That was the year that was

Well, with all due apologies to T. S. Eliot, this is the way the whirl ends—not with a bang but a whimper. It’s been two years since I posted that little in a month, and while I don’t apologize for that, I don’t want to make a habit of it, either. The discipline of writing has been good for me, and the discipline of thinking probably even more so; I know it’s helped my sermon preparation, among other things.

I suppose the question is, has the blog been worth anything for its own sake? I think it has, though I might be biased on the subject. Obviously there were a lot of posts that simply took note of something or posted a video or were just for fun, but even those have their value; and I think that occasionally, at least, I managed to contribute something to the larger conversation. It may well be that the ultimate validation of this blog will come (or not) in whether I’m able to take any of the ideas that have sparked along the way for me and develop them further; but even if not, they’re out there, and maybe they’ll do some good.

Other people’s work

I’ve been meaning to repost this poem my wife posted a while ago, one which she found on the group writing blog Novel Matters; it’s by one of the contributors there, Latayne C. Scott. I lack the talent to be a professional musician—and, to be honest, the practice habits—but I love music, and one of the best things about living in Winona Lake is getting to hear some of the best musicians in the world play to the glory of God. Souls in their fingers, indeed.

Opus Envy

I watch his fingers
Teasing the piano
As he caresses the ivory teeth
It purrrrrrrs
Harder now—he strikes
A glancing blow off the black fang

An answering roar

ah Rachmaninoff
just because my soul is not in
my fingertips does not
mean I do not have
one

Climategate and the fundamentalist spirit

One of the most interesting stories of the past couple of months has been the whole Climategate scandal. I’m not going to dig that up and rehash the substance of it (though if you didn’t see Bill’s posts on the Thinklings about the lousy quality of the computer models behind the anthropogenic global-warming argument and the dubious nature of the standard assertions that the results of such models are truly properly peer-reviewed, you ought to), I just wanted to throw an observation out there. To wit, I recognized the spirit in those leaked e-mails, with their insistence that the theory must be right regardless of the data, and their willingness to adjust the facts as needed to fit the dogma: it’s the spirit of fundamentalism. It’s the exact same tone one meets in people arguing that the Earth must be only 6,000 years old and therefore, whatever facts that would seem to indicate otherwise must be incorrect.

Now, to call someone a fundamentalist doesn’t mean they’re wrong, by any means. I don’t happen to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and I don’t happen to believe in AGW, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that one or both couldn’t be correct. But the spirit in which many who call themselves Christian fundamentalists argue (which is not, be it noted, equal with fundamentalism itself; one can hold to fundamentalist positions without this sort of attitude and approach) is one which is absolutely certain it has discovered the truth, unquestioningly convinced of its own rightness, and thus is committed to maintaining its position by whatever means necessary. This is the sort of spirit one also finds in Islamic fundamentalism—and it’s the spirit that’s in view as well in Michael Mann and the leaked CRU e-mails.

Again, that doesn’t mean their position is wrong; to argue that would be to commit the genetic fallacy. It does, however, give the lie to their claims that they alone are scientific and their opponents are anti-science. In truth, what we have here is a religious dispute, complete with threats by the high priests against the heretics; and the pretensions of those high priests to be above ideology, their insistence that they are disinterested seekers of the pure flame of fact, have been shown to be a sham. This will be, I think, the long-term effect of Climategate: it’s knocked AGW proponents off their pedestal, and I don’t think they’re going to be able to climb back up.

Thought on Gov. Palin

So Gov. Palin went out on her book tour, all over the media, attracting huge crowds, driving the Left to invent new “facts” with which to attack her (and also driving her book to the top of the bestseller list), and I had nothing to say about it. Of course, as noted, I haven’t had much to say about anything else, either, in this space for a while; in particular, what with one thing and another, I just haven’t had the energy or the time to spare to engage with political goings-on the way I typically do. This is especially true given the goings-on that are going on; I know where the Anchoress was coming from last month when she wrote,

I didn’t even give the news more than a passing glance because it was all so depressing.

Before that, though, I had a couple folks accuse me of hero-worship for Sarah Palin, and I’ve been wanting to respond to that charge, because it isn’t true. I’m convinced that the secret of Barack Obama’s success is that he tapped into a deep latent hunger (and not just on the Left) for a secular Messiah—and that as such, his success contains the roots of his failure, because he isn’t up to the task, as no mere human being could be—and I want no part of it. I do have people I consider heroes, but I don’t even feel hero-worship for them; and Gov. Palin isn’t in that category anyway.

However, I do have a tremendous amount of respect for her, and I support her staunchly, not as a hero or some sort of saving figure, but as I believe the best and most promising leader in the American political landscape. She isn’t perfect, but no politician is—indeed, no leader in any walk of life is; what folks like USS Mariner’s Dave Cameron have argued with respect to baseball managers (that there are few who significantly improve their teams, a lot more who really hurt their teams, and the vast majority in the middle who have little effect) seems to me to apply to politicians as well. The thing is, for various reasons, I believe Gov. Palin to be one of the relatively uncommon politicians who has done and will do real good, and so I support her.

