The Wait of The World 2: More Lessons Learned

Why do you say, O Jacob, and assert, O Israel,
  "My way is hidden from the LORD, And the justice due me escapes the notice of my God"? 

  (Isaiah 40:27 NASB)

One element of Hebrew poetry is parallelism, and within that can sometimes be found chiastic structures (parallels forming an 'X').  The reason chiastic structures are important elements is that the 'crux' of the structure forms the focal element of the poem.  So it helps understanding the poem to be able to spot these structures.

In this verse is the only full chiastic structure I could find in the last passage of Isaiah 40 (v. 27-31).  There could be many more before this, and this could form a part of a larger chiastic structure, but I didn't look anywhere but in the last 5 verses.  The reason this one is interesting is what forms the crux.

The major parallel structure is found in the quote, and the parallel is chiastic in nature.  There are three repeated elements, and they are repeated in exact reverse in the second half of the parallel (see the image below).  So elements A, B, and C are repeated in a, b, and c, but in reverse order.  This focuses importance on element B/b.

The way these elements show up in the quote is as follows:

• A = 'hidden'
• a = 'escapes notice'
• B = 'my way'
• b = 'justice due me'
• C = 'LORD'
• c = 'my God'

So, literally:

Hidden / my way / from the LORD
Of my God / the justice due me / escapes the notice

So the focus of the quote (and therefore the exiled Israelites) is their way and their justice.  It's on them. 

That's what this poem taught the first audience, what they understood it to mean.  Is it any less of a critical lesson today?  We as believers and followers of Jesus are in 'exile' in a sense since we're not home yet.  We long for that home, for restoration, for completeness, and for the presence of our King.  Yet it's the focus on our situation, what we don't have, what we want, our rights and entitlements that keeps us from experiencing the Kingdom; the presence of our King in this exiled state.
This is the dangerous trap I fall into; focus on my way and my entitlement.  It blinds me to the eternal qualities of my Master.  What I have heard, what I have known of my Master I forget and ignore because I'm too focused on my own stuff.  The power I lack and the endurance I need come from the One I have been ignoring!  The solution I seek through my own power and ability is obscured by my own self-centered (and therefore self-destructive) attitude. 


Today is time for a change.  The challenge for me is learn this lesson for today, all day, every hour; in dealing with my customers, my family, my co-workers, and my community.  Will I focus on the eternal qualities of my Master, will I 'hope expectantly' in my Master knowing what I have heard, and living that out?  The alternative isn't pretty, and hasn't been working; so the only thing I have to lose is more time spent as a loser.  I think I can do without more of that.

Wait of The World

Why do you say, O Jacob, and assert, O Israel,
   "My way is hidden from the LORD, And the justice due me escapes the notice of my God"?
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth
  Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.
He gives strength to the weary, And to him who lacks might He increases power.
Though youths grow weary and tired, And vigorous young men stumble badly,
Yet those who wait for the LORD Will gain new strength;
  They will mount up with wings like eagles, They will run and not get tired,
  They will walk and not become weary.  

(Isaiah 40:27-31 NASB)

I 'stylistically' broke up the above passage into some sort of poetic structure.  The meter is lost in translation, and the parallelism is obscured somewhat.  I went through and connected the poetic parallels to a degree (there are overlapping elements I didn't 'map').  And I peered into the message the writer was sending to his audience on behalf of his Master.  Strangely enough, I learned some things:

1. The people of God complain (even today) about Him.
2. The complaints of God's people are expressions of thin faith or no faith.
3. The qualities of the God of Israel refute the complaints of His people.
4. Two of those qualities, endurance and the source of endurance in people, form the focus of this message.
5. Even those expected to outlast everyone come to the end of themselves at some point.
6. Those relying of the God of Israel never do.

These are the surface things, clearly stated and supported by the parallelism and comparisons of the passage.  But then I add myself to the passage; I am the complainer, I am the one tiring out and fatiguing.  And I am the one with thin faith.

The question beginning this passage is an excellent one, "Why complain?"  Why would I complain about my Master?  What circumstances could I be in that would refute or even disparage His eternal qualities and promises?  What has He done that is not sufficient for me?

The 'audience' of this passage reside in exile from their homeland.  They are captives and cannot return.  If they did, they would return to rubble and ruin.  They were 'waiting' on their deliverance, and it was slow in coming.

This is not my circumstance.  My life is ridiculously good, hilariously so.  And yet, my problems still obscure my view of my Master's eternal qualities.  How can this be?

My view is obscured because I focus on me.  The litmus test is my perspective, my feelings, my thoughts, my attitudes, and my actions.  When all those things within my boundaries become my 'world' I will complain about my Master.  I complain because all those things are insufficient to accomplish anything but to point out how insufficient I am to deal with this world. 

Hopefully, I wake up quickly, refocus on my Master, and gain that sustaining perspective found only with my Master.  I'm not waiting on my 'deliverance', I'm waiting on my Master.  Paul can say that he can do all things through Christ who strengthens him because of his focus on his Master.  That's the only way.  And so it is for me.  Will I be distracted by my circumstances and complain, or will I wait expectantly on my Master and mount up as if I were an eagle?  I'm ready for some 'flight time'!

One And Many: Divine Church Design of Ephesians 4

In Multiply by Francis Chan, the second section, "Living As The Church", begins with "Life In The Church".  That chapter mostly wraps around Paul' description of church in Ephesians 4:1-16.  It's a passage well worth some detailed study.  Paul puts a ton of stuff in a small amount of space.  I'm going to walk through the passage as it broke down for me.

First, there is the call.  The call should inspire us to live in humility and enduring patience; essentially a shorter list of the Fruit of the Spirit (i.e. Galatians 5:22-23).  But here Paul makes much of 'unity', providing a long list of 'ones'; one body, Spirit, hope, Lord, faith, baptism, and Father.  This unity is part of the response to the call.

Then Paul contrasts the unity and 'ones' with what we each have.  So to each of us was given a gift; and rather than one gift, there are many.  He then cites (perhaps incorrectly) Psalm 68:18, inferring that not only did Jesus give us gifts, but also fills all things; therefore has authority over all things.  The point Paul makes is that these many gifts come from one Source, and that Source is Supreme.

Paul then lists some of these 'gifts' specific to 'roles' or 'positions of leadership' in a church rather than the typical list of 'Spiritual gifts' he lists elsewhere.  These gifts are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers.  It's not a list of leaders; overseers, elders, and ministers (deacons) are missing and would be expected to be here if this were a list of leadership positions.  Instead it's a list of gifted 'roles'.

The work of these many roles is equipping for service and enabling growth as the body of Christ. The goal progresses through unity of faith and knowledge of Jesus into complete maturity of all that Jesus is.  What happens then is that outside influences of erroneous teaching and perspectives don't create chaos in the church.  Instead, speaking the truths of Scripture, we all grow into that mature submission to Jesus, the One uniting us, holding us together in love.

This is a great picture of how local churches can function.  I don't think it happens very often.  I know I fail in at a few places along this progression.  I'm pretty sure others struggle in the same areas and a few others.

First off, all this stems from living inspired by my call.  This is the first place I struggle.  I'm not 'inspired' by my call.  I know I'm called, and I worship within that call, but my actions aren't driven by it as they should be.  In other words, that the Creator of the universe has specifically called my name to relate to Him has little influence in my life.  Others around me, just as frail and silly as I am are more inspiring to me.  I worry about what they think, what they want, or what they do; rather than being driven by what my Master thinks, what He wants, and what He does.  It's totally backward and ludicrous.

The second area this falls apart for me is in the short list of 'fruit'; humility, gentleness, patience, and so on.  Those are impossible without the inspiration of my calling.  They are also the only way the unity of the Spirit can be maintained, so I'm hung there as well.  Because of this progressive failure, when I do teach, even the content of the 'ones', it fails to build and equip because I don't have those other qualities that validate my teaching.  Clearly I'm not living out what I teach, so why would others learn from me?

So, my goal is to find that inspiration.  The content of my personal study and my corporate worship needs to be full of wonder of this calling, and I need to be focused on the One calling rather than the noise of those around me.  This is what will transform me, and with me, my church, and with us, our community.  And then the world.  I'm in.  I'm on it.

How Do I Change My 'Want To'?

The first sentence in the third chapter of Multiply by Francis Chan is a question, "Why do you want to make disciples?"  Am I the only one who reads that and thinks, "I'm not sure I want to make disciples"?  I have two issues running parallel here.  One, I'm scared of getting that deep into people; and two, I struggle loving people in general.

Okay, I'm going to revisit the entry from yesterday a bit here.  I look a the list of what love is, and I really struggle to consider it seriously.  I can break it down more specifically if you like (I'm sure you'd love that...), word by word, but really the essence of it is completely self-less.  In fact that makes up two of the actual words used, "self-seeking" and "self-inflating" both of which love is not.

