“The Merciful” based on 1 John 3:1-3 and Matthew…

November 5, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

There
is a timelessness to All Saints Sunday, similar to the spacelessness
to World Communion Sunday. On World Communion Sunday, as the Table
of Christ feeds people around the whole world, we are able to connect
to our siblings in faith without distance separating us. On All
Saints day we connect to those who went on before us, blessed us, and
entered the great cloud of witnesses. I often think of the great
cloud of witnesses as being not just around us, but under us – they
are the ones on whose shoulders we stand.

Some
of the saints we knew well, some of their names will be read today,
some of them predated us by too many years for us to know them by
name, and yet they form the great cloud of witnesses. This reminds
us, as well, that we are here only for a brief period of time in the
work of the church. Someday, we too, will be part of the cloud. The
generations march ever onward. The cloud will someday include us,
and those who aren’t even here yet! The generations march ever
onward. Today is a day of timelessness.

It
is also a day of timelessness in that grief slows down time, and time
can feel relentless. On All Saints Day we don’t JUST remember those
who went on before us, and take a moment to acknowledge them, we also
notice the heartbreak of grief and attend to each other in our
heartbreak. While it is wonderful to have a great cloud of witnesses
around us, most of us would rather have those we love right here with
us! We are thankful to God for their lives, but usually we really
wish we were able to share more time with them!

There
is a deep holiness to the All Saints celebration, deep enough that
there is mystery in it as well. In seeking to be faithful to the
lives of the Saints, the lectionary has given us rather mysterious
text as well. It seems simple, until you try to make sense of it!
Here are the useful bits I’ve learned about these so called
Beatitudes:

The
verbs really matter.
A
bunch of the individual “blessings” are quotes from the Hebrew
Bible.
A
lot of explanations exist to solve seeming contradictions

I’m
gonna explain each. First of all, the verbs. Those who speak Greek
say that a whole lot of effort is made into having the verbs be in
the form they’re in. Namely, that the statements say blessed ARE,
but then indicate a future reality (mostly). Furthermore, they
aren’t commandments, they are stated as facts. Finally, according to
Feasting on the Word, “In
Psalm 1 the Hebrew word translated in our English text by our word
‘blessing’ is the word ’ashar,
which means in its literal sense ‘to find the right road’. … This
is the meaning of ‘ashar in the nine uses of ‘blessed’” in the
Beatitudes.”¹
That means that these mean something like “You are on the right
road when you are poor in spirit.”²
Or, perhaps, “You who are merciful are on the right road, you will
receive mercy.” So each line says “this group of people is on
the right road – and this is where it will lead them in the
future.” These aren’t particularly normal verb constructions,
which is why they’re worth mentioning.

Now,
the Jesus Seminar thinks there is evidence to suggest that Jesus
likely said 4 of these blessings – because they show up in Luke and
Thomas. Those are: the poor in Spirit, those who grieve, those who
hunger and thirst (for righteousness), and those who are persecuted.
They think Matthew filled in the rest as a way to uphold the early
Christian Community.³
In both cases, the blessings have striking Hebrew Bible roots.

First
off, this text seems to be a reworking of Psalm 1, that being a Psalm
that talks about blessed people rather extensively (in the “to find
the right road” meaning). Regarding comfort to mourners, which the
Jesus Seminar thinks goes back to Jesus, that sounds a whole lot like
Isaiah 61:1-3, “The
spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me;
he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the
broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to
the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour, and the
day of vengeance of our God; to
comfort all who mourn;
to provide for those who mourn in Zion—to give them a garland
instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the mantle
of praise instead of a faint spirit.” Regarding meek inheriting,
which the Jesus Seminar thinks Matthew created, we hear it in Psalm
37:11, “But
the meek shall inherit the land, and delight in abundant prosperity.”

