Frienemies of God

He defeated Moab, and measured them with the line, making them lie down on the ground; and he measured two lines to put to death and one full line to keep alive. And the Moabites became servants to David, bringing tribute. (2 Samuel 8:2 NASB)

 At the end of Ruth (4:21) we find that Ruth, the Moabitess was David's great great grand mother (third generation).  Then, in 1 Samuel 22:3, David asks the king of Moab to hide his father while Saul pursues him, and he does.  So, you would think that there would be some 'friendliness' between David and Moab.  Until this happens.

In 2 Samuel 8, David's victories are described without a lot of detail, but in summary.  It's possible that these victories were spread out along his reign, but they are all compiled together in a single chapter.  There are several difficult things to translate and understand in the chapter, but one that is fairly easy to translate, but hard to understand is David's treatment of Moab.

In our age of 'atrocities' bringing an outrage and shock, people are probably surprised by David here.  This is not the 'Christian behavior' expected of one with such a close relationship with God, who is thought to be a 'man after God's own heart'.  Was it in God's heart to kill two-thirds of Moab after the battle/war was won?

Some possible understandings here are that this was only the treatment of one city, possibly the capital, and not the entire nation.  But it doesn't say that.  It's possible that David did this elsewhere and it was more customary than it would appear.  But it doesn't say that.  It's possible that Moab was under some sort of curse by God for something they did when Israel was coming into the land of promise.  But this doesn't refer back to any such curse.

One caveat is a reference in Deuteronomy that anyone of Moabite descent cannot enter the temple until after 10 generations, where other nations were at 3 (Deuteronomy 23:1-8).  The explanation given is that 'they did not meet you with food on the way.'  Another note refers to Balaam, and it was the king of Moab who sent for him, and from whom came the sin of 'Peor' which caused such calamity for Israel in the desert.  So Moab wasn't necessarily a 'friend' as such.

But why, if they were supportive of David as he fled Saul, and why, if David was a near descendant of Moab, would David treat them as brutally as he does; more than he is with other nations?  I don't know.  Let's be honest, as I read Scripture, I see very little to support such treatment of this people.  I don't know why.

So, I have a couple of choices: 1) I can say that David was wrong to treat them that way, and it set off the problems with them that follow (and there are several).  2) I can say that there was good reason, but it's not included in the account.  Or 3) I can say that God was 'willing' to permit this even though He didn't necessarily require it.

Of the three, I personally like the second one.  It preserves the character of both David and God.  On the other hand, it seems that if an explanation were missing from the text, it would also have been missing for the 'editor' compiling these accounts.  He is so full of explanation for other difficult things (but not all).

So what's my lesson?  Well, as hard as it is, I have to fall back on my inability to understand my Master.  What I mean by 'fall back' is that rather than require an explanation, I have to instead rest on what I do know already.  In other words, even though I don't know here, even though this sounds harsh, I have to go with what I know of my Master:  He created all things, He sustains all things, He knows my name, and chooses to love me, and not only me.  Therefore, along with all the other stuff I don't know (how He creates stars, how He holds atoms together, how He can see all of the universe and still know where I am, etc.) I will include this, God loves and blesses David, who killed 2/3s of the nation of Moab.

But a God capable of such work is worth my attention, and I should be concerned to be on His good side.  Abraham was considered a 'friend of God', David was considered a 'man after God's own heart', so that's where I want to aspire to be.  This is not Someone I want as an enemy.  Therefore, I will worship Him.  And I will obey Him, and that means that one day, I might just be involved in measuring the enemies of God and leaving only 1/3 alive.  I seriously doubt that, but I'm just going with what I read.  Just the same, are you a 'Friend of God'?