First among those reasons is the fact that I agree with her political philosophy and positions. It’s a simple thing, but not a small thing: what she has done during her time in politics so far and what she has argued ought to be done agrees quite closely with what I believe ought to be done. I’m sure there are areas in which I am not in agreement with her positions, but in the areas in which she’s made her own position clear (as opposed to supporting John McCain’s agenda during her time as his running mate), I really haven’t found any yet.

Second, I believe Gov. Palin to be a person of strong personal integrity and character. This is not to say she’s sinless, which would be an incredibly unreasonable expectation of anybody; but it is to say that she has shown the character to resist significant political temptation, and to hold fast to her beliefs and convictions even in the face of hostile opposition. The fact that she has endured the slings and arrows of outrageous media over the past year and remained pretty much the same person with the same set of beliefs is strong evidence for this conclusion. The fact that she showed with her resignation that she has higher priorities than holding political office, with the power and perks that go along with it, is further evidence.

Third, while I don’t claim that she’s a genius, I believe Gov. Palin is plenty bright enough to be President, and more importantly has shown herself to be a sufficiently quick study to stay abreast of the information flow that runs through 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Fourth, Gov. Palin isn’t just a thinker, she’s a doer. Even having left the governor’s office in Juneau partway through her one term, she accomplished quite a bit; and since leaving office, she has exercised considerable influence on the political conversation in this country through the decisive stands she’s taken and the arguments she’s offered for them.

Fifth, it was once said of Grover Cleveland, “They love him most for the enemies he has made,” and something of that sort might be said about Gov. Palin as well. The fact that she clearly worries the hardline Left more than anyone else on the Right suggests that she is truly the natural leader for the American Right at this point in time; the fact that she is scarcely less disturbing to the inside-the-Beltway “conservative” elite says, I believe, much the same thing. I have argued more than once that the divide between the elite political-media complex and the rest of the country is at least as important as our left-right divide, and that our country really needs leaders to emerge—preferably in both parties, from both liberals and conservatives—who actually represent ordinary barbarians and not just the groupthink of our incestuous media-political class, with a perspective that reaches beyond the Potomac and the Hudson. At this point, the only major political figure who answers that is Gov. Palin—and I fear that if our elites succeed in squashing her, there won’t be another for a long time, if ever.

And of Gov. Palin’s faith? No, that isn’t a major issue for me. The fact that she clearly sees religious beliefs as equally valid with any other type of belief to be held and argued in the marketplace of ideas, and to be used to support platforms and positions in the political marketplace, is a good thing, but she need not be an evangelical Christian to understand that. As to the content of her faith, I know she is conservative and everything I see seems to confirm that it’s real, but I have no idea whether the churches that have formed her have truly been Christ-centered gospel-driven congregations, or simply preaching a mishmash of morality, patriotism, and can-do spirit. I don’t know what she thinks of Joel Osteen or if she’s read John Piper or Tim Keller (or, for that matter, Jared Wilson). As such, I can’t say that I know enough to say anything about her faith one way or the other.

And besides, I won’t be voting to send representatives to a church council next November, nor will I be voting for a Theologian-in-Chief in 2012. I will be voting for politicians, and ultimately for a Commander-in-Chief. As such, I don’t want to confuse the issues. What matters most isn’t who’s the best Christian, but who’s likely to serve this country best in a given political office. My conclusion remains that the answer to that question for the 2012 presidential election is, at this point, Sarah Louise Heath Palin—and that’s why I support her.

Mary: A Scandalous Mother

(Isaiah 53:1-3; Matthew 1:16-25, Luke 2:1-7)

If you’ve been here during the last four weeks, you know that we’ve been going through Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus in the first chapter of his gospel, looking at the stories of the women he mentions. Though modern Americans usually consider it dull and boring, there are a couple very interesting things about this genealogy. One of course is the inclusion of women, which was a significant departure from normal practice—and particularly of these women, each of whom is scandalous in some way. There’s another way, though, in which Matthew’s genealogy is different from most, and in a rather subversive way. You see, part of the idea of a genealogy was that if you had important ancestors, that made you particularly significant, but he flips that: Abraham and David, who along with Moses were the greatest people in the history of Israel, are primarily of importance because God used them to bring about his plan to send Jesus. They are important because of Jesus, not the other way around.

This makes the inclusion of these women particularly interesting, because it means that we are to understand their stories, too, in light of Jesus’ life and work. In the story of Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, violated by King David, we see that God doesn’t only use good acts and positive situations to bring about his purposes. Their marriage was begun in blackest sin, yet it was through them that Solomon, whom God had chosen to succeed David and carry on his royal line, was born. From Ruth’s story, I think it’s especially important to note her faithfulness. She went way above and beyond the call of duty to be faithful to Naomi—for what reason, we don’t know, but whatever her reason, it was through her extraordinary faithfulness, so very like his own, that God used her to carry out his plan for the blessing of Israel and the world.

With the story of Rahab, the thing which stands out is her faith. In a time of war, she converted from the faith of her people to the faith of their attackers, trading the gods and goddesses with which she had grown up for the God of Israel. That’s a hard thing to do and a very risky thing to do; it’s an amazing act of faith and trust. Similarly, Tamar’s battle of wits with Judah, her uncooperative father-in-law, highlights her faith, and also her courage. We see her faith in her desire to keep her place in Judah’s family, worshiping their very different God, rather than going back to her own family and the gods of her ancestors, even when it meant putting herself at the mercy of a man who had already shown himself unencumbered by morality or ethics; we see her courage in the fact that she followed through and took that risk, and had the nerve to pull off her plan.

