Living It Out Right

 This entry is a link to my current blog on Wordpress. For those of you following this blog, I moved to Wordpress for a variety of reasons several years ago. I hope you are able to shift your following there, but I will continue to post links here for a while.

Living It Out Right

I hope we can reconnect.

How Does David Look Now?

Now in the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah.  He had written in the letter, saying, " Place Uriah in the front line of the fiercest battle and withdraw from him, so that he may be struck down and die."  So it was as Joab kept watch on the city, that he put Uriah at the place where he knew there were valiant men.  The men of the city went out and fought against Joab, and some of the people among David's servants fell; and Uriah the Hittite also died. (2 Samuel 11:14-17 NASB)

 When I visited the Dominican Republic some years ago we drove by a modern monument that was clearly tragic.  When I asked about it, I was told it was for the the men who killed Trujillo, the dictator of the Dominican Republic.  The story went that Trujillo had a group of men who would go through the city and kidnap women for him, once he slept with them, he would release them.  At one point he captured the wives of some of his top police leaders, and they refused.  So he jailed their husbands.  They still refused, so he killed them all and their husbands and threw them off this cliff where the monument stood.  So, 5 men (related to the victims) very high in Trujillo's court arranged for and carried out his assassination.  They paid for his death with their lives, but were remembered years afterward as heroes.

Trujillo was a tyrant, the worst of the idea of dictator.  He was an amoral thug, an evil ruler.  But, that's what we expect when someone has absolute power; absolute corruption.  We don't expect it from David though. 

Even knowing this chapter is coming, having gone through Samuel up to this point, it still shocks.  What David did as he sinned with Bathsheba is still such a deviation from his character to this point that it's hard to imagine.  Having Uriah killed is one thing, but to send the command by his own hand was a stroke of unusual cruelty for David.  It means that David knew he could trust the character of Uriah to not read the note while in transit.  It means that David knew the character of Uriah was above his own.  In fact, reading of Uriah to this point is tragically ironic as he consistently demonstrates more moral character than the king he serves so faithfully.  One of the saddest ironies of Scripture is the response by Uriah when David asks him why he did not go down to his house and hide David's sin with his wife.  He swears on David's life and the life of David's soul he would not do this thing.  He refers to the Ark and his fellow soldiers in tents, the army in the field.  Why was David not there?  It's a tragic irony, where you see his moral character and faithfulness to his king become his undoing.

David kills one of his own 30 faithful long-serving valorous body guards, one who fought beside him while running from Saul, while living in Ziklag, against the Amalekites, and in Hebron.  Uriah stands as one of faithfulness and character, highlighting these qualities lacking in David; at least right here.

It's true David seems devoid of these qualities right here, and that they are replaced with the worst of human qualities.  With David, the worst is never the end of the story.  With David there is another quality that remains at the bedrock of all the others.  He is willing to repent.  Chapter 11 is about his moral failure of epic proportions.  Chapter 12 is about his repentance, also of epic proportions.  Chapter 11 is the worst of David, where chapter 12 is arguably the best.

What this chapter does is bring David's rock-solid faith into sharp relief.  It's not a faith so strong he never fails.  It's a faith so strong he always gets back up and recovers from failure.  It's not amazing that David has this moral failure, it is shocking, but not amazing.  What is amazing is what Nathan is able to do in the next chapter.  And so you don't go all 'fearless-man-of-God' on Nathan, read chapter 11 carefully, and consider how many people knew exactly what David did.  I wonder how many of his faithful soldiers moved a few more blocks away from the palace.  While it wasn't amazing that Nathan knew, it was amazing that he had the courage, knowing what he did, to confront the king.  I'm sure he was afraid, but we'll get into that in the next chapter.

The hinge pin on which the life of David turns is the last verse of chapter 11.  From there a failure becomes a lesson.  But until that verse, it seems very dark, David seems in danger of becoming another despot, another malevolent dictator, another example of human depravity and the utter corruption of absolute power.

I wonder how many people, without the absolute power, hide from God wearing fig leaves, rather than approach the hinge-pin of their own lives.  I have lived from childhood comfortable with shadows and shades of truth.  I have seen it in my family (haven't we all?), but I never saw a real emergence from the shadows.  They weren't bad enough to really require some dramatic repentance, I suppose.  Or, like so many of us, denial makes living among them seem lit.  The gray semi-gloom becomes normal and we treat it like light.  Yet reading Scripture creates an uncomfortable feeling that all is not as light as it should be.