I'm caught in the trap of saying I don't believe this world is about me, but then behaving as if I'm the one who has to make the wise choices to protect myself, my family, and my stuff.  I say I love, but I'm skeptical of others, I hope warily and sparingly, I provoke others (often for my own amusement, often for revenge), I keep records of wrongs others have done to me so I can classify them as 'safe' or 'unsafe', and more.  I'm impatient with others when there's something else I'd rather do I consider more fun.  I'm more often nice (acting) than kind (genuinely interested in the well-being of others).  I am even envious of others life situation, stuff they have, or the way people treat them.  And I hate to say it, but I brag; you know, I'm humble about it and all, but I do brag...

The reason I don't necessarily want to make disciples is that I'm not sure I want disciples like me.  Well, except for one thing; there is one thing I'd like to give to disciples.  When I mess up, which occupies a lot of my time as you can tell, I come back to my Master.  I return to Him, even covered in the mess of my mistakes.  In a sense I repent, even if temporarily before running back into the same stupid stuff I was just in.  I come back.  That is something I would like to teach others.  Because of that, I am one of those who never really give up; not for long anyway.  I may be tore up pretty good, have my armor on backwards, be holding the shield upside down, and my sword with poor grip; but I still stand up after being knocked down.

I'm sure there are people who might prefer I give up since I don't present a very 'nice' picture of a disciple, and therefore of a 'disciple-maker'.  I'm not pretty, I get that.  I totally get Paul's reference to 'treasures in jars of clay' reference in 2 Corinthians 4:7; I'm not a pretty pot, not much suited to treasure, more for a small shrub or herb, or something.  If you don't want the treasure found, I might make a good hiding place; who'd look in me for my Master's treasure?  But pretty or not, looking the part or not, I'm His.  And I'm not going anywhere else.

Unfortunately for me, I can't really 'teach' that as it were; it has to be 'caught' by being around people and them seeing it me and adopting that perspective or quality.  Which really sucks for the disciple I might make because they will also run the risk of 'catching' my other stuff as well.  "I don't love much, but I'm persistent about it!"  Lovely.

But maybe, part of the purpose of making disciples is so I might learn to love, to finally get out of myself and consider others.  What if my Master wants to bring me (and so 'catch' the quality from Him) into contact with others on a messy base level so I will learn to love them as He does?  Do I think in actually being responsible for someone besides myself I will gain this quality?  No, because being a spouse and a parent hasn't done that (much to the chagrin of my wife and daughter).  It comes from being in close contact with my Master as I struggle to obey and wander out of my comfort into His frontier found in the lives of others.  There I find the capacity of love my Master builds into me.  There He pours His love into me and I do what I can't, what I don't want, and what He has designed me to do.

Adrift in a Sea of Tranquility?

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7 NASB)

This is a familiar passage.  It fits in the middle of Paul's discussion of love in one of his letters to a church in Corinth, and that discussion fits within a larger discussion of the place of various gifts of the Holy Spirit and how they were to be used in the context of a church.  So this is a kernel within a kernel; a 'heart' if you will.

When I read this, I can't help seeing all my faults and immediately start trying to justify and explain myself.  I'm suddenly an adolescent again, and it's the 'shark tank' of high school all over again.  You may have a different response.  Whatever your response, I have a suggested one, one that just dawned on me this morning, one I don't remember having before.

Read just this all at once without stopping or thinking about the individual pieces (there's no period until verse 7 anyway).   Don't think about yourself, think about what this would look like if you were to see it.  Think about someone with these qualities.  You may first have to get through the images of 'pansy', 'weakling', and 'idiot', but once through those, what do you see?

I see something really amazing.  After the 'dust' of fighting, fear, and anger settles is this person who remains unperturbed in middle of it all.  The last lone survivor; the very picture of tranquility when all is chaos around them.  But the picture is really a 'video' for when the dust settles, this tranquil person begins binding the wounded, and comforting the hopeless, even the ones who persecuted and tormented them.

The only way I can imagine this as a possibility is to think that such a person does not see the world as we see it, but rather as a small part of a larger whole of the Kingdom of my Master.  Then these 'acts of war' are understood as mere teacup tempests.  But what my King has done for us overshadows all the darkness dispelling whatever obscures and casts wicked shadows.

Imagine waiting patiently, not provoking those who provoke us, not remembering wrongs suffered, covering everything, believing everything (choosing to be naive), never loosing hope, and never giving up.  It sounds foolish, like totally opening myself up to the damage others do intentionally or not.  Where are the protective boundaries?  How are these wise decisions that protect myself and my family?

Yet it is a demonstration of unwavering faith in Jesus, and all that He has done for me.  After that, nothing else really matters, like my own boundaries to protect myself, protecting my family, and so on.  It sounds dangerously foolish, but it's not.  Jesus said that no one can be His disciple unless he hate his own family and even his own life.  What do we think He meant by that?

This really unsettles me, disturbs me, and I don't like it at all.  It scares me to expose myself like this to an unfriendly world.  But then there's this tranquility that I really crave at the core.  I really want that.  The way I'm working in this world is wearing me out, and I'm stressed.  I really do crave the peace and tranquility within the chaos this passage describes.  But am I willing to give up my fears in exchange for faith?   Am I willing to trust my Master so implicitly, so thoroughly?  Are you?

What Is My Life About?

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20 NASB)

So, we're studying "Multiply" by Francis Chan in our church small groups, including mine.  We're using materials for the first time, and I'm not wild about that.  It's good stuff though.  The basic premise is that we as individuals and as churches are supposed to be about discipling others.  The basic passage to base such a base upon is the Great Commission.

So, I studied Matthew 28:18-20 in some detail (part of which I posted over the weekend).  So, here's what I found:

Jesus' authority substantiates the command to disciple others in the midst of living a life of submission to Him, discipling made up of obtaining the disciple's commitment through baptism and teaching them to guard everything Jesus taught through Scripture, all carried out in the presence of Jesus.

That's what I got from the passage.  What I'm getting from the book is that this is fairly easy to understand, and fairly difficult to carry out.  The element that disciple-making is every believer's job is repeated throughout because it's never really accepted by believers.  It's weird why that is, but it's so true in our Western, especially American, culture.  As I write this lying on my couch in front of the TV...no, just kidding.

The inescapable element supporting all the rest is Jesus' declaration that all authority (in heaven and on earth) has been given to Him.  Why all the arguments inspiring believers to do this don't also focus on this central element is odd to me.  Not to intentionally beat a dead horse, but it's all about obedience and submission.  I don't think that horse is anywhere near dead unfortunately.

It is still about me dying to myself, my desires, my wishes, and my dreams; and rising again to take on Him as my Master, His desires, His wishes, and His dreams as my own.  I want my stuff, what's wrong with my stuff?  Besides the fact that it's empty, without substance, uninformed, and lame; nothing's wrong with my stuff.  Compared to the riches of the Master of the universe, though, the question should be why wouldn't I want His stuff?  I don't ask that question enough, except the form of, 'what was I thinking?'  I ask that one a lot, often accompanied by a slap to the head (also known as a V-8).

If I'm reading this correctly, the purpose of my life as defined by my Master is to obediently make disciples as He guides the course of my life lived in His presence, getting the commitment of baptism from them, and teaching them to guard Scripture.

That's my purpose.  So when I have to decide what to do, I should be holding up the 'stick' of obediently making disciples' to see which choice fits within that boundary.  Once I have that set of options, then I can follow whatever process to determine which one of those my Master has for me.  The first unit of measurement, though, should be disciple-making.

Now, about my job...hmm.

Traveling or Being Traveled

Mat 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “ All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
http://olivetree.com/b3/Mat.28.18.NASBStr

I have a dilemma.  The verb 'go' in verse 19 is a participle, but is passive.  Participles are already 'flexible' in their range of meaning since they are both verbs and adjectives.  But that it is passive adds another complex problem, because 'go' here isn't transitive in nature, at least not here.  Consider how you can be acted upon (passive voice) and the action is to move from one location to another.  As I see it, essentially, you are carried by someone or something without being the one in control.  That's the passive sense of this word as best as it can be achieved in English; and I admit it's not great.

Now the participle piece,  typically the imperative of 'disciple' or 'make disciples' is 'borrowed' by the participle, rendering the participle as a command to 'go'.  This is not required, even though very common.  I think that I lean another direction.  Participles can support other verbs, lending a sense of context of the action, and I think that is what this one does.  The command to make disciples is to be carried out in the temporal setting of going.  But this temporal setting of 'going' is in that passive sense in the previous paragraph; as in 'being carried along.'  So the obedience to the command 'make disciples' happens as we are carried along from place to place.