In naming these four women, Matthew links them to Jesus; he also parallels them to Mary, Jesus’ mother, who was a scandalous figure in her own right. In some places, being unmarried and pregnant wouldn’t be that big of a deal, but her home region of Galilee was pretty conservative—there, even engaged couples were never allowed to be alone together. Put yourself in the shoes of Mary’s parents: your teenage daughter, who’s engaged to a good man, turns up pregnant (disgracing your house, incidentally), and when you ask her who got her pregnant, she says, “God did!” Do you believe her?

No, you probably don’t—and judging from the fact that the gospels never mention them, neither did they. In fact, nobody did, unless angels had given them reason to do so. Elizabeth believed her, being herself miraculously pregnant, but Joseph didn’t, until he had his own angelic visitation; in those days, being engaged meant all the responsibilities of marriage and none of the rights, so it took a full-blown legal divorce to break an engagement, and he was planning on doing just that, until God told him otherwise. It’s pretty clear that as far as the world was concerned, here was a teenage girl who had fooled around, gotten pregnant, and had now concocted an utterly ridiculous story to try to excuse herself; and this meant she had brought great shame on herself, Joseph, and both their families, which was no small matter.

This is probably why Mary went to visit Elizabeth, as we read in Luke 1, and stayed for three months, leaving only when Elizabeth was due to give birth: it got her away from her parents and their disapproval. When she did go back to them, she didn’t stay very long, since we know from Matthew that after Joseph had his dream, he took Mary into his home; it isn’t certain, but it sure looks like her parents kicked her out of the house for getting pregnant, shaming the family, and then lying about it (and perhaps committing blasphemy in the process). The only person Mary had who was both willing and able to care for her was Joseph.

That, I think, is why she went with him to Bethlehem. She didn’t need to, legally; she was neither a taxpayer nor eligible to serve in the Roman army, and thus wasn’t subject to the census. As far along as she was in her pregnancy, traveling to Bethlehem, whether by foot or on a donkey, really wasn’t medically indicated—better, if she had the option, to stay home. What’s more, if she and Joseph weren’t formally married at this point—Matthew would seem to indicate that they were, while Luke suggests they weren’t, but both texts can be taken either way—then traveling with him would be just one more breach of propriety. But she had no place else to go; her parents had rejected her, Elizabeth had a baby, and she had no other option.

If she hoped things would be better in Bethlehem, though, she was mistaken. I know we’re all used to hearing that there was no room for them in the inn, but that’s not really what’s going on here. For one thing, inns were uncommon in those days outside the big cities; Bethlehem was small, and close to Jerusalem, and it’s highly unlikely it had one. For another, the word here isn’t the one Luke uses elsewhere for a hotel; rather, it’s the one he uses for the upper room, the spare room, in which Jesus and his disciples celebrated the Last Supper. This fits with the rest of the picture, because in that day and age, people didn’t travel much, and when they did, they usually stayed with friends and relatives. Given that Joseph was going back to the home of his ancestors, where he would have relatives—distant cousins, perhaps, but kin is kin—no doubt he would have expected to be able to stay in a guest room in the home of a member of his family.

It was a reasonable expectation. To be sure, Joseph and Mary were far from the only members of their family headed into Bethlehem for the census, but there would be room enough to manage; and certainly, who would have a better claim on a bed than a woman in the last stages of pregnancy? And yet, it didn’t turn out that way; the very relatives on whom Joseph was counting didn’t let it. As Verlyn Verbrugge, a Reformed Church pastor in western Michigan, puts it, “Mary’s pregnancy out of wedlock . . . would inevitably have brought shame to the family name—and Joseph’s willingness to believe her story and to support Mary brought the same shame on him. One can almost imagine the gathering of relatives in the [guest room] of that Bethlehem house, talking about the latest family gossip, especially the pregnancy of that young girl Mary. They certainly could not allow someone who has brought such shame to their family to enter into their midst; that would imply some endorsement of her situation.”

In other words, there was no room for Joseph and Mary in that guest room because their family refused to make room; it isn’t that there wasn’t room on the floor, there just wasn’t room in their hearts. Joseph and Mary had dishonored the family; let them be treated with dishonor, let them sleep with the animals, in the lowest part of the house. No respectable bed for such a disreputable woman, and certainly not for her illegitimate child, the fruit of her shame. And so the mother of God was given a place with the donkeys and the cow, and the Lord of the Universe was laid in a feed trough; the Messiah came home to his own people, and his own family rejected him, because he didn’t come on their terms.

That’s where Isaiah 53 comes in. At Christmas, we tend to focus on Jesus’ welcome, not on his rejection, but it’s important to realize that even at his birth, Jesus found rejection. His own family, outside his parents, rejected him, because he made them look bad. None of the respectable people showed up to hold the baby, only grubby shepherds fresh from the fields. And as for the local political types, when Herod, the governor in Jerusalem, heard the news, he immediately started plotting to have Jesus killed. Never too early to eliminate a potential rival, after all, even if he’s still in diapers.