David passes out of darkness and into light.  He pays the consequences and accepts from his Master what comes from his own sin.  The pathway to light is often paved with consequences.  And it is usually these consequences that keep me in gloom, and my fear of them keeps me from a light I can barely imagine.  I suppose in times like this, what I need is the courage to follow the path of consequences into the light.  But I have found that I also need patience, peace, and joy never hurts either.  These things are only found growing on the branches of a life filled with the Spirit of my Master.  So, really, what I have always needed was the presence of my Master in me; just like David.

Facing Two Armies With God

Now when Joab saw that the battle was set against him in front and in the rear, he selected from all the choice men of Israel, and arrayed them against the Arameans.  But the remainder of the people he placed in the hand of Abishai his brother, and he arrayed them against the sons of Ammon.  He said, "If the Arameans are too strong for me, then you shall help me, but if the sons of Ammon are too strong for you, then I will come to help you.  Be strong, and let us show ourselves courageous for the sake of our people and for the cities of our God; and may the Lord do what is good in His sight." (2 Samuel 10:9-12 NASB)

The character of Joab in Scripture is not one of those I would point out as one of great theological insight, not one of upstanding moral character, or one as a good example of anything but killing people.  He was really good at that.  His references to God aren't often and they aren't typically deep, but sometimes it's the practical piece that turns out to be so great.  That's the case here.

So, here Joab has brought part of the army; the good part, but only part (1 Chronicles 19 says all the fighting men).  We're not told how many enemies were here, and 1 Chronicles 19 only tells us part of the numbers involved.  It was still fighting front and back.  It wasn't a good tactical situation to address, but Joab was not in his first rodeo either.  He put the best against the 'attackers', and the rest against the 'defenders'.  That kept the defenders from becoming the attackers.  But then he rally's the troops.

Joab's words are actually very insightful, but only along practical lines.  They don't form a pattern I would necessarily follow every time I go to God or address Him.  Remember this isn't David and His insight into God, it's his 'pet assassin' he's not even that fond of.  So, consider the source as you consider the statement.

"Be strong and let us show ourselves courageous for our people and the cities of our God; and may God do what is good in His eyes."  The statement has three elements: 1) Be strong/courageous in action as we engage this bad situation.  2) Be inspired by our concern for our people and their daily life including worship. 3) Let God do His part, whatever He decides.

The lesson I learn is also made up of three parts: 1) My Master can work with courage because it demonstrates faith in Him. 2) My Master does not put in situations for myself alone, but to use me as a blessings in the lives of others. 3) My Master will do what He sees fit to do, BUT it would also be good to know what He would have me do as His designed role for me.

The third lesson may have been assumed for Joab because he already was the leader of the fighting forces, and he had a fight before him.  He just did his job the best he knew how.  But David would ask before battles, and sometimes do the battle differently at different times.  I think Joab's statement assumes that he can't know what God will do, nor what God would have him do.  I doubt that Joab thinks God doesn't have those insights, but I think Joab thought that they are inaccessible to him.  Keep in mind, David's not there.  Ordinarily, it would be David providing that insight.

So, I am to be courageous because I am convinced my Master loves me, has my back, and is using me for His service.  The work of my Master done through me isn't just for me, but for those I love around me.  The work of my Master done without me is even more important for His glory. 

Yeah, okay, I totally twisted that one around, but it's still true.  True, I need to do the work, be faithful in it, and know God will do as He sees best.  But really, isn't His part more likely to gain Him glory than my part?  I bring 'five loaves and two fish' worth of my own ability, and yet He feeds 5,000 hungry males worth of effective work.  Isn't His part more important than my loaves and fish?  Doesn't what He does bring Him more glory than what I do?  I believe it does.

Just When You Thought You'd Made It...

Now there was a servant of the house of Saul whose name was Ziba, and they called him to David; and the king said to him, "Are you Ziba?" And he said, " I am your servant."  The king said, "Is there not yet anyone of the house of Saul to whom I may show the kindness of God?" And Ziba said to the king, " There is still a son of Jonathan who is crippled in both feet."  So the king said to him, "Where is he?" And Ziba said to the king, "Behold, he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel in Lo- debar." (2 Samuel 9:2-4 NASB)

Then the king called Saul's servant Ziba and said to him, " All that belonged to Saul and to all his house I have given to your master's grandson.  You and your sons and your servants shall cultivate the land for him, and you shall bring in the produce so that your master's grandson may have food; nevertheless Mephibosheth your master's grandson shall eat at my table regularly." Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants.  Then Ziba said to the king, "According to all that my lord the king commands his servant so your servant will do." So Mephibosheth ate at David's table as one of the king's sons. (2 Samuel 9:9-11 NASB)

 The story of Mephibosheth, and his inclusion in David's story is interesting.  One reason for the 'interest' in my opinion is Ziba.  Everyone forgets about Ziba, and I suspect that, in David's day, that's pretty much how Ziba wanted it.  He was the servant of Saul, and the detail in 2 Samuel is that he had fifteen sons and twenty servants of his own.  He was finally out on his own and doing well, when this happened.

