Category: History

The Words of Amos to the Faithful Remnant of God’s People in the US Today?

The pairing of the church and state is not a wedding made in heaven

kevingdrendelLeave a comment
Mountain fortress overlooking a stone bridge and river gorge at twilight

I have been reading Embrace the Tension by Tommy Nixon. He has resonated deeply with me, especially in this time. Christians in the United States seem to be living in a golden moment with a president openly engaging Christians and a popular segment of the church celebrating a symbiotic relationship with the president and his administration.

We don’t have to look too closely, however, to be concerned. Many prophetic voices have distanced themselves from this expression of Christianity. They stand outside the structure of this church and state power duo sounding an alarm. The foundation of this relationship is power and influence, and the fruit of the Holy Spirit is missing,

Satan tempted Jesus by offering him all the power of the kingdoms of the world, and Jesus flatly turned him down. When Jesus’ own followers attempted to seize him by force and make him king, he escaped into the hills. When Pilate confronted Jesus about the confusing things he was hearing – Was Jesus really king of the Jews? – Jesus told him that his kingdom is not of this world.

Jesus explained to Pilate that his power was given to him by God. If Jesus had come to take over, his followers would have risen up and seized control, but that isn’t why he came. He came to good news to the poor and to die on a cross. He came to introduce people to the Kingdom of God that is here now – growing in the midst of the kingdoms of this world – though the reign of the Righteous King is not yet.

Jesus will not reign as king until he comes again at the end of the age. In the meantime, he was clear that his followers are to be salt and light in the world. The church has no mandate to take over the kingdoms of the world. The church is commissioned to make disciples – followers of Jesus. 

Tommy Nixon recalls in his book the church at Antioch. They were diverse, but not for diversity’s sake. They were diverse because Jesus loves and came to save the world. They were unified, but not for unity’s sake. They were unified in Christ and in his purposes. They had power, but not for power’s sake. The power they wielded was found in taking up a cross and following Jesus. They experience the joy of the Holy Spirit, but not for joy’s sake. They experienced the joy of the Holy Spirit in the midst of a world that was orientated against what God was doing.

A dramatic change in the church took place when Constantine became king and issued the Edict of Milan, proclaiming religious toleration for Christianity within the Roman Empire, followed by the Edict of Thessalonica, in which Christianity was made the state religion. This is how Tommy Nixon characterizes the change:

“What seemed like a triumph for the church was the beginning of a dangerous compromise. The same empire that once persecuted followers of Christ now embraced Christianity as its own. The gradual fusion of the church with the state followed, leading to the kingdom becoming the empire. Political power and cultural dominance diluted the gospel message. It was no longer good news to the margins; it was a tool to maintain control.

Embrace the Tension: Choosing the Radical Middle Instead of Picking a Side by Tommy Nixon, page 142

If we make an honest comparison of the church before the 5th century and the church after the first century, we can see the influence that state power had on the church. Before the church had any power it was persecuted and marginalized, but it revolutionized the Roman world in the love of neighbor and the love of God. The church was subversive in the best possible ways, led by people authentically walking the path of its suffering Savior, preaching good news to the poor – as Jesus did.

From the 6th century on, the became wedded to state power and than more deeply embedded in state power. Church and state became inseparable, and the corruption of the Church ensued. We call those years the Dark Ages for good reason.

Not everything was dark, of course. God was still at work in His church and in the world, despite the evil and corruption that litter the annals of this period of the history of the Church. The Crusades and the Inquisition are among the rotten fruit that grew in the name of Christ, though God always preserves a remnant in every age.

Tommy Nixon is nothing if not brutally honest and authentic:

“We see the effects of this today. In the United States, the surge of Christian nationalism and the conflation of faith with political ideology reveal how deeply the empire has shaped our perception of what it means to be a follower of Christ.”

Embrace the Tension, page 142

Once again, a segment of the Church flirts with the power and influence of Empire. In this context, Tommy Nixon refers to the Book of Amos. Amos was a prophet in Israel in the 8th Century BC. He warned Israel, that was once the oppressed living in slavery, that it had become the oppressor. Idolatry and injustice were rampant, and God was giving them an opportunity to repent and turn from their waywardness.