This is what God let himself in for—and he did it on purpose. The God of all stars was born in scandal, an offense to most of his family, to a couple of no worldly significance whatsoever from a backwater town in a backwater country under occupation on the fringe of a great empire, in completely obscure circumstances as far as anyone who actually mattered was concerned. It’s hard enough to believe that the God of the universe would actually become human, confining himself in one of our bodies and one of our lives, but if he was going to do it, surely it wouldn’t be that way; and yet, that’s exactly how it happened. And did it get better from there? No; from the time he began his formal ministry, Jesus spent his years walking up and down Israel with no permanent residence, turning away from every chance at conventional success.

Instead of cultivating relationships with the rich and the powerful, Jesus chose to spend his time and focus his attention on the poor and the marginalized; instead of aligning himself with the important people of his time, he antagonized them at every turn, pointing out their hypocrisy and sin, and ultimately getting himself killed for his trouble. He didn’t come to experience only the good stuff—he came to know the hardest struggles, the greatest temptations, the darkest fears, and the worst agonies our world knows, and to take them on his back; he came to suffer them, and for them, for us, to take the cup of sin in which they’re brewed and drink it to the very dregs.

Jesus was born in scandal and he died in scandal, and he spent an awful lot of the years in between scandalizing somebody or other, because God’s saving mission couldn’t be accomplished with the world’s approval—but he didn’t care about the world’s approval. He cared about the world, to the point that he of infinite value and utter perfection allowed himself to be murdered and to bear the guilt of all our sin and shame, so that we might be redeemed from death and find new life in him. From a human point of view, this is crazy. From God’s, this is the ultimate wisdom; and it’s this wisdom, not ours, which brought the redemption of the world.

Bathsheba: A Wife Stolen

(2 Samuel 11; Matthew 1:5-6)

“Judah the father of Peres and Zerah by Tamar . . . Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David.” So far we have come; God has used the stubborn faith, independent wits, and deep hearts of these three remarkable women to bring Israel its greatest king, God’s chosen ruler, a man after his own heart, to whom God has promised the throne of his people for his descendants forever. Jewish nationalists might find each of these women questionable ancestors, but each by her actions has proven herself a hero of the faith, worthy to belong in such a great lineage.

But now! Now, we come to a very different sort of story, where the woman is not hero, but victim; now, we come to pure scandal. This great king has lived a life of blessing; he has faced severe opposition, but has always triumphed unscathed. Apparently, however, power and security have gone to his head, for here—not long into his reign—all that will change; here we read of a sin, or a complex of sins, that wreaks such terrible consequences on David and Israel that Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggeman compares it to the fall of Adam and Eve. Here we see the blessing and purity of David and his reign forever broken, forever marred; from now on, the golden king’s life of blessing is ended, and he will live a life under curse. From here through the end of the book, and even on into the books of the Kings, we have an almost-unbroken litany of family disasters; God preserves the nation, but David’s heart is crushed.

And how did it all begin? With the king neglecting his duty. “In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle”—David stayed home. In those days, the king was first and foremost the war leader of the nation, and so it has always been with David as with other monarchs; but this year, when the roads dry out enough to be passable, when the weather clears enough to be bearable, David stays home. One afternoon, he takes a nap, and sleeps late; waking up bored, restless, with a burr in his soul reminding him that he belongs at the front, not in his own palace, he decides to go cool off on his roof—houses in that part of the world were built with flat roofs for just that purpose.

His is a high roof, and his palace is near the peak of Mount Zion, on which Jerusalem sits, so he has a commanding view of the city; and looking down, he sees a beautiful naked woman. Don’t blame her for this—she’s behind the walls of the courtyard of her house, where no one should be able to see; it’s David who’s in the wrong place. As it turns out, she has just completed her period and is finishing the purification required by the Law, but David doesn’t care a whit about that; what he cares about is that she’s beautiful, she’s naked, and he wants her. Now. (Shades of his ancestor Judah.)

Now, David’s a married man—in fact, he has at least three wives that I can think of; at this point, he should have gone and taken a cold shower, but instead he sends a messenger to ask who this woman is; he’s told, “This is Bathsheba, daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” That she’s identified by her husband is normal; the fact that he’s a Hittite, a foreigner, means that he’s one of the mercenary soldiers who made up the backbone of David’s army, while the fact that his name is Uriah, which means “Yahweh is my light,” tells us that he was a worshiper of the God of Israel. What’s more, 2 Samuel 23 tells us that he was one of the Thirty, the elite squad of David’s army—equivalent to the US Special Forces, or Britain’s SAS. This was an important man in the army of Israel.

Given that, why is his wife also identified—first!—as the daughter of Eliam? We can’t be sure, but it seems likely that the reference here is to Eliam the son of Ahithophel; this Eliam was another member of the Thirty (which is probably why his daughter married Uriah), and his father Ahithophel was David’s most trusted councillor. In short, what David hears is that Bathsheba is closely connected to some of his most valuable servants and most important supporters, which means he really ought to leave her alone.