So, now all sorts of excuses come up.  What if I'm not 'being carried'?  Why do I need to be carried?  I'm waiting to be carried.  My life isn't going anywhere at the moment. I'm going to fast and furious to do anything else.  And so on it goes.  But if my Master is doing the driving in my life, then there's no excuse for me not doing my part in discipling.  The truth is I do way too much of the driving, that's why I'm too busy; I'm too busy doing His job.  That's not life lived in submission.  And therin is my problem.

'Household Images' and a Heart Like God's

Then Saul sent messengers to David's house to watch him, in order to put him to death in the morning. But Michal, David's wife, told him, saying, "If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be put to death."  So Michal let David down through a window, and he went out and fled and escaped.  Michal took the household idol and laid it on the bed, and put a quilt of goats' hair at its head, and covered it with clothes. When Saul sent messengers to take David, she said, "He is sick." (1 Samuel 19:11-14 NASB)

 One of the things about David that is often pointed out is that he is considered by God to be a man after His own heart.  In other words, David has a heart like God's heart (1 Samuel 13:14).  It's not a pursuit, it's a quality of David's heart already.  I think it's interesting that having a heart like God's doesn't mean that David doesn't make mistakes.

The other thing most pointed out about David is his sin; usually David, Bathsheba, and Uriah the Hittite.  But what about the issue of David having an idol in his house while God is using him with Saul and the armies of Israel?  That's one we don't bring up much when we think of David, sin, and having a 'heart like God's heart.'

Samuel condemns these 'household idols' before Saul, and the implication is that he had wiped them out in Israel (1 Samuel 15:23 'idolatry').  So it's not likely that Michal brought it from her father's house.  I think this is David's 'household image'.  This term is one of those Hebrew words which is translated differently depending upon the context, but I think it's a common term used for a fairly common item.

I find a few common things:  1) they are condemned from Judges to Samuel to Kings, and into the prophets.  2) they are common in Israel and Judah.  Those are really somewhat odd when you think about it.  How can they be condemned and still be common?  I have a theory (go figure).

I suspect that the term used (which is not the normal term for 'idol'), is more of a common term for a category of object.  It's not an object from or used in a sacred site or temple.  Rather I think it's a common object used in a house or home.  I also suspect that it was an image of some sort of animal or bird or person.  Like a picture on a wall we use now.

Because of that, whether it's used for worship or other purposes may not be necessarily consistent. I'm not saying it was a paperweight for David, but Saul worshiped his (at least not according to 1 Samuel 15:23).  I'm saying that these household objects were a problem in that they were a violation of a basic command of God: not to make an image representing any created thing (Exodus 20:4).  I think that was the problem.  It was a compromise.

So here's what I learn from this:  A heart like my Master's heart is still a human heart, and not without compromise.  So, I know that I sometimes discover areas of my life and heart that I have been blind to; that are contrary to my Master's commands.  What I do with that discovery is where the character of my heart being like my Master's heart becomes evident.  Do I repent?  Do I change my mind to agree with the mind of my Master?

I have to remember that the 'heart' as Scripture uses the term is different than we typically use the same term.  It's not the same as 'mind' and it's not the seat of the emotions (like it is for us).  A heart like my Master's doesn't mean I 'think' like Him, it means that I pursue with dogged determination what He pursues to the same degree.  I'm faithful to the end, I'm patient to wait for Him, I never waver in my belief in His goodness.  But I may have 'teraphim' in my life that need to go.

Keep in mind that this 'household image' wasn't so precious to David that he takes it with him when he leaves.  So, what will I do when I find these things in my life, these unknown compromises with my Master's commands?  That's the question I have to ask myself from this passage.  I'm not sure David ever recognized the problem with his, Scripture never says.  But that's beside the point.  What will I do?  When his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah was pointed out, David repented (although I'm sure he was aware of that one).  What will I do when I discover my own?

Saul's Lonely Quest Against His God

Now Saul told Jonathan his son and all his servants to put David to death. But Jonathan, Saul's son, greatly delighted in David.  So Jonathan told David saying, "Saul my father is seeking to put you to death. Now therefore, please be on guard in the morning, and stay in a secret place and hide yourself." (1 Samuel 19:1-2 NASB)

Then Saul sent messengers to David's house to watch him, in order to put him to death in the morning. But Michal, David's wife, told him, saying, "If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be put to death."  So Michal let David down through a window, and he went out and fled and escaped. (1 Samuel 19:11-12 NASB)

This chapter of  1 Samuel is really about how Saul can't even get cooperation from his family against David.  It is about his failure to relent with God, his obvious sinful aggression against David, and the support and love Saul's son and daughter have for David.  In a sense this chapter is linkage to the final failure of Saul and eventual rise of David.  That is a long story though.  In the next chapter and following, we will focus entirely on David, and Saul fades to a secondary character.  This is his last chapter as a main character.

Saul is a tragic figure, classic long before Greek was classic.  Whatever he tries fails because he is fighting the One having called Israel into existence.  He can't rule the country of ones called by their God, and yet fight against the One having called them.  His attempts to hold on to the kingdom are futile.  It's obvious, and it's sad.  There's nothing to be done, no council to give, no comfort, for Saul is beyond all that.  The only solace he could find he drove off when he turned against David, his harp player.

But isn't it interesting that this One having called Israel, guided them, and led them now places His new chosen one in the court of his rejected one, and makes him indispensable.  David becomes the best military leader and the one who can relieve Saul of the evil spirit sent by God.  The God of Israel put's David in Saul's face.  It sounds cruel, or even petty, but I believe it is another act of grace as God calls on Saul to relent.  It's only as he is able to acknowledge David's ascendancy that he has any peace, that the harp playing has its effect on him, that all is well with the nation. 

So where is my opportunity to relent?  Where is my Master placing me in a situation where I am to relinquish some power, authority, or position to another?  Peter seems to in Acts.  One moment he leads the Jerusalem church, the next, without explanation, it's James the brother of Jesus.  No explanation, and Peter doesn't seem to mind.  Where's my opportunity?  I wish it were at work.  I'm tire of my work.  I just don't think I've learned the lesson my Master has for me.  I hope I don't learn it the hard way.

Perhaps it's at church, but I don't really have much to give up there.  The coffee bar?  I think I could let that go.  The marriage mentoring program is just getting off the ground, but I'm hardly the motivating factor there.  I don't know.  And I know I don't have to.  This may not be a lesson for me now.  This could be a lesson that my Master wants me to know for later.  Or it could be a lesson He wants me to write about for someone else.  I don't know.  But this is what this chapter is about; giving up my plans for His, even when they don't include me.  Maybe I'm supposed to relent to my Master's use of this entry.  I suppose it doesn't have to be about me at all.

So Philistines Hate Married Men?

Now Michal, Saul's daughter, loved David. When they told Saul, the thing was agreeable to him.  Saul thought, "I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Therefore Saul said to David, "For a second time you may be my son-in-law today."  Then Saul commanded his servants, "Speak to David secretly, saying, 'Behold, the king delights in you, and all his servants love you; now therefore, become the king's son-in-law.'"  So Saul's servants spoke these words to David. But David said, "Is it trivial in your sight to become the king's son-in-law, since I am a poor man and lightly esteemed?" (1 Samuel 18:20-23 NASB)

Saul is now jealous of David because the dancing ladies sang that Saul had slain his 'thousands' while David had slain his 'big numbers'.  It's kind of a silly reason to distrust anyone, but to be fair it's also because he sees that God is with David and knows that God is no longer with him.  This is where he fights against what he knows is the will of God, and doesn't relent.

So what does Saul decide to do about the guy God favors?  Well he tried to pin him to the wall with his spear but he escapes twice.  So, instead, he decides to get him to marry one of his daughters so his enemies (the Philistines) will then kill David.

Even though David leads Israel and Judah into battle, it isn't until he might marry a daughter of Saul that these Philistines really become dangerous?  They sort of like shepherds, but married guys they can't tolerate?  Or is it the daughter of Saul, so now they are angry since they wanted one of theirs to marry her?  Or maybe it's so obvious, I'm missing it.

Life married does change things.  When I married, my life was suddenly no longer all about me.  I had always said that it was about God and me, but really that wasn't true.  Once another person was affected by all I did, then I began to understand better what I was doing to my Master to make the choices I had made.  I spent the first year acclimating to how selfish I really was.  And the next 19 years after that trying to become less selfish.

But I'm not sure if that's all of it, because why does being a son-in-law to Saul make the Philistines more apt to kill David?  Maybe it's that he would be part of the 'royal family' and therefore a highly prized target?  David was already showing himself to be a great leader, wouldn't he already be a 'highly prized target' if only to make the Philistines life easier?