They didn’t listen, of course. Within 30 years of the ministry of Amos, the northern kingdom was exiled to Babylon.

Though Amos spoke at a low point in the history of God’s people, he ended with a message of hope. He spoke of a day when God would “restore David’s fallen shelter,” and “repair its broken walls,” “restore its ruins,” and “rebuild it as it used to be.” Amos 9:11-12

I don’t think that God intended to restore the nation of Israel exactly as it was; God intended to restore Israel as He designed it to be. Amos says God would do this so that his people would “possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name.” God’s blessing and promise to Abraham was always to extend to all the nations.

We see the reality of this, of course, in Jesus. He came first to the lost sheep of Israel, but his ministry extended far beyond the remnant of Israel. It extended to all of us and to all of time.

God’s ways are not our ways. He sent his only Son into the world that all who call upon his name will be saved – in Israel, Judah, Samaria, and all the world: the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, El Salvador, China, and to all the islands of the world.

Tommy Nixon concludes his assessment of the church in America by saying. “It doesn’t have to be this way.” We don’t need to devolve into the corruption of state power. “We can continue to be the rebels, but we have to be honest about the rebellion. The church needs a lot of work, but you and I are the church. It is time to be brave and own our hypocrisy and do something about it.”

Tommy Nixon speaks truth when he says, “The church is the problem,” but our hope is in the fact that “the church is also the solution.”

It’s time for the church to be the church, to repent, and to get back to what it means to be followers of Christ, fellow cross bearers, suffering servants in the way of Jesus, who live out the kingdom of God in our daily lives, preaching good news to the poor, suffering with those who suffer, mourning with those who mourn, and sharing the good news of the kingdom of God to anyone who will hear.

Jesus could have taken over the kingdoms of the Earth, but he knew who it was who had the present authority over the kingdoms of the world. The will of God was to introduce His kingdom on Earth and to raise up an army of suffering servants who would pray and live into the reality of the kingdom of God on Earth as it is in heaven.

We are tempted by the same things that tempted Jesus, and we should reject them the same way Jesus rejected them. His kingdom is not of this world. We have missed the mark in our attempt to protect the power and influence we have gained in this world at the expense of being like Jesus – the ambassadors of his kingdom.

Just as Amos prophesied it is not too late. It is not too late for the remnant of God’s people in this age – the church – to be the body of Christ, representatives of Jesus in this world. We do not need earthly power and influence. As a matter of fact, earthly power and influence will corrupt the whole thing. It always has, and it always will until the day Jesus comes again. As God told Amos, God will do what He says. We only need to be faithful.

Idolatry, the High Places, and the Modern Believer

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

As I read through the Bible this year, the phrase, “the high places,” caught my attention because it is used as a kind of litmus test and descriptor of the kings of Israel and Judah in Kings and Chronicles. Like a worn-out refrain, and a tired old drumbeat, king after king in Israel and Judah is identified for failing to remove the high places. Only Hezekiah removed them and only Josiah destroyed them completely.

In case you have not read Kings or Chronicles lately, each king is judged by whether he did what was right in the sight of the Lord and removed the high places. The phrase “the high places were not removed” functions like a spiritual diagnostic in Kings. Even of the kings who were not wholly evil, only two (2) of them did something about the high places that were scattered throughout the region.

I have glossed over the phrase every year that I have read through Kings and Chronicles until now. When I recognized I wasn’t exactly sure what the high places were, I took some time to lay my assumptions aside and look into it. What I found is interesting and surprisingly relevant for us today.

What Were the High Places?

The Hebrew word translated “high places” is bamot. These were worship sites, usually located on hills or mountain tops, on ridges, or sometimes even on raised platforms in cities. A typical high place might include a stone altar for sacrifices, standing stones (masseboth), wooden poles associated with goddess worship (Asherah poles), incense altars, or occasionally a sacred tree or grove.

Ancient Near Eastern people believed that worshiping on elevated places brought them closer to heaven. Thus, “high places” became a term synonymous with worship. I wonder, as I write this, whether our phrase for good worship or a good spiritual experience – a mountaintop experience – comes from the idea of “high places” (knowingly or unknowingly).

