in prison Joseph once again found favor in the warden’s eyes. He interpreted dreams for the king’s baker and winetaster, which both came true. And when Pharoah had a dream that disturbed him the winetaster remembered Joseph. Joseph interpreted the dream, and gave the Pharoah a plan that would keep Egypt from starving to death. In the seven years of plenty, food must be stockpiled for the seven years of famine. Pharoah made Joseph the second-in-command over Egypt and in charge of distributing the food during the famine.

The famine was not only in Egypt it was also in Israel. So Jacob sent Joseph’s brothers to Egypt for food. Joseph puts his brothers through a couple of tests to see if they were the same men who had sold him into slavery, and he sees their regret for what they did. He reveals himself to them, and he tells them not to be distressed for God had sent him ahead to preserve the family during this time of famine. Joseph had absolute power over his brothers. He could have commanded them to be jailed or killed. But he didn’t. He forgave them. He forgave his enemy–his family. Then he took care of them. He sent the brothers back to Israel to get Jacob and their families, and he arranged for them have land in Goshen, he provided food for them, and they lived under his protection.

In Genesis 50 after Jacob’s death the brothers once again feared that Joseph might seek the vengeance that was rightfully his to seek for what they did. They went to him with a story of Jacob wanting Joseph to forgive his brothers for the wrong they had done. Joseph once again reassured his brothers that he would not seek revenge. In verse 19 he tells them “Do not be afraid? Am I in the place of God?” He left vengeance in God’s hands. Once again he reminded his brothers that what they had done to harm him God had used to save many lives–including their family. And he reaffirmed his intention of taking care of their families and providing for them.

Joseph–a man who had the right to be angry and take revenge but didn’t. He gave his anger to God and followed God’s ways, no matter how hard it was or how much it cost him. He forgave his enemies–his brothers. He also kept his life pure by not sleeping with Potiphar’s wife when he had the chance. He was tempted to anger, to murder, and to adultery, and in each case he obeyed his God and did what was right.

I wonder as Jesus was saying these things if the people were thinking of these stories. When Jesus said, “You have hard it was said of those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment” were they thinking, “Yeah remember Cain? He gave into his anger and became the first murderer”? When Jesus said, “You have heard it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” were they thinking, “Too bad David didn’t heed that advice? That would have saved him a lot of heartbreak”? And when Jesus said “Love your enemy” did they think of Elisha and the Arameans or Joseph who forgave the worst kind of enemy of all: those who are close to us and betray us?

Jesus wasn’t telling the people anything they didn’t already know. He was just reminding them of their own stories and taking away all of the nonbiblical rules and regulations that had choked out the principles in these stories.

Just as Jesus reminded them of their story, he reminds us of our story. The story reminds us that God has always called his people to live differently than the world around them. Hate is replaced with love, lust with respect, and enemies with friends, spouses, and family.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

My Heart Is Heavy

I cannot believe that this country has just legalized torture. This country better stop claiming to be “Christian.” There is absolutely nothing Christlike about legalizing torture and inhumane abuse. I have been horrified since I found out the Senate passed this ungodly and un-Constitutional bill. I just don’t have the words to describe the horror I feel.

I found great comfort in this prayer of repentance.

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Career Women of the Bible: Standing Between Life and Death

In two previous articles I looked at Deborah and Jael, and their prophetic and priestly ministries. Now I would like to look at two women who preceded them as prophets and priests: Miriam and Zipporah.

Deborah is not the first to sing a song of victory to Yahweh. Miriam began the tradition after the crossing of the Reed Sea. Miriam was also a prophet, worship leader, and a co-leader with Moses and Aaron (Micah 6:4). Tradition says she is the unnamed sister who kept watch over Moses and arranged for their mother to nurse the child for Pharaoh’s daughter. Jewish tradition also reports that it was Miriam’s well which provided the Israelites with water during the wilderness wanderings. She is the first woman named as a prophet and every verse, which describes women going out to sing and dance victory reflects back to her.

Exodus 15:19 is the first place Miriam is named. She is called a prophet and the sister of Aaron but not Moses. At first reading it appears that she leads only the women in a fragment of the song which Moses led the people in worship in 15:1-18. But a closer look at the whole literary structure of the passage offers a different interpretation. Exodus 15:21 ends the first major unit of the book. It began with women in chapter one: midwives who, instead of obeying Pharaoh, feared God. The narrative continued with the mother, sister, and daughter who saved Moses. The unit now ends with the sister and daughters worshipping the God who had just delivered them from the hand of Pharaoh; if Miriam is the unnamed sister of chapter 1 she is an inclusio to the Exodus narrative.

