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.

You Were Serious About That?

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.  Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (1 Samuel 15:2 NASB)

But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.  Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying,  11 "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 15:9-11 NASB)

There are several things here on which I could spend several entries. This is one of the richest chapters for theology and life with my Master in Scripture.  But one in particular is one I have been quick to judge and slow to really appreciate.  Because of that, I have missed that I make the same mistake Saul and the people make.

Essentially God gives a command that was not carried out during the time Israel was in the desert and coming into Canaan.  Since the Amalekites weren't destroyed in the desert, they continued to harass the people after they entered the land.  They would sweep in, plunder, and sweep back out again.  Rather than produce anything other than sheep and goats in the desert, they stole from other nations who had farming.

In chapter 14, they are referred to as the ones plundering Israel.  So consider what the people find when they attack Amalek.  They find all sorts of things, some which they may have owned at one time.  This has to incite anger.  In obedience, they devote most of it to God; but in disobedience they keep the best, they plunder the ones having plundered them.  They intend to bring it back and offer it in sacrifice to God, so they'll use in worship, and that should make up for having kept it.

The problem is that in sacrifice of the type they describe, the people share in the sacrifice, it's not wholly consumed in the fire.  They intend to share with God what they plundered, even give Him the good parts, but not all of it.  God required all of it.  In fact it was supposed to be considered so holy, no one was to touch it at all, but it was to be completely destroyed in place.  No herding, no trading, and certainly no eating.

Would it have seemed a waste to them?  Would it have seemed "excessive" to them?  Would it have seemed unreasonable to them?  It probably would have to people today.  In fact, I believe such a sin is committed by people professing faith in Jesus today, in church, all the time.  We tend to have a dysfunctional concept of holiness today.  This dysfunctional holiness means we find it easy to disobey.  The two go hand-in-hand.

My last entry was about being terrified of my Master.  This terror, I claim, leads to obedience.  I believe this is true partly because the wrath of God punctuates His holiness.  He is 'other' than us, inexplicable, powerful beyond measure, and with unimaginable thoughts and reasoning.  We cannot see from His perspective unless He shows us a part of it.  All we have of Him is what He shares with us, and those parts are pretty peculiar, and sometimes very scary.

But when believers, such as myself, make the Master of the universe a warm fuzzy 'nice guy', or loving kind sweet old man, we've set up an idol of our own making.  This idol we can disobey, this idol looks a lot like the god of the world, the god of atheism, the god projected out of the sinful selfishness of frail faulty human creatures.  This is not the same as the God having spoken the universe into existence. 

To the degree that this sort of distorted image of God exists in our minds, we are able to easily disregard certain rules asked of us by God.  Certain Scriptures can be taken lightly or ignored all together.  But there is a price for such a profane view of the Master of galaxies and quarks.

It is not easy, once having setup such an idol, to then go back and change it.  We set expectations of continued comfort when we begin with such an idol.  I have.  When I realize what I've done and try to change it, it get's thrown back in my face.  My failures, my mistakes, and sin are dredged up, and shown to me for what they are.  So how then can I judge who have done the same things?  How can I teach Scripture who have lived my life deviated from the teachings of Scripture?

I can be honest about both the failures and the consequences, the most common of which is the dredging up and resulting shame.  It's both a failure and a consequence (you have to love a double whammy like that).  The reality is that I have to teach that Scripture reveals that God does not tolerate fornication; but that I have been guilty of it, and have paid a price for it (and will continue to pay I'm sure).  I have to teach that God reveals through Scripture that He desires me to be a good diligent worker; but I am guilty of poor work quality, and sometimes really struggle with giving a good days work for a days pay.

It's not excusable that others do the same thing. It's not okay that I'm not alone in this.  Those are the same things said by Saul.  He blamed the people, but he was their leader.  It was on him to lead well and in obedience.  I'm not a king (thank you, my Master, for that!), but to the extent that I have leadership responsibilities, I too have the responsibility to lead people in obedience.  I must teach the truth of Scripture, not just the comfortable ones I like and I know others will like, but all of them.  And I must do so, knowing and owning that I am a "law breaker" just as all the rest.

So the answer is to worship my Master as holy and powerful beyond measure.  A certain degree of absolute terror is in order.  To honor Him in Scripture is to consider Him 'heavy', His words 'weighty', and in practice, myself as crushed by His presence and His words.

Now, the obvious error here is to run to the other direction and become so focused on the "laws" of Scripture that I judge on legalistic grounds.  What Scripture also teaches is that the holiness of my Master is transferred by Him to me.  I don't get it by working for it, as part of His grace, He gives it.  He is able to transform the ignoble, the common, and the profane into objects and acts of holiness.  So, He can use my failures to redeem others.  I can become an example of His grace and redemption as people see what I was and what He has made me. 