Okay, so you're reading this and going, 'So what? Saul's crazier than a bag of cats, move on.'  But what I'm looking around for is what two sets of people thought about Saul's motivation.  What did the 'servants of Saul' and the people around David think?  And what about the people reading this after it was written some hundreds of years later, what did they think of Saul's motivation?

That's important because my Master is conveying a message; making a point.  And that point was initially made in that day these events occurred, and then again with the initial audience of the writings.  He wanted to help them understand something.  I want to know what that was, but to do so, I need a better understanding of what they knew.  I need to know more about what they assumed and what didn't need to be explained to them, because this reasoning of Saul isn't explained.

I suspect that the answer lies in two factors.  One of which is the easy one to spot 3,000 years later: Saul's mind isn't working very well.  But I also think that in the culture of the day, being the king's son-in-law did have an affect on the outcome of battles.  I suspect it had to do with an enemy's ability to strike at an absent king through his family.

The thinking goes like this: Since Saul wasn't present at these battles with the Philistines, David presented an optional target and a way to strike at the heart and soul of the king.  The reasoning would have been that if David dies, the daughter of the king mourns and the king's life is difficult; his enemies have struck home, at his heart; it's like loosing a son.

But this is no where near the only reasonable suggestion.  Perhaps the 'snare' would have been that David would have considered himself one-step closer to being king.  I'm not sure how that would make the Philistines more dangerous.  Perhaps the daughter of Saul would have given more influence and control to Saul over David.  I'm not sure on any of these, but I suspect that the first one, being a royal family target, is probably slightly more likely.  But it could have been several of these options at once, rather than a single-sided reason.

The point here is that while Saul is certainly bent, his mind is still working somewhat.  He's jealous and crazy with it, panicking over the Spirit of God having left him.  But he's still lucid enough to plot against David.  He understands that God is with David, and therefore David is supposed to be the next king; he understands that much.  The thing he's doing that God wants me to know, the same thing He wanted the original people and the original audience to know, is that it's futile to plot against the designs of God.  There, that's it. 

So I need to stop it, when I do it.  In small ways and large, I need to let my Master be Master of me, my life, and my actions.  Submit, relent, and rest in Him.  So, what will I discover today?  I have an interview for a possible new job.  What I want to know is the plan of my Master in this.  I suspect it will be to remain where I am until I learn the lesson of where I am.  But maybe I have (though I doubt it).

Whatever His plan, my job is to accept it; today, tomorrow, and forever.

My Taunt Is Better Than Your Taunt

The Philistine said to David, "Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?" And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.  The Philistine also said to David, "Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field." 

Then David said to the Philistine, "You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. This day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the LORD'S and He will give you into our hands." (1 Samuel 17:43-47 NASB)

There is a lot of debate about the text of chapter 17.  There are plenty of seeming inconsistencies, theories to reconcile them, grousing about whether David was even a real historical figure, and so on.  If it weren't for these controversies, many scholars wouldn't have received their doctorates. 

But one piece which is not so hotly contested because it lacks inconsistency, is documented in the best texts, and fits well in the narrative as a whole are the taunts between David and Goliath.   The giant has been taunting all day, early to late, and no one comes to fight.  Finally out comes some good-looking shepherd boy and he's out of good insults.  But the shepherd's not.

Essentially, the giant said he would feed David to the birds and animals.  David said he was going to give all the Philistines to feed them, oh, and cut off the giant's head.  But David also reveals his motivation. He wants everyone to know, Israelite and Philistine, that the battle belongs to God, and He delivers however He wants.

David turns the issue around on the armies.  It's no longer about giants and swords, bronze and iron.  Now it's about God and those opposed to Him.  Once the battle is framed this way, giants, metal, and numbers no longer matter.  And neither do texts, theories, and archeological evidence.

I learn that the things I face aren't really about what I know or don't.  They aren't about what I can do or can't.  Not even what I want or don't want factors into the things I face each day.  The life I live is about my Master.  In a sense, David proclaimed that he had been crucified with the Messiah, and he no longer lived, but the life he lived he lived in faith in that Messiah having loved him and gave Himself up for him (Galatians 2:20).

As David lived and testified, so it is for me.  Can I stand before giants and assembly and proclaim that it is all about my Master?  Will  I?  What about today?  What about my work day?  Sure, perhaps in the drama, I can stand bold, but what about the daily grind upon my soul?  Can I stand even then?  And this is not about perfection, it's about being consistent, honest, and real.

The major problems in my life are not the crises, but the routines.   I can face the crises in faith, and have repeatedly.  It's the routines that grate on me, but it is also the routines that get the job done, any job.  If I don't face the routines faithfully, then I won't be prepared for the crises (ask a firefighter).  I may endure it, I may even shine during, but I will be working under a handicap I created, my lack of readiness.

I want the fun, the adrenaline, the surge of excitement.  I need to be faithful in the routines so when my Master calls me to stand before the assembly and giants to proclaim that this is all about Him I will be ready to obey.  Practice, practice, practice, small victories to gain more faith for the larger ones.

So today is about the routines, my giant to face.  Today is about doing what I need to do rather than what I want.  Today is about my Master; like every day, including tomorrow, and Saturday, and so on...

Bearding Bears and Lions, Building Faith

Then Saul said to David, "You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth while he has been a warrior from his youth."  But David said to Saul, "Your servant was tending his father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and took a lamb from the flock, I went out after him and attacked him, and rescued it from his mouth; and when he rose up against me, I seized him by his beard and struck him and killed him.  Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, since he has taunted the armies of the living God."  And David said, "The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine." And Saul said to David, "Go, and may the LORD be with you." (1 Samuel 17:33-37 NASB)

One of the things I did after high school and in the Army was to actually read the Bible for myself.  My parents had given me a very literal translation, and it introduced me to many of the peculiarities and vagaries of Scripture.  There are a lot of these, parts of stories I had heard from nearly infancy that were always left out.  Like David grabbing a lion or bear by the beard and clubbing him to death.  I didn't remember that story that way from the Bible stories I heard when I was young.

I've been to zoos.  I've seen lions.  I've seen the ones with big manes, and I've seen the California mountain lion which has none.  There were lions which once roamed Palestine, I believe now extinct (since the 1800's).  But I also believe they were somewhat like the mountain lions, though some had manes.  In any case, evidence suggests they did exist in David's time, they were often a plague on the populace, and killing one was rare or unheard of.  Except here.

Big cats are often huge, some more than 500lbs, and lions are second only to tigers in size.  Most researchers believe that Eurasian brown bears would have been the best option for bears in Palestine.  Any of these, male or female could easily have been 500lbs.  So, big bears and big cats versus a young guy.  This is one of those instances where it's hard to wrap the mind around such an event (which seems to have happened more than once to David).

David doesn't just fight the bear/lion, he grabs the lamb from the mouth, and when the bear/lion gets angry (go figure), then he grabs the face/neck (whatever is meant by 'beard' in Hebrew, Greek is 'neck') and 'strikes' it.  His list of implements later is a staff and a sling.  I'm guessing the sling was of little use when he had the thing by the neck/face, so I'm going with 'staff' as the weapon used. 

Can you get an image of this?  David goes up and grabs the 'meal' from the animal almost three times his weight.  When it gets mad ('rises ups against him'), he grabs it right near the jaw (the dangerous end) and beats it with his big stick.  This should have been caught on video, it would have redefined 'viral' on YouTube.  If you get a picture of this in your head, you can see why the 9-foot giant in the valley didn't seem all that big of a deal.  A couple of 500lb tooth-and-paw eating machines are a good warm up for a loud-mouthed 9-foot blasphemer with a sword.

The thing is, I'm not sure I'm ready to face the first, even to get ready for the second.  Not that there are many lions or bears where I live, but still, there are things, scary things, that when I face, build my faith in my Master.  Can I face boredom, meaning that I don't get to do what I want, but go ahead and do what I should but don't want to?  Can I face embarrassment, meaning that I do the thing that will draw the derision of others even though it's what my Master commands of me?  Can I face the anger of others, confronting the wrong instead of letting the status quo of sin continue?  Can I humble myself, letting go of my pride in what I know, what I've discovered, and what I've done and exalt others, even in my heart?  Can I?

These are the small animals, the basic faith-testers, not even the big animals or the giants.  Do I have the faith for even these?  These are the 'enemies' I face.  These are the ones I deal with daily, that howl about my day, prowling about my life.  There's no adrenaline, no surge of 'fight-or-flight' reflex, not that much emotion at all.  But there is fear, in each case.  And it is fear that erodes my faith, and therefore fear that must be faced and destroyed.  Obedience is the method, my tools are prayer and Scripture, and my time is now. 