Although Miriam is named a prophet no where in Scripture does she function in the traditional prophetic role of speaking forth the word of God. She does start a liturgical tradition. It is agreed that Exodus 15:21 is one of the oldest texts in the Old Testament; it is also believed that the original “Song of the Sea” is Miriam’s. Verse 19 recounts Yahweh’s deliverance of the Israelite people and the destruction of Pharaoh’s troops at the Reed Sea. In the next verse Miriam apparently leads the women in dancing and celebrating Yahweh’s victory, but shir, “sing” has a masculine plural direct object (not feminine), which implies that she lead all the people in celebrating and worship.

In Has the Lord Indeed Spoken Only Through Moses? Rita J. Burns shows that not only was dancing part of celebrating victories in Israel’s life, it was also part of it’s liturgical life. The thing that distinguishes Miriam’s dance and song from those of Deborah, Jephthah’s daughter, and the women in 1 Samuel 18:6 is that there is no human component in this fight and victory. Yahweh alone acted on Israel’s behalf–none of the Israelites fought against the Egyptians; they stood and watched Yahweh defeat their enemy.

Another way dance was used within the life of Israel and surrounding nations was re-presenting past victories. The battle was re-enacted through dance to celebrate the victory. There is no doubt for Israel that the Exodus is the foundation of their faith confession. The Exodus would be the definitive act of God among them for the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, and would undergird their belief that Yahweh would act on their behalf. This victory would become the paradigm for Israel’s worship.

In her analysis Burns uses the Exodus 32 narrative of the golden calves and the celebration happening around them to show that victory celebrations re-enacted the battle itself. In verse 17 Joshua hears the people’s revelry and thinks that there is a war going on in the camp. The people’s celebrations, which included dancing, sounded like a battle. The reason for the dancing and celebration in Exodus 32 is the same as in Exodus 15: Aaron told the people that the calves were the gods that had brought them out of Egypt, and the people were worshipping them and celebrating the victory at the Reed Sea. In fact throughout the Hebrew Scriptures dance is a “recurring feature in celebrations of victory” (Burns, 29).

In Israelite worship dance was used as a way of re-enacting the battle Yahweh had fought for them, so they could remember his deliverance and salvation and pass that faith on to the next generation. There are no instances of war dances in the Hebrew Scriptures where the celebration happened before the battle to insure victory. These dances always happened after Yahweh had acted, after he had saved the people and delivered them from their enemies.

This is the context of Miriam’s dance–she began the Israelite tradition of celebrating God’s victories through dance. It is very likely that this dance was enacted later, and used in shrine worship during the wilderness wanderings. Miriam began a liturgical tradition that would, not only remind the people what God had done for them, but introduce future generations to the power and strength of the Warrior God who would come and fight for them.

Scripture never tells us if Miriam was married. The only men she is connected with are her brothers, Moses and Aaron. Since these verses are from the earliest known traditions, it is clear that Miriam did play a big role in Israelite belief and life before the entrance into Canaan. Scripture also shows her as a leader among the people, and leading them in their first cultic celebration of God’s deliverance from the Egyptians. That she was a co-leader with Moses and Aaron during this time is seen in the prophetic tradition, which remembers, “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of slavery; and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” (Micah 6:4). As part of the triumvirate that God used to deliver his people, Miriam played an integral role from watching over her brother on the Nile, to leading the people in celebration of what God had done for them, to establishing a liturgical tradition so that the people would remember the power and strength of their God.

Miriam does not fare as well later in the Torah. The book of Numbers categorically eliminates all other contenders to the priesthood, so that Aaron and his sons will be the rightful priests of the Israelite nation. Korah and his followers, although from the line of Levi, are denied the priesthood or any leadership role in Israel. They and their families die for their insubordination to Moses and Aaron (Numbers 16). The line is further narrowed to Phineas, son of Aaron, after his two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu offer “illicit fire” before Yahweh (Numbers 3:4). Nestled between these two accounts is another elimination: Miriam.