The First Reference to a High Place

The first explicit mention of a “high place” is in 1 Samuel 9. When Saul goes looking for his father’s lost donkeys and is told to seek out the prophet, Samuel, who was planning to meet the people “at the high place” for a sacrifice. They were waiting for Samuel to get there to bless the sacrifice before they ate. Saul meets Samuel on his way to the high place, and Samuel instructed Saul to go on ahead of him, to wait for him, and to eat with him. (1 Samuel 9:12–14, 19).

This first mention of a high place is interesting because it seems to carry no negative connotation. Samuel had a good reputation as a prophet who did what was right in the Lord’s eyes, and the sacrifice they enjoyed at the high place seems to have been acceptable.

Older Worship Practice

Although the term “high place” is first used in 1st Samuel, worship on high places by some of the most iconic people of God goes back much earlier. For example: Noah builds an altar after leaving the ark; Abraham builds altars at Shechem, Bethel, and Mt. Moriah; Jacob worships at Bethel, and Moses meets God and receives the Law on Mt. Sinai.

Man placing stones near a wooden ark under a cloudy sunrise in the mountains

The pattern of mountaintop worship and encounter with God is repeated and prominent. Just as noticeable, perhaps, is the absence of a negative comment about these practices. They seem to have occurred in ways that advanced relationship and covenant between God and key figures in the Old Testament. The pattern seems to have been acceptable to God, and those older mountaintop places of worship are not called “high places” (bamot).

A Change in the Worship of God

The early encounters of people with God were organic and free-flowing, but that way of relating to God changed with Moses and the Exodus. Although, Moses met with God on the top of Mt. Sinai, God changed the way people would relate to Him and worship Him going forward.

After Moses provided the blueprints from God, the Tent of Meeting (Tabernacle) was constructed to provide a place for the the Ark of the Covenant, for offering sacrifices to God, and for Moses to meet with God. The presence of God came to reside among the people over the Tent of Meeting with a visceral demonstration of fire by night and cloud by day.

Moses was instructed to consecrate the Levites, alone, to care for the Tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant, to carry, assemble, and to tear down the structures when they moved, and to conduct all of the ritual sacrifices that were very carefully prescribed.

Anyone who dared to approach God, offer sacrifices, or worship in a way that was not prescribed incurred the consequence of that transgression. No one but a Levite (and Moses) could enter the Tent of Meeting or offer sacrifices, and the Levites had to follow the the detailed instructions prescribed by God or pay the price.

The Problem with High Places

When Israel entered the Promised Land of Canaan, hilltop shrines devoted to gods like Baal and Asherah were scattered throughout the area. At that time, God specifically commanded Israel to destroy the high places (bamot), saying, “You must not worship the  Lord your God in their way.” Instead, the people were instructed to “seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling.” (Deuteronomy 12:1-7).

They were warned, “You are not to do as we do here today, everyone doing as they see fit, since you have not yet reached the resting place and the inheritance the Lord your God is giving you.” (Deut. 12:8-9) Yet, all they had was the mobile Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant, and they moved around until the Temple was built by Solomon. They were not always even in the same location.

The Transitionary Period

It was during this time frame that Samuel met Saul at “the high place.” Other people also offered sacrificed on high places during this period, despite the instruction from Moses. For instance, Joshua builds an altar on Mount Ebel after the conquest of Ai and offered sacrifices as Moses instructed them to do after crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land. (Deuteronomy 27; Joshua 8:30–35)

Stone firepit with smoldering ashes near river in natural valley landscape

Sometime later, the tribes that took the land east of the Jordan built an altar. Joshua and the western tribes prepared to go to war with their brothers, assuming that it was an unauthorized rival worship location. They relented when eastern tribes explained it was not an altar for performing sacrifices; it was a ceremonial altar meant to be a witness that they belong to Israel. (Joshua 22)

God specifically instructed Gideon to build an altar to the LORD and offer sacrifices on it after tearing down an altar his family constructed for Baal. (Judges 6) Samson’s parents built an altar and offered sacrifices in thanks to God that seems to have been acceptable, because the Angel of the LORD ascends in the flame. (Judges 13)

Samuel repeatedly participated in offering sacrifices away from the Tabernacle at Mizpah (1 Samuel 7), Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16), the high place at Ramah (1 Samuel 9) during the period when the priesthood centered at Shiloh had collapsed and the Ark and Tabernacle were no longer together. David also built several altars during this time, including an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Samuel 24) where Solomon would later build the Temple.