The Right Thing Done Wrong

When they came to Nacon's threshing floor, Uzzah reached out to the ark of God and took hold of it because the oxen had stumbled.  Then the Lord's anger burned against Uzzah, and God struck him dead on the spot for his irreverence, and he died there next to the ark of God.  David was angry because of the Lord's outburst against Uzzah, so he named that place an Outburst Against Uzzah, as it is today.  David feared the Lord that day and said, "How can the ark of the Lord ever come to me?"  So he was not willing to move the ark of the Lord to the city of David; instead, he took it to the house of Obed- edom the Gittite.  The ark of the Lord remained in his house three months, and the Lord blessed Obed- edom and his whole family. (2 Samuel 6:6-10 NASB)

Sometimes God's behavior just doesn't make sense.  Sometimes there is simply no explaining away something He chooses to do.  So we need to make a choice.  It's sort of like a 'crisis of faith', but in another sense it's also an acceptance of a very obvious, but often overlooked, reality.  The fact is, there are no 'other alternatives'.  That's all in our head.

In John six, Jesus basically offends the people until they leave.  He then looks at his disciples left standing around, and says, "Will you leave too?" to which Peter answers, "Where will we go?  Who else has the words of life?"  Most of the time, we're not that smart.

It amazes me how people, including myself, believe that their obedience and faithfulness to God is somehow something we 'hold over him'.  As if we can modify and influence or control Him and His behavior by either promising to follow Him or threatening not to.  It's a behavior that, at its root, comes from a belief that the universe is all about me; and every 'me' is different, and all obviously wrong.

The inescapable truth is that there is only One God.  So what other options are there?  If we don't 'like' Him, it's not like we can simply follow another god or whatever.  There aren't any.  If we don't like Him or something He does, there's no sense in saying, "I'll never believe in a God who could do such things." Really?  As if there are other options?  What will we believe in if there's no God or we don't like the One speaking to us and doing these things?  I can choose to believe anything, that what I see is merely the projection into my dimension of something with other dimensions of existence.  I can choose to believe that blue is green, that read is black, and so on.  I can choose to believe anything, but that doesn't change what they are.  I can't change the nature of things through my belief.

God is.  He is as He is, and He is as different from us as we are from the clay pots and trinkets we make with our hands.  His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.  If this doesn't sound like it matters or makes sense, or helps accept the situation it's because it's so simple and obvious that we miss something equally as obvious but which we refuse to accept.

We are not at the center of the universe and this is not all about us.  God is not about us, He is for us.  There is a HUGE difference, and until we can wrap our heads and hearts around this truth we're hopeless.

God struck Uzza and killed him when what he was doing appeared good and right.  The whole thing was wrong though.  The Ark should never have been on a cart (the Philistines did it that way and they were pagans).  Uzza and his brother were not who was supposed to be tending it.  Uzza's death was not a sign of God's displeasure with David over all, but rather His displeasure of what David was doing at the moment.  David's response was to be angry, and to be afraid of God.  He then thought God did not want him to bring the Ark to Jerusalem, so he put it aside.  So, God blessed where the Ark was, just as He had previously blessed Kiriath Jearim where David was 'carting' it from.

The problem God has was with the 'mode' in which His Ark was being carried, and His solution was to strike Uzza for touching it.  That seems excessive, capricious, makes God a bully, a brute, an 'angry child' and so on.  The reality is that while we don't like the solution God chose, while such a Person may not be Who we would 'choose' to follow, believe in, or have faith in; He's the only One we have.  You don't like that God struck this guy with good intentions?  Tough.  You don't think you can trust a God who strikes down those serving Him in ignorance? Get over it. 

Face facts.  Get real. What we are missing is that we're afraid of God when He does such things.  We fear for our lives.  And that makes us very uncomfortable, unsafe, and insecure.  Part of God's point is exactly that, not to put us on the defensive; that's what we do because we believe we have a right to be safe, secure, and comfortable.  We don't any such right.  We should be uncomfortable, insecure, and afraid to stand in the presence of the One forming the universe out of nothing, creating stars, forming planets, and tracing the patterns of subatomic particles we haven't even found yet. 