But he’s in the grip of lust, and he takes no thought for that; he sends messengers to bring her to the palace, and he has sex with her. We’re not told what she thinks about this, because the narrator is focused on David, and from David’s point of view, what she thinks doesn’t matter; he’s the king, and whatever she thinks, she’s going to do what he wants her to. So David gets what he wants—and in a little while, the bill comes due: Bathsheba sends him the message, “I’m pregnant.”

David probably panics at first, but then he settles down and conceives a plan: bring Uriah home, he’ll sleep with his wife, and they can pass the baby off as hers. Unfortunately, Uriah isn’t going to indulge himself when the Ark of the Covenant, the holy throne of God, and the whole army are living in tents on the battlefield, so he insists on sleeping in the palace guardroom with the rest of David’s servants. He shows himself a man of great integrity, more loyal to David and Israel than David is—and certainly more loyal than David deserves, just at the moment—and the core of this tragedy is that his integrity costs him his life. David sends a message to his general, Joab, to have Uriah killed—and in the crowning touch, he sends it by Uriah’s own hand.

Well, Joab obeys, but he doesn’t like it—especially since, to keep everyone from realizing what’s really going on, he has to put a whole squad of troops at risk; from a military point of view, he has to throw away the lives of a number of his best men (including Uriah) just to cover up for the king. It’s clear from Joab’s comments that he’s putting the blame for this squarely on David’s shoulders, and it seems likely that he’s figured out that there’s a woman involved in this; which means he probably has a pretty shrewd idea exactly what woman, and how, and why. He’s a loyal servant to the king, but his fury at what he’s been forced to do, and for such a sordid reason, is clear.

But David doesn’t care, handing the messenger a platitude and a proverb for his trouble. Uriah’s dead, Bathsheba will be available once she finishes her mourning for her husband—seven days was the usual period—and he’s foolish enough to think no one’s the wiser. And indeed, when Bathsheba hears the news, she mourns her husband, and then David sends for her again and marries her, and she gives birth to their son. All is well.

Except for one small problem: “The thing that David had done displeased the LORD.” David has forgotten what Onan forgot, what Judah forgot, what Cain forgot—you can’t slip anything past God—and God is not happy. After all, of the ten commandments, David has just broken three: first, he saw his neighbor’s wife and wanted her—that’s coveting, the tenth commandment; then he had sex with her—that’s adultery, the seventh commandment; and then he had her husband killed—that’s murder, the sixth commandment. What’s more, he had Uriah killed in order to cover up the adultery, so the murder was in service of a lie, which is also a sin. That’s a lot of evil packed into a very short time; and while it would be bad enough if one of us did all that, David was the king, God’s anointed ruler, and as such, he was held to a much higher standard. His conduct was reprehensible—he has “utterly scorned the Lord”—and God will not let it pass.

So, God sends the prophet Nathan to confront David with his sin. That story is told in chapter 12, which I encourage you to read; for now, I just want to point out the steep price David pays. The new baby will die, and David’s family will be cursed. His children will be at war with each other and with him; at the peak of the troubles, his son Absalom will launch a coup, drive him from his home and his city, and signify this by having sex with David’s concubines in full view of the people of Jerusalem. That act, incidentally, will be suggested to Absalom by Ahithophel, Bathsheba’s grandfather, who had been David’s closest and most valued counselor; it’s not hard to imagine why, given the opportunity, he will choose to side with Absalom against David.

Out of all this disaster, there is only one solitary grace note: after the death of David and Bathsheba’s first child, we’re told that “David consoled his wife Bathsheba, and went to her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, named Solomon.” The judgment on David stands—all his repentance cannot undo that—but God forgives; to David and Bathsheba is born the son whom God has chosen to carry on the royal line, to be king in Israel after David. Through Solomon, the son of Bathsheba, the line will continue which will ultimately bring Jesus the Messiah.

In one way, this seems inappropriate. David took Bathsheba from her husband by force; why should this sordid story lead to the birth of David’s successor? After all, David had other wives; just to name one, there’s Abigail, whose story is told in 1 Samuel 25. Abigail was clearly the equal of Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth, worthy to stand in their company; why didn’t God choose one of her sons? Why choose a son of the wife of Uriah, who would be a constant reminder of David’s great sin? It’s not something we would predict, yet it’s what God does; and from that, we have much to learn about him.

Out of evil and scandal, God brings good; from the black, black roots of sin, he grows a white flower of grace. His plan is to redeem the world, and there is no one and no part of it he cannot redeem; even such evil acts as these do not defeat him, and even so great a sinner as David may be restored. Even in the face of such darkness, God accomplishes his purposes and carries on his plan; and in this, we may see the shadow of the cross, where the greatest crime the world has ever seen would be the moment of the greatest glory and victory it has ever seen, the moment of its redemption. God is the God who brings white flowers from black roots. Or perhaps we might say, red flowers, red as blood: the red Rose of Sharon, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, descended from David and Bathsheba, whose coming we await.

Jesus declared, “I have not come to save the righteous, but sinners”—and he said that with tongue planted firmly in cheek, because even the most righteous are still sinners; the real division wasn’t between those who sin and those who don’t, but between those who admit it and those who won’t. That’s why the apostle Paul said, “It is a true statement and worthy of acceptance that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” The foremost leader of the church in all its history called himself the foremost of sinners. Can any of us claim to be better than Paul?