Another interesting detail, Ziba has the distinction of being known as Saul's servant, but Saul's dead.  Also, Ziba knows exactly where Mephibosheth, the one crippled in both feet, is.  I think it's an important detail that this son of Jonathan wasn't with his family, but with someone else, outside of the territory of Benjamin.  Why isn't the servant of Saul responsible for taking care of one of the last survivors?  If Mephibosheth is lame in both feet, he's not that able of taking care of himself, so why isn't this servant of his grandfather taking care of him?

David calls for Mephibosheth and makes him like one of his own sons.  But he also gives to him all that belonged to Saul.  At first this sounds great.  But two things make this rather disruptive.  First, Ziba was doing great on his own, in his own right, and now he's back to being a servant.  Second, this wasn't the only survivor of Saul's household.  Read the confusing account of 2 Samuel 21.  There were actually at least seven additional children in Saul's house, two sons of Saul and five sons of one of his daughters.  What happened to them when David returned all that was Saul's to Mephibosheth?  And these are just the ones we know about.

It's at the point where David gives Ziba the responsibility to manage the lands and house of Saul on behalf of Mephibosheth that we are told he has fifteen sons and twenty servants of his own.  I think we're told this to provide some idea of Ziba's situation before he is again put in the role of 'servant' of a living master.  He's no longer 'master of his own fate'.  And he was doing so well at it too.

So here's a few possible motivating things in the back ground which could explain this kindness and Ziba's fate.  First, I suspect that everyone knew about Mephibosheth, but he was always the 'leftover' rather than the choice child.  I think that's why he was with this other, generous family.  I don't think his family was all that keen on his being with them.  He was lame, and therefore obviously 'stricken of God'.  He had a 'lofty' name (takes away shame), but clearly he's a constant reminder of the day Saul fell (that's when he went lame, that day).  The family had another "Mephibosheth" to take his place (who was later hanged by the Gibeonites).   So for David to show this kindness is unexpected, and I think that's one reason Ziba brings him up.  Who would show kindness to one 'stricken of God'?  Well, it seems David would, especially when the son is actually one of Jonathan's.

The second thing here is David's love for Jonathan that sees a son of his treated this way by the family.  So he reverses his fortune, and now he's on top.  Now the family works for him, and he's no longer dependent on the 'leftovers' if any.  It can't sit well with the rest of Saul's family.  When sons of Saul are required to atone for the Gibeonite atrocity by Saul, Mephibosheth (son of Jonathan) is spared, but seven others are not.  It can't sit well with the family that David spared the cripple.

This brings me, finally, to Ziba and Mephibosheth in the account of Absalom's rebellion.  As David is leaving Ziba meets him and claims that Mephibosheth thinks he's going to get the kingdom now (seriously?), and for this David gives everything to Ziba.  Then when David returns Mephibosheth is a wreck, obviously never having taken care of himself while David is gone, and claims Ziba never came to get him and he had no donkey (missed the last taxi out of town?).  David gives him half back, and Mephibosheth says Ziba can keep it, he's just glad David returned.  David didn't seem to know who to believe (neither sounds that credible), but I think Ziba was the liar of the two.

So what's my takeaway here?  I think the lesson best learned from Mephibosheth is found when you look at all three characters, Mephibosheth, David, and Ziba.  I learn that God never discounts someone just because they're lame (the first recorded 'disabilities act').  I also learn that not following the first rule doesn't work out well (e.g. Ziba).  And finally I learn that whatever I consider to be my weakness, whatever may be considered my weakness by others, God still knows my name, where I am, and the number of hairs on my head.  Of course he also knows of every sparrow that falls to the ground, so I shouldn't get too proud of my status.

One of God's favorite things to do in order to show His glory and power is to reverse fortunes.  He loves to turn things around.  It's an element of His character that has found it's way into all our human stories.  The best stories have a reversal of fortune, and God 'writes' the best of the best stories.  The story of Jesus is a HUGE reversal, and we are the ones who benefit.  It's all over the place with David, the shepherd, priest, and king; Abraham, the landless, son-less, wanderer, and father of nations; Joseph the son, slave, ruler, and savior.  Just look at Hebrews 11, and this 'role call of faith'; they're all 'reversals of fortune'.  In fact the whole point of that chapter is that we have the biggest and best reversal yet to come: Heaven.