Doesn't it seem odd that creatures described in such a way that to see them would so terrify us we would loose control of our bowels, spend all eternity declaring God's glory?  It does, but we don't pursue it.  We simply leave it at 'odd'.  If we were to pursue it we would be faced with Someone more magnificent than we can imagine.  We would be confronted with the God Creator, Warrior, Destroyer, and Savior.  If the creatures worshiping Him for eternity are frightening to behold, shouldn't we then consider that the One they worship would be terrifying?  Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  Yet we find all sorts of reasons to not be afraid.  Well, good luck with that.

We are Uzza when we worship without fear.  We are the ignorant servant well-meaning but doing the right thing wrong when we come so boldly before the throne of God we do so with contempt.  We risk death to do so, and yet we blissfully go along our way as if God has some sort of obligation to maintain our physical existence. 

So what do we do?  Do we enter into worship like we're about to be killed?  Do we walk around on 'egg shells', tip-toe around the One who may spontaneously obliterate us?  Read the rest of the chapter.  David dances in worship like a wild-man.  He pours out everything in his expression of the value of God to him.  God is all those things, including Savior.  Think of it!  The terrifying One worshiped by the frightening beings knows who you are, where you are, and sent His Only Son, Deity in flesh, to make sure we can have an eternal relationship with Him.  Grace means that we can worship Him at all!  So worship will all the power within us!  That meager expression of worship to such a One is His desire.  Every day, He takes a lunch for two and feeds 5,000; we just call it 'worship'. 

Half A Decade Gone?

Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he became king over Israel, and he was king for two years. The house of Judah, however, followed David.  The time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months. (2 Samuel 2:10-11 NASB)

David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years.  At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty- three years over all Israel and Judah. (2 Samuel 5:4-5 NASB)

 One of the curious things about the Bible, sometimes a criticism, is the funky math.  In this instance, we have a king in place over eleven tribes for two years, and David over Judah for seven years and six months.  So what accounts for the five years and six months there was no king over the 11 tribes while David was still over Judah in Hebron?

There are theories about this in various commentaries.  One I have says that the five years were actually when David was over all the tribes but still in Hebron, he just hadn't moved to Jerusalem yet.  But that's not what it says here.  It says over Judah for seven years six months...in Hebron.  The other commentary I have totally ignores the issue, which I wasn't happy about.

Left to my own devices I used Google...again I came up empty.  And I did try to use Scripture to comment on Scripture and went to 1 Chronicles 10, 11 and 12.  That editor completely skipped the whole issue, and doesn't even mention Ish-Bosheth (or Eshbaal) reigning at all.  In fact there, after listing four sons previously, it says all three sons died and all of his house (1 Chronicles 10:6), leaving very little room for any such problem.

So what happened to five years?  That's half a decade, you can't just leave it out can you?  It's not just 'water under the bridge' or 'the blink of an eye' or some other cliche.  It's five circuits around the sun.  It's five harvest times, sixty-something new moons, and at least twenty major feasts among the people.  It's nearly the whole time a person can indenture themselves as a slave to pay off a debt.

Okay, so here's my spin on it, within the vacuum of comment or complete failure to notice: I think the other tribes were in nearly complete disarray after Saul's demise, and it took five years to pull something together and put it in place.  I think David waited patiently for God to bring the other tribes over to him, and in that time Abner went around putting together support for Ish-Bosheth, and it took five years.  Well, five years and six months anyway.

Here's why:  Time for us happens fast, and we filter everything through that experience and expectation.  But these people went through longer periods of time with no leader.  As one Judge would die, there would be another 'power vacuum' and eventually another Judge would arise.  So, Samuel dies, as Saul is king, but when Saul dies, there's confusion as to what to do next.  Did the whole king thing fail?  Do we get a judge?  Meanwhile, 'there was no king in the land and everyone did what was good in their own eyes' (Judges 21:25). 