As
a whole, the lists of qualities of people sound like lists in the
Hebrew Bible that relate to who can enter the temple! There are
moral standards being held here, and they reflect the tradition they
grow from. For example,

Psalm
15:1-5

1 O Lord,
who may abide in your tent?
Who may dwell on
your holy hill?
2 Those
who walk blamelessly, and do what is right,
and
speak the truth from their heart;
3 who
do not slander with their tongue,
and do no evil
to their friends,
nor take up a reproach against
their neighbours;
4 in
whose eyes the wicked are despised,
but who
honour those who fear the Lord;
who stand by their oath even
to their hurt;
5 who do
not lend money at interest,
and do not take a
bribe against the innocent.
Those
who do these things shall never be moved.

Psalm
24:3-6 does the same. So, Jesus is REWORKING, or REMOLDING his own
tradition, and then Matthew is doing the same. Given those
realities, the really interesting pieces may be in what finally gets
included and excluded? Why were the poor in spirit, those who mourn,
the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the
merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those who are
persecuted for righteousness the groups of people who fit? Is it
because things were hard for peasants and things were hard for early
Christians? Or is there something deeper? (I don’t know, I’m just
wondering.)

Finally,
people have done a lot of work to try to understand this passage, as
it is one of the best known parts of the Bible while being rather
obscure. The New Interpreter’s Bible has points out, “Peacemakers
does not connote a passive attitude, but positive actions for
reconciliation.”⁴
(180, NIB) Marcus Borg explains some of the others:

“’Poor
in spirit’ almost certainly does not refer to well-to-do people who
are nevertheless spiritually poor, but to people whose material
poverty has broken their spirit. Moreover, ‘righteousness’ in the
Bible and Matthew does not mean personal rectitude, as it most often
does in modern English, but justice. ‘Those who hunger and thirst
for righteousness’ likely means ‘those who hunger and thirst
for justice.’ The meaning of
Mathew’s wording is thus similar and perhaps identical to what we
find in Luke, for it is the poor and hungry who yearn for justice.
In short, like the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes confirm that the
kingdom of God is both religious and political: it is God’s
kingdom, and it is a kingdom on earth
that involves a transformation of life for the poor and hungry.”⁵

Perhaps
that’s why these groups were included! Taken
together, the work of scholars establishes that these are meaningful
phrases that fit into the rest of Jesus’ teaching, and that they
aren’t meant to just be a mystery!

So,
these really are powerful teachings. As one scholar puts it, “In
none of the beatitudes is advice being offered for getting along in
this world, where mercy is more likely to be regarded as a sign of
weakness than to be rewarded in kind.”⁶
“Christianity is not a scheme to reduce stress, lose wight, advance
one’s career, or preserve one from illness. Christian faith,
instead, is a way of living based on the firm and sure hope that
meekness is the way of God, that righteousness and peace will finally
prevail, and that God’s future will be a time of mercy and not
cruelty.”⁷
The Beatitudes continue in the tradition of differentiating the ways
of God – justice, righteousness, peace, well-being for all – with
the ways of the world. The values the Beatitudes celebrate are not
at all the ones the world seeks, but they are the ones that build the
kin-dom.

On
All Saints we remember those who went on before us, and we remember
the ways that their lives followed God’s ways. On All Saints we
remember that they have shown us the right road, and that in doing so
they made it easier for us to travel it. We also remember that the
roads that we choose matter: they matter for the kin-dom itself, and
they matter for those who will come after us.

It
is a good road, this one that Jesus describes, it is a very different
road than others we could also choose to walk. It is a good thing we
have models who have walked the road ahead of us – and continue to
walk it with us as the great cloud of witnesses. Amen

–

1Earl
F. Palmer “Pastoral Perspective on Matthew 5:1-12” in Feasting
on the World Year A Volume 4, David L. Bartlett and Barbara
Brown Taylor, editors (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, KY,
2011) 238.

2Palmer,
238.

3Robert
W. Funk, Roy W Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels:
The Search for the Autthentic Words of Jesus (HarperOneUSA,
1993), page 138.

4M.
Eugene Boring, New Interpreter’s Bible Volume VII: Matthew
Leander E. Keck editorial board convener (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1995), page 180.