My lesson is that God reverses fortunes: the last shall be first, and first last.  The workers in the vineyard all got a denarius, even those who worked only an hour.  Weird Al Yankovic has a song that I really love, "Everything You Know Is Wrong".  I think God yells this constantly, but we still love our own reason and logic, and are still surprised when fortunes reverse.  Maybe, just maybe, this Creator of all matter truly IS in control.  Maybe? 

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. 

Happy New Year

Now when Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, heard that Abner had died in Hebron, he lost courage, and all Israel was disturbed. (2 Samuel 4:1 NASB)

From the previous chapter (2 Samuel 3:6-11) it's clear that Ish-Bosheth feared Abner, and that Abner was about to give the kingdom over to David.  So when Abner dies, why fear?  This brings up a question for me that I've never been able to satisfactorily been able to answer.  Why was Abner so important to these people?

When I look at Scripture and how he is depicted, much is left to the imagination.  But perhaps my imagination fills in the blanks wrong.  I have assumed that Abner was more loyal to himself than to Saul.  He wasn't where Saul dies, and escapes along with many of the army he leads.  When they face David, he's running away.  He seems more interested in saving himself than anything.

Yet, from another perspective, he also calls a halt to the hostilities when he finally gains the advantage. He is able to speak even to the tribe of Benjamin to get them to follow David (which means they would give up prestige).  And Abner is mourned by David in a very thorough manner, he even curses Joab and his family.  Something is wrong with my estimation.

So if Abner is all that, what other explanation is there for his behavior?  It could be that Abner is more loyal to Israel than he is to anyone else (and that would include God).  The reason I say that is that it may explain why he leaves Saul to die; perhaps he was against the battle in the first place (although it doesn't say that).  It would explain why everyone seems to love him so much; they sense that he is very caring for them, has their best interests at heart.

But he does seem to be at odds with what he knows God wants to do.  He says to Ish-Bosheth that he will accomplish for David what God promised.  Why would he say that if he didn't know God had promised it?  And if he did know, what was he doing setting up Ish-Bosheth?  What about what he was doing was so good for Israel if it was contrary to what God was doing?  I don't get him.

But the reaction of the people, including Ish-Bosheth, to Abner's death is fear and troubling.  Did they fear that David would have no one to stop him from taking over by force?  Did they fear that the Philistines would finally come and finish them off?  Did they fear that losing the one guy holding them together would cause them to fall apart?  I don't know.  Perhaps the best answer that fits the facts is that, from the perspective of the people, Abner was their savior.  Maybe they thought God had punished them and they now needed Abner, a caring leader, in God's place; at least for now. Again, I don't know.

But in the dire circumstance of the people of Israel, they relied on Abner, not so much Ish-Bosheth.  In fact, his presence 'on the throne' so to speak was probably more of a nuisance than a boon; at least in their eyes.  He prevented the people from whole-heartedly following David.  So, his death should be a good thing, except for the fact that Abner had set him up.

The actions of the brothers in killing Ish-Bosheth also seems to support the theory that the soldiers were loyal to Abner more so than Ish-Bosheth, and like Abner, to Israel.  It's hard to say though.  They are quick to run to David, the one under who's protection Abner was killed.  On the other hand, David demonstrated that he had nothing to do with Abner's death.  It's a dilemma. I don't really get how Abner is so important, yet so obviously acting contrary to God.

So, what if God's selection of David only came out after Ish-Bosheth was on the throne?  What if only then did Abner realize that David was the one God chose to lead Israel?  Then he's in a dilemma because he has a sense of loyalty to this guy he put on the throne.  And this would explain why he answers Ish-Bosheth as he does when accused.  He says he has shown kindness to Saul, his family and his friends.  Were these the people to whom Abner was acting loyal when he placed Ish-Bosheth on the throne?  And after realizing that God had selected David after all, he was stuck with his deed and loyalty to his family.  Again, I don't really know.

I think that the explanation that fits the facts best is to consider Abner a quality guy who is popular because he tries to do what's right for the people of Israel.  They see that, sense that, and trust him because of it.  When he realizes that he's gone in the wrong direction, he tries to correct it when given opportunity.  In other words, he's trying to do the right thing with he best information he has.  I suspect the people of Israel could sense that, and that's why they followed him.

My take away from that is that he forms a pattern I think I should follow.  If David, a man after God's own heart, thought so highly of Abner, shouldn't I?  Sure I may be jealous because he also seems like those popular jocks from high school, but he's also a person trying to do what's right.  Aren't we all? Isn't that what I'm doing?  It should be.  I should be trying to do the right to the best of my knowledge.  What I know my God wants, I should do.  And when I don't know for sure, I should do my best to please him.  All Abner knew was that David had gone over to the Philistines.  He may not have known that David wasn't at the battle fighting against his own people.  He did what he thought was best to the best of his knowledge.