I guess my point is that to us, five years is this big deal.  To them though, things moved slower anyway.  Sure David went from Ziklag to Hebron, but even that probably took time after Saul's death.  David probably used that time to send 'bribes' to the leaders of Judah which smoothed his assumption of power there (1 Samuel 30:26-30).  David bides his time.  He's not worried.  He won't force the issue because he has faith, and I'm sure he doesn't relish trying to take the throne by force.  That would set a precedent of chaos between kings.  He's wise.  He's taught his men that they do not raise their hand against the Lord's anointed, and the lesson stuck.  Why would he turn around and endanger the eventual succession of his own throne through violence?

Faith and patience are not my strongest suits.  I get impatient and wonder what happened to God.  I've been in my job for over 8 years, and haven't been able to jump ship.  What I know is that my Master has me here in this position.  I need to be patient, and diligent as I wait.  David was patient and diligent as he waited for God to bring about what He promised.  And eventually He did.  David didn't complain, "What took you so long?" He didn't look at the chaos of the other tribes (if there was any) and complain, "How long will you wait while this madness continues?"  He did none of that.  I probably would have.  Of course he fought a bear by grabbing him by the beard and clubbing him to death, and I wouldn't do that either...we are quite a bit different really.

My point here is that the lesson of five missing years is patience and faith.  Or it's faith and patience.  Or it's love, which includes both (1 Corinthians 13).  I need to relax into my Master's mighty hands.  I need to stop trying to make much out of my little, when the One making everything out of nothing has me in His view.  It's okay, He's got this, whatever this is.

So critics will look at five missing, unaccounted for, ignored years and yell 'foul!', 'major biblical error!', and so on.  But I take it as a note of encouragement that my view of time is so vastly different from my Master's view of time.  The adjustment I need to make isn't to find an account for the time, but rather to submit to the view of the Master of all time.  If it doesn't bother Him, I shouldn't let it bother me.  Now, about those commentators totally ignoring the issue - THAT I still have an issue with...

Secrets Versus News

Now when they came into the house, as he was lying on his bed in his bedroom, they struck him and killed him and beheaded him. And they took his head and traveled by way of the Arabah all night. (2 Samuel 4:7 NASB)

David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said to them, "As the Lord lives, who has redeemed my life from all distress, when one told me, saying, 'Behold, Saul is dead, ' and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him and killed him in Ziklag, which was the reward I gave him for his news.  How much more, when wicked men have killed a righteous man in his own house on his bed, shall I not now require his blood from your hand and destroy you from the earth?" (2 Samuel 4:9-11 NASB)

 In this modern information age, the age of instant news, satellites, cell phones, texting, email, the internet, and social media we think we're so smart.  We think we know everything, that there are no secrets, and that privacy is something to be guarded by firewalls, passwords, and  PIN's.  Why do we continue to forget that our Master (regardless of whether we acknowledge Him as such) knows everything?

So, 3,000 years before any of that stuff I mention in the first paragraph, these two soldiers get tired of following the "man of shame", Ish-Bosheth.  And in order to get things moving, murder him in his own bed, cut off his head, and bring it overnight (overnight shipping 3,000 years ago?) to David in his capital.  They travel over night by the fastest route to the guy they think would be most interested in knowing what they've done, and yet...he already knows.

They tried to impress the king with the head of his enemy, and instead only succeed in incriminating themselves in murder.  Yes, three millennia before the cell phone, the news of their crime was faster than the current method of communication.  Why now do we think it's any different?  Why do we think that now, of all times, we can outrun the news of our sin?

The Apostle John tells us that if we confess our sin, our Savior is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).  So, why do believers still think that we can fool the Master of all the universe?  Why would someone still think that knowing all things, this one thing He doesn't?

Actually, I don't think we do.  I think, or suspect, that we simply don't care that He knows.  I know with me, that more often than not, I sin knowing I'm sinning but simply choose to do so anyway.  I then don't confess it because I know He knows, and don't care; at least not at first.  The hold of my Master doesn't let me rest that way for long though.  He doesn't leave me alone, even in my sin.  So, when I sin, and I do daily, I bring my Master with me; not because He does my bidding, I'd rather He wasn't with me when I sin.  He chooses to go with me out of love and mercy, and I choose to go where I have no business going.