Finally, Solomon offered sacrifices at the high place of Gibeon. In Solomon’s case the text seems to excuse the practice by stating, “[T]here was no house built for the name of the Lord.” (1 Kings 3) This seems to suggest that it was a transitional time.

Not a Hard and Fast Rule

Though God had told them to “seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling,” it didn’t seem to be a hard and fast rule after they entered the Promised Land the Temple was built.

Perhaps, this is because the issue wasn’t locational, but a matter of the heart. With “high places” for pagan worship scattered throughout the land, it was too tempting for God’s people to mix worship of Yahweh with pagan practices or outright idolatry.

After the Temple was built in Jerusalem, continuing to worship at local high places was usually viewed as disobedience to God’s command. That is why the books of Kings repeatedly evaluate rulers with statements like: “Nevertheless, the high places were not removed.” Even kings who were otherwise faithful often failed this test. Once the Temple was dedicated, the transitional period ended. From then on, the high places became symbols of covenant unfaithfulness.

The clearest passage on this theme is Deuteronomy 12, which does not merely forbid worshiping other gods on the high places—it forbids Israel from worshiping the LORD wherever they choose. They were to worship only at the place God chooses.

Notice the contrast:

  • First, Israel is commanded to destroy the Canaanite places of worship: “You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations… served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree.” (Deut. 12:2)
  • Then comes the key command: “You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way.” (Deut. 12:4)
  • We are to approach God on His terms: “But you shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose… there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices…” (Deut. 12:5–14)

This theme is repeated. Deuteronomy 16:21–22 forbids setting up sacred poles or standing stones alongside the LORD’s altar, practices commonly associated with high places. Deuteronomy 17:3–9 requires sacrifices to be brought to the tabernacle rather than offered wherever people wish. Deuteronomy 17:9–11 condemns Israel because they “built for themselves high places… and there they burned incense on all the high places.”

The point is not merely, “Don’t worship idols.” It is, “Don’t worship the LORD according to the pattern of the nations or at places you choose yourself.” In other words: the people can only worship and honor God properly on God’s terms – not on their own terms. God is God, and we are not.

The Spirit of the Law

This is the interesting part. Before the temple was built, there were periods when Israel lacked a single permanent sanctuary. During the days of Samuel and even early in the reign of Solomon, sacrifices at places like Gibeon were tolerated because that was where the tabernacle and bronze altar were located (1 Kings 3:2–4). The author of Kings even explains:, “The people were sacrificing at the high places because no house had yet been built for the name of the LORD.”

Once the Temple in Jerusalem was established as the place God had chosen, however, continuing to worship at local high places became an act of disobedience. That is why the historian repeatedly criticizes otherwise good kings by saying, “The high places were not removed.”

King kneeling on a prayer rug in front of an ancient temple altar with rising smoke

Deuteronomy is teaching that true worship is defined not by human sincerity or convenience, but by God’s initiative. The temptation of the high places was to approach God on one’s own terms—at a place of one’s own choosing, often borrowing from the belief systems and practices of the surrounding culture.

The prophets continually call Israel back to worship that is shaped by God’s word rather than by human preference. This theme reaches its fulfillment in the New Testament, where worship is no longer centered on a geographic sanctuary but on Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, who becomes the true meeting “place” between God and humanity (see John 2:19–21 and 4:21–24).

Continue reading “Idolatry, the High Places, and the Modern Believer” →

Blaise Pascal on True Jews and True Christians

Blaise Pascal on true religion and true believers

kevingdrendelLeave a comment
Clergyman preaching in historic church with sunlight streaming through stained glass windows

I have been listening to Pensées, by Blaise Pascal on Audible Chapter 45, Section 610 has given me some food for thought that inspires this blog post. Pascal’s analysis may not be politically correct in the 21st Century, but he makes a sound point when we give him some grace.