The account in Numbers 12 is after the anointing of the seventy elders to help Moses govern the people (along with Moses’ wish that more were called to be prophets) and the twelve spies sent to spy the land in chapter 13, and the people’s subsequent rebellion in chapter 14. The people refuse to go up and take the land that God has promised them, condemning themselves to wander another 40 years in the wilderness.

Numbers 12 is one of those passages that is hard to understand exactly what is going on. In verse 1 it appears that Miriam and Aaron have a complaint against Moses’ Cushite wife, but then in verse 2 they say, “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” It is this complaint that Yahweh answers to. Although there has been much speculation about the first complaint regarding Moses’ Cushite wife, I will focus on the second complaint and its consequences.

As soon as the words in verse 2 are out of Miriam and Aaron’s mouths, Yahweh hears and appears. He calls the three siblings to the tent of meeting and rebukes Miriam and Aaron for their audacity to claim equal leadership with Moses. Yes, Yahweh has spoken through prophets and priests like Miriam and Aaron through visions and dreams, but his relationship with Moses is unique: “With him I speak face to face–clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the LORD” (Numbers 12:8). Moses’ special place within the Israelite cult is affirmed: he is not just a prophet: he is the prophet of Yahweh. Yahweh speaks to no one else as he does to Moses.

After the cloud leaves the tent of meeting, Miriam is found to have leprosy. She is the only one punished, and her co-instigator, not only gets away without punishment, Aaron is the one who intercedes on her behalf to Moses. As in the sin of making the golden calf and leading the people to worship it, once again the high priest Aaron is not punished or even rebuked for his sin. The Aaronic priesthood insures that its forefather maintains his purity to perform his duties as high priest. Once again another contender for leading cultic ritual is eliminated; this time it is the sister of the high priest, Miriam.

It is possible that these verses are a polemical against the worship of female deities. Within the prophetic tradition the worship of the goddesses Astarte, Tammuz, and the Queen of Heaven were denounced as idolatry, and the people were called to repent of worshipping deities other than Yahweh. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel called women who worshipped these deities to repent of their idolatry (Jeremiah 7:17-18 and Ezekiel 8:14), and both of them blamed the exile on idolatry and the forsaking of Yahweh for other gods. In the postexilic redaction of Numbers any female leader, especially one with cult associations and the sister to the greatest prophet and the first high priest in Israel, would be open to the diminishment of her leadership role. As noted above the prophetic tradition also remembers her being an equal with Moses and Aaron in leadership (Micah 6:4).

The fact that the people did not move on until Miriam could come back into the camp signifies her importance within the community. It is also significant that this passage comes right before the people’s rebellion that will lead them back into the wilderness for another 40 years. Miriam could symbolize Israel in these verses. Israel sinned against God and its leaders, and the adults would pay for it by dying in the wilderness and not entering the land. But they were forgiven, as was Miriam.

Miriam’s flesh being half-consumed is also a picture of one hanging between life and death. As Moses would stand in intercession between life and death many times for the people, and as Aaron would run between life and death with a censer of incense to stop a plague (Numbers 16:41-50), so Miriam would stand between life and death foreshadowing the grave sin the people would make in chapter 14. Although punished for her rising up against her brother and put out of the camp, she symbolizes the people who would rebel against God and yet live. As one who has lived between life and death, she also stands as an intercessor for them, mediating the grace and forgiveness that she received from God.

As Phyllis Trible has noted, although later redactors would reduce Miriam’s role and push her to the margins, they could not diminish her role absolutely. She would remain the first woman to be named prophet, and her liturgical tradition of dancing and singing Israel’s victories would continue for generations to come. The liturgical tradition she started in her celebration of Yahweh’s victory at the Reed Sea would continue through the ages re-telling the story of Yahweh’s deliverance to each new generation.

Numbers 20:1 records Miriam’s obituary: she died and is buried at Kadesh, a city that will later become one of the cities of refuge, a symbol of the cult and signify holy ground.

Miriam was not the only strong woman whom God called to stand between life and death in the life of Moses. Zipporah, the daughter of a priest, also acts in a cultic role. Like, Miriam she also looks over Moses and saves the lives of her family.

On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the LORD met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, “Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” So he let him alone. It was then she said, “A bridegroom of blood by circumcision” (Exodus 4:24-26).

