Mount Moriah

Something was pointed out to me this week-end that I had never seen before.

In Genesis 22, very early on in the forming of the foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith, God told Abraham to take his son Isaac to Mount Moriah, and offer him up as a sacrifice to God. Now, of course, after Abraham went through all the motions, up to trussing Isaac up and placing him on the altar, and raising the knife to end Isaac’s life, then God told him, essentially, never mind, you have proven your faith, that’s all that was necessary.

Now, in First Chronicles 21, David sent Joab out to number Israel. Joab tried to talk David out of it, but David insisted, and he was the king, so all the men of Israel were numbered (except Benjamin and Levi, because Joab saw the folly in actually numbering Israel). God decided to punish Israel for David’s sin, but David saw an angel (the death angel?) by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite. David, and the elders that were with him, cried out to God for mercy, and God stayed the angel. God then commanded David to build an altar at the threshingfloor of Ornan. For some reason, 1 chronicles doesn’t really tell us where Ornan’s threshingfloor was, but, in Second Chronicles 3, we are told that Solomon began to build the temple at the site where his father had seen the angel. In other words, the temple was built on the same mountain where Abraham built the altar for Isaac. So Abraham built an altar there, David built as altar there, and Solomon built an altar there. That’s not a coincidence.

By the way, the term Moriah means, chosen by God. Apparently, this was the spot chosen by God for building altars. In Genesis 22, there is a messianic prophecy, as Abraham and Isaac are headed to the mountain, Isaac asks his father why they didn’t bring anything to sacrifice, and Abraham tells him that God would provide Himself a lamb. Of course, in the New Testament, when the Lamb of God is sacrificed for our sins, the veil of the temple (used to separate the common people from the Holiest of Holies) was torn in half. It is through that sacrifice that we have access to God Himself.

A Heinous Sin

Part of me hates to bring it up, but rape is mentioned a few times in the Bible, and only very briefly each of those times. I believe that there are some important items for discussion in those stories. There are two women that were raped in the Bible whose stories I want to discuss.

The first one is Jacob's daughter, Dinah. It seems strange to me that there is no account at all of her reaction to being raped. I understand that the general consensus at the time was that women thoughts and feelings were not important, but it still seems strange to me. It does say that her brothers were extremely upset. Perhaps that's an understatement. Her brothers destroyed a city in order to get vengeance. Jacob felt that they overreacted. We don't really know his reaction to the rape itself, either; we only know his reaction to his sons' reaction. I can't imagine that he was happy about his only daughter being raped, but, at the same time, he clearly worried for the safety of his entire family if some other group of people decided to take vengeance on behalf of the people that his sons had killed. The thing that I find interesting is that Shechem, the man who raped Dinah, expressed a desire to take her as his wife. Was this an act of conscience? Was he saying, "Oh, I realize that I have done wrong by you, marry me, and let me try to make it right."? Maybe he just felt it was socially acceptable to rape a woman as part of the dating ritual... It just seems very odd to me; I can't imagine raping a woman, and then asking her to spend the rest of her life with the one that raped her. Can she possibly expect that to ever develop into a loving relationship? To be honest, though, I have to admit that stranger things have happened.

The other woman was Tamar. Tamar was one of King David's daughters. One of David's sons, Amnon, Tamar's half-brother, convinced himself that he loved Tamar, but that David would never let him marry her. Apparently he thought David wouldn't approve of a sibling wedding, even when the two were only half-siblings. Tamar thought that David would approve, but he wouldn't even consider approaching his father with such a request. Finally, on the advice of a friend, Amnon lured Tamar to his house, and raped her. Afterwards, having forced her, Amnon now hated her. I think, psychologically, it's fair to assume that he felt guilty, and even the sight of her reminded him of his guilt, so he couldn't stand to be around her. She, meanwhile, having a forgiving heart, was willing to spend the rest of her life with him. I cannot even imagine what that must have been like for her. He sent her away, though, even though she protested that sending her away under those circumstances was worse than the act of rape.

For what it's worth, the victim's brother(s), in both instances, reacted pretty much the same way (Tamar had a full brother, named Absolom, that later killed Amnon). Both victims’ fathers are portrayed as being pretty passive about the incidents. I can't believe that Jacob and David didn't care, but, in both instances, there were other concerns. Jacob and his sons were surrounded by other peoples, and Jacob had to concern himself with how these other peoples would react if they demanded vengeance, David had the problem that the rapist was his own son.

The attitudes of the two rapists, after the fact, couldn't be more different. One wanted to marry his victim, even though he barely knew her; the other had known his victim for years, and, up until he raped her, thought that he loved her, but after the fact, couldn't bear the thought of marrying her. Violence and sexual intimacy are two things that can change a person forever. They tell me that rape is an act of violence, not a sexual act, but even if sex is not the main intent of the perpetrator, for the victim, it is an act of sexual violation. This is the sort of thing that leaves an invisible scar. God can heal those scars in time, but for most victims, they carry that scar for all of this life. Some people won’t want to hear this, but sometimes the attackers carry scars, too. Sometimes a thoughtless act causes mental anguish later, when one recognizes the effect that the action had on other people, and feels a responsibility for it (not that all attackers come to feel responsible, but some do).

Nobody's Perfect

Some have posed the question, “Why would God use people like ______ to do His work?” Fill in the blank with just about any character in the Bible you would like. For example, Abraham, father and patriarch of all of Israel, the man to whom the Promise was given, tried to pass off Sarah as his sister once because he was afraid that he would be killed by a man or men that wanted Sarah for themselves. Of course, the man that he feared most was indeed attracted to Sarah, but, since he believed that Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister, he just took her. It turns out that he wasn’t the kind of guy that would have killed a man just to take his wife, anyway, but even if he had been, shouldn’t Abraham have trusted God to protect him? Of course he should have. So, basically what we have learned about Abraham is that he suffered from cowardice. So why would God use someone like Abraham?

If that were not bad enough, apparently Abraham was so ashamed of himself for his actions that he didn’t tell Isaac about it. Many years later, Isaac and Rebekah were in the same city, Gerar, under the same king, Abimelech, and Isaac told the same lie for the same reason. So why would God use someone like Isaac?

When David was king over all of Israel, he found himself attracted to a woman that was one of his neighbors, in fact, she was the wife of one of David’s mighty men. He had her brought into his home, and later had her husband killed, so that he could marry her. Why would God use someone like David?

Peter denied the Lord three times, after promising Jesus that he would follow Him into death if it came to that. I can somewhat understand that Peter’s world had just been rocked; he followed Jesus for three years, and, even though Jesus tried to warn him what was coming, Peter was not ready for the arrest. While he was trying to figure it out, to reconcile what he thought he had known with what had just happened, some people started talking to him about being one of Jesus’ disciples. Why would God use someone like Peter?
To be honest, we could go down the list of all the people in the Bible, and they all have faults, except for Jesus Himself. Some of them were fortunate enough to not have their faults actually mentioned in the Scriptures, but every one of them had faults. Paul even talked about his thorn in the flesh; how he sought God to remove it, but God finally told him that he needed the thorn to keep him from being exalted above measure (in other words, God didn’t want Paul to get a big head).

So why is it, that all through the Bible, God used imperfect people to carry out His perfect will? Let me ask you a question: What other kind of people would He have used? The Bible tells us that all have sinned, and all have come short of the glory of God. Let me ask you another question: If God hadn’t been able to use imperfect people all through the Bible, then how would He ever manage to be able to use you? Or, for that matter, how could I believe that God could ever use me? To be honest, I still struggle with that concept. But, if you and I wait for someone perfect to come along and do the work of God, we are going to have a long wait. He has already been here, and He has left it up to us, now. We just need to open up and let Him work through us.

Absalom

Absalom was an interesting character. One of King David’s sons, Absalom was very popular; I would have to guess that he was charismatic. Even when he was trying to have David killed, the king ordered that he be captured alive, but, I’m getting ahead of myself.
When Moses judged Israel in the wilderness, his father-in-law, Jethro, told Moses that he was going to wear himself out listening to every petty grievance that every Israelite had with any of his brethren. Jethro convinced Moses that he should pick out faithful men from the congregation of Israel to hear the minor cases. Apparently David, as king, was not familiar with that particular piece of advice. We find that, as David is trying to judge Israel, Absolom is talking to people that are waiting to have their grievances heard, and whatever they want, he tells them that they are right, and it’s a shame that they have to wait so long for justice. If only the king had appointed someone to hear their case, instead of hearing every case personally…
Before long, Absalom had managed to convince an awful lot of people that he would be a better king than his father. Once he felt that he had enough support, he led an uprising against his father, and attempted to usurp the throne. Of course, the bravest and mightiest warriors in the kingdom supported David, and they ended up putting down the rebellion in fairly short order. It might have lasted a lot longer, except that Joab ignored David’s command to not harm Absalom, and killed him the first chance he got. Without Absalom, the rebellion died quickly.
In one respect, Absalom was right; David should have appointed judges to hear minor cases, as Moses did before him. In another respect, Absalom was wrong, because, as David’s son, he probably could have convinced his father of the wisdom of that plan, had he tried. Instead, he went out and used his one piece of wisdom to undermine the king.
David was the man that God placed over Israel. Absalom might have eventually inherited the throne, had he done the right thing. Granted, Solomon had already been named as David’s successor, but things happen. We know, now, that Solomon ascended to the throne and ruled for a very long time. Absalom didn’t know that would happen, and, in fact, if he had lived a righteous life, he might have been chosen over Solomon when the time came. He tried to sneak his way into power, and got killed for it.
Sometimes we, as human beings, find ourselves in situations that just don’t make any sense. The boss says, do this or get fired, but what he wants done doesn’t make any sense. So, maybe we do what the boss says, but grumble about it to our co-workers. Now, if what the boss told us to do was wrong, who ends up getting blamed? I’ll give you a hint: Probably not the boss. If it works out for the best after all, then all that grumbling comes back to haunt us.
Sometimes it isn’t the boss, it’s the pastor. Now the Bible tells us that God will give us pastors according to his heart. Pastors are still human beings, and they make mistakes, same as the rest of us. When your pastor makes a mistake, though, (or you think that he has made a mistake) there is exactly one person that you should talk to about it: your pastor. If he can’t explain himself to you, then pray about it. I know there have been times when I disagreed with my pastor, and we could not come to a mutually satisfactory agreement; some of those times, after a few days, I came to an understanding as to why he felt that course of action was necessary; other times, he came to an understanding as to my objections, and changed his course of action. In either case, it really came down to outliving the problem, rather than solving it. Keep in mind that all things work together for good, because God is in control.

Polygamy

The practice of polygamy has been in the news some, lately, and, even though it is a controversial subject, I thought that I would weigh in on it. It has been pointed out that it was generally accepted in the Old Testament, and never specifically forbidden in the New Testament. Let me first point out that just because something isn’t specifically forbidden, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is okay.
Let me also say that it may not have been as common as you may think, even in the Old Testament. Granted, David had multiple wives, and so did Solomon, but they were both kings, they were not commoners. Abraham had a wife, Sarah, and a concubine, Hagar. He did marry another wife, but not until after the death of Sarah(?) It’s an interesting discussion, because Keturah had six sons by Abraham, and he was already old when Sarah died, so perhaps Keturah was a concubine (in fact, 1 Chronicles 1:32 refers to her as such), that had sons while Sarah was still alive—possibly even while Abraham was still young. I have to question that, though, because if Abraham had sons when God promised to make a great nation from Abraham’s seed, then wouldn’t Abraham and Sarah have assumed that God meant from his existing sons? There would have been no point in enlisting Hagar as a concubine, if Abraham already had a concubine that had already given him children. Isaac only had one wife, Rebekah. Jacob had four wives, or two wives and two concubines, depending on who you listen to. Gideon also had multiple wives. Very rarely is there any mention of anyone else having multiple wives. (Some have said that Moses had two wives, but the Bible only names one: Zipporah. Zipporah’s father has two names, though, and is sometimes called Reuel, and sometimes called Jethro).
The question arises, though, what is the difference between a wife and a concubine? Easton’s Bible Dictionary says that a concubine was a wife of secondary rank (it says more than that, but I only have so much space, and I don’t want to get sued for plagiarism). Smith’s Bible Dictionary points out that a wife could be divorced, whereas a concubine could not. Smith’s goes on to catalog four types of concubines: A Hebrew girl bought from her father, a gentile captive taken in war, a foreign slave bought, or a Canaanitish woman. The first two had rights under the Law of Moses, the third did not, and the fourth was actually prohibited by the Law (not to suggest that it didn’t happen, though). I should point out that, although Zilpah and Bilhah are mentioned as being Jacob’s wives, they were only with Jacob because they were Leah and Rachel’s slaves, and, in fact, Bilhah is mentioned as being Jacob’s concubine in Genesis 35:22. Apparently there wasn’t considered to be much difference between a wife and a concubine at that time.
By the way, from what I understand, a supporter of Biblical polygamy once challenged Mark twain to find any place in the Bible where polygamy was forbidden. Twain responded with Matthew 6:24. Quite frankly, though, even though one of the parables that Jesus told seems to support the idea of polygamy, Jesus also made it clear that when God created marriage, he created Eve to be Adam’s wife. He did not create a harem for Adam, he created a wife. The parable was intended to convey the idea that although many people can be saved, only those that are ready when He comes will be. Keep in mind that Jesus used parables to relate spiritual things to physical things that people could understand, but not necessarily physical things that he approved of; remember the unjust judge?

Sheep

I had someone ask me the question, “Why does the Bible compare people to sheep? Sheep are so stupid.” I told him that’s one reason. Seriously, though, we have more similarities to sheep than we might want to admit.
One of the common characteristics of sheep is that they have a herding instinct. That’s actually good for sheep, because predators (like wolves) are less likely to attack a flock, being wary of large numbers. Predators generally would rather catch a sheep by itself and then attack that one. That’s hard to do, because they stick together so much. If a flock is left alone, a lot of times one sheep will grow curious about something off in the distance, and wander off to investigate. Almost never do they go alone, though, because other sheep will follow it. “Where’s he going?” “I don’t know. Let’s follow him.” “Okay.” Shepherds really can’t leave their sheep alone, because, almost inevitably, one sheep will wander off, and the rest of the flock will follow. Sometimes that ends up not being a good idea, but at least they are all together. Of course, that is part of the reason that the expression "wolf in sheep's clothing" came about; can you imagine what sort of havoc a wolf could cause with a flock if he could convince the sheep that he was one of them ("It's okay to follow me, little lamb, I'm a sheep!"). A lot of people tend to go with the crowd, too. Whatever the crowd is doing, whatever the popular thing is, that’s what they want to do. Some of us can even remember when the popular thing was to rebel against conformity, and all of the nonconformists dressed alike, shouted the same slogans, etc.Sheep are generally very loyal to their shepherd. As long as he (or she) remains in sight, they will follow. If the shepherd is not around, the sheep generally won’t follow someone else. They know whom they are supposed to follow, but if he isn’t around, they may very well wander off on their own. It's no accident that Jesus’ lineage includes David, the shepherd boy who was also a giant-killer (and became king). David had a lot of the qualities that foreshadowed the Messiah: He was a shepherd, he was brave, he withstood a giant, he became king, he had a heart for people, but most importantly, he had a heart for God. Jesus was all of these things and more. The Bible also refers to the leaders of Ancient Israel as shepherds (or pastors). In Jeremiah, God speaks against the leaders of Israel (the pastors) for not feeding the flock, for letting the sheep of Israel go astray. Then God promises that he will set up shepherds that will actually care for the flock, and do whatever they can to protect the sheep. Ezekiel 34 has a very similar passage, God condemning the pastors that fed themselves, and let the sheep go hungry, but this time he promises that he himself will become the shepherd of the sheep; I guess you could say that he promised to become the Good Shepherd. Of course, Jesus told us the parable of the lost sheep, comparing us to sheep, and comparing God to the shepherd of the sheep, and taught us that each one of us is important to God. The shepherd will leave the 99, to search for the one that is lost—not to say that the 99 aren’t important, but the 99 are safe, at least for the moment, but the one that is out there by himself is in great danger. It’s important for us not to be out in the world alone, that’s one of the reasons that fellowship is commanded. In Matthew 25, Jesus talked about the judgment day in terms of separating the sheep from the goats. The sheep being the ones that followed, and the goats being the ones that always wanted to butt (“But, God, I don’t want to…”). Jesus said that His sheep know His voice, and a stranger they will not follow. At the same time, though, it’s not that unusual for some human or another to stand up and try to lead us in some direction. And at least some of us will, because he's one of us. Sometimes that turns out to be good, sometimes it’s bad. There are all kinds of people trying to lead us in all kinds of directions, but we need to be sure to follow Jesus. He's the one that loves us and cares for us.

Child-like Faith

Jesus said that except one receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he cannot enter in... That has to do with the innocence of childhood, but it also has to do with the faith of a child. It's funny how, as we grow older, we become more experienced, and more disillusioned. Sometimes we start to think that this world is just an ugly place.
When Goliath challenged Israel, he said that he would face any one champion of the Israeli army, and, if the Israeli were able to defeat Goliath, then the Philistine army would surrender to Israel. Of course, if Israel's champion lost, then the Israeli army would be expected to surrender to the Philistines. In some ways, it was a good deal; Goliath's offer meant that only one person would die, and everyone else could go home. The problem, of course, was that Goliath was a giant. The Bible says that he was 6 cubits and a span tall. Unfortunately, those are somewhat inexact measurements, so we don't know how big that actually made Goliath. A cubit was the measure from a man's elbow to the tips of his outstretched fingers; a span was the width of the palm of his hand. Generally, a cubit is about 18 inches, and a span about 4, so 6 cubits and a span would be about 9 feet 4 inches. Nobody in Israel's army wanted to fight him, especially not with the fate of all of Israel hanging in the balance. To be honest, there is a certain wisdom in that. Goliath wasn't just huge, he had been trained in the art of war from the time he was young. The odds of any of Israel’s champions, by his own skill, beating Goliath was extremely small. So along comes this little kid, David, who says that he'll fight the giant. The Bible doesn't actually tell us how old David was, but it does tell us that he was the youngest of eight brothers, and that the three oldest brothers were in the army. That would suggest that he had three older brothers that were not yet old enough to enlist. In other words, he was pretty young. Why would King Saul send such a young person into battle, with the fate of the entire country resting on the outcome? possibly because he really had no choice. David was the only person Saul knew of that was confident that he could beat the giant--of course, even then, David didn't think he could kill Goliath with his own strength, but he believed that God could work through him. Of course, we know the story, David did kill Goliath, and the Philistines tried to renege on their agreement, and it ended up being war, anyway, but the Israeli army was considerably less defeatist, having just seen a little boy destroy the Philistines greatest champion. David had a calling on his life, and he had faith as a child, and he just stepped out and did what God wanted him to do. That energized everyone around him.
So, when Jesus tells us that we need to be ‘as children,’ we have David as our example.

It Rains on the Just and the Unjust

I read something the other day; a blogger was postulating that the rain and flooding in the Midwest was proof that God supports gay marriage. His logic was something like this: When Katrina hit New Orleans, a whole lot of evangelical preachers started talking about how God was pronouncing judgment against the sinners that lived there. So, when the courts in California legalized gay marriage, one would expect a similar outpouring of the Almighty’s wrath in California; instead, we had these major disasters in the Midwest, where the people aren’t even thinking about legalizing gay marriage. Clearly, God is warning the Midwesterners that they are the sinners, and California represents the righteous. If I didn’t think he was being facetious, I would point out the fires that they are having in California now. He makes a good point though, why is it that every time some natural disaster hits, people look for someone or something to blame? There was that one nut that said Heath Ledger died because of that one movie that he did (if so, why are the cast of Will and Grace still alive and kicking?). The fact of the matter is, sometimes things just happen. If you’re having a bad day, it isn’t necessarily your fault (or God's fault). Job had a few bad days, that wasn’t his fault. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount that the sun rises on the evil and the good, and it rains on the just and the unjust. Further, in Luke 13, the disciples were talking about some men in Galilee that met a tragic faith, and Jesus asked them if they thought those men were sinners above all the Galilaeans, and that was why they suffered such things, but Jesus said no, they weren’t, and went on to say that if the rest of us don’t repent, we will all likewise perish. He went on to talk about 18 people that died when the tower of Siloam fell on them, were they sinners above all those in Jerusalem? No, they weren’t. So many times, too, people take it personally when something bad happens; for example, if they lose a loved one. I understand that can be a hard thing to deal with. When God calls someone home, though, that’s really between Him and that individual. We all lose loved ones. If you stop and think, though, what is it you really want in those situations? Do you want your wife (or husband) to survive and mourn your passing? Would you really want them to feel that? Death is part of the life cycle; there is just no getting around that. Don’t take it personally, as though God took someone that you cared about just to punish you. He doesn’t usually work like that (I have to add the 'usually' caveat because of David and Bathsheba’s first son. God took him specifically to punish David and Bathsheba--mostly David).God is in control, but a lot of times He stays out of the details. He allows us to make our own choices. Sometimes those choices are good, and sometimes they are bad. Sometimes we suffer because we made a bad choice, other times because someone else made a bad choice. Sometimes others suffer for our bad decisions. That’s not God’s fault. If one dies, but one is ready, then that person’s suffering is over. Of course, if one dies when one is not ready, then that person’s suffering is just beginning. Does God use disasters to remind people to be ready? Certainly, but the people who are hurt or killed during the disaster aren’t necessarily the ones He was trying to remind. And he didn’t necessarily cause the disaster in order to use it as a reminder. Sometimes He just let’s things happen, and deals with people after the fact. “See what happened there? That could have been you. Don’t you have some getting ready to do?”

UPDATE:  Apparently the site I was linking to has changed their format; I have fixed the links.  My apologies... 

Joab

Joab was one of David’s most trusted advisors. He was the son of Zeruiah, David’s sister. There are many incidents in Scripture that show Joab to be a wise man, and yet…
The first thing that we told about Joab is that, shortly after King Saul’s death, another man, named Abner, tried to make Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, king instead of David. Joab led some of David’s men to go deal with this threat, and they met with Abner and some of Ishbosheth’s men, at the pool of Gibeon. There was a great battle there, a lot of people were killed, but the battle went worse for Abner than for Joab. Abner ran away, but Joab’s brother Asahel chased after him. The exchange between them makes it seem that Abner knew Joab, but Abner ended up killing Asahel. At the end of the day, Abner had lost 360 men, and Joab had lost twenty. Of course, one of the twenty that Joab lost was his brother, so that was a particularly difficult loss for Joab.
As the war continued, and David grew stronger and stronger, Abner came to David to try to make peace. Joab was not there when David met with Abner, and when Joab returned, the servants told him that Abner had been there, and that David had sent him away in peace. Abner became angry, and accused Abner of spying on the king, and sent servants after Abner. When Joab caught up to Abner, he killed him (more because of Asahel than because of suspicion of spying, but, there it is). Of course, David got upset with Joab for that, but apparently he somewhat understood, because Joab still had a job; in fact, 2 Samuel 8:16 says that Joab was captain over all the host.
In 2 Samuel 10, the Ammonites hired the Syrians to help them fight against Israel. David sent Joab to fight the Ammonites and the Syrians. While that was going on, David got himself into another little jam, and sent to Joab to help him out. Joab did as requested.
In 2 Samuel 14, David’s son Absolom had been exiled. Joab had a woman come into the king and describe a situation very similar to the one that led David to exile his son. After he pronounced judgment (the judgment that Joab had expected), then the woman asked the king why was Absolom still exiled? David only wanted to know one thing from her after that; he asked if Joab had put her up to it.
Unfortunately, later on, Absolom led a rebellion of his own, trying to become king in David’s place. Joab led the army that tracked Absolom down, under orders from the king not to harm Absolom. Joab realized that Absolom would always be a problem, so when he saw the king’s son, he killed him. David wasn’t happy about that, and he mourned his son. Joab spoke harshly to the king (I doubt whether anyone else could have spoken to David that way and gotten away with it), but pointed out that, if Absolom hadn’t died, he probably would have kept trying to become king until David was dead, and everyone loyal to David was dead, also.
In 2 Samuel 20, Joab pursued after a man named Sheba, and Sheba took refuge inside one of the cities of Israel. It looked like Joab was going to have to destroy the city in order to get to Sheba, but a wise woman called to Joab, and asked what he wanted. He explained who they were after, and she asked if he was prepared to destroy a city in Israel in order to get Sheba. Joab indicated that he would really rather not have to destroy a city, but he wasn’t going to leave until he had Sheba’s head. She told him to give a few minutes, and shortly thereafter, Sheba’s head came sailing over the wall.
In 2 Samuel 24, David told Joab to count the people of Israel. Joab reminded David that the number of people wasn’t important anyway, but David insisted. In fact, the Law forbade counting Israel, since God wanted Israel to trust in Him, rather than their numbers, so David got in trouble with God for this.
Then another one of David’s sons tried to usurp the throne, a man named Adonijah, but this time Joab threw in with Adonijah. The Bile doesn’t make it clear why. Perhaps simply because Joab had been too close to David for too long, and knew how many serious mistakes David had made. In any case, Joab seemed convinced that Adonijah would make a better king than David. Joab was a smart guy, but, in the end he outsmarted himself. I think sometimes we get close to someone that seems so godly and righteous, and we start seeing his or her flaws. Guess what? We all have flaws. Don’t let somebody else’s flaws cause you to outsmart yourself. The bottom line is that Joab did a lot of very smart, and very courageous things for an awfully long time, but, in the end, he was found to be fighting against the ordinances of God, because, flawed or not, David was the man that God had ordained to be king over Israel.

Women In the Bible (Part II)

Hannah was a godly woman who wanted nothing more than to have children. The Bible says that God had shut up her womb, but that she went to the temple and prayed about it. She promised God that her first-born son would be loaned to God, and she indeed had a son, Samuel, that she loaned to God, and then she had more children afterwards that she raised herself. I could probably spend a lot of time talking about Hannah, but, for now, suffice it to say that God laid something on her heart, and, even though it was hard for her, she did it, and she got rewarded for her faithfulness. Some of you may be saying to yourselves that I shouldn’t be telling you that having children is a reward. Maybe for you it isn’t, but for her it was.
Ruth was an important woman in the Bible; she has her own book. She was not Jewish by birth, but somewhere along the line she accepted the Jewish faith. Naomi was a Jewish woman that went, with her husband and two sons, to the land of Moab when they fell upon hard times in Israel. The two sons married Ruth and Orpah (presumably these women accepted the Jewish faith before the wedding—it doesn’t really say). Something happened to the men in the family, and then these three women were all widows. Jewish tradition (and perhaps Moabite tradition as well) dictated that if a married man dies childless, then his nearest male relative was to take the widow as his own wife, but then her children would be the heirs of the deceased. Naomi had a problem, though, she didn’t have any male relatives in Moab, they had all died. She was going to go back to Israel, but she suggested that Ruth and Orpah go back to their own families in Moab. Orpah did, Ruth, however, insisted that Naomi was her family, and that Naomi’s God was her God, and Ruth went to Israel with Naomi. Once there, she met a relative of her late husband named Boaz. They got married and lived happily ever after; they had a son named Jesse, who had a son named David…
King David’s first wife was Michal, and for the most part she was a good woman—she saved David’s life, but she did criticize David once, and she never had any more children after that (was that punishment or reward? I assume that it was punishment).
David’s wife Abigail was a real prize, although she was married to someone else when David first met her. Nabal had angered David greatly, and David was on his way to kill him, when Abigail interceded for her husband. Later Nabal died anyway, and David married Nabal’s widow.
Bathsheba was, evidently, a very attractive woman. One night, David was up on the roof, and found a vantage point where he could observe Bathsheba taking a bath. It turns out that her husband was one of the mighty men in David’s army, and was off defending Israel. David sent for her, and she came to him, and became pregnant. The Bible doesn’t really say how much of an argument she put up; what do you say in an era when women were treated pretty much as property, and your husband is away, and the king sends for you and wants to have you? I’m sure she argued the best she could; the sin was David’s, not hers.
There was woman of Tekoah that had some significance during David’s reign, whom the Bible doesn’t even name. There had been a situation where David had banished one of his own sons from the kingdom. David was miserable about it, and, quite frankly, it didn’t make a lot of sense. One of the men close to David, named Joab, sent this woman to David with a situation that closely mirrored David’s own situation. Once she got David to look at the situation objectively (that is, looking at it from the perspective that it was someone else’s problem, instead of his own), he realized that he could deal with the situation better, and he brought his son home. As it turns out, he might have been better off if he had left the situation as it was, but that wasn’t her fault.

Hypocrites

Jesus didn't do a lot of name-calling when He walked the earth, but one insult that He used pretty regularly was, "Hypocrite." Alternate translations for the Greek word used would be dissembler, or pretender. To some extent, we've all been guilty of that, at one time or another. Much as I would like to pretend that I've never pretended to be something I'm not, that would hypocritical. Hypocrisy is not unforgivable, though, as much as Jesus railed against it. If you look at the times that He used that term, He used it to describe people that claimed to serve God, claimed to have knowledge of the Old Testament prophecies, and yet, did not recognize Jesus for who He was.

Most of us are more likely to get caught up in a different type of hypocrisy: one where God uses us to accomplish something, and then we walk around like we did something. Pride plays into this form of hypocrisy. Herod the King died because of his own pride. One instance where I almost fell for that, myself, I was hanging with some friends from church, and a couple of them were playing pool, and one guy walked away from the table, and the other guy invited me to play next. I walked over, picked out a reasonably straight cue, and ended up running the table. I tried not to look surprised--I had never run the table in my life (and I never have since). Later on, I found out that the guy that I played had beaten the other guy, badly, and then took pleasure in rubbing it in; so the guy that walked away from the table was praying that God would take the other guy down a notch. Had me puzzled for a while, because I knew I didn't do it, but I didn't understand what had happened.

There is, of course, forgiveness, at least, for those of us that are legitimately trying to let God use us. We have to be humble enough to understand that anything we do of any worth is God in us, and not ever just us. In writing this, I was reminded of a song by Rush of Fools called "Undo." The lyrics of the song make reference to the narrator(?) being a hypocrite and a prodigal, and he calls upon God to help to change, to "undo what I've become." This is something that we all need to do on a regular basis. Apostle Paul said, "I die daily." We have to keep slaying the old man, and renewing our dedication to God. It would be nice if we could just do it the one time and be done with it, but it keeps coming back. David (a man after God's own heart) once said, "I am a worm, and no man." That encourages me, because, so often I feel worse than useless, and I have to think that he felt the way I feel, and yet, in retrospect, he did so much for God (or, at least, allowed God to do so much through him).

BTW, the link for the lyrics for "Undo" above actually goes to another blog called "React less, Pray More" maintained by a young woman who identifies herself only as Ashley in Honduras (or AshInHonduras). There's some other good stuff on that blog entry besides just the lyrics...

A Little Bit More

I have mentioned before that I am a Navy veteran. When I was on the ship, there was a guy that had a drinking problem, and knew he had a drinking problem (there are a lot of people in the Navy with drinking problems--few of them know they have a problem). He normally avoided drinking, because he knew that one drink led to another, and two drinks led to four, etc. As long as he didn't take that first drink, he was okay, but if he took a drink, then he felt like he could 'handle' a second drink... We pulled in somewhere in the Bahamas, I think it was, and at the liberty brief they warned us that they didn't have a local Coca-Cola bottling plant, which meant that Coke had to be imported (Pepsi, too, in case you were wondering). They did have local distilleries, though, so liquor didn't have to be imported. This means that rum is cheaper than rum-and-Coke, and rum-and-Coke is cheaper than Coke. So, our intrepid thirsty friend goes out to but a Coke, and, even after the liberty brief, he was surprised at what a Coke cost. To be honest, I was a little surprised, too, but I knew what I wanted, and I was already expecting to have to pay more for it (after that, I bought Coke on the ship, and carried it with me out into town). He decided that for that much money, he should get his money's worth. The flaw in the logic is, that if what you want is Coke, then the only way to 'get your money's worth' would be to get a larger Coke, which, of course, wasn't going to happen. Conditioned by American values, though, he felt like he was getting a better deal by getting a rum-and-Coke, as opposed to a 'virgin' Coke. I've already mentioned that rum was cheaper than Coke, so, take a guess at how much Coke he got in his drink. So now he's paid extra for the privilege of having just enough Coke in his rum to taste. And, he's getting a much stronger drink than he anticipated, and it doesn't take long for the alcohol to go to his head and convince him that another rum-and-Coke is a good idea.

Later on that evening, he was walking through the streets, and noticed a hotel that tried to create the impression of being an international entity by flying flags from many different countries from the building's facade. He was inebriated enough at that point to become very insulted that these 'foreigners' were flying an American flag, so he took it (we were, of course, the foreigners, but in his state of mind that wasn't clear to him). By the way, in case you are wondering what I was doing during all of this, we didn't get liberty at the same time--I didn't see him all that night, but he told me about it in the morning.

When he sobered up, and realized what he had done, he took the flag back, and explained himself, as best he could, to the manager of the hotel. The manager was gracious enough not only to not press charges, but also to thank him for returning the flag.

I think what brought this incident to mind was Gehazi trying to get something for nothing, in the story of Naaman the leper. I can understand Gehazi's desire, but, of course, the fact that he tried to sneak around behind the back of the man of God shows that he knew he was wrong. My friend should have known he was wrong (he knew he had a drinking problem, but he had a drink anyway), but he let money cloud his judgment. Granted, he wasn't trying to get something for nothing, exactly, but he did try to get more for less. Generally, more for less is a good thing, unless the 'more' isn't what God has for you. David ran into the same problem with Bathsheba, and that turned into a real tangle.

So often, we think we know what's best for us, but God has something better in mind. Sometimes, when we pray, we get what we want; sometimes we get what we need, instead. Sometimes we get things that we didn't even know that we wanted, and yet, it makes us forget all about what we thought we wanted.

Solomon's Temple

(Image from www.mishkanministries.org/architectural_modles_kst.htm )

I have heard a lot of discussion about King Solomon's Temple; King David wanted to build a temple for God, but God refused him. Later King David told Solomon that it would be Solomon's responsibility to build the temple. There are multiple theories about why God wouldn't allow David to build the temple, but most of them seem to be out in left field to me.

If you look at the text where David found out God didn't want him to build the temple, God starts out saying that He doesn't need a house (after all, why would a spiritual being need a physical house), and a lot of the rest of it actually sounds like Messianic prophesy. God certainly told David that after David's death, God would raise up one of David's sons and establish his kingdom; I have to wonder though, did God mean immediately after David's death? He says that He will establish that throne forever: Does that mean that Solomon's throne is established forever because we still remember King Solomon today? It seems to me that God is talking about Jesus, of the lineage of David, whose throne is established for evermore.

Now, if you look at the text where David assigns the task to Solomon, it reads very differently. David seems to think that it is because of the bloodshed during his reign that he was not allowed to build the temple. There was no mention of bloodshed before... Further, David says that God prophesied that Solomon, by name, would build the temple. There was no mention of Solomon's name before, and, quite frankly, it would have been meaningless if there had been; Solomon hadn't been born yet, David could have named any of his sons Solomon... God definitely told David that the temple would not be built until after David's death, but there's no mention of that when David spoke to Solomon. So what happened? Well, it's certainly possible that the writer of First Chronicles (Nathan?) simply left out some of what God told David. It's also possible (and more likely, IMHO) that David had thirty years to ponder what God had told him, and that he formed his own opinions about what God meant, and he paraphrased or embellished the instructions unintentionally. I have been asked if I thought David lied to Solomon: No, I don't think he lied, but I think what he said wasn't entirely true; lying implies intent to deceive, I don't believe that there was any such intent.

I also want to point out that a lot of people believe that when David talked about bloodshed, he was specifically referring to the death of Uriah the Hittite. I would tend to agree. All of the other blood that was shed during David's reign was the blood of enemies of God, or at least, enemies of Israel (if there was a difference). Uriah was one of David's mighty men: a hero of Israel. David had not yet met Bathsheba (Uriah's wife, for whom David had Uriah killed) at the time Nathan told David that God did not want David to build the temple. We know this because there are two places in the Bible where it talks about David sending Joab to besiege Rabbah at the time "...when Kings went forth/out to battle..." and both times, David tarried still at Jerusalem. The point, of course, being that David was not where he was supposed to be. The first time is in Second Samuel 11:1, the second being First Chronicles 20:1. Obviously, these are both references to the same battle, but in Second Samuel, the narrative goes on to spell out the whole story of David suffering from insomnia, and going up on the roof, and seeing Bathsheba (the original bathing beauty), and thinking that she could put him to sleep; not caring that her husband, Uriah was off at Rabbah, putting his life on the line for his nation, Israel. For some reason, First Chronicles doesn't mention Bathsheba or Uriah; perhaps an attempt to reduce redundancy. Amazingly, only two chapters later, David charges Solomon, his son by Bathsheba, to build the temple. That should make it clear that First Chronicles is somewhat abbreviated. In any case, there are also two places where it makes reference to God saying no to David when he was seeking to build a house for God: Second Samuel 7:5, and First Chronicles 17:4--both times, several chapters prior to his encounter with Bathsheba. So, even though David may have still felt guilty over the encounter when his son Solomon was old enough to assume the throne, it really had nothing to do with why God denied him the opportunity to build the temple.

David and Goliath

I have touched on this before, but it occurs to me to weigh in on one of the most well-known stories in the Bible: David and Goliath. It is interesting to me that out of all of the army of Israel, there was not one man that had faith enough to stand against the giant. Of course, part of that was because it was God's plan. He wanted to show Israel that He intended to use David, but still... Also, part of it was that David had faith as a little child. None of the men in the army had that. The Bible tells us that David's father, Jesse, had eight sons, and the three eldest were in the army, but David was the youngest. It was understood, in those times, that if you were old enough to serve, then you did. Now, if David was the youngest, and only the three eldest were old enough to serve (which was thirteen, by the way), then how old was David? And how desperate was King Saul to let this youngster fight the giant?

We don't have to look too deep into this story to see that God intended for this to be an unconventional battle. First of all, David didn't carry a sword or a spear: he took a sling and five stones. Why five? I don't know; if the first one had missed, he probably wasn't going to get a chance to sling a second one. Some have suggested that it's because there are five letters in the name, "Jesus," but that wouldn't be true in Hebrew. David also refused armor; to be honest, though, the armor would have been ridiculous: I don't think that they made armor in David's size. King Saul tried to give David his own armor, which was just that much worse: Saul stood taller than the rest of Israel, David would have had a hard time just walking in Saul's armor.

It has been suggested that Goliath was probably a victim of gigantism, a disorder of the pituitary gland that, in addition to causing abnormal growth, also frequently causes the bones of the skull to come together--usually leaving a "soft spot" in the front of the head. This would certainly explain how one stone from David was able to sink into the giant's head and kill him. Some would have you to believe that somehow makes David killing Goliath less than miraculous. I would have to disagree. If Goliath had such a soft spot (and I will admit that it seems likely that he did) such a thing must not have been common knowledge: Surely Goliath could have had a helmet crafted that would have protected his vulnerability. Further, I suspect that David was really just aiming for Goliath, not some alleged soft spot, and trusting that God would guide the stone. David didn't know about the soft spot, wouldn't have known where it was if he had known about it, and probably couldn't have hit it on purpose if he had known where it was. Tell me that's not a miracle.

The lesson, of course, is that sometimes things loom large in our lives, but God has a simple solution. Sometimes His solution makes about as much sense as sending a boy into battle against a giant, armed with a toy (let's face it, a sling was not considered a weapon--ever know anybody else in the Bible to carry a sling into battle?--no, it was a kid's toy). Is God telling you to do something that just doesn't make sense? Do you trust God? Don't misunderstand me--make sure it's God, but be ready to step out in faith.

Saul and David

Saul was the first king of Israel, David was the second. Usually when people look at these two men they concentrate on the fact that when David messed up, he repented, while Saul would continually justify himself. This is true, but it occurs to me that there is more to it than that. What it really comes down to is that David had better overall character than Saul did.

For starters, lets look at the battle with the Amalekites. God told Saul to destroy Amalek, and to kill everything in Amalek. He was not to let anyone live, or even let any of the animals live. When Samuel met with Saul, after the battle, Saul had taken the king, Agag, prisoner, and had not killed the animals. Samuel confronted Saul, and Saul told him that they were going to sacrifice the animals to God. Samuel told Saul that "...to obey is better than sacrifice."

Now David once had occasion to sacrifice some animals to God, but the animals in question weren't his. Fortunately, the animals belonged to a man named Araunah that was friendly towards David. Friendly enough that he would have been happy to give the animals to David, but David refused. He would not sacrifice what wasn't his. He would not have expected God to honor such a sacrifice.

Let's look also at the battle with Goliath. I think most of us know the story: The Philistines set themselves in array against Israel, but then the Philistine champion, Goliath, offered to fight, one on one, any of the Israelites to settle the matter. The Israelites were intimidated; Goliath was six cubits tall--about nine feet. Now, common sense would dictate that the biggest Israelite would fight the giant. Instead, of course, the smallest Israelite on the battlefield ended up going against Goliath, without traditional weapons. David (who wasn't even old enough to be in the army) took a sling and five stones and only needed one. So, who was the biggest Israelite on the battlefield? Saul was.

Let's consider also the conflict that arose when Saul realized that God intended for David to be the second king of Israel, instead of one of Saul's sons. Saul tried to kill David, but God protected David. David had opportunity to kill Saul, and refused to do it. Now, when David, later on in life, found that Uriah the Hittite was standing in the way of what David wanted, he had Uriah killed. The difference, though, is that David repented quickly for having Uriah killed; Saul never really repented of trying to kill David.

You don't have to look to hard at these two men's lives to realize the difference in the strength of character and the faith in God that they had (or didn't have). And I have to admit, sometimes I feel more like Saul than like David. Particularly with regard to Araunah. If I needed something, and somebody offers me exactly what I need, and they seem happy to give it to me, I'm probably not going to argue with them, no matter what it is that I need that whatever-it-is for. I'm not sure that I have that kind of integrity.

Some would question how the Bible can say that David was a man after God's own heart, when he murdered Uriah the Hittite. God knows that none of us are perfect--He didn't create us that way. Most of the time, though, David had the strength of character, integrity, and faithfulness towards God that God has towards us.

Reality

I have been curious as to what the brouhaha was about as far as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ that is being proposed in Congress. The liberals want fairness in media, the conservatives have been complaining for years that the main-stream media is too liberal, but they are fighting the Fairness Doctrine. WIRED magazine reported on the fairness doctrine, and there, in the third paragraph, is the explanation. Conservative talk show hosts exposed the liberals attempt to grant amnesty to the illegal immigrants, even though the main stream media ignored the bill. People found out, and a lot of the members of Congress got a lot of angry communication from their constituents. I wonder what sort of E-mails and letters they would have gotten if they had actually gotten the bill to pass. It strikes me as particularly odd, since George Clooney’s movie, 'Good Night, and Good Luck' quotes the journalist Edward R. Murrow as saying that sometimes you just can’t present both side of an argument and still be fair to the facts. I guess this Congress hasn't seen that movie.
If the 'Fairness Doctrine' becomes law, does that mean that anytime Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth' is played, that the BBC's documentary, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' will be played also? BTW, out of a sense of fairness (if you'll pardon the expression), I feel I must point out that I found out about the BBC's film because one of the scientists (perhaps the only scientist), Professor Carl Wunsch, has since said that his statements were taken out of context and that he absolutely believes in global warming, but that some things that have been presented as fact by the media are really just theories.
How would the 'Fairness Doctrine' play on the subject of honor killing? Newsweek ran an article on the Juha sisters, who were killed in Gaza, allegedly after having been found guilty of prostitution in a considerably less than formal court. Now there is a man being held for murder, but there isn't much hue and cry about three girls being murdered, because it was an honor killing. It's tradition. Newsweek quotes the man who found the bodies as saying that this is not their religion, but it is tradition. I am not familiar enough with Islam to know, one way or the other. I do know the Jesus talked about men making the law of God of none effect by their tradition...
Really, though, what's on my mind is this: People either think that once you become a Christian, then you become perfect, and you never have any more problems, or people think that Christianity is *obviously* not the true religion, because it has so many imperfect people in it. I guess that's really kind of the same thing, but neither one is true. People tend to be, whether Christian or not, generally those type of people generally referred to as human beings. We make mistakes. When you stop making mistakes, then you are no longer human. Human people have a hard time relating to people that are not human, so God leaves us human after He redeems us. Much as I would like to stop making mistakes...
Let me just throw in 3 quick links: Two for commentaries in Christianity Today magazine: one, and two; and one in Newsweek here.
Somebody told me recently that he had noticed a sign of political correctness creeping into the church: Where we used to talk about 'Saints and Sinners,' we now say 'Churched and Unchurched.' I don't think that it's got anything to do with PC, I think it's just a casting off of naiveté. We used to think that when people became saints, they stopped being sinners. We have come to realize that we still fall short. Apostle Paul wrote extensively about his own struggles with sin in Romans 7.
It has been pointed out that, during the early years of the United States, it was common practice for preachers to preach using passages of Scripture that talked about servants pleasing their masters to justify slavery. In retrospect, that was obviously wrong. On the other hand, who were the abolitionists? Do you know of any abolitionist that wasn't a Christian? We can look to the Spanish Inquisition, and see what a horrible thing that was, done in the Name of Jesus. We can even look to the stories in the Bible. Scripture tells us that David was a man after God's own heart, and yet David had an affair with Bathsheba, and then had her husband, Uriah, killed, to cover it up. Does that sound like something God would do? Of course not; but it shows that even the best and most blessed of us make mistakes. No wonder David said that he was shapen in iniquity.
I've commented before that we, as human beings, are capable of great monstrosities. Even those of us who call ourselves Christians sometimes make horrendous mistakes. I've known people that were 'unchurched' who lived better lives than some of us who are 'churched.' Why does God allow such things? God gave us free will. We are free to do what is good, or what is evil (as melodramatic as that may sound). The nice thing about freedom is that it makes it pretty easy to tell who does the right thing simply because it is the right thing, as opposed to those who do the right thing simply out of a sense of obligation. Unfortunately, it also makes it easy for some people to just not do the right thing at all. If you can come up with a system in which all human beings have free will, and yet no one ever wants to do anything selfish or just plain wrong, I'd love to hear it. Or better yet, explain your idea to God (but try not to talk down to Him too much).