5Marcus
Borg, Jesus: The Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious
Revolutionary (HarperOne:
2015), 190-191.

6Boring,
179.

7Boring,
181.

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

Sermons

“How to Love God” based on Leviticus 19:1-2, 15-19…

October 29, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

Sometimes
things are complicated, things like trying to build the kin-dom of
God for example. This feels especially complicated when trying to
hold together awareness of many people, with many different needs,
and may varied experiences of oppression. When Rev. Dr. Traci West
was here talking about “Grace and Race” she reminded us that when
we look at things intersectionally, the same people can be both
oppressed and oppressor, in different roles or realities they live.
Actually, it is more that we are all both, which we have to keep in
mind while also trying to get clear on how the systems work that
create and enforce the oppressions, so that we can be part of
changing them.

Sometimes
things are really complicated, like when we try to identify the
driving forces that are important in building a more just society,
and when we look at how deeply embedded how intricate the forces that
keep the status quo in place are. Sometimes things are really
complicated, like when we try to imagine a world without hungry
people, and then we think about all the changes that would require.

And
then, in the midst of all the complications, come the simplest and
clearest commandments of the Bible. They can easily be remembered.
They leave minimal space for interpretation, and there isn’t any
wiggle room in them. Love God, and love your neighbor. Follow up
question: who is my neighbor is easily answered: everyone. Done

The
commandments offer a very simple explanation of the sort of love that
God wants from us: to love God the way God wants to be loved is to
love God’s people. Its all very simple.

Yet,
every one of us who has tried to live these commandments knows they
get very complicated to live out, very quickly. How is it that
something so simple and understandable is also so very difficult?

Thanks
goodness for Leviticus (things you might not have expected to hear –
ever). As it is written in the New Interpreter’s Bible, “Leviticus
19 is one of the grand chapters of the whole book of Leviticus. In
American Reform Judaism it is one of the most quoted and most often
read chapters, especially since it is assigned as the Torah reading
for Yom Kippur afternoon in that tradition.”¹
If you are not familiar with Yom Kippur, it is the Holiest day in
the Jewish tradition, and is focused on atonement and repentance.
The Yom Kippur prayer of atonement is so vast and inclusive that I
find it exceptionally healing, by the time it is over it truly feels
as if the slate of past wrongdoings is wiped clean and we can start
anew.

The
part of the chapter that we are focusing on today reflects on what it
means to love one’s neighbor, and the commandments it contains seem
to clarify what tends to go wrong! By noticing how people are
instructed to do right, we can see what has gone wrong too
frequently.

The
first part of the set of instructions are about how to care for
people who live in poverty, and they are consistent with other
passages in the Torah. As one commentator puts it, this set of
instructions

“seeks
to help poor people by legislating that the three chief products of
agriculture – the grain, the product of the vine, and the fruit of
the trees, are not to be harvested entirely; some is to be left for
poor people to glean. … the Lord is the ultimate owner of
everything; thus the land is a gift from the Lord. If the landowners
are only stewards of the land and all that it produces, there is no
reason to be selfish and stingy. … Disadvantaged persons have a
right to harvest the edges of the fields; they are not to depend on
voluntary gifts alone.”²

In
modern terms, I wonder if the comparison is to be made to welfare,
and other assistance that comes through the Department of Social
Services. The comparison isn’t perfect, gleaning the field was seen
as a human right, however it does compare well to the idea that there
needs to be a way to provide for the basic needs of life for all
people, and that on top of those very basic needs there will be need
for further support. (Please note the video on Sustain and the idea
that those who are getting help from DSS are still struggling to
access basic necessities of life.)

That
idea that all that is, is God’s, and that we are to use it
appropriately is one of the most humbling ideas in our faith. Do we
do it? How well? What would God have us be doing with our resources
that we aren’t doing? How have things gotten to where they are?