With these three verses we turn to the next woman I want to look at who functions in a priestly role, Zipporah. These are three of the most mythic, problematic verses in the Bible. Commentators have had many and various ways these verses should be read and interpreted.

Zipporah is the wife of Moses. She, Moses, and their sons have just left Midian and are on their way to Egypt in obedience to what God has told Moses to do. Then Yahweh comes against either Moses or one of their sons to try to kill him. Quick thinking and quick acting Zipporah circumcises either her husband or her son, applies the bloody foreskin to one of their feet or genitals (feet are a euphemism for genitals in the Hebrew Scriptures), and the wrath of Yahweh is averted. Zipporah is the only human named, and the only human to act in this account.

In the verses right before this incident Yahweh tells Moses what he is to say to Pharaoh: he is to let Yahweh’s people go, and if he does not let Yahweh’s firstborn son go then Pharaoh’s son shall die. In light of the context these verses foreshadow the Passover.

But why should Yahweh come against Moses or one of his sons to try to kill him? Bernard Robinson thinks the reason is Moses’ reluctance earlier in chapter 4 to obey God’s calling to go and demand Pharaoh to release his people. He seems to think that either Moses or his son not being circumcised would not warrant this action on Yahweh’s part. Terrence Fretheim thinks it is a combination of both: “Moses’ continued resistance to the divine call, occasioning God’s wrath (4:14), and his failure concerning circumcision are signs that do not bode well for the future” (p. 81). Is Moses still having reprehensions? Is Yahweh growing tired of his excuses? We will never know.

What we do know is how Yahweh’s wrath was adverted and Moses (or his son) was spared. Zipporah quickly circumcises either Moses or her son and touches the bloody foreskin to the feet or genitals of one of them. She acts as mediator between Yahweh and her family. She also acts as a priest. In a salvific moment that will foreshadow the Passover she circumcises one of the men in her life and applies the blood to save one or both. This is the only written record we have of a woman performing an act of blood sacrifice in the Bible or in Near Eastern religion.

Ironically the priesthood that would later go on to minimize Miriam’s role in the wilderness traditions as a cultic leader begins with a woman, and not even an Israelite woman. A foreign woman is the first person in Exodus to offer a blood sacrifice that averts the wrath of God and once again saves Moses.

Two women with ties to the cult. One married and one single yet both stand on their own in their stories. As we saw in the previous articles these women hear God’s voice, see his actions, and respond, not only in obedience, but their actions (as Deborah and Jael’s) save the lives of others. Miriam and Zipporah are mediators and intercessors standing between life and death. One is also an usurper who reminds us that when we do overstep our bounds, there will be consequences, but also forgiveness.

The traditions of Zipporah and Miriam remind us that as women, we, too, are called to stand between life and death in the world we live–for our families, our communities, and even those who consider us to be outsiders. They were called, not because of who their husbands were or what their husbands did, but because they were available and open to God’s calling in their life. They heard his voice and they followed.

Sources

Shawna Renee Bound, Your Daughters Shall Prophesy: A Biblical Theology of Single Women in Ministry, unpublished thesis, (© by Shawna Renee Bound 2002).

Athalya Brenner and Fokkelien Van Dihk-Hemmes, On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible (New York: E.J. Brill, 1993).

Rita J. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken Only Through Moses? A Study of the Biblical Portrait of Miriam, SBL Dissertation Series 84 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).

Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).

Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1993).

Ellen Frankel, The Five Books of Miriam: A Woman’s Commentary on the Torah (San Francisco: HarperCollins Publisher, 1996).

Terrence E. Fretheim, Exodus (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991).

E. John Hamlin, Judges: At Risk in the Promised Land (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990).

Bernard P. Robinson, “Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus 4:24-6,” Vetus Testamentum 36 (October 1986): 452-3.

Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Numbers: Journeying with God (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995).

Phyllis Trible, “Bringing Miriam Out of the Shadows,” Bible Review 5 (February 1989), 23-4.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

A Meditation

Prophecies

The young woman from Palestine was emphatic
“Prophecy is not for sale!” She wasn’t referring
to the cheapness some now pass off as prophecy,
the predictions of rapture and hellfire to come
that some embrace for solid ground in these
quick sands of time.

No, it was with the breath
of Miriam and Deborah, Isaiah and Amos that
she breathed, remembering those whose prophecies
stood not as a foretelling but a forthtelling—
speaking forth the truth about what was happening NOW,
telling out the tales that others wanted to ignore.