Leading up to Section 610, Pascal makes the claim that anyone who understands the Jewish religion by its “course of forms” will misunderstand it. He interprets the Law by the prophets who “made it plain enough that they did not interpret the Law according to the letter.”

This distinction is not novel. Paul makes the same point in all of his writings. The Law was temporary. (Galatians 3:19) It was a tutor. (Gal. 3:24) Paul says the Law is just a shadow – specifically that the religious rules about food, drink, festivals, etc. are a shadow of the substance which is in Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17) Jesus, himself, said the religious leaders search Scripture for clues about eternal life, but Scripture bears witness to him. (John 5:39-40; see also Luke 24:27)

Pascal says the Messiah according to “carnal Jews” was to be “a great temporal prince.” They expected a good fortune for them in this life when the Messiah came. In the same vein, Pascal says, “Jesus Christ according to carnal Christians has come to dispense us the love of God and to give us sacraments that should do everything to benefit us without our help.” In other words, “carnal Christians” are also just looking for benefits from God.

Pascal concludes, “Such is not the Christian religion, nor the Jewish.” He says, “True Christians and true Jews have always expected a Messiah that would make them love God and, by that love, triumph over their enemies.” (607) He puts “true Christians” and “true Jews” on the same level. They desire and seek to know and love God for who He is – and not for what He can provide them.

Pascal says, “The carnal Jews hold a midway place before Christians and heathens. The heathens know not God and love the world only. The Jews know the true God and love the world only. Christians know the true God and love not the world. Jews and heathens love the same good. Jews and Christians know the same God. The Jews were of two kinds: the first had only heathen affections; the other had Christian affections.” (608)

Pascal says, among the Christians, the coarser-minded are the Jews of the new law. The carnal Jews looked for a carnal Messiah. The “coarser Christians” believe that the Messiah has dispensed them the love of God. True Jews and true Christians worship a Messiah who makes them love God.” (609) The difference is in desiring the good things God can give them versus desiring God who is good. In these ways, Pascal claims that true Christians are like true Jews, and “coarser Christians” are like the carnal Jews.

And this is where we get to the point. Pascal says that true Jews and true Christians have the same religion. The religion of the Jews seemed to consist of the fatherhood of Abraham, circumcision, sacrifices, ceremonies, the Ark of the Covenant, the temple, Jerusalem, and the Law of Moses. But, Pascal says the true religion of the Jews “consisted of none of those things, but only in the love of God.”

Continue reading “Blaise Pascal on True Jews and True Christians” →

The Book of Ruth: The Immigrant at the Center of God’s Redemption Story

Ruth pulses with the theme of redemption that includes foreigners in God’s redemptive plans

kevingdrendelLeave a comment
Group of people harvesting golden wheat in a field with baskets

After the downward moral spiral of the Book of Judges that ends with a shockingly horrific story about the Levite’s concubine, comes the Book of Ruth. Ruth follows Judges in the Old Testament, but the story takes place during the time of the judges, and Judges ends with a statement that characterizes the trajectory of the entire book:

“In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.”

Judges 21:25

Despite the suggestion in this statement that kings might turn the people around from their waywardness, it doesn’t happen. The nation of Israel became polarized and divided after only three kings, and the downward moral cycle of a divided Israel continues through many generations of kings until God’s judgment on them leaves them exiled in Babylon.

We are hard pressed to find any judge in the day of the judges who is without blemish. Samson and Gideon are two of the most memorable judges, but Samson is undone by his lust for women, and Gideon progresses from a fearful doubter, to an unlikely hero, to an idolater who turns Israel from God.

Deborah appears in contrast as a strong and morally unyielding judge, though she is a woman, and her importance would have been discounted by patriarchal readers. (Judges 4-5) Ironically perhaps, another woman is the one shining, ray of hope in the time of the book of Judges – Ruth. Her story embodies the central theme of all Scripture – Redemption.