I can't be as I was and expect Him to use me.  In fact, in the example of Saul, it was his unwillingness to change that brought on his eventual rejection by God.  So, even then he was used by God, but as a bad example.  God redeemed Saul's mistakes within His divine purpose, but the man was lost.  So my failure to submit to my Master's commands will not thwart my Master, but may thwart my usefulness in His Kingdom.  In fact it has.  The continued submission to my addiction meant that I have been sidelined from ministry.  As I have emerged from this idolatrous submission to my selfish passions, He is able to use me more.  Yet His use of me always has the requirement to own that life I lived, and the different life I live now; as long as it is different.

So, today, I will walk as a crushed man before my Master.  I will walk as an example of His grace and mercy, and also His wrath.  I will live my life with the understanding that my life is not really mine and never has been.  I will obey partly out of fear of Who I obey and the consequences of disobedience.  And I will teach what He reveals to me in Scripture, owning my own failures to live it out, but striving to obey.

The Terrifying Extremes of God

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.  Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NASB)

There are many theological statements about the Maker of the universe, statements about His character, His characteristics, His divine qualities.  In Biblical Theology, the 'categories' used to describe the Master of all things that are derived from Scripture rather than 'systematic' categories from philosophy.  Whichever set of categories is used, this passage falls into one of the most uncomfortable.

In Genesis 19, God destroys two cities and those around them on the valley floor by the Dead Sea.  It's a dramatic display of the destructive forces used by the Maker of stars to punish His human creatures.  While that is a brutal display of His wrath, it's also a display of mercy (Lot and his family).  It's also something the Master does Himself.  This passage of Scripture is different.

This Creator of all matter now delegates the complete destruction of a people to people He has chosen as His own.  It is an amazing unimaginable demonstration of grace and mercy for a people to be chosen by their Creator.  It is an amazing unimaginable act of brutality to completely wipe out an entire people from before their Creator.  I suppose it just goes with the benefits of being chosen.

This command is part of what is known as the ban, or "kharam".  It is a Hebrew word related to the Middle Eastern concept of a herem, a king's personal collection of women to which only he has access (or at least that's the most popular image).  It refers to something (anything really) completely devoted to one person.  In order for this to be accomplished with the One having chosen Israel, the 'thing' must be destroyed, thereby preventing anyone from having access to it.  It was completely 'devoted' to God.

This is done in the sacrificial system of the Hebrews when they conducted a 'whole burnt offer' which completely consumed what was being offered and no one partook of it.  It was not an uncommon sacrifice, but it was only done on special occasions for special reasons.  The kharam was sort of like doing that but in warfare and it included people, all the people.

As the People of Israel traveled through the desert east of the Jordan river, they conducted several of these sorts of attacks on the kingdoms they encountered. Others they spared entirely.  When they entered the land of Canaan, they conducted many of these attacks on the people in the land.  It sounds horrific, and it was, if you were involved, on either side.

So why the horror?  Why command such a thing?  What sort of "Maker of humanity" commands that these human creatures treat each other in this way?  To say that it is difficult to reconcile the God who is Love in 1 John with this same Destroyer is a wild understatement.  These bracket the immense range of character of the One about Whom we make any sort of theological statement. 

So, I will step back, and not attempt to justify or apologize for my Master.  I will not attempt to make the connection between the two extremes of character.  The one extreme means that I enjoy His attention, the other extreme means that His attention is not always pleasant for me.  In order to be in the presence of One so magnificent as to completely overwhelm and crush the words used to describe Him, I will endure the uncomfortable extreme.

My rationale for such a position is really simple.  I should expect that One capable of creating such a universe that I can only just barely grasp, barely see, characterized by the detail of quarks and stars, to be inexplicable.  I think that these two extremes should, instead of confusing me, lead me to watch my step in His presence; to consider carefully as I speak to Him; to easily bow myself before Him; and above all else, obey Him.  Perhaps only as often as I allow myself to wander among these two extremes of my Master will obedience really begin to characterize my life.

Why should I be afraid of One Who sacrifices Himself on my behalf?  Why should I feel horror or terror from the One having made my relationship with Him possible?  Why, if He has chosen me along with His people should I tremble in His presence?  Because He causes both life and death.  It doesn't make me feel "warm and fuzzy", it causes me to tremble; these extremes define His grace and mercy.  And it is a terrifying thing to behold.  That's one of the ways I know I'm beholding more of the truth of my Master, I tremble.