Lately it has been arrogance, apathy, resentment, and probably fear that have been my preferred places to go.  Arrogance denies the mastery of my Master.  Apathy denies the worth of my King.  Resentment denies the sovereignty of the Prince of Peace.  Fear is a direct challenge to the will and reality of the King of kings.  Faith is really the answer to all of these, and for some reason it's the first thing I jettison when I encounter stupid stuff, stupid people, and my own stupidity.

When, instead, I let my Master reign (as if I somehow prevent it) everything eventually starts to make some sense and I have peace.  Or, more often, nothing ever really makes sense, and the peace is there anyway.  Truly my Master reigns, but I pretend to rule my own life.  All I accomplish is an embarrassing futile rebellion against He who loves me without limits. 

Here's what's really happening:  Within the infinite space of this universe there is a spec in one corner comprised of several galaxies grouped together.  Within that group is one particular galaxy which has, toward one of the outer spiral arms, a loose cluster of stars.  One of those stars has a system of planets, one of which has enough solid material, spins slow enough, is close enough, and tilted just so as to support the fragile life forms crawling about on its surface.  In the scheme of the universe, their life-spans are ridiculously short.  Yet their attitude is so shockingly arrogant that they behave as if all the universe is really about them.  I am such a specimen.

While this entire construct we refer to as a 'universe' is probably no more than the decoration on the workbench of its Creator, many claim that it is the height of arrogance that He should want us to worship and praise Him.  It's ironic really.  We miss that it is the probably the height of mercy that He would choose to inhabit the praise of such people.  We seem to completely miss that worship merely helps us place ourselves within the real shape and scheme of this universe.  It gives us a clearer sense of scope and scale without the overwhelm of actually trying to fit the universe into our tiny pea brains.

So there's nothing to be gained by hiding my sin from my Master.  I see no value in pretending that I'm not arrogant, that He didn't see it, or that the Creator and One sustaining my life doesn't care. Since the Maker of the vastness of all time and space has it all under His control, and is aware of all of it, why then am I afraid of a future I can merely perceive as dim and insubstantial?  If He loves me, what do I have to fear of anything clear or dim?  Am I not some ridiculous pair of soldiers carrying a grisly secret sin already known to the very one I was trying to impress?  They were killed, how much more do I expect from my own failures to hit the mark of my Master?  Isn't it much more sensible to simply confess my sin and let Him forgive and cleanse me from all that mars our relationship?  Watch me now:  It will probably take me about 10 minutes to make the same mistakes all over again...

Bible Weirdness; Lessons Remain

They came to the middle of the house as if to get wheat, and they struck him in the belly; and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped.  Now when they came into the house, as he was lying on his bed in his bedroom, they struck him and killed him and beheaded him. And they took his head and traveled by way of the Arabah all night. (2 Samuel 4:6,7 NASB)

The doorkeeper, who had been sifting wheat, became drowsy and fell asleep. So Recab and Baanah slipped past her.  They went into the house and found Ishbosheth sleeping on his bed. They struck and killed him and cut off his head. Then, taking his head with them, they fled across the Jordan Valley through the night. (2 Samuel 4:6,7 NLT)

One of the reasons I am extremely grateful to have gone through the education I did is because of situations like the one above.  My original intent with my educational choice was to finally be able to address theological controversies.  Well, that didn't happen; and by that I mean I only gained insight into the fact a controversy existed, but never really discovered anything in 10 years that was missed in the past 2,000.  Go figure.

But the process did provide me a set of skills with Scripture that enable me to examine such odd references as the one above.  The footnote in the New Living Translation states 'As in the Greek version' and sites the Hebrew translation which is what every other English translation uses.  So what is meant by 'As in the Greek version' anyway? 

A few hundred years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.  The Greek translation was the most common Jewish Scripture used outside of Palestine up through the Second Century AD (or CE whichever you use), and somewhat beyond.  So, essentially, there were a lot of them.  When Scripture was read in early Christian churches, these Greek Jewish texts were the Scriptures read.