Ruth and Boaz Are Distinguished by Their Character

We might be surprised to note that Ruth is an ordinary woman. She isn’t even an Israelite. She is a Moabite (an immigrant in Israel), who was married to one of the sons of Naomi. We don’t even know which one. The Bible doesn’t tell us.

The men in this story take a back seat to the women. The book opens with the introduction of Elimelek. All we know about Elimelek, though, is that he is from the tribe of Judah and was living in Bethlehem before he leaves with his wife, Naomi, for Moab because of famine in the land.

Naomi’s husband (Elimelek) dies in Moab. Naomi’s two sons marry Moabite women, Ruth and Orpah. Then they die. All of this happens in the first five (5) verses of the book. The rest of the story focuses on the women – and Boaz, who becomes a kinsman redeemer.

Ruth could have gone back to her home and her clan but she chose to remain faithful to Naomi – a widow in her old age. She famously made this covenant with Naomi:

“Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.”

Ruth 1:16-17

There is nothing noteworthy about Ruth other than her tender faithfulness to distinguish her as anything but ordinary.

Boaz, the hero of the story, also has no apparent distinguishing feature – except for the way he carries himself. He is not a leader in Israel. He is not even the leader of his own family group. He is distinguished solely by his faithfulness to the spirit of the law, and his faithfulness as a kinsman redeemer anticipates the Great Redeemer himself – Jesus Christ.

Ruth is an Orphan, a Widow, and a Foreigner

The action in the story begins when Naomi hears that God has provided food in the land of Judah. Naomi had immigrated to Moab. Now that the famine was over and her husband and sons were dead, she decides to go back to home.

Naomi begins to set out for Judah, but she stops to invite her daughters-in-law to go back to their “mother’s home.” (Ruth 1:8) The offer to allow her daughters-in-law to go back to their mother’s home suggests they were fatherless.

Naomi was not rejecting them. She was offering them a way out. They would be foreigners in Israel, and widows, and fatherless – meaning they would have no clan to protect them and provide for them. Yet, Ruth decides to remain faithful to her mother-in-law’s and stick by her side

That Ruth a widow and a foreigner and probably an orphan is significant. God could have used the story of any Israelite orphan and widow to tell this story, but he chose a foreigner – an immigrant.

That point should not be lost on us. Jesus makes the same point in Luke 4:24-27, and the people in his hometown synagogue were so incensed by it that they sought to throw him off cliff. God is serious about blessing all the nations, even if His people are not.

God’s Care and Concern for the Foreigner

If Ruth was fatherless, as the text seems to suggest, she embodied all the categories of vulnerable people most often paired together in Scripture: orphan, widow, and foreigner. (Ex. 22:1-2; Deut. 24:17, 27:19; Jer. 7:6, 22:3; and Zech. 7:10) The poor and the needy are sometimes included in this list, but they are general terms. Orphans, widows, and foreigners were the people most likely to be poor and needy in Ancient Near Eastern communities because they were left on the fringes of patriarchal clans that were the lifeblood, support, and protection of people in that culture.

The Theme of Migration/Immigration in Ruth

The story of Ruth is set in the context of migration. The book opens with Naomi and her two sons migrating from Judah to Moab because of a famine. We might think of the great potato famine in Ireland that caused many Irish people to migrate to the United States. Whether it’s famine, war, oppression, or persecution, people migrate because of hardship. They always have, and they always will.

We might be tempted to judge Naomi and her sons for abandoning their heritage in Israel for greener pastures in Moab. But we don’t know their circumstances other than the famine. It’s easy and natural to judge people, but the Book of Ruth does not provide any sense that judgment is due. And if they have been in any way unfaithful to their own country, their own heritage, and to God, it is clearly forgiven in the context of the story.

Naomi’s sons marry Moabite women and settle down. Before they could have any children, one son dies and then the other son dies. Now, Naomi and her two daughters are all widows and childless – the people most likely to be poor and vulnerable.

Whatever benefits they thought they might have had in Moab, no nation in the ancient Near East had laws like the nation of Israel that protected the poor and the vulnerable like the Mosaic law. God required His people to share the harvest with widows, orphans, and foreigners by allowing them to glean from the edges of the fields. (Deut. 14:28-29; 24:19-21; & 26:12-13) The Jubilee instructions in Leviticus 25 incorporated protections for these vulnerable people groups in God’s instruction on how the Israelites were to live in the land.