This is critically important for us, because if only those who never do something really wrong are qualified to be used by God, then let’s not beat around the bush—we’re hosed. If there is to be any hope for us, it must be that Jesus meant what he said, and Paul was right; and if there is to be any hope for the church, it must be that a bunch of us sinners all working and living and growing together, guilty of sins we admit and sins we refuse to admit and sins we don’t even recognize as sins, can still somehow be used by God in his plan for the salvation of the world—not because we do such a great job, but despite the fact that we really don’t.

That can be a hard thing to believe, and so we often don’t; instead, we either drift into insecurity and fear and negativity, feeling that we have to be good enough and can’t manage it, or we adjust our standards for our lives so that we can feel that we’re good enough, and God just can’t really be as unreasonable as all that. But if we look to the Bible, we don’t find any support for that point of view; rather, what we find is stories like this one of David and Bathsheba—stories that tell us that even the greatest and most godly people out there have done evil and disastrous things, and though God has disciplined them and allowed them to face the consequences of their sin, yet he has continued to love them anyway, and continued to work through them anyway to accomplish his purposes. White flowers from black roots; sinners saved by grace, through whom God works—warts and all—to save others. This is God’s method of operation; this is the gospel in action. And it’s implicit even in the birth of Jesus; just as his family line and heritage reflects the will of God to bring all the nations into his people, so in the story of David and Bathsheba it shows us his redemptive grace.

Reflecting

As I noted last week, I’ve been sick, tired, and busy, which is a bad combination; at this point, there’s nothing for it but to punch through Christmas, and then I can take some time to rest and recharge. Thinking about it, though, I realized that that’s not the only issue: this interruption has knocked me off the discipline of writing. When I took up the thought of blogging as a spiritual discipline, that made a major difference in the frequency of my writing (as a look at the blog archive clearly shows), and I think it’s done me some good; and part of that has been the most basic part of the discipline, that of just sitting down and posting something, even if I don’t have anything particularly profound or significant to say. I’ve lost that in the last several weeks, and unfortunately, the last seven days of Advent aren’t a great time to recover it, especially with a wedding to do right after Christmas. That, I think, will need to be part of my more general recovery time through the Christmas season proper. That discipline has been too valuable for me—I don’t intend to let it go; and if it’s occasionally been valuable to others as well, then so much the more reason.

So, yes, I’m still around, still breathing, and still experiencing an occasional flash when one neuron is willing to talk to another; and while I can’t claim I’ll be back to normal posting frequency tomorrow, I fully intend to be soon. In the meantime, God’s richest blessings be upon you this Advent.

Ruth: A Foreign Daughter

(Ruth 1:1-18, Ruth 4:13-17; Matthew 1:5-6a)

There are a couple things to say right off the bat before we dive into the story of Ruth, the third woman Matthew includes in his genealogy of Christ. First, you ought to have your Bibles open; we couldn’t read the whole book of Ruth, but we’re going to cover the whole book. Second, if you weren’t here last week, you need to know that the writers of Hebrew genealogies felt free to skip people; Rahab wasn’t actually Boaz’ mother, but his great-great-ever-so-great-grandmother. From Rahab to Ruth is actually about 200 years, from Joshua’s time to the end of the time of the judges. This was the time of the conquest of the land—and then its periodic reconquest from various oppressors. After Joshua died, Israel got into a pattern: they would be faithful to God for a while, then fall into idolatry, then someone like the Moabites would conquer them. They would cry out to God for someone to deliver them, and he would send someone to drive away the oppressor and win their freedom; and for a time they would be faithful to God. Then they would lapse back into idolatry, and the pattern would repeat.

It was toward the end of that period that a major famine drove a man named Elimelech to take his wife and two sons and head off to Moab to try to make a living. Not long after, he died, leaving his wife Naomi with their two sons. Her situation is tenuous—no longer able to count on her husband for support, she must lean on her sons, who aren’t yet married; if anything happens to them, she’s all alone. Understandably, she won’t complain if they marry local women, and so they do, and for a while, everything’s good; but then, before they have any children of their own, both her sons die.

At this point, Naomi figures she has no one; there’s nothing to do but go back home to Bethlehem. She’s heard that the famine is over, so she ought to be able to eke out some kind of living. To her surprise, her daughters-in-law insist on going with her. She argues with them—there’s nothing I can do for you, she tells them; I’m not going to have more sons to marry you. She succeeds in persuading Orpah to turn around and go home. Ruth, however, flatly refuses, telling Naomi, “Don’t argue with me! Where you go, I will go; where you live, I will live; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried.”