I doubt these prophets ever passed the hat
because what they said wasn’t often popular, and
more than one risked death because they
refused to sell their prophecies, refused to
shape them into something that could more easily
fit their listeners’ ears

The young woman who has seen the rivers of blood
in her homeland has also heard the breath of Christians
at the door who believe that these are the days
of prophecies being fulfilled. Casting their lots
in the Holy Land, they gamble for the cloak of rapture
while the holy ones die all around them.

She just reminded me of you Hildegard, that’s all.
Prophecies and visions.
The real ones don’t often make you rich.

Jan L. Richardson, Sacred Journeys: A Woman’s Book of Daily Prayer, pp. 364-5.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Book Review: The Secret Message of Jesus

The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that Could Change Everything by Brain McLaren, (Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 2006), $19.00.

Why is the vision of Jesus hinted at in Dan Brown’s book more interesting, more attractive, and more intriguing to these people than the standard version of Jesus they hear about from churches? Why would they be disappointed to find that Brown’s version of Jesus has been largely discredited as fanciful and inaccurate, leaving only the church’s conventional version? Is it possible that even though Brown’s fictional version misleads in many ways, it at least serves to open up the possibility that the church’s conventional versions of Jesus may not do him justice?

These are some of the questions Brain McLaren asks in the introduction to his latest book, The Secret Message of Jesus. McLaren also points out all of the interest in the Gnostic Gospels in the last few years. And he asks the same questions: why are people fascinated by the Jesus they see there and not the Jesus the church puts forth? Then he asks these questions, which are the thesis of the book:

What if the problem isn’t with our accepted stories of Jesus (the stories given us by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in contrast to these alternate accounts) but rather with our success at domesticating them and with our failure to see them in their native wildness and original vigor? What if, properly understood, the canonical (or accepted) Gospel of Matthew is far more radical and robust than the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, or the canonical Gospel of John is far more visionary and transformative than the apocryphal Gospel of Peter–if only we “had ears to hear,” as Jesus says?

McLaren’s point is that the Jesus we see at church; the Jesus televangelists proclaim, the Jesus presented to our culture in a variety of ways is not the Jesus of the Bible. This book is a search through the gospels for the Jesus they present.

McLaren begins by examining the history into which Jesus was born. He looks at the Jewish state under Roman occupation, and how the Jews had been under occupation since their return from exile under Darius. Throughout that time the apocalyptic literature began to form. Instead of the view that God would break into history and free Isreal from foreign occupation so they could be the people of God in the land of God, Jewish writers began to see God ending history and beginning a new era called the Kingdom of God, in which God’s Messiah would rule. The Jews could see no way for God’s kingdom to be realized in the world as it was. McLaren points out that one of the scandels of Jesus’ message was that Jesus said the Kingdom of God was at hand. The kingdom was here. It could be grasped; it could be attained. For the Jews of that time they could not imagine why Jesus would be saying this. Everyone knew the Kingdom of God could not come while the Romans ruled.

Jesus’ proclamation that the Kingdom of God is here–that it is growing among us like yeast working its way through dough–corrects one of the biggest heresies of Protestantism, particularly Protestant Evangelicalism. This heresy is that the gospel is personal and private. That this relationship is just between me and Jesus and nothing else matters. McLaren points out that yes, Jesus’ message is personal, but it is far from private. Jesus’ gospel is personal and public. Jesus told his followers how to treat their enemies, how to live under occupation, how to treat the poor and destitute, and how they should regard Caesar. His message was political, economical, and circled around the social justice of the prophets.

I think the most needed message the American Evangelicalism needs to hear today is the differences McLaren draws between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world:

Jesus says again and again, this kingdom advances with neither violence nor bloodshed, with neither hatred nor revenge. It is not just another one of the kingdoms of this world. No, this kingdom advances slowly, quietly, under the surface–like yeast in dough, like seed in soil. It advances with faith: when people believe it is true, it becomes true. And it advances with reconciling, forgiving love: when people love strangers and enemies, the kingdom gains ground.