The
second bit of instruction deals with truth; there are commands not to
steal, not to deal falsely, not to lie, and not to swear falsely in
the name of God. Apparently these are also common issues in all of
humanity, the temptation to take what isn’t ours or tell untruths for
our own benefit. Their inclusion in this passage is notable though:
to seek a benefit from an untruth means taking that benefit from
someone else. It is not to act as we would wish others would act
towards us.

The
third set of instructions seems to focus on balancing power. In
particular the instructions are against fraud and against stealing.
Then comes yet another instruction that seems to be timeless: “you
shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning.”
Laborers were usually living day to day, using the labor of the day
to buy the day’s bread. By keeping it for just a bit longer, the
person who didn’t pay on time would be keeping a person from their
daily food. This has compassion for the poorest workers. Finally,
the instructions condemn taking advantage of a person’s disability
(and I’d expect this expands to any weakness). Specially it says not
to speak harshly to a deaf person nor attempt to trip a blind person.
In summation, this part of loving our neighbors as ourselves seems
to be about not taking advantage of anyone just because we can.

The
fourth part of this set of instructions
worries about “just judgements” and in particular the
availability of justice to people who are poor. This is practically
an obsession of the Torah. It is as if there is something inherent
in human nature that biases people toward partiality, towards giving
the rich and powerful more wealth and more power while taking it away
from the impoverished and disempowered. I don’t much like thinking
about humanity that way, but I can’t see any other reason why the
Bible would spend SO much effort trying to correct for it.
Furthermore, I suppose, that when dealing with justice in combination
with wealth and power, any human could come face to face with a
self-preservation instinct. A wealthy person who is displeased might
be capable of significant harm. Perhaps it is just self-preservation
that makes it possible that all justice systems need constant
reminders and corrections to ensure that justice serves the poor and
the wealthy equally well. It is distributing however, that the
issues that exist today in our nation’s justice system are neither
new nor unique, but reflect a problem with humanity itself. That may
mean it is will be quite reticent to correction.
#Schooltoprisionpipeline #privateprisons

The
final set of instructions about neighborliness in Leviticus 19 is a
bit surprising. It explicitly states that to love your neighbor
means you can’t hate them. That may be a lot harder than it sounds.
It also says that you have to call them to account when their
behavior isn’t loving. That’s definitely harder than it sounds.
Then we’re told not to seek revenge AND not to hold grudges. Then
this part of the passage seamlessly draws itself to a conclusion, the
one we already knew was coming, “You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.”

One
thing seems true, the last few millennia haven’t seen much change in
human behavior. The explicit instructions in Leviticus about what
loving our neighbors looks like hold up well to the test of time.

So
what do we do with these easy to understand, difficult to enact
commandments? We could discuss further instruction, but that hasn’t
yet proven productive. We could offer inspiring stories, but I think
that’s been done enough. I wonder if our time is better spent
considering what holds us back from loving our neighbors, and what we
might do to overcome those barriers.

Now,
this list is just my best guesses (I’m a little sad we don’t’ have a
sermon talk-back so I can hear what you’d add or remove), the things
that make it hard for us to love our neighbors: fear of our own
deaths (“existential anxiety”) and an instinct toward self
preservation, combined with believing in the myth of scarcity;
in-group thinking and fear of others; and finally a lack of love for
ourselves. (If the commandment is to love our neighbors AS
ourselves, it implies we are also supposed to be good at loving
ourselves!) That isn’t a terribly extensive list, I was attempting
to be as clear like the commandments themselves 😉

If
you are willing to take a homework assignment, I’d encourage you to
spend some time considering if the list above feels true in your
experience, and then to consider what things make you more
susceptible to those challenges to loving our neighbors and which
make it easier for you to overcome them and love your neighbors well.
The answers to those questions are pretty important, especially if
we’re all willing to work on them.