This is a permanent commitment for her—not only is she going with Naomi no matter what, she will never turn around and never go back. Her commitment to Naomi, and through her to Naomi’s family and people, is absolute; even in death, she would sleep in fellowship with Naomi’s family, not her own. To seal her promise, she follows it up with a dramatic statement: [draw finger across throat] “Thus may the Lord do to me and more if even death parts me from you!” This oath had its origin in covenant ceremonies, as one accepted the promise of severe penalties for breaking the covenant; Ruth is not content to leave her commitment to Naomi as mere words, but turns it into a covenant, sealed with a great oath. It’s important to note here that in verse 8, Naomi said to Orpah and Ruth, “May the Lord do hesed to you, as you have dealt with my sons and with me”—if you were here last week, you should remember that Rahab used that phrase as well—and that hesed, that great word for the abiding love and faithfulness God shows his covenant people, is all over this book. Ruth here is being held up as a real example of hesed in the extraordinary love and loyalty she shows her mother-in-law.

Faced with this, Naomi gives up and takes Ruth home with her. They get back to Bethlehem around the beginning of the barley harvest, which is a lucky “coincidence”—i.e., God acting incognito. Because the harvest is going on, Ruth immediately volunteers to feed the two of them by going out to glean in the fields—to follow behind the harvesters to pick up grain they dropped or missed. As a poor widow, it’s her right under the Law to do so; but if the owner of the field were to refuse to cooperate, the results could be ugly, especially given that she was a foreigner, an outsider with no one to protect her, and that Moab was Israel’s enemy. Still, for Naomi, she’ll risk it.

“As it happened”—“coincidence” again—she ends up in a field belonging to Boaz. Now, Boaz is a member of Elimelech’s extended family, a relative of Naomi’s by marriage; and in fact, he’s a relative to whom Naomi and Elimelech had been close. What’s more, he’s a rich man, highly respected, with great influence in the community, and a godly man as well—that much is clear from the behavior of his servants. They allow her to glean, and she works herself hard; when Boaz shows up and asks about her, the overseer identifies her as Naomi’s daughter-in-law from Moab, notes that she asked politely to be allowed to glean, and then reports, “She’s been working from dawn’s first light until now without a single break.”

Clearly, he’s impressed. Boaz is, too, and not just by this report. He goes to Ruth and says, “Listen carefully: don’t go glean in another field—don’t leave my land—but stay with the women who are collecting and binding the cut grain and glean right behind them; I’m going to order the young men working out here not to bother you. If you get thirsty, feel free to drink the water we’ve set out for the workers.” In saying that, he’s given Ruth status as part of his household, set his protection on her, and put her in the best possible position for gleaning.

She’s overwhelmed by his generosity (understandably); she drops to her knees, bowing until her face touches the ground, and asks, “Why have I found such favor in your sight, that you have paid me special notice, when I’m a foreigner?” The answer is her loyalty to her mother-in-law, her willingness to leave everything and go into exile to remain with Naomi—something which no doubt meant even more to Boaz because Naomi was part of his family. For that, he does the best turn for her that he can, and then prays that God will give her every blessing. Indeed, he does his part to make sure that happens: when mealtime comes, he invites her to eat with him, and then orders his reapers to leave extra grain for her.

It’s important to note that in chapter 2 verse 2, when Ruth volunteers to go out and glean, she says, “behind someone in whose sight I may find favor.” In other words, she’s not just going out to gather food, she’s hoping to catch someone’s eye; she’s looking for a husband, so that she may have children to carry on Naomi’s family. Remember what we talked about two weeks ago, the importance of not letting the line die out? It’s the same issue here: Naomi’s husband Elimelech is dead, his two sons are dead, and Naomi’s too old to have more children; if the family is to continue, Ruth must bear a child to carry on Elimelech’s line. Now, she has indeed found favor in someone’s eyes—Boaz—someone who is clearly both wealthy and good. When she returns to Naomi with a huge bundle of grain, plus some cooked food left over from lunch, Naomi is completely astounded; obviously someone has paid Ruth special attention. Who?

When Ruth answers, “His name is Boaz,” Naomi bursts out in an exclamation of praise to God and blessing on Boaz. When she calms down, she explains: Boaz is one of their relatives. In fact, she says, “He’s one of our kinsman-redeemers.” The Hebrew term here, go’el, was an important legal term. A go’el had several responsibilities. If a person had to sell part of their inheritance, part of the family land, a close relative who had the necessary resources would act as a go’el to buy the land and bring it back into the family. If someone were forced to sell themselves into slavery to pay their debts, the go’el would buy them back. In the case of injustice to a member of the family, the go’el was responsible to see that justice was done. And it appears that in cases like Ruth’s, the custom was that the go’el was responsible to marry the widow. After all, the practice of levirate marriage, which we talked about with Tamar, could only go so far; if there were no single brothers to marry her and give her dead husband an heir, someone had to do it.

This obviously sets Naomi thinking; and after a while, she puts her plan into motion. Remember in the first chapter, Naomi prays that God will bless Orpah and Ruth? God has given her the opportunity to bring about those blessings for Ruth, and she’s determined not to miss it. She tells Ruth, “Take a bath, put on some perfume, and get dressed up, then go down to the threshing floor. Boaz will be celebrating; don’t let him see you. He’ll be spending the night there. When he goes to sleep, uncover his feet and lie down there.” There are three things to note here. One, the verb “uncover” usually occurs in a phrase used to describe improper sexual relations. Two, the word “feet” is a common euphemism for the genitals. Three, the verb “lie down” is one of the usual verbs for sex. Now, this doesn’t mean that Ruth does anything improper—as far as I can tell, she simply lay down fully clothed at Boaz’ feet—but the overtones here are deliberate, for this is a sort of seduction, if a chaste one: she is there to ask Boaz, as their go’el, to marry her. (That’s the significance of “spread your cloak over your servant.”)