The place where the heresy of personal and private does the most damage is where we separate how we treat others privately or corporately. For Christians this is not an option. We are commanded to love our enemies all the time, including enemies of our nations. Christians should be the last people to jump on the war bandwagon, and if it is necessary to go to war, it should be with great reservation and praying for forgiveness. War may be a necessary evil at times, but it is still evil and sin. And Christian leaders should not be watering down the real nature of war when their nation goes to war. The Kingdom of God does not advance through violence, whether it be by violence on the frontline, or violence behind the pulpit, trying to scare people out of hell and manipulate them into heaven. Our actions should be characterized by the same love, compassion, and mercy that we see in life of Jesus.

McLaren points out that one of the great paradoxes of the Gospels is that evil wins. Christ is betrayed, denied, whipped, and then crucified. He dies, and for a time evil wins. Why? What kind of kingdom comes in suffering and death? McLaren asks:

What if the only way for the kingdom of God to come in its true form–as a kingdom “not of this world–is through weakness and vulnerability, sacrifice and love? What if it can conquer only by first being conquered? What if being conquered is absolutely necessary to expose the brutal violence and dark oppression of these principalities and powers, these human ideaologies and counterkingdoms–so they, having been exposed, can be seen for what they are and freely rejected, making room for the new and better kingdom? What if the kingdom of God must in these ways fail in order to succeed?

The only way for Jesus to reveal the corrupt systems of this world–corruption in politics, religion, and other areas of life was to be conquered by those “powers and principalities.” In the defeat of the cross they are revealed for what they really are instead of what they masquerade as. In the victory of the resurrection, Jesus shows that His kingdom of forgiving enemies, turning the other cheek, and reconciliation can change this world in ways we never imagined–if we are brave enough and have enough faith to believe that God’s Kingdom does not grow and work by the standards of this world.

Throughout the book McLaren says that we have been asking the wrong question: “How do I get to the heaven?” Instead the questions we should be asking is “How do I live righteously in this life? How do I join in building the kingdom of God here and now? How do I be Christ at work, in my neighborhood, with my family?” Going to heaven is never the focus of the Gospels: the focus is the Kingdom of God is at hand: it’s here! The question is what are we going to do about it?

The Secret Message of Jesus is secret only because we refuse to see it. We have set up an idol in Jesus’ place in our image that tells us the things we want: power, war, revenge, and a million other sins are okay. But the Jesus we encounter in the Gospels is very different from the Jesus presented in many churches and by many organizations today. He is not a middle-class suburbanite. He is not a war-monger (after all he was the one who rebuked John and James for wanting to call fire down on a Samaritan village that did not welcome them). He is neither Rebuplican or Democrat or Libertarian, for that matter. He is the Son of God who demands us to radically realign our lives to his kingdom ethics that make no sense in this world: love your enemies, turn the other cheek, forgive and be reconciled, and take care of those who cannot take care of themselves: the poor, the refugees, the homeless, the prostitutes, the drug addicts: sinners. May be if this was the Jesus we met in church, people wouldn’t be so enamored with the Jesus of The Da Vinci Code. They might even think about coming to church to learn about Jesus instead of the Gnostic Gospels. May be it’s time for us to start proclaiming the “secret” message of Jesus.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Short hops and other things

Time’s cover article this week is Does God Want You to Be Rich? I haven’t had a chance to read it, but I have read two reviews of it that I highly recommend for a more biblical way of looking at money and wealth: New Testament prof Ben Witherington’s response is Just in Time—God Wants You Wealthy. He also gives the top ten reasons why God doesn’t want us wealthy.

Over at Street Prophets Sweet Georgia Peach has done this review: Prosperity Theology—Does God Want You to Be Rich?. As always there is a lot of good conversation going on in the comments.

Sweet Georgia Peach also puts together the Noonday Prayer from the Daily Office at Street Prophets and today’s prayer service is really good. So if you need a little breather for time with God this afternoon, go pray.

Starwoman has started a discussion on praying for our enemies and posted a prayer service praying for our enemies. I did not know that Friday was a day to be kept in the penitentional spirit because that is the day Christ died. I like that idea along with making that day to focus on praying for my enemies.

My first post is up at The CBE Scroll: The Importance of History.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Viewpoint of a female minister

I just posted this letter on Salon.com:

I am Rev. Shawna Atteberry, and I am an ordained minister in the Church of the Nazarene–an evangelical denomination. The Nazarene church has ordained women since its beginning in 1903. We are part of the American Holiness Movement that ordained their first woman pastor in 1859. Another evangelical denomination, The Salvation Army, has ordained women since its beginning in the 1860s. In fact, Catherine Booth would not marry William until he “saw the light” that women could preach. Their daughter, Evangeline, was the third general of the Army (i. e. leader of the entire denomination). Coming from a tradition that has ordained women for 150 years, I find Mark Driscoll’s view of women medieval to say the least.