For
me, there are two key pieces to overcoming those challenges, two
things that help me truly love our neighbors. The first is quiet
time to soak in God’s love and hear my own inner voice, and the
second is having opportunities to learn about the world and to
connect with people – especially those whose lives have been
radically different from mine. To start at the beginning for this,
when I’m tired, or drained, or anxious, I’m not very loving –
including to myself. While sleep and also good food matter, the key
to keeping myself from getting drained is taking time for my
spiritual well-being. For me, at my best, this means an HOUR a day
spent in contemplative prayer, although the particular form of the
prayer isn’t consistent. When I stop all the doing and just listen –
both to God and myself – I’m more centered, more loving, more
focused, and waaaaaaaaaay less anxious.

At
the same time, one of the great dangers of trying to “Love our
neighbors as ourselves” is misunderstanding what love looks like
for a particular person or group of people. If I don’t understand
the problem, and if I don’t take the time to listen to the one(s)
struggling, then the love I try to share may end up doing more harm.
Also, I really like learning, connecting, and trying to understand
the world and its people.

What
guides you? What helps you be more loving? I know some of you need
forests, others need music, others need exercise – and for many of
you, I don’t know! If you do know what you need to be more loving
the next question is: are you DOING it? I think God would appreciate
it if we spent our time doing the things that help us be more loving
toward our neighbors, in fact, I think that’s how we best love God.
Amen

1Walter
C. Kaiser, “Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections on
Leviticus” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Volume One
, Leander E. Keck, editorial board convener (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1994) p. 1131.

2Kaiser,
1133.

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

October 29, 2017

Sermons

“Claiming Her Life” based on Genesis 38:1-26

January 15, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

My favorite Genesis commentator, Gerhard Von Rad, was a German professor at the University of Heidelberg. Von Rad says it well when he says, “To understand Tamar’s act, the reader must resist comparing it with modern conditions and judging it accordingly, for the modern world has nothing that can be compared to it.”¹ There is so much necessary context required to understand the story that it may seem like isn’t worth it, but I promise you that understanding what she was up against is necessary to show how hardcore Tamar was.

The first thing to understand about this story is levirate marriage. This was a custom practiced in many ancient societies with strong clan structure and significant inheritance laws. It worked like this: if a married man died before producing an heir, his brother was responsible for producing an heir on his behalf. In the ancient Near East it was normal for the eldest son to inherit a double portion of his father’s estate. Thus, if an eldest brother died, his younger brother would be producing the heir who would get the double portion INSTEAD of him. You may remember that Jesus was questioned about a widow who had been married to a series of brothers, in an attempt to stump Jesus.

The second thing to understand is widowhood culture. The practice would have been that a widow would return to her father’s house, and thereby be eligible for remarriage. Only a widow would return to her father’s house. A woman who has a levirate marriage or who was waiting to have a levirate marriage was not ENTIRELY a widow and remained a part of the family of her deceased husband. The question is: to whom does the widow belong? To her father’s family or to her in-laws? As long as there was someone available to produce that heir she belonged to her in-laws. To send her home to her father’s house was to imply otherwise.

The third important thing to know is that there is a significant debate about what sort of prostitution is being referenced in this text. Some commentators suggest that Tamar was acting as a sacred prostitute, within expected behavioral boundaries of her people. (She was a Canaanite.) This is because there are two words for prostitute used in the text, one used in reference to Tamar’s actual story and another – the more common word – used in the accusation against her. Von Rad explains it this way:

In the ancient Orient, it was customary in many places for married women to give themselves to strangers because of some oath. Such sacrifices of chastity in the service of the goddess of love, Astarte, were, of course, different form ordinary prostitution even though they were were repulsive to Israel. They were strictly forbidden by law, and the teachers of wisdom warned urgently against this immoral custom, which was apparently at times fashionable even in Israel. At the borders between Israel and Canaan, where our whole story takes place, the appearance on the road of a ‘devoted one’ was obviously nothing surprising. Tamar does not pretend to be a harlot as we think of it but rather a married woman who indulges in this practice, and Judah too thought of her in this way. It is characteristic that our narrative in vs. 21 and 22 also uses the expression ‘devoted one’ which recalls the sacred meaning of this practice.”²

In contrast, J. Maxwell Miler in the New Interpreter’s Bible, says, “Although her dress and action could imply prostitution (the veil both invites and conceals), the narrator does not mention it. Judah so interprets the veil and propositions her (vv. 15-16). In v. 21, his friend speaks of her as a ‘temple prostitute,’ probably only more discreet language for a prostitute (with no official cultic reference.)”³ In either case, Judah was very comfortable paying a woman to have sex with him and very uncomfortable with a woman he controlled having sex for money! Or as Miller puts it, “When Judah saw her as a prostitute, he used her; when he sees her in this capacity as his daughter-in-law, he condemns her. Clearly Judah applies a double standard.”⁴ Furthermore, the death he condemns her to is particularly harsh. As Von Rad says, “The punishment itself is certainly, in the narrator’s opinion, the severest possible. The later law recognized burning only in an extreme case of prostitution (Lev. 21.9). The custom was death by stoning for such offenses (Deut 22.23 ff; Lev. 20.16).”⁵ This likely relates to honor culture, and to have a woman in his family prostituting herself decreased his honor, while using a prostitute did not.

The issue is that by sending her back to her father’s house, he had functionally disowned her. Yet, the people brought her pregnancy to him as if he was still the person who owned her, and he had no issue judging her, as if he still owned her. Von Rad explains, “If one examines the legal aspect of the case, its difficulty becomes apparent. On the basis of what fact was the complaint made? Because of a widow’s prostitution or that of an engaged girl? Those who turn to Judah in this matter seem to assume the latter. Judah assumes competence as judge; he thus reckons Tamar as part of his family, though Tamar’s act proceeded from the assumption that Judah had released her permanently from the family and gave no further considerations to a marriage with his third son.”⁶

Finally, we need to remember that women had no legal standing in that time and place. As Walter Brueggemann pus it, “a striking contrast is established between this man who has standing and status in the community and this woman who stands outside the law and is without legal recourse.”⁷Tamar was being treated as if she was a widow by being sent back to her father, but also as if she was engaged to Shelah. She was in legal limbo and had no way to get out of it. Judah, by telling her it was a temporary solution was both dishonest with her and kept her from having any sort of life in the future. Von Rad says, “Judah’s wrong lay in considering this solution as really final for himself but in presenting to Tamar as an interim solution.”⁸

So, now that we have all the context down, I’m guessing we’ve all forgotten the actual story, right? Judah has gone off away from his brothers to live among the Canaanites. He marries a Canaanite woman, has three sons, and he finds a wife, Tamar, for the eldest son whose name is Er. Er dies, and Judah seems generally afraid of women and is a bit afraid Er died because Tamar was… scary or something. The story seems to believe God killed Er for being bad. Then Er’s younger brother Onan WAS bad. As Miller puts it, “Onan sabotages the intent of the relationship in order to gain Er’s inheritance for himself upon Judah’s death – the firstborn would receive a doubleshare. He regularly uses Tamar for sex, but makes sure she does not become pregnant by not letting his semen enter her (coitus interruptus, not masturbation). He therefore formally fulfills his duty, lest the role be passed on to his other brother and he lose Er’s inheritance in this way. This willful deception would be observable to Tamar, but God’s observation leads to Onan’s death (again, by unspecified means).”⁹ Tamar knew what was happening the whole time but no one cared, and she had no legal standing. As is true in Genesis, when a man sexually mistreats a woman, God does harm to the man. So Onan dies.

Judah is now completely freaked out that Tamar is powerful and killing off his sons. So he tells her that he wants her to go home to her father’s house to wait for his youngest son, Shelah, to grow up but he is lying! He intends for her to die in limbo as a widow/engaged woman who no one else can touch, while not taking care of her and not letting anyone else be responsible for her either. Years later, after Judah’s wife has died, Tamar becomes certain that Judah never intended to do right by her.

So she dresses herself in a way that suggests she’s available, which includes a veil so he doesn’t know who she is, and her father-in-law propositions her. She says yes, sleeps with him, gains two identifying possessions, and then he leaves. She takes her veil back off and reclaim the role of widow, so that when Judah sends her the agreed upon goat, she can’t be found. Thus she keeps the identifiers. She is eventually found to be pregnant and Judah is told. He judges her harshly and decrees she should be burned to death – for adultery, that is for being unfaithful to his son Shelah who he never intended to let marry her anyway. AS SHE WAS BEING BROUGHT OUT she sent word to Judah saying “the guy who owns these is the father” and with them sends his identifying possessions.

Then, suddenly, Judah sees the light, admits all his wrong doings, takes back the condemnation, takes care of her again, AND doesn’t sleep with her again. Actually, I don’t entirely believe that last part. Since the text doesn’t say whose wife she becomes, and since she had children by him, I suspect he did keep sleeping with her and the text itself protests too much – but who knows?

More to the point, Tamar existed in a time when she was seen as possession more than as person. She existed in between cultures, neither of which respected her, and she had no legal voice with which to articulate her concerns. We know nothing about her relationship to Er, but we know that both Onan and Judah used her to fulfill their own ends. She was left in limbo, unable to find a life that would support her over the long run, and she was lied to about it. She came up with a plan to inverse her circumstances, and it was radical, revolutionary, risky, and difficult. I doubt she particularly wanted to sleep with Judah, but she used her sexuality and his openness to fulfilling his sexual needs to get what she needed. Tamar is one of the most hardcore human beings I’ve heard about. Ever.

Tamar refused to be ignored, denied, pretended away. She refused a life that would be most likely to end with her homeless and starving. She refused a life without the opportunity to mother (which she would have been told was her her reason for existing). She outsmarted the man who had all the power over her, and he acknowledged her righteousness in the end – EVEN though many would still prefer to condemn her.

The thing is, I suspect Tamar was not the only woman around who was stuck in legal limbo. She is, however, the only woman whose story is being told because she found her way out. She was the extraordinary one who overcame overwhelming circumstances. She was the exception. Her courage and intelligence worked for her when she existed in a system that was designed to see her as property rather than as a human. Tamar blew up the rules in order to get a chance at her life. And she gets acknowledged for it throughout history.

The children that Tamar would bear would be ancestors of King David and as such ancestors of Jesus. She is one of three women listed in Matthews genealogy of Jesus. Interestingly Judah (and not Er) is listed as the father in that genealogy.

We have a story of an exceptional human here, one who beat a multitude of odds. Yet I think the value of the story is that it points out to us just how broken that system was. It didn’t take care of all the people and it took an exceptional person breaking all the rules to navigate it. I think if we are to learn anything from the courage of Tamar and from her choice to claim her life it is this: may we fight with people who are as stuck as Tamar was so that no one is required to be the exceptional hero in order to claim a life worth living. That is, may there be fewer people who need to go to such extremes, because people in desperation have allies like us. Amen

Sermon Talkback

What other stories can you think of: exceptional humans overcoming overwhelming odds that no one should ever have to face?
Why do you think Tamar is included in the genealogical list for Jesus?

And why with Judah as father, not Er?

This story doesn’t fit in at all. It is essentially stand alone. Why do you think it kept getting told?
Was Tamar more in the right? Why?
Where are we successful in being allies to those in extenuating circumstances?
Where are not successful?
What do you think motivated Tamar?
God isn’t spoken of much in this story, moreso God is implied. This is an OLD story. Within its constructs, God who is quite active in killing off the immoral lets Tamar’s actions stand. What does that mean???

—-

1Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: a commentary in The Old Testament Library series (The Westminster Press: Philadelphia, 1972) 359.

2Von Rad, 359-360.

3J. Maxwell Miller “Genesis” in The New Interpreter’s Study Bible Volume 1edited by Leander Kirk et al (Abingdon Press: Nashville, 1994), 605

4Miller, 606.

5Von Rad, 360-1.

6Von Rad, 360.

7Walter Brueggemann, Genesis in Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching series (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, Kentucky, 1982) 310.

8Von Rad, 358.

9Miller, 605.

–

Rev. Sara E. BaronFirst United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

January 15, 2017