So, Where Was That Spirit From Again?

Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.  Saul's servants then said to him, "Behold now, an evil spirit from God is terrorizing you.  Let our lord now command your servants who are before you. Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp; and it shall come about when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play the harp with his hand, and you will be well." (1 Samuel 16:14-16 NASB)

On the 14th, I wrote an entry in this blog about what it meant for me that my Master would send an 'evil spirit to torment'.   My conclusion was that all things come from my Master, and therefore I will praise Him more.  It's one thing to say that, and sing nice and lovely to praise my Master more.  But what about when bad things happen?  Oops, hmm, didn't thing about that.

So, while I write a lot of blog entries on theology and philosophy, what I do to put bread on the table is sales.  Part of my struggle with that is that I'm not really a 'salesman'.  I'm really a teacher who teaches people to buy smarter.  Sometimes that works well and in my favor, and sometimes it doesn't.  But it always works in the customers favor.  Because of this, I have developed a long relationship with several of our customers.  Recently my company put forth a company-wide effort to delight our customers.  It hasn't quite trickled down yet.

In my sales department, we have a rule that says that if a sales rep leaves a voicemail with a customer, they own the sales for the next two weeks.  The idea is that we recoup sales lost from customers hearing the message but calling into the general queue without mentioning the rep who left the message or who order online.  This protects the sales credit for the rep who prompted the sale.  Sounds good right?

What happens when my long-time client (seven years!) calls me direct for their annual order, and as I go into their account, I find that one of my teammates has left a message a few days ago?  Now I have a choice.  I can pass off the customer to that sales rep since I don't get credit, and let that guy do all the work.  Or I can  keep the customer, enter the order, but just put the other rep's credit on it; maintaining the relationship but without the benefit.

I have complained about this, and have been shot down every time.  I leave a lot of messages for customers, but I very rarely get much in the way of sales from it.  The idea is that if I leave more messages, I'll get more sales.  I hate that idea.  It does work, just statistically speaking, it has to.  But it's without skill, without relationship, and fails to measure anything but the ability to leave more messages than the next guy.  It drives me nuts.

So, I do two things in protest.  First, I maintain my sales relationships I have with customers to the degree that I can; I enter the orders, even with other reps credit (as I did in this case).  Second, I give those sales away when I have left a message but someone else has an established relationship.  If they get the call back because they have an established relationship, I believe they should get the sale (I'm not as generous when the customer doesn't call them back though).  Both of these things only hurt myself.  But both actions preserve my values.  My values aren't in line with what I do, the rules under which I do them, nor the wishes of my managers.  I hold my values anyway.

But what does this have to do with my Master and sending evil tormenting spirits?  Well, I also believe that while I do a lot of 'planting' and 'watering' of customers and sales processes in my job, it is my Master bringing the results.  If all things are from Him, and He knows all things, then He knew and arranged to have my co-worker leave that message days before my customer called me.  I can get frustrated with the system, I can get frustrated with my co-worker (for doing his job, right, that makes sense), I can get frustrated with my manager; but each of those things is the wrong response.

What I am learning through this is to receive from my Master's hand whatever He decides to give me; when and how He decides to give it.  But also to let go from my hand whatever He wants to take.  If He really brings the sales, than they are His not mine.  Can I let go of what I believe I am entitled to receive?  Can I relent with my Master?  It's one thing to say all things come from Him, it is another to be okay with it.  Can I be okay with it?  "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return.  The Lord gives, and the Lord has taken away, Blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21).

Will I accept this?  Will I still praise my Master when He takes away sales on which I was counting?  Will I, having lost almost nothing compared to Job's loss, say as he said, "Blessed be the Name of the Lord"?  This is where my 'culture' and 'society' influences begin to weaken, and the message of Scripture begins to come home to me.  Yes, I will accept; I will praise my Master; I will bless His name, sing songs of praise all the more intensely, and live out the belief that all things do in fact come from my Master.

What Sort of Music Do Evil Spirit's Hate?

Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him. (1 Samuel 16:14 NASB)

So it came about whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him. (1 Samuel 16:23 NASB)

So, last Sunday I'm outside the sanctuary working on cleaning up the church coffee bar, and this teenage boy comes up and asks if I 'work there, at the church.' He wants to know if they're is a 'suggestion box' and I tell him to leave a note on the information center counter.  Then he tells me for free that the music in the sanctuary is too loud.  I had one of those moments where you think of a good comeback only after the time has past.  I should have told him we do that to drive off evil spirits since they don't like loud music either. 

Oh well, the time for such a comeback was past and it was never said, but it does bring up an interesting question.  What sort of music does drive off evil spirits?  It's not a silly question either.  Look at David's relationship with Saul.  David played his harp and the evil spirit left Saul.  It didn't always work, but it did until Saul became jealous of David.  Think about that.

So God sends an 'evil spirit' to torment Saul (it wasn't enough to reject him as king).  And when David plays the harp, the evil spirit departs.  If order is important here, then it goes like this:  David plays, Saul is 'refreshed', and the evil spirit departs.  What was it about music, specifically the music David played that caused a spirit sent by God to depart? 

I'm just guessing, but I would assume that 'evil spirits' prefer music like rap music about killing and sex, or heavy metal music about similar things, or crazy screaming singing with little beat or melody regardless of what it's about, or anything recommending suicide.  These, I would think, would be some favorites and classics for a basic evil spirit; on their iPod/phone/other mobile device.

So, what would be the opposite of such songs?  What sort would simply drive an evil spirit out of the house?  I'm not sure.  It's probably a matter of picking a Psalm of praise, and playing a tune for it on the harp.  Again, I'm guessing here.  But there may be more to this than simply the effect on the evil spirit.

If order is important in verse 23, then Saul is 'refreshed' and then the evil spirit departs...for a while.  The word translated as 'refreshed' is a word that means, 'to breathe easy, be wide or spacious, be relieved.' It is very closely related to the word for 'spirit' itself.  I think of it as the feeling marked by a deep sigh; usually followed by flopping on the couch.  Rushing around, stressed over what needs to be done, finish, all done, deep sigh, flop on the couch.  That feeling.

What if that feeling in Saul was why the evil spirit departed.  Maybe the music just brought Saul to that point, and then the evil spirit departed.  Here's why I bring this up.  I think the evil spirit was sent by my Master to drive Saul to his death in battle with the Philistines.  I don't know that, it's not like it's written in Scripture or anything.  I get it from looking at Saul's erratic behavior with David, and with the Philistines.

I suspect that the stress of the guerrilla warfare with the Philistines was wearing on Saul's sanity.  He worried about it, about failing, about what needed to be done next, would it work, how could he pull off the next ambush and so on.  He knew that since Samuel wouldn't help him any more that he was no longer in God's favor, so success was no longer assured.  It was on him, and he didn't have the mettle to sustain the stress.

I figure the evil spirit used Saul's condition to drive him where God would then destroy him.  So when he was 'refreshed' the condition was no longer there for the evil spirit to use.  It would just come back later when the condition returned.  That's my theory.  If that's the truth, then my lesson from this is to relent.

Relent?  Saul's situation was that he had been rejected by God as king.  But he continued to act as king.  It's one thing for him to confess that he had sinned, that was good.  But hanging in there as king when he already knew he had been rejected only made it more difficult on the people, and I think, on himself.  Had he relented, and abdicated the 'throne' (or pomegranate tree as it were), I think his stress level would have been much less, and there would have been no need for an evil spirit from God to torment into fatal error.  In any case I suspect Jonathan would have survived.  As it was, Saul would lose his three eldest sons along with himself.

For me, when the punishment from my Master comes, and I am to endure the loss of some position or responsibility, do I fight to keep it or relent, and give it up?  That's the point of application I see here for me.  I used to be a pastor.  That is a role and responsibility that has passed for me.  Now when I'm in a church I do not have the 'option' of looking longingly at that role, wishing it were mine.  That would be wrong, and to rebel against the decree of my Master. 

Eventually, I reached a point where I don't even want the role of pastor.  Now it's not a temptation, and I really enjoy the roles that I have now.  I see my role as support for the pastor, I get to teach without some of the down side effects of being the pastor.  I can more easily engage with people without the risk of vulnerability.  It's really a lot less stress.  Perhaps that's what Saul needed; to step down, relent and accept the discipline of God.  Jeremiah basically tells Judah to do that with the Babylonians; that's the core of his prophesy among them.  It's a good lesson.  It sure has helped me.

David: Early Bar-Band Member?

So Saul said to his servants, "Provide for me now a man who can play well and bring him to me."  Then one of the young men said, "Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is a skillful musician, a mighty man of valor, a warrior, one prudent in speech, and a handsome man; and the LORD is with him."  So Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, "Send me your son David who is with the flock."  Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread and a jug of wine and a young goat, and sent them to Saul by David his son.  Then David came to Saul and attended him; and Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor bearer.  Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Let David now stand before me, for he has found favor in my sight."  So it came about whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him. (1 Samuel 16:17-23 NASB)

When the church looks for a worship band member, what do they look for in a musician?  When an orchestra or even a personal party looks for a musician, what qualities are they seeking?  Traditionally, in our culture, the ability to play well especially the songs we like to hear.  So, when we see that David was a musician and poet (single most prolific writer of Psalms), we think 'wimp'.  But there is an exception in our culture.

Bands that play in bars learn to fight to survive.  Drunk people are just unruly, and fights are just a part of it.  In fact, the musician as an artist is almost eclipsed by the need of the musician as a survivor of bar brawls.  Even bands fight with other bands, and bands try to appear 'tough' whether they are or not (Backstreet Boys?).  But even so, rarely if ever do I find a requirement of a musician that he be "a skillful musician, a mighty man of valor, a warrior, and prudent in speech."

When the setting is considered this makes good sense.  This musician would be working for a raving battle chief trying to calm him down.  This is not the place for some pasty weak music nerd.  Music skill is necessary, but so is the ability to stand strong before the king. 

But there is more to what this reveals of David than normally is assumed.  David has 'range'.  He isn't a single dimensional character.  David is great at several things.  Great at one is normal, good at many isn't unusual, great at many and we have what became known as a 'Renaissance Man'.  These persons marked a change in recorded history in some way partly because of their varied sets of skills.  Not many were warriors though. 

Consider what kind of personality has the range of sensitivity that can create poetry that digs into the very soul of a people, and then, turn and brutally wipe out entire towns and villages.  It goes from very sensitive to none what so ever.  This is the 'man after God's own heart'.  David left no witnesses alive when he raided into the deserts north and east of Egypt.  And he wrote of his desire for God, to know Him, to be known by Him, to be found in the place of worship, to seek His face.  David had 'range' all right.

So, what do I take away from this?  I'm not sure.  I don't know that I qualify as a 'renaissance man', not really a warrior, and I only play the instruments of the radio and kazoo.  So that's not it.  But I too have range.  I can really be devoted to my Master, and I can really fail Him miserably.  I just don't think that's the sort of 'range' my Master is looking for.  David did exhibit this sort of range as well I suppose, but still, I'm not convinced of what the take-away is from David's qualifications to play before Saul.

One element that does sort of fit is that my Master calls people into situations in which He has 'designed' them to fit.  In other words, David was a musician by interest and a warrior by necessity to defend his flock (I refer you to his 'bear' and 'lion' fighting technique in the next chapter).  Perhaps in the cold boring nights and days of shepherding, he found playing the harp filled the time.  Looking at the stars filled his poetry?  I don't know.  But his circumstances were the tools used by my Master to make him what he was, what he needed to be for that time and place.

So, what have I been made by my Master, and what is my place to fill in His work?  That is the point of connection, the take-away.  The answer is that I'm not sure yet.  I'm not even sure that this question has one answer.  The answer may change over time as the circumstances change.  I suppose the summation is that my path has a purpose in the plans of my Master; therefore I have a place in those plans as well.  The challenge is to find it and submit to that plan rather than my own.  This is a worthy goal.

A Redheaded Boy With Beautiful Eyes

And Samuel said to Jesse, "Are these all the children?" And he said, "There remains yet the youngest, and behold, he is tending the sheep." Then Samuel said to Jesse, "Send and bring him; for we will not sit down until he comes here."  So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with beautiful eyes and a handsome appearance. And the LORD said, "Arise, anoint him; for this is he."  Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward. And Samuel arose and went to Ramah. (1 Samuel 16:11-13 NASB)

God had already clarified for Samuel that what God was looking for in the chosen one was found in the heart.  Yet when David walks in, what we get is a picture of what he looks like.  In a Mediterranean world of dark hair, he's a redhead with beautiful eyes; not the 'manliest' of descriptions.  But he's a youth, so we can forgive this.

Regardless of what God looks at, the biblical record still relies much on the visual.  This is an important literary feature, because this would resonate with the readers/listeners more than describing David's 'heart'.  That quality that caught the eye of God is not described, it's shown in the account of David from here on. 

I don't think the literary quality of this account is appreciated very often, because there are other elements that simply defy such an assessment.  Like the way the editor juxtaposes different literary accounts with little transition or sense of timing; or even of contradiction.  We can be very critical of the accounts because of these things.

The problem with being so critical (and I am one of the biggest culprits), is that the view is missed of the beauty of the writing.  Because I don't like the arrangement of the garden, I miss the impressive flowers in each section.  When chapters 16 and 17 are read together (and then on from there), this chapter seems strangely misplaced.  That shouldn't lead me to miss the excellence of the story at hand.

Really, it's not chapter 16 that seems at odds, it's elements of chapter 17 (lots of elements of chapter 17).  This account seems to dovetail nicely with chapter 18 and forward; but chapter 17 can't be left out either since the event is repeatedly referenced.

So, a boy with red hair is chosen to be king.  The last redhead we encountered (Esau) was rejected.  Obviously it's not the hair.  He has beautiful eyes; a quality in guys often prized by women (one with which I was never accused).  But neither of these qualities trigger the selection by God, it's his heart.

What I learn from this is a little beyond the 'judging by appearance' lesson of last week.  Here I learn that, while my Master looks at the heart, I can still regard the appearance and take note of such qualities.  Ironically, I do anyway.  I would have to deny that I do in order to claim that I too look at the heart.  Such a claim would be silly since the only way I have of judging such is to get to know someone over time, and even then I couldn't really be sure.  It's not likely that my Master wants me to take such time to qualify someone He has chosen.

But once my Master has informed me that He has chosen someone, even in the midst of honoring that choice, I can still look at the appearance.  Sometimes this is important, the first impression, the initial part of getting to know someone, and one of the most memorable characteristics of people.

So it's okay to look at someone.  It's not the grounds for 'judging' or evaluating them or their value to my Master.  But what someone looks like is part of what my Master has made.  I suppose that my struggle comes with I take what I see and give it too much importance.  When I'm using my standard instead of my Master's standard, then I've taken my Master's place as Judge; a dangerous place to be.  When I judge by what I see that's exactly what I'm doing.

So it's looking at appearance, but keeping what I see in its proper place.  It's not 'balance', it's submission (yet again).  I can look, but only to learn, not to 'judge'.  I wonder how much of a person's story of their life with our Master can be 'read' in what they look like.  It probably varies greatly.  I bet it's a 'good read' though.

Where Did You Say You Were From?

1 Samuel 16:14 Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him. 15 Saul’s servants then said to him, “Behold now, an evil spirit from God is terrorizing you. 16 Let our lord now command your servants who are before you. Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp; and it shall come about when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play the harp with his hand, and you will be well.” 17 So Saul said to his servants, “Provide for me now a man who can play well and bring him to me.” (NASBStr)

One of the most problematic statements in all of Scripture for Biblical Theologians is 1 Samuel 16:14.  The statement that the 'Good Lord' sent an 'evil spirit' is a square theological peg in a round hole of God's character. At least it looks that way.

Here's what we know:

• The verse actually says this; there's no other way to translate it.
• In following verses uses, 'evil spirit from God' rather than 'from the LORD'; in other words, God's name is used initially, then references to Him.
• The servants know what has happened and what to do about it; a very specific solution, rather than a general search for any solution.
• Saul agrees with the solution, indicating either personal familiarity with the problem, or trust of those who serve him.
• This is the only known record of such a thing done by God.

There's much that can be deduced from this; it's more common in their culture than in the Scripture the record, music was found to help people God afflicts this way, and no one seems to think it is out of character for God. There's more that suggested, and then opinion and theory take over.  

Here's my theory: Everything comes from my Master, and I can trust that what He does does not contradict what says about Himself. I believe the problem lies with my lack of understanding, not His character.

So, my Master can send an evil spirit to torment someone, and He is still Love, sending His Son into the world to save all the ones believing in Him. 

That means that evil also comes from my Master.  That isn't easy to swallow or accept, that the All-Loving God of the Christian Scriptures would cause evil.  Consider this, the enemy, Satan, is a created being.  This creature is not on par with the Almighty, does not possess His power or knowledge, and is not the 'balance' for the 'goodness' of the True Creator of the universe.  So our enemy, this creature, is not 'deity' of any sort, but rather a rebel against Deity.