Driscoll’s view is not biblical either. The Hebrew phrase in Genesis 2:18 that is mistranslated at “helper” actually means “a power equal to.” Woman was created to be a help or power equal to man–to be his eqaul in life, work, ministry, and marriage. There are several women leaders in the Bible: Deborah was a judge, prophet, and military leader (Judges 4–5); Miriam, the sister of Moses was a prophet (Exodus 15:20); and in the New Testament Priscilla and Aquila were co-pastors as well as made tents for a living together, and Junia was an apostle (Romans 16:7). In Romans 16:1 we find Paul sent the letter with Phoebe who was the pastor of the church in Cenchreae. Normally “pastor” is mistranslated as “helper,” but this is the same word that Paul uses to describe Timothy and Titus in their pastoral ministries.

Driscoll’s view of the roles of men and women are not biblical, and I believe harmful for both sexes. Biblically, both men and women are called to minister, work, and take care of their families together. Their highest priority is to obey God, and show Christlike love to each other and the world, not confine themselves into impossible gender roles.

Sincerely,
Rev. Shawna R. B. Atteberry

Update: My letter has been posted on Salon.com.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

The Spiritual June Cleaver

Salon has an article on Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church (Hat tip to the The Reclusive Leftist). I was so sad after reading this article. In short they’ve taken the post-WW2 culture, and they are trying to make it biblical.

Following Driscoll’s biblical reading of prescribed gender roles, women quit their jobs and try to have as many babies as possible. And these are no mere women who fear independence, who are looking to live by the simple tenets of fundamentalist credo, enforced by a commanding husband: many of the women of Mars Hill reluctantly abandon successful lives lived on their own terms to serve their husbands and their Lord.

So if Deborah went to Mars Hill, she would have had to resign from being a prophet and judge, and who would have led Israelite troops to victory over Sisera? I guess Isreal would not have had that 40 years of peace under her rule. I guess Phoebe would not have been a deacon in the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). The word that describes Phoebe as a “deacon” is the same word Paul uses when speaking of Timothy and Titus in their pastoral duties. At Mars Hill Phoebe would not have been allowed to pastor the church at Cenchreae, and she sure wouldn’t have been allowed to take Paul’s letter to Rome. Priscilla would not have been a tentmaker and copastor with her husband. Junia would not have been an apostle (Romans 16:7).

The online screening process that is used in Driscoll’s Acts 29 church planting application “begins with a lengthy doctrinal assertion that every word of the Bible is literal truth; the application plucks out the examples of creationism and male headship of home and church to clarify this doctrine.”

I have dealt with biblical literalism in Truth vs. Fact. In Does It Really Mean Helpmate? I looked at the creation account and showed that the Hebrew phrase ezer cenedgo means a help or power equal to, and that there is nothing submissive about the term. Woman was created equal with man to be partners with him in life, marriage, and ministry.

In other conversations I have pointed out that I am from rural Oklahoma. On the farm or ranch everyone worked. There was no man’s work and woman’s work–husband, wife, children, and who ever else lived there worked to bring in the crop and cows. If they didn’t they starved. The division of the family between separate jobs and home is a fairly new phenomenon within human history. I also come from a poor, working class family–my mom worked; she had to. I have always looked at the stay-at-home mother as a middle class luxury. In many places around the world both men and women work hard to keep their families from starving. Not everyone has the luxury of one person staying home. In fact, few people do. That’s why I call this the post-WW2 mentality–society has to be at a certain economic level within an industrialized or technological society to afford the luxury of the stay at home mom.

The bottom line is it’s not biblical. As my Career Woman of the Bible series shows God called women to be prophets, judges, and other leaders to obey him and lead his people. Women have the right to work: in Genesis 1:26 care and dominion of creation is given to both man and woman before the command to procreate in verse 28. Women are called to work in the world, work in ministry, and be ordained as pastors and ministers, because God has called us as the full witness of the Bible affirms.

Things like this used to make mad. Now I grieve. I grieve over the bondage that this lie puts on both men and women, and it is not God’s will.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink