Luke 10:38 42 - Martha

     Martha and Mary are often depicted as symbols of two opposite life styles. Martha is the active life and Mary is the contemplative or spiritual life.
     Martha is best remembered for the time she complained to Jesus because her sister, Mary, wasn’t helping with the housework. Jesus admonished her, saying that Mary had chosen the better part, which would not be taken away from her.
     This story tends to evoke strong feelings. People have wondered if Martha’s hard work and desire to provide Jesus and the disciples with good hospitality was not appreciated or valued. It has also been questioned where would the world be if no one did any of the work but only lived the contemplative or spiritual but otherwise inactive life.
     Jesus was responding to a specific situation. Martha was a good friend. Her generous hospitality must have been a rare pleasure to Jesus who had spent so much time traveling, and sometimes surrounded by enemies. Jesus and his disciples may well have stayed with her during the last week of Jesus’ life. Bethany was only a few miles from Jerusalem. It would have been a convenient place to stay during a time when accommodations would have been almost impossible to find, the city being crowded with pilgrims who’d come for the Passover. The donkey that Jesus rode in the Palm Sunday parade could have come from Martha’s household.
     While Mary has been lauded for her spirituality, Martha has often been portrayed as fussy, ill tempered, finicky, and distinctly unspiritual. This portrait would be incorrect. Certainly she wasn’t perfect. Obviously she had a temper and knew how to use it. If she had a disagreement with her sister, she should have spoken to her directly and privately. She shouldn't have talked to Jesus about Mary.
      It is important to understand that the Middle Eastern culture places a high value on generous hospitality. As a woman and mistress of the household, as part of that culture, it would have been very very difficult for Martha to say to her guests: "We'll just be having bread for dinner tonight." No doubt she would have enjoyed just sitting and listening to Jesus the way her sister was doing. Yet Martha also knew that he and his disciples were tired from their journey, they were hungry, and she wanted them to be comfortable in her home.
       The words Jesus spoke to Martha may have been as much for the sake of his disciples. They spent too much time worrying about what they were going to eat or wear or what was going to happen tomorrow.
     Other stories indicate that Martha was intelligent and theologically astute.
     When their brother, Lazarus, was sick, the sisters sent word to Jesus, but he was delayed in coming and Lazarus died. They were mourning in their home, when they heard that Jesus was approaching.
     Mary seems to have been prostrate with grief, something that fits with her more passive character. But Martha rose immediately to meet him on the road. She greeted Jesus with a stunning proclamation of faith: "If you had been here, Lord, my brother would not have died! But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask for."
     She and Jesus proceeded to have a short theological conversation concerning life, death, and resurrection. There is quite a contrast between their talk and those Jesus often had with other people, which must have been exercises in frustration for him.
     Martha was intelligent and spiritual and Jesus responded to her accordingly. Then, when Martha probably would have rather stayed right there at Jesus' side, she left him. She went back and got her sister. That way Mary could also be with Jesus and be comforted by his presence.
     When Mary came, she collapsed weeping at Jesus' feet. She managed to tell him that if he had been there Lazarus wouldn't have died, but that was all she could get out between her tears. Obviously, Mary had faith also, but she didn't have Martha's intelligence or backbone.
     Martha's practical nature sometimes did collide with her spiritual insights. When Jesus said to roll the stone away from the tomb, she very prosaically suggested it might not be a good idea because the smell would be bad. After all, Lazarus had been dead for four days.
     While Martha's faith told her Jesus could do anything, she still briefly stubbed her toe on her practicality.
     But Martha was not so practical as to resent the costly gift Mary made Jesus. You remember Mary broke an alabaster jar full of expensive oils and used them to bath his feet.
      You might expect the practical Martha to have stopped her, but it was Judas who suggested the gift might better have been sold to give the proceeds to the poor, not Martha.



How many would prefer getting remembered for their best and most noble moment in life?

How many would enjoy being remembered only for our worst moments?

What can Martha teach us?

Philemon & Archippus

Philemon & Archippus



     The letter begins: “From Paul, a prisoner for the sake of Christ Jesus, and from our brother Timothy--To our friend and fellow worker Philemon, and the church that meets in your house, and our sister Apphia, and our fellow soldier Archippus.
     Because the letter is addressed to Philemon first, it is usually assumed that he was the owner of the slave Onesimus. However, it could also have been Archippus.
     Some scholars believe that Philemon might have been a presiding elder for the churches in the region of Laodicea. Paul could have been addressing the letter to him first because of his position in the church. (Such a thing could have been a tactful move so that Onesimus might not be taken and punished before the letter could be read. It might also have been due to the fact that the issue of slaves and masters being both Christian was a subject faced in the church.) There is some suggestion that the Philemon letter and the letter of Colossians may have been sent at the same time. Colossians does refer to another letter, saying “And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea.”
     Archippus is mentioned in the letter to the Colossians. The Christians there are commanded to “say to Archippus, ‘See that you fulfil the ministry which you have received in the Lord’” (4:17).
     Some scholars have suggested that Archippus was the son of Philemon and Apphia. But there is no real evidence for this.
     Paul clearly hoped that Philemon(or Archippus) would free Onesimus. But we don't know whether the purpose was freedom to return to Paul, or freedom to engage in Christian ministry.
     Paul worded his letter carefully. It is almost the shortest book in the Bible. He reminds Philemon of their common heart in Christ. We might call it a guilt trip, but he reminded Philemon also that he, Paul, was in prison for the gospel He also points out that he had been the one to nurture the faith in Philemon/Archippus (probably both men first received the witness of the faith from Paul).
     Paul points out that Onesimus is a brother in Christ. He promises to repay any money Onesimus might have taken. He expresses a confidence that Philemon/Archippus will do the right thing.
     But Paul also grants to Philemon/Archippus the freedom he hopes will be granted to Onesimus: the freedom to choose.


How would you define Freedom?


How does responsibility and accountability play a part in the actions of people who are free?


How is freedom a part of faith?

Onesimus - Book of Philemon

     In the first century, a person could become a slave for many reasons. The individual’s family could go into debt and sell a family member to pay off what they owed. An individual could sell themselves into slavery to pay off a debt. A creditor could seize a debtor into slavery. (The last two scenarios could present a debtor with a dilemma of trying to choose which master would be the most congenial, then hoping not to be later sold to someone worse.)
     Another common way that people ended up as slaves was through war. An individual on the losing side could be captured as one of the spoils of battle.
     A person could, of course, be born to a slave, the son or daughter of slave parents.
     Slaves had no rights. A slave master could beat his slave to death with impunity.
     Onesimus was a slave. We know his story today through the letter of Paul, known in the bible as Philemon.
     At some point in his career, young Onesimus ran away from slavery. This was a dangerous action. A runaway slave was beaten when caught, sometimes executed as a lesson to other slaves. Onesimus compounded his situation by also stealing some money from his master.
      It is not clear where Onesimus went after he ran away. It could have been to Ephesus,

Ephesus was a large seaport city in the Roman province of Asia. It was about 35 miles south of the city of Izmir in modern day Turkey. The culture of Ephesus tended to be Greek. It was founded by colonists from Athens in the early 1000s b.c. The city was famous for its Temple of Artemis, which was considered one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. This temple was built, destroyed and rebuilt more than once.

Beginning in the 500s b.c., the Lydians, then the Persians conquered Ephesus.

     In 334 b.c. Alexander conquered the Persians at the Granicus River and Ephesus came under Macedonian power. The citizens had begun to rebuild their temple (The tradition of Plutarch is that the temple of Artemis burned on the day of Alexander the Great’s birth). Alexander offered to pay the expenses of rebuilding, under the condition that he got the credit for doing so in an inscription. The Ephesians declined the offer, although one citizen put it in flattering terms, i.e. that it was inappropriate for a god like Alexander to dedicate offerings to a god.

During the 300s b.c. the Greeks made Ephesus a major trading and banking center. In the Roman Empire it was the capital of the Roman province of Asia. For Christians it became the leading Christian community of Asia. One of the Apostle Paul’s letters was addressed to the Ephesians. In later years, the Goths, Arabs, Turks and finally the Mongals (in 1403 a.d.) looted the city. Ephesus was finally abandoned. Archaeologists began uncovering the ruins in the late 1800s.

     If Onesimus ran to Ephesus for freedom, it could have been a good choice. As a port city with numerous visitors, he might have been able to arrive and blend in without being too obvious. Other scholars believe he may have run away to Rome (and he may have used the money he stole to buy passage to Rome) and that this is where the Apostle Paul met him, in Rome.
     Paul was in prison. He became friends with the young slave, but it appears that Onesimus was not a fellow prisoner because the letter indicates that Paul is sending Onesimus back to his master.
     Paul had grown very fond of the runaway slave, so close that he seemed like a son to him, the son he never had. Paul had also told Onesimus about his faith in Jesus of Nazareth. He would have surely explained to Onesimus how he had been a man of hate, and vindictive determination to kill those who did not agree with him. He would have told the incredible story of how Jesus had transformed his heart and soul.
     Paul surely spoke about good news, about a God whose love was so powerful, nothing could ever separate human beings from it. Paul would have extolled the forgiving nature of God. He spoke about a life everlasting with Jesus Christ.
     Onesimus became a Christian.
     But Onesimus was a runaway slave. His master was part of a Christian community near Collasae. If Paul did as he personally wanted, he would keep Onesimus to comfort and help him while he was in prison. But that action must have seemed dishonest.
      The decision was made that Onesimus must return to his former master. Paul would send a letter with him, a letter to the slave owner and others of the Christian community. The owner would then have to decide what to do.
     The existence of the letter tells us about the faith of Onesimus. He wasn’t sent back. He wasn’t taken back by force. He didn’t dump the letter into the Mediterranean and make another break for freedom. He delivered the letter.
      Onesimus had to go back to his master without assurance that all would turn out all right.


How do you think he found courage to do this?
What decisions are similar in modern life?
What if the master had acted with vengeance against the slave? That is, what if the decision resulted in a “bad” or disappointing end? How do we look to faith in such situations?
Imagine the faith Onesimus must have had in Paul and in Jesus, to return to his master.

Barzillai (2 Samuel 17:27-29)

     Barzillai was an influential Gileadite. His name may mean “made of iron.”
     Gileadite could refer to a territory, a trible and possibly a city in the region to the east of the Jordan. The region was a highland that rises from the valley of the Jordan. These hills and valleys were well watered, making it a well-forested one, facilitating the growth of grapes and olives. The “balm of Gilead” was proverbial – Jeremiah 8:22; 46:11.   As a city, Gilead is mentioned as a city of evildoers Hosea 6:8, although Hosea was writing in a time much later than that of Barzillai. Gileadites were also known as a tribe or family coming from the territory of Gad in Gilead.
     Along with two others, Shobi and Machi, Barzillai brought generous supplies of food and equipment for David and his men at Mahanaim during the rebellion of David’s son, Absalom.
     After Absalom’s defeat, Barzillai provided an escort for David beyond the ford of the Jordan. In gratitude for Barzillai’s friendship and support, David invited him to become a member of the royal court. Barzillai was a man of advanced years and felt he should not accept the invitation. He proposed that his son Chimham be accepted in his place.
      Barzillai’s merit and deeds may have been even more significant than the biblical story seems to indicate. This could be inferred from the David’s final instructions to his son, Solmon, before his death. David told Solomon to deal loyally with the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite and “let them be among those who eat at your table; for with such loyalty they met me when I fled from your brother Absalom.”
      The story of Barzillai shows a man who could be loyal even at a time when it was not certain David would prevail. He fed David and his army simply because he knew they were hungry. Nor did he ask for anything because of his deed. Despite David’s sometimes limited moral behavior, he responded with a pure gratitude that he passed on to his son.

What kind of people like Barzillai have you known?

Joseph - Husband of Mary, mother of Jesus

Matthew 1:18-25; 2:13-15, 19-23



     There is a Hebrew word which means: "to scratch, engrave. This term was often connected with the word for wood. When it was, it meant carpenter. The same word when used with words for various metals is translated "SMITH." Isaiah 44:13 lists some of the carpenter's tools: compass, pencil, plane, saw, hammer, axe, adz, chisel, plumb line, drill, file, square, etc. Many of these were made of stone and in the latter periods bronze and iron. Both dowels and nails, as well as mortised, dovetail, and mitered joints, were used to join wood together.
     The early Israelites were probably backward in the skill of carpentry because of their nomadic origin. David and Solomon both imported Tyrian carpenters to work on the palace and the temple. Later, native carpenters were skilled enough to repair the temple. In the latest OT times there were guilds of carpenters. Less skilled workers in wood were the timber cutters. The most skilled craftsmen were engaged in carving and practiced inlay.
     At the time of the birth of Jesus, a betrothal was as binding as marriage. The one difference was the residence of the woman. The time of the betrothal was in the case of a maiden, one year and a day. For a widow, it was a month.
     During that time Mary lived with her parents. Apparently it was not uncommon that a child might be conceived during the engagement. While it may not have been the most acceptable occurrence, it was also not a disgrace. If a woman's fiancé died during the period of the betrothal, she was considered a widow. The betrothal could only be broken by a writ of divorce issued by the man. Because of the binding nature of the betrothal, it is not unusual to see a woman referred to at one moment as betrothed and the next as wife.
     Fatherhood could be a stern role in the days of Jesus. A father could beat a disobedient child. A father could sell his child into slavery. Death could be the penalty for cursing a father or striking him. If a father decided members of his family were enticing him away from his faith, he could destroy them.
     These were not the kind of fathers that Jesus talked about.
    He surely knew them. But the fathers he spoke of were daddies who could be trusted to love their children beyond reason or expectation.
     It’s not difficult to believe, then, that Jesus had known a wonderful earthly father.
     We don't know very much about Joseph the Carpenter and a lot of what we do know, or think we know, is inference and speculation.
     For example: He is not mentioned in the stories of Mary and the brothers and sisters of Jesus. And, it is unlikely Jesus on the cross would have entrusted his mother into the care of a fellow disciple if her husband was still alive. It is therefore assumed that Joseph died some time before Jesus began his public ministry.
     Joseph had a name long honored in Israelite history. The first known Joseph was the favorite son of Jacob, the Patriarch. His brothers disliked him and in jealousy sold him as a slave. He ended up in Egypt where he eventually rose to a rank second only to the Pharaoh. In that position he eventually forgave his brothers.  During a famine he enabled his family to survive and become residents of Egypt. Many generations later, after a period of slavery, the Israelites were set free. They carried with them the bones of Joseph so that they might bury him in Israel.
     Names were important in the ancient world. Joseph the Carpenter would have been very aware of the character and history of his own name. No doubt it influenced his identity in some way.
     Joseph was a carpenter. Recent studies show that carpenters probably did not have a high rank or an honored place in society.
     A carpenter was a craftsman who built yokes, plows, threshing boards, benches, beds, boxes, coffins, boats, and houses, and worked on the temple and the synagogues.
     Joseph practiced his trade and was known by it.
     Joseph also taught Jesus carpentry. An early Christian, Justin Martyr, believed that Jesus may have built yokes and plows.
     The Good News Bible says that Joseph was a man who always did what was right. The Revised Standard says that he was a righteous man. Another translation says that he was a man of character.
     When Joseph heard that Mary was expecting a child that wasn’t his, he chose not to hurt her. (He could have had her stoned to death.) He resolved to divorce her quietly. Yet, even as he was thinking of divorce, an angel of the Lord came to him in a dream and told him the child was of the Holy Spirit. Joseph believed and chose to keep Mary as his wife.
     Joseph believed without proof, without seeing, without touching.
     Joseph paid attention to the voice of God. Later we hear that the child is in danger because of the anger of King Herod. Joseph is again warned in a dream. He rises up in the middle of the night and carries the mother and child to safety in Egypt. Later, when they return, Joseph is concerned over the danger in Judea and chose to settle in Nazareth.
     Both Matthew and Luke give the genealogy of Joseph. They trace the ancestry of Jesus through Joseph. Of course, the two genealogies don't agree with each other and, of course, Joseph is not presented as the biological father of Jesus. But his ancestry is given anyway.
     Perhaps it is because Joseph becomes the legal father of Jesus. Jesus himself seemed satisfied to be known as his son.
     The glimpses we are given indicate that Joseph was a good father. He named the child. He kept the baby safe in time of danger. He maintained the family home and livelihood. He taught Jesus his profession. When Jesus was thought to be lost, he shared Mary's frantic worry and desperate searching.
     Joseph was also an attentive father regarding the religious upbringing of his children. Despite their poverty, the family Jesus made the yearly pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Passover.
     It was the hope of most families to go there at least once in their entire lives. But Joseph and Mary went every year. Joseph was the one who would have made that decision. He must have felt that this sacred observance was of more value to his family than the money saved.
     We may also infer from the gospel stories that Joseph made the Sabbath observance and attendance at the synagogue a faithful habit. Jesus had clearly been taught well the law, the customs, and traditions of his people. Joseph was part of this. If we take seriously the incarnation, the fact that Christ assumed human nature and its limitations; if we do this, the importance of the influence, teaching, and example of Joseph is vitally important.
     It is also true that the other sons of Joseph were good and faithful men. Though Mary and the brothers and sisters of Jesus did not at first seem to understand his ministry, the ones we know about were active in Christian ministry. Paul referred to the "Lord's brothers," who traveled in Christian ministry.

What qualities of fatherhood do you think that Jesus experienced from Joseph?

Amasa 2 Samuel 19:11-18; 2 Samuel 20:7-10

     I Chronicles 2:9-17 gives the family lineage of Amasa – He was the son of Abigail and Jether the Ishmaelite. Abigail was the daughter of Jesse. Jesse was also the father of David who became king. Thus Amasa was David’s nephew.
     Amasa was also cousin to Joab, who became the commander of David’s army. Joab was the son of Zeruiah, another sister of David.
     When David was in the wilderness, before he became king, and object of pursuit by King Saul of Israel, he was approached by some Benjaminites and Judahites (members of the tribes of Benjamin & Judah). A man named Amasai, “Chief of the Thirty” proclaimed a moving loyalty to David. Many scholars believe that Amasai and Amasa were the same man.
     One of David’s particular weaknesses was in his intemperance toward’s women, and his consequent inability to deal with difficult family affairs. He had a large number of children with various wives and concubines. One son, Amnon (possibly copying the intemperance of his father), forced himself on his half-sister, Tamar, who was the full sister of Absalom. David couldn’t bear to punish Amnon as he deserved because he loved Amnon. This raised the wrath of Absalom, who subsequently arranged the murder of Amnon. Though Absalom was later forgiven by David, Absalom’s relationship with him had clearly taken a wrong turn. He sought to turn the people against David and began conspiring against him to get the throne. The rebellion was almost successful, but in the end Absalom was defeated. David, in love for his son, had given orders that his son’s life was to be spared, but Joab killed him anyway. David wept bitterly, wishing that he could have died in place of his son.
     Among those who had supported Absalom was David’s cousin Amasa, who was placed in command of the rebel forces (II Samuel 17:25). At the encounter in the forest of Ephraim, Amasa’s army was defeated. But, as scholar E.R. Dalglish comments, history took a strange turn. Word came to David that the northern tribes were anxious to recognize him again as their sovereign. He sent this information to the Judeans and encouraged them to help him return to Jerusalem, adding that Amasa, the defeated leader of the rebel forces, was to take command of the army. (Joab was apparently displaced because of his conduct in the death of Absalom). Amasa seems to have been moved by this, and spoke with feeling about David, swaying the hearts of all the people of Judah to invite David’s return.
     David’s interaction with Judah seemed a slight to the northern tribes who had been first to reaffirm their loyalty to David. The anger over this resulted in yet another rebellion, of Sheba, a Benjaminite.
     David directed Amasa to muster the Judaean forces in the space of three days. For reasons not explained (it was an incredibly short time to do the job in a time without modern communication or rapid forms of transportation), Amasa was delayed in his return. David sent Abishai at the head of the royal guards, giving him the task of quelling the rebellion before Sheba’s forces could occupy certain cities. At Gibeon, Amasa joined his command. But Joab, under the guise of friendship (remember that they were also cousins) murdered Amasa.
     One thing distinguishes Amasa. He made a choice, to support Absalom. But when the choice turned out badly and he was offered an opportunity to change directions, he took it. He returned his loyalty to the king and set out to support him wholeheartedly.
     In a cynical world, Amasa's ability to trust Joab may seem unwise, even foolish, but isn't it a far more admirable quality to be Amasa, than to be Joab, whose duplicity and viciousness caused so much grief?

Hagar

Genesis 21:8-21



      Mothers – In a newsletter from another church, the pastor wrote of encountering a man in Las Vegas handing out pamplets showing unclad women with phone numbers and graphic suggestions for date activities. The man had given this pamphlet to the pastor’s teenage daughter! He did not understand the pastor’s unhappiness over this, but did have some reaction to Pastor Bill’s question whether his mother knew what he did for a living.
     Biblical mothers are a mixed crew, some good, some less so. We don’t know what kind of mother Eve was. One son killed the other, but that may have had nothing to do with parenting. Sarah was a beautiful and strong woman. She loved her son and wanted to protect his heritage, so she nagged her husband to cast out his older son, Ishmael, by the servant, Hagar. Ishmael was a child whom Sarah herself had brought about, giving Hagar to her husband. This was a strategm of ancient times, whereupon the child of the servant can be legally considered the child of the wife. Hagar’s wishes were not consulted on the subject, nor was she apparently considered to have any rights.
     One would hope that loving your own children would not blind you to the needs and welfare of other people’s children. Unfortunately, that can’t be said for Sarah.
     Ishamael nearly died, but Hagar and her son were saved in the wilderness by God, who promised them an inheritance of their own. Ishmael is considered the traditional progenitor of the Arab peoples. Abraham’s younger son became the link in the traditional creation of the Jewish people.
     It is interesting that Hagar, rather than Sarah or Abraham, comes out as the more admirable person in this story. She has been victimized, but still chooses to love her child. She had been driven away from Sarah once before, in the wilderness, and was saved by God, promised that her son would begin a great nation. (Genesis 16:1-16).
     In the time afterw this, Sarai and Abram get their names changed to Sarah and Abraham. Circumcision becomes a new practice. Sodom and Gomorrah get their comeuppance. Sarah laughs when she hears that she’ll have a son at her advanced age. There’s a really strange family event with Abraham’s brother (his wife dies and his daughters conceive children with him). Abraham and Sarah lie about her being his wife, and Sarah spends some time in a king’s harem. When Sarah and Abraham are reunited, she finally conceives and bears a son.
     But one day, the older Ishmael is playing with his half-brother and Sarah is suddenly fearful that Hagar’s son might get a share of Abraham’s property. Never mind that he is, in some sense, also Sarah’s son. Never mind that he is at least her husband’s son. Never mind that he’s her son’s half-brother. Never mind that he is a child with a mother who has been victimized by Sarah and her husband. No, cast him out to protect Isaac.
     Hagar goes as far as she can into the wilderness, but runs out of water. She can’t bear to leave Ishmael, but she also can’t stand the thought of watching him suffer. She puts him into the shade of bush and goes off the distance of a bowshot, and waits. But God hears and Hagar is helped and promised once again that her child and grandchildren will become a great nation. (Genesis 21:8-21)
     The Bible tells of Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac. An Arab-Moslem story tells that the same happened with Ishmael. (I have not read the actual account of it, so can’t give details). Then Ishmael is in fact sacrificed on the pyre of fear and jealousy. The only time we know of that the two brothers came together again was to bury their father.
     One Islamic tradition says that Abraham did not expel Hagar, but sought to resettle her in the area surrounding what is now known as Mecca, and that he was told to leave her in the wilderness there as a test of his faith, and that Hagar respected his decision. Both Moslem and Jewish traditions includes stories that Hagar was the daughter of a king, although there are several possibilities given as to which king. But they agree mostly in the idea that Pharoah gave Hagar to Sarah, either because he thought she was Abraham’s sister (and had designs on her himself), or out of respect to Sarah. At first, the stories mainly say, Sarah treated Hagar respectfully, but became jealous when Hagar was able to conceive when Sarah could not.
     One story that is told in Islamic tradition is of Hagaar runing bwetween two hills in a desperate attempt to find water for her son in the wilderness. Apparently, during two Mustlin pilgrimages, the pilgrims are supposed to walk between the hills seven times in memory of Hagar. The rite is symbol for the celebration of motherhood in Islam, and for the leadership of the women.
      Little more is known about Hagar from the Bible story. We know she found a wife for her son in Egypt. By inference, we can believe she was a very strong woman. Perhaps she was not as canny about human nature as she could have been. Upon becoming pregnant, she seems to have become a bit smug (Sarah interpreted it that way). While understandable, it probably wasn’t wise to push Sarah’s buttons that way. But Hagar rose above adversity and victimization. God must have found her worthy, for promises are twice made to her. She chose to love her son despite the challenges against loving him.
     Some Jewish traditions identify Hagar as the same Keturah whom Abraham married after Sarah’s death. Other traditions deny this possibility, but it’s a pleasant thought that he might have tried to make up for his earlier behavior.
     Hagar’s story has inspired some modern Israelis to name their daughters for her. It is, (again according to Wikipedia), frowned upon by nationalists and seen as marking sympathy for reconciliation with Palestine and the Arab world. Women in Black (an inter-religious peace group that has roots in many places, including the Christian settlement houses in America) hold vigils every Friday in Jerusalem’s Paris Square since 1988. They have unofficially re-named it "Hagar Square". This is in honor of Hagar Roublev, an Israeli peace activist who helped found the Friday vigils.
     Hagar could provide a figure for looking at an incredible number of issues. She is profiled here this week because she was a loving mother.


How do we treat the powerless members of today’s world?


What kind of strength can we learn from Hagar?