Just so we're clear, all things come from God.  So, how do I, a servant of the King, knight of the Realm, reconcile good and evil both being from my King?  By recognizing that while my King is not subjective, my understanding of Him can only obtain a subjective level.  In other words, I only know what He reveals to me of Himself, which includes the tidbit that there's more about Him I don't know.  In fact, when Isaiah 55:8&9 are unpacked in light of modern astronomy, then really, my Master is as far from my understanding as the width and breadth of the universe; not our galaxy, but the whole universe.  And so you know, by the way, the dimensions of the universe are unknowable from our perspective on earth.

Still, both good and evil coming from a Loving God?  Yes.  Again, as I've pointed out before, when evil and good are defined in the way the terms are used in Scripture, they aren't necessarily moral assessments.  They are wider umbrella terms for things generally affecting the writer/editor, the audience reading/hearing, or the objects being acted upon in the account recorded.  Let that sink in a moment, perhaps you should re-read it a few times.  

What I mean by that is sometimes the things we don't like are morally contrary to God's will, plans, and commands.  But sometimes what we think are bad things are merely inconvenient, we don't like them; and sometimes they are catastrophically detrimental to us, people die.  Scripture calls these things evil regardless; we don't like them, they're evil.  That should help clear up how both things can come from the same God, but not for everyone.

So the 'evil spirit from God' was His punishment on Saul.  It was 'evil' from Saul's perspective, and those around him could see that Saul wasn't enjoying it.  They didn't see what it was tormenting their king, so it had to be a 'spirit'.  That it was from God was a given since there could be no other source for such things in their minds. It is this last part where I believe I and others have deviated into error.

Like many I have ascribed to my enemy more power than he really has.  If all things come from my Master, then all my enemy can do is use what has already been created, and what he already has at his disposal.  He can't make something to torment me.  He can't 'send' something that isn't already his.  This creature desiring my separation from my Master is stronger than I am, but nothing compared to my Master.  My enemy only makes me more dependent upon my Master, he can't hurt me truly. 

So, in response to all things coming from my Master, I will praise Him all the more.  I will proclaim His power and majesty louder and with more fervor.  I will seek to honor Him even more, and I will tremble before Him.  I will wait on Him, worship Him, and walk before Him. 

Did The Rules Just Change?

Now there was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Becorath, the son of Aphiah, the son of a Benjamite, a mighty man of valor.  He had a son whose name was Saul, a choice and handsome man, and there was not a more handsome person than he among the sons of Israel; from his shoulders and up he was taller than any of the people. (1 Samuel 9:1-2 NASB)

When they entered, he looked at Eliab and thought, "Surely the LORD'S anointed is before Him."  But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." (1 Samuel 16:6-7 NASB)

There are times when I think I have the methods of my Master all figured out, and decide to move ahead with confidence that I know what He would choose in a given situation.  Thee are times when this is warranted, and there are times I'm totally missing it.

The people of Israel decide to accept the Gibeonite deception in Joshua because they don't consult God, they figure they know what He would say.  Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and Ishmael is another good example.  It happens, and better people than I have done it.  But it still causes problems.

Here, Samuel is about to anoint the next king of Israel, and when Eliab walks in, he 'appears' to be the obvious choice.  He is probably a lot like Saul in appearance.  So, why wouldn't God choose him?  Isn't the standard like before: head taller than everyone else, most handsome, choice specimen?

Samuel is corrected here by God and told that actually God is weighing the heart, not regarding the appearance.  So my question here is, 'Is this a new standard?'

In other words, was God using appearance back in 1 Samuel 9 when Saul was chosen, then figures that this standard didn't work, so now decides to look at the heart first.  Somewhat like learning to buy a car: 'Better test drive first, should have done that last time and it cost us.'

It's my opinion that the rules haven't changed.  I suspect that even with Saul, God was looking at the heart.  I brought out clues prior to this that Saul had the characteristics of a good king, Saul just chose not to live out those character traits.  I still believe that God was choosing someone with the 'right stuff', but one who chose to use the wrong stuff also present.

So, today, when I look around me, what I see can be deceiving.  The character of the person can be difficult to see sometimes, and clearly judging by appearance is to miss my Master's standard.  I can compare what I see in who my Master uses with someone I think He'll choose, but I can't see as my Master sees.

So, when it comes to other people, while I may have my preferences, prejudices, and preconceived standards; it is the voice of my Master I should be seeking rather than my own counsel.  That's hard.  I consider myself a decent and good judge of character.  That's not enough.  It's not obedience.

This is one of those places where I don't need to wonder if I should wait for my Master or assume He's given me enough information to move ahead on my own.  He hasn't.  I don't have the information.  When it comes to other people, I am to PRAY!  How hard is that? 

I wish I could say it was easy, but I'm not that wise in this area.  I'm only learning now that I may be able to judge who I trust and who I don't, and my Master is fine letting me do that and learn at my own pace about other people.  But when it comes to someone He might be using, He does not want me 'figuring it out'.

So, once again, I need to check my pride at the door, slow down, and consult with my Master.  When I'm involved with assessing others who may or may not be someone my Master is going to use, I need His sight, His insight.  That may seem obvious, but it's something I'm still learning.

I Come In Peace...Why Do You Ask?

So Samuel did what the LORD said, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the city came trembling to meet him and said, "Do you come in peace?"  He said, "In peace; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD. Consecrate yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice." He also consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice. (1 Samuel 16:4-5 NASB)

Samuel has been sent to Bethlehem by God to anoint one of Jesse's sons to be king after Saul (or in place of...).  He is scared of Saul's revenge or attempt to prevent another king, so he obscures what he is doing by taking a cow to sacrifice in Bethlehem.  But as he arrives, the elders meet him with a strange greeting.

In the Hebrew text, they tremble as they meet him.  In the somewhat older Greek text of the Hebrew Scriptures (also known as the Septuagint), they are out-of-their-mind amazed at him being there.  In both, they ask if he has come in peace.  Whether amazed or trembling with fear, why would he not come in peace?  Why would they need to ask?

I wonder how much of the story of Samuel is missing?  He judged Israel for many years, but only a few things he did are included in this account, and none are included in Chronicles, and there are few references in other parts of Scripture.  But consider the character we do find.

• Hears from God and his words do not 'fall to the ground.'
• 'Directs' the people against the Philistines and they stay out of Israel during his time of judging
• Thinks the choosing of a king by the people is a rejection of him as judge
•  Helps Saul and the nation through the coronation process even though he personally disagrees with their decision - he does so at God's command.
• He publicly corrects Saul each time he makes a mistake
• He tells Saul to his face that God has rejected him as king and will give the kingdom to another
• Completes God's command to Saul by hacking Agag, king of the Amalekites, to pieces before God and the people (public correction of Saul and the people).
• Seems afraid that Saul will kill him if he goes to anoint someone else

So where is the support for the elders being afraid or astonished?  For one thing, the route Samuel takes in 'judging' never went this far south from Ramah.  So his being there would mean something very different was going on.  Secondly, the people of Judah have supported Saul and fight in his army, so they were also involved in disobeying God's commands against the Amalekites.  And possibly, there are some things Samuel has done as judge that involved the destruction or punishment of cities or towns for which we don't have a record.  After seeing him hack some foreign king to pieces, it doesn't take a vivid imagination to believe 'evil' comes with this prophet.

While I do view Samuel as the 'nerd' leader of his people.  I think it's a big mistake to consider him 'wimpy'.  He faces Saul, but fears to 'conspire' against him.  That alone doesn't make him a coward.  I think it takes great courage to face a king clearly obtuse enough to believe he's obeyed God when he obviously hasn't.  Such people wouldn't know God's will if it bit them in the butt, and may do horrible things thinking they are doing them for God.  They're dangerous.  To face someone like that, in the midst of that mindset, and tell them, convince them, they are wrong takes great courage.  To demonstrate the error to the people takes even more, and to then just walk away...Yeah, Samuel doesn't strike me as the timid sort.

I can easily make the intuitive link between Samuel showing up unexpected in Bethlehem, and the elders wondering if he comes in peace.  Samuel is one who leaves a big footprint behind, whether he wants to or not.  It isn't hard for me to imagine that he is considered the '800lb Gorilla' by many, even though Saul is king.  Things happen around Samuel that are of God, the Maker and Sustainer of the universe.  He can be very scary at times.

But what's the lesson?  Where is what I can take away here?  Well, for one thing, respect for the leaders my Master has placed in my life; especially the religious ones (i.e. church leadership).  God may not destroy cities and peoples around my pastor; some of my pastor's words may fall to the ground; I may not really like my pastor's views on some theological topics; but he is the pastor my Master has placed in my life.