With this plan, Naomi and Ruth are staking a lot on Boaz being a man of good character, and they aren’t disappointed. Boaz is startled, but pleased, and declares, “This last act of hesed is even better than your first. You could have landed one of the choice young men, whether poor or rich, but you chose family loyalty instead.” He understands that she wants to marry him, at least in part, in order to give Naomi and her dead husband an heir. He doesn’t see this as a problem, however, and so he gladly agrees; but he cautions her, “There’s another relative closer than I who has the first right to act as kinsman-redeemer here. I’ll talk to him in the morning. If he wants to carry out this duty, let him; otherwise, I will.”

The next morning, Boaz goes down to the city gate, where all legal decisions were made, and no sooner does he get there and sit down than that relative comes walking by. Boaz stops him, grabs ten of the city elders, and presents the situation—beginning with something we haven’t heard to this point: their relative Elimelech owned a piece of property which now needs to be redeemed. This relative has the first right to do so; if he doesn’t, Boaz will. It seems like a good deal for this relative. He can get the land cheap, Elimelech has no surviving heirs to lay claim to the property later, Naomi isn’t going to have any more kids, and he boosts his reputation by carrying out a family duty. It looks like a win-win situation, and so he agrees to buy the land.

Ah, but before he can make the formal declaration to the elders of the city, Boaz has a surprise for him. “The day you buy the field, you will also commit to marry Ruth, the dead man’s widow, to give him an heir.” That provokes consternation. This relative was thinking of Naomi and Elimelech, but Elimelech died before his sons; the property actually belonged last to Ruth’s husband, making her, not Naomi, the widow in question. Unlike Naomi, Ruth was young enough to bear children, and if he married her, she probably would. He’d have to pay for the field, and then her child would inherit, meaning less money for the children he has now; supporting that child would further reduce the amount he could leave to his current children. This news turns the purchase from an investment into an unwanted expense, and so he passes on the right to redeem to Boaz.

The rest, you know: Boaz married Ruth, and she gave birth to a son, Obed. As seems to have been the case under these circumstances, the baby was considered both the heir of Ruth’s dead husband Mahlon, and thus of Naomi and her family, and of Boaz. As such, he was a great blessing to both families, for Boaz seems to have been childless up to this point, and they rejoiced greatly. However great their joy, though, they didn’t know the half of it; for as verse 17 tells us, Obed would be the grandfather of King David, the second and greatest king of the people of Israel.

Now, here again we have a foreign woman brought into Israel; but where, with Tamar and Rahab, they are brought in by their courage and their faith, with Ruth it is first and foremost her hesed, her extraordinary love, loyalty, faithfulness and commitment, that makes her a part of the people of God. At the beginning, Naomi praises her daughters-in-law for their hesed, but when push comes to shove, Orpah goes back home. She’s not condemned for that in the least—she’s following the wise counsel of her mother-in-law, doing the smart thing. It’s a perfectly fine act. It just isn’t hesed, for hesed goes above and beyond the call of duty—like Ruth. She continues to do hesed to her mother-in-law—by going home with her, by taking the risk to go out and glean, by taking the risk to lie down at Boaz’ feet, and by asking Boaz to marry her to give Elimelech an heir so that his line, and Naomi’s, might continue. All the way through, Ruth is held up as a shining example of hesed, of godly love and faithful commitment, which is why she has an honored place among the ancestors of David, and ultimately of Jesus.

There’s one other thing to note here, one which foreshadows the work of Christ: the book of Ruth shows us God acting below the radar of history, through common people and ordinary circumstances. One cannot call Naomi, Ruth, or Boaz truly ordinary people, but they’re the sort of people who get dismissed as ordinary because they aren’t famous; Boaz is rich and influential, yes, but only in Bethlehem, which is a town of no great consequence on the national scene, let alone by the world’s standards. And yet, through these three people and their God-given character and wits, God acts to continue the line which will ultimately lead to the birth of his Son.

And when his Son is born, it will be, again, in that town of no great consequence, that sleepy little burg of Bethlehem, to someone the world considers unimportant and thus ordinary; and who will be called to witness the birth? Shepherds. The most blue-collar workers imaginable. Yeah, the kings are coming, too, but they won’t show up until later. The Savior of the world will be a man of no reputation, a common builder, who will live a life of common things: eating peasant bread, working with calloused hands, walking everywhere. Yet through that life, below the world’s radar until the very end, would come the redemption of our fallen race.

The things you see at the grocery store

I was doing a bit of shopping a few days ago, walking through the grocery store, when I looked up and saw a guy carrying a hand-written cardboard sign—the sort of sign you see people hold up when they’re begging for money. Nothing unusual about that (though I’ve never seen someone holding one in a grocery store before), except for what the sign said:

Family kidnapped by ninjas—need money for karate lessons.

I should have gotten a picture. That was just so out of left field, I didn’t react fast enough.