Through the years, after Christianity gained in favor, and after the Jewish revolt of AD 125 resulting in the total destruction of a Jewish state, the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures fell out of favor with the Jews.  There were various reasons for this, some in response against Christianity, some because of use of the extra books included which were not as commonly used and accepted by Palestinian Jews.  It's not completely clear why decisions were made, just that by about 200 or so AD, there were 39 books in the Hebrew canon, and the Greek translation of it fell from favor among Jews.  And then dust settles.

The fall of the Roman Empire, the demise of the stabilizing influence of Europe, and the collapse of structures and institutions meant that much knowledge was lost.  In legend (if not in fact), the destruction of the Library of Alexandria was perhaps the greatest loss of knowledge in the Western world.  What remained of written texts were kept in various safe places, out of the way of wars and so on.  Eventually, as people came blinking into the sunlight of new found ancient learning, the Renaissance brought to light much that was hidden the churches and strongholds of the day.  But not everything came to light.  Scripture was held very tightly by the church in Rome, and only in Latin was Scripture to be found.

By the time that Scripture could be had for even common people, after much blood of people trying to make it available had already been spilled, there was a Hebrew text in Saint Petersburg, Russia which preserved the entire Hebrew Scripture in one book, in Hebrew.  It dated from around 1010 AD.  Ironically, there was also a Greek text in the Vatican which preserved a Greek translation of the Hebrew which was over 600 years older.  They didn't exactly agree, which is how we got our initial problem I started with.  But you see the dilemma; the Greek text sounds better and is older.  Here's the theory used by most modern translations.  An original editor would be more likely to include multiple editions within the same writing.  A transmission scribe would be more likely to 'correct' and make something more readable than to add something making it less understandable.  So more difficult reading are preferred over easier ones, when two are different.

Now that's not the only criteria used, but you can see the 'logic' behind this criteria.  The problem is that there are possible explanations which would support the older Greek text, and explain the addition/change of the newer Hebrew text.  They may not be likely, and evidence for them doesn't exist, and we don't have this passage in the found Dead Sea scrolls, so there's no older text to which we can refer to break the tie.  We're stuck.

Here's my guess.  I suspect that the older text preserves a very early correction to an editor who, given two different accounts, preserved both.  But, I also believe that this correction happened very early on, possibly in Alexandria before Jesus was born.  So, I think it also preserves what God wanted us to have to know Him better.  Basically, I believe that God not only inspired but also preserved Scripture through the centuries.  Therefore, what we have now is what He wants us to have.  With respect to the Hebrew Scriptures, there are very few texts from which to work, and they agree to an astonishing degree.  When they don't agree, then I look at both, translate with the one that is easier to explain as original, and note the 'lesson' if different from the other one.  I don't want to miss something that my Master is preserving; a lesson about Himself, or my relationship with Him.

Fortunately, that doesn't become an issue 99% of the time.  Like here, it's usually a correction that makes good sense.  It is weird to repeat so closely together, but doesn't distract from the story of David.  The point remains regardless.  Whether the doorkeeper slept or not, the event happened, and resulted in the death of the assassins.  The point that David refused to approve of 'ascension by assassination' in his kingdom is still clear either way.

I have a 'story' as a possible explanation why there is a repetition, but so what.  David didn't put his stamp of approval on assassination of a king.  So, very few kings of Judah were ever assassinated.  It worked, and it continued to show that David was a wise man, one after the heart of God.  This difference in Scripture isn't something that detracts from either the pattern of David, nor from the Character of God.  David did what he did in establishing a belief in his kingdom, and God did what He did in preserving two slightly different accounts of David doing so.  In the end, the purpose is achieved, the lesson preserved.

So, weird or not, I'm not supposed to achieve over the 'backs' of others.  I'm not supposed to destroy those between me and even what I see God wants for me.  I'm supposed to receive from my Master what He wants, but also in His timing.  Abraham also teaches this (consider Ishmael, and all that came from that mistake).  His goal and purpose His way and timing.