This is true for the other ministers, children, youth, small-groups, associates, assistants, whatever they may be called.  They are ones my Master has placed in my life, and I should treat them as such.  When was the last time I met my pastor and asked if he came in peace?  When is the last time his arrival made me nervous?  When I look at my pastor, do I see my Pastor standing with him?  I wonder what would be different with pastors in our churches if we saw them and kept in mind that our Pastor stands with them (hopefully the other way around).  If I think of them together, my Master and my pastors, my treatment of my church leaders might be different.  At least, it should be.

Even Prophets Fear Sometimes

Now the LORD said to Samuel, "How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have selected a king for Myself among his sons."  But Samuel said, "How can I go? When Saul hears of it, he will kill me." And the LORD said, "Take a heifer with you and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.'  You shall invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; and you shall anoint for Me the one whom I designate to you." (1 Samuel 16:1-3 NASB)

"Samuel! You've just confronted King Saul and told him God has rejected him, you've just finished hacking the captured King Agag to pieces before God and the all the elders of Israel.  What are you going to do now?" Somehow, it never works out that the prophet says, "Go to Disneyland!"  Great courage, shown in the work of God, major victory for the righteousness of God, and then comes some sort of wavering of faith.

It's weird, but I do it too.  Samuel faced down Saul and yet now, when God tells him to stop mourning the wayward king and go anoint someone else, Samuel is afraid of Saul.  Why does faith evaporate? Further on in the story, one of my favorites: Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel.  He faces them down, humiliates them, God sends fire, and he and the people slay all the prophets of Baal.  Then he runs away from the Queen who won't even come out to face him.

So, why do great demonstrations of faith in the face of powerful foes wind up followed by demonstrations of fear?  Moses gave every excuse imaginable and some not to be excused from leading the people of God out of Egypt.  It's a character of the prophet that there is this fluctuation between faith and fear, and in some cases, obedience and compromise.  But like I said, I do it too.

The other day, I had a great encouraging meeting with our pastor to discuss the marriage mentoring ministry God is putting together using my wife and I.  That night I can't sleep, and temptation is nearly overwhelming.  The next day, I'm really tired, don't have coffee to make, and have to constantly fight off temptation all day at work.  It was brutal.  What was going on?  Why the fight?  Why all of a sudden do I have this struggle when it hasn't been for almost a year?  Oh yeah, victory and progress against the enemy; he's worried and attacking at full strength.  Duh.

We think if spiritual warfare in terms of casting out demons, but more often than not, it is much closer to daily life.  More often than not, the spiritual warfare I face is the concentrated attacks of the enemy when I'm weak: Hungry, Angry, Lonely, and/or Tired (HALT).  Sometimes temptations are of my own making: wrong place, wrong time, wrong thinking, and compromise of any sort bring them on.  But other times, it's an attack of the enemy, sometimes subtle, and sometimes not.

I suspect that this "mourning of Saul" that Samuel was going through was the wearing on him of the enemy.  He was "sulking" in a sense because he had become attached and invested in who he knew had become a failed king.  It was more than just worrying about what Israel would do for leadership without Saul, it was about mourning a hope and a person.  He was attached to what God did not what He was going to do.

God regretted.  And then He moved on.  Samuel mourned, but couldn't get out of it.  That is why I think he was under the attack of the enemy.  He had just hewed to pieces one of the enemies favorite pawns, King Agag.  His whole nation was unable to be redeemed, they were so under the sway of the evil one.  Of course Samuel was a target; one of revenge.  And for whatever reason, even with all his demonstrations of faith, the attack of the enemy was working.

But God didn't stop using him.  And He won't stop using me, even though I struggled with the old me, the old struggles, the ones that no longer characterize me.  I am not that person, so why does the old thinking and behavior reemerge and threaten to overwhelm me?

I notice something about resurrection and spiritual warfare.  When my Master raises the dead, their new lives are better than the old ones were.  When the enemy raises deadness, old ways and thinking, it is more like a zombie; neither alive, but not yet dead.  The resurgence of the old ways should be expected as this new ministry progresses.  And I need to remember two important things: 1) this is normal, all people of great or small faith encounter these struggles when things are good; 2) it is the enemy using my dead nature, not the 'real me'.

Sometimes, in my life, I have found that the best tactic in spiritual warfare is re-framing my circumstances in their correct spiritual warfare 'frame'.  Once I admit what I'm going through is spiritual warfare and not what I suspect it is, the energy and power goes out of it.  The enemy tries to hand me a 'frame' to use in understanding my experiences, and I too willingly take it; "it's their fault", "it's my fault", "it's about who's at fault", "it's hard", "it's scary", "what if ___", on and on.  When I'm able to re-frame what's happening as an attack of the enemy ("this is not from my Master", "this is the enemy", "this is not who I am", etc.) I can feel the energy level change, and peace comes.

The real indicator is that the 'frames' of my Master bring peace, and the 'frames' of the enemy destroy peace with fear and confusion.  So, perhaps the most powerful tool of spiritual battle is a spiritual 'framing hammer', big, heavy, cross-hatched head, long handle, you know the kind.  Used in prayer and study of the Bible, such a 'hammer' can demolish the frames of the enemy, and construct frames based on my Master's views.  Now, where's my tool belt and hard hat?  I've got some frames to replace...

Does The Immutable God Regret?

Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands." And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all night. (1 Samuel 15:10-11 NASB)

As Samuel turned to go, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore.  So Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to your neighbor, who is better than you. Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." (1 Samuel 15:27-29 NASB)

Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death; for Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel. (1 Samuel 15:35 NASB)

One of the peculiar things about the story of Saul in the Bible is that while Israel asks for a king, it is God who chooses Saul, not the people.  I find it difficult to believe that God would choose an inferior product, one that had no chance of success.  But there are qualities of God that make this questionable.

For instance, I believe Scripture teaches that God is Master of time (Rev 22:13, Psa 90:4, 2 Pe 3:8, Isa 44:7) and He is Master of all knowledge (Isa 40:13,28, 55:8-9).  So, if He is Master of time and knowledge, then He would know that Saul would fail even before He chose him to be king.  He chose him anyway.

But there is a difference between choosing someone in order for them to fail, and choosing someone who you believe will fail.  I choose to believe that God chose Saul knowing he would fail, but also that Saul had the capacity to succeed.  He knew where Saul's choices would lead, but He chose him anyway.

But there is another quality of God known as immutability.  It means that He doesn't change (see 1 Sam 15:29 above, Psa 55:19, 110:4, Mal 3:6).  But there is a problem with human understanding of this quality.  For instance, if God cannot change, He has limited power.  Something external to Him would have power over Him if He could not change.  That is unacceptable so I go with He chooses not to change.  But is that always true?

In this chapter is an excellent example of when this may not be the case.  It seems that the unchangeable God changes, and changes His mind.  There is a contrast (contradiction?) inherent in the presentation as well.  If you read the three passages above there is a consistent word used but it is translated differently.  In verse 11, it is translated as "regret", in verse 29 it is translated as "change His mind", and in verse 35 it is translated again as "regret".  They are the same word, but in two cases (translated as 'regret') God does do this, and the third case (translated as 'change His mind') He does not do this.  So which is it?

Well, consider that the two positives refer to God's regret over His choice of Saul as king.  The one negative refers to God's rejection of Saul as king.  Unfortunately we can't simply select the 'negative' option and say that God never regrets rejection or punishment.  We have times in Jeremiah where God clearly says that's not the case.

I suppose that I have to rest in faith that my Master changes whatever decision He wants whenever He wants for whatever reason.  And that my Master chooses to not change whatever decision He makes for whatever reason.  It sounds like my Master is capricious, random, whimsical, and unreliable.  But those terms only mean that we don't understand the reasoning behind something.  Even when we use these terms with people this is true.

So, going back to His mastery of knowledge, I believe that as His thoughts are higher than mine, I can trust that what doesn't make sense to me about His changeability makes perfect sense to Him.  What I don't get about His choices He understands completely.  When things change, He's still working His purpose.  But where do I find my route, my purpose, within a 'changeable' framework of my Master's decisions?

In the family I grew up with, I was taught to 'go with the flow'.  In a sense this is the answer here as well.  I will have to let my Master be Master of all things, and simply obey, faithfully trusting that He has it all under control.  If He seems to change His mind, I will simply go with it.  It is a challenge to submission, but really should be expected that I do this, behave this way, and believe this way if He is truly my Master.  He commands me to raise my sail, and let Him take care of the wind.  If I have to tack, I'll tack; if I don't, I won't, but I'll keep the course He chooses.  Random as that may seem.

So does the Master of all knowledge regret?  Yes.  And I suspect that it has more to do with the sinful nature of His human creatures wounding His heart than that He chooses to use them.  So, will I wound the heart of my Master with disobedience, with doubt in His knowledge and power?  I certainly hope not.  Not today.  I wish not ever.  But I have less trust in myself than in my Master's knowledge and faithfulness.