Ruth Pulses with the Theme of Redemption

The leaders among the Israelites, as represented by the judges, were increasingly unfaithful to the Law, idolatrous, and unjust. In Ruth, we find ordinary people of God who are faithful to others, obedient to His commands, and living out the story of redemption that characterizes the arc and sweep of Scripture, from beginning to end.

The Book of Ruth pulses with the great theme of redemption and God’s intention to include the nations in God’s redemptive plans. God’s promise to Abraham to bless all the nations of the earth through Abraham’s descendants is repeated many times for emphasis (Gen. 12:2-3; 17:4; 22:17-18; 26:43-4; 28:13-14), and it isn’t forgotten. The drumbeat continued, though faint it may seem, as Israel and Judah wandered from the Law: Psalm 72:17; Isaiah 2:2-3; 49:6; 56-6-7; Micah 4:1-2.

From the the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden (Gen. 2-3) to the gathering of people from every nation, tribe, and tongue before the throne of Jesus (Rev. 7:9), all of Scripture is one great redemption story. Ruth sits in the middle of that story foreshadowing the climactic act of redemption and blessing to all the nations – Christ and him crucified on the cross for our sins and the sins of the world.

Ruth the Moabite – the foreigner and outsider – is embedded by God into Israel’s royal lineage. From her womb flows Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of King David. (Ruth 4:18-22) The Gospel of Mathew traces her royal lineage to Jesus. (Matthew 1:5-6)

Boaz became a “kinsman redeemer” for Ruth when he married her; Jesus became the Great Redeemer of all mankind, marrying all who would believe in him to himself.

The kinsmen redeemer, is an archetype of Christ. Redemption, and the role of the foreigner in God’s redemptive plan for Israel and all the nations, are key themes in the Bible that coalesce in the Book of Ruth.

Who Wanted to Throw Jesus Off a Cliff? What Provoked that Reaction, and What It Might Say about Us

Jesus provoked the response that is in all of our hearts

kevingdrendel1 Comment

In Luke four, Jesus announced his public ministry in his hometown synagogue with these words:

“The spirit is on me because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Luke 4:18-19

Good news to the poor, freedom for prisoners, and freedom for the oppressed echoes Isaiah 61. “[T]he year of the Lord’s favor” echoes Leviticus 25, where Moses passed on the jubilee instructions given by the LORD to the LORD’s people.

Jesus was saying that these things foretold by Isaiah and the Jubilee instructions from Moses were fulfilled in him. Most of us are familiar with the way that many of the prophecies in Isaiah were fulfilled in Jesus, but we may not appreciate how Leviticus 25 takes on special significance – and controversy – in the life and ministry of Jesus.

Jesus announced his public ministry in a dramatic way in his hometown synagogue when he asked for the Isaiah scroll, opened it, read the words quoted above, and sat down. The people in the synagogue were initially “amazed at the gracious words” Jesus spoke. (Luke 4:22) By the end of the short exchange that occurred after that, the people wanted to throw Jesus off a cliff. (Luke 4:28-29) What happened?

The words of Jesus that provoked his hometown people to anger were these:

“‘Truly I tell you,’ he continued, ‘No prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.'”

Luke 4:24-27

Why did these two stories provoke the people to anger? Maybe the better question (the one we might not want to ask) is whether we are much different than they were?

The tension that played out in that Galilean synagogue when Jesus announced his ministry presages our modern reality 2000 years later. We still have a difficult time with the instructions, intentions and long-term plans that God announced when He told Abram that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through his descendants.

Today, I want to review some relevant provisions in Isaiah 61 and Leviticus 25 to explore why that reference did not sit well with God’s people. It wasn’t the references so much as the stories of Elijah and Elisha that he connected to them. Those stories – and what they suggest – may still not resonate well.

Continue reading “Who Wanted to Throw Jesus Off a Cliff? What Provoked that Reaction, and What It Might Say about Us” →