And for those of you that would criticize him for not inquiring of God, keep in mind, priests are in short supply since Saul wiped out the Priests of Nob.  David has the last of the 'high priestly family' in his camp (Abiathar).  So, inquiring of God isn't easy, especially when priests aren't likely to trust Saul's family.  I think Abner may have been doing his best with the limited knowledge he had.  And I think that my call is to do the same.  I can't become paralyzed by a lack of knowledge.  I have to fall back on the last instructions my Master gave me, and keep on moving forward.  So, my marching orders for today?  Keep moving forward...

But He's Popular...

Then Abner said to Joab, "Now let the young men arise and hold a contest before us." And Joab said, "Let them arise."  So they arose and went over by count, twelve for Benjamin and Ish- bosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David.  Each one of them seized his opponent by the head and thrust his sword in his opponent's side; so they fell down together. Therefore that place was called Helkath- hazzurim, which is in Gibeon.  That day the battle was very severe, and Abner and the men of Israel were beaten before the servants of David. (2 Samuel 2:14-17 NASB)

Saul, the king, has died.  His uncle and general, Abner, has set Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul, as king over Israel, but on the other side of the Jordan.  Abner has then garnered support from all over the northern tribes of Israel for this new king.

In the mean time, David has been set as king over Judah; a very strange thing to have happen in Israel, but also a sign of things to come.   His general is Joab, one of three sons of David's sister, Zeruiah.  David has sent a blessing to one of the Northern cities who showed kindness to Saul.  Other than that, he doesn't seem to have done anything 'maneuvering' to try and become king over the whole of Israel.

So, the two sides meet at a pool in the hills of Benjamin.  It may have been arranged as a talk, it may have been by chance, or through the cleverness of one side or the other.  We don't know.  But what we do know is that Abner has the brilliant idea of having the young men fight as sport before them.  Each of the 24 kills his opponent (or 'fellow', the Hebrew word for 'friend'), and they all fall together.  Thus the pool is named for this sad event, "Hklkath-hazzurim" which means "The Field of Daggers".

But the battle doesn't go Abner's way, and he escapes, but is chased by the fastest of the soldiers in Judah, one of Zeruiah's sons, Asahel.  Abner kills Asahel, and that stops Judah, but Joab, Asahel's brother, isn't stopped until the troops rally around Abner again.  Abner asks Joab to stop the killing, and Joab does, but I wonder if it was because he thought he couldn't take Abner just at this moment.

The character of Abner puzzles me.  He seems to be the general, but is rarely in sight as stuff happens between David and Saul (with one exception).  He is rarely mentioned in battle sequences (probably assumed?).  And then, as Saul dies, there is no mention of Abner anywhere.  The next thing we read is when Abner sets up the seemingly weak son of Saul as king.  After that, Abner comes to the forefront and we finally get a view of this guy.

Abner seems popular.  He convinces many tribes, living in areas now controlled by the Philistines, to follow this guy on the other side of the Jordan.  Later on, he seems able to then turn these same tribes around to follow David.  He is the 'king-maker' in Israel.  And he doesn't seem to mind switching sides when internal stuff goes wrong (see chapter 3).  On the other hand, when it comes to 'delivering' as a general, like a football coach, we want to see victories.  He doesn't seem able to deliver.  So why is he so popular?

I wonder if, like his nephew Saul, Abner is one of those 'likable' guys; able to sway the crowds with his charisma.  He says the right things, waves his hands, tells a funny story, and is if by magic, the whole world follows him.  He's the pied-piper of Hamlin, and all Israel are his children (or rats).  I remember such guys in school, and they really bugged me.  They seemed wrong more than half the time, but everyone wanted to follow them, be close to them, be noticed by them, and they led the school to...well, it seemed they led us nowhere actually.  Maybe I was/am bitter.

Abner seems like one of these guys to me.  He is good in a fight, he takes down Asahel with the 'wrong end' of his spear.  And he is a wonderful leader if having people follow is the mark of one.  But he doesn't seem to be able to take them anywhere.  He suggests a fight and his side loses 350 people.  His enemies only lost 20, and 12 of those were at the pool, and one was Asahel.  That's not such a great 'score', yet the people rally around him again.  And that works as he faces two guys, Joab and Abishai.  Sure, facing two guys, he's able to stop the fighting, what happened before when he was booking it away from the fight?  Why was he running in the first place?

I've read ahead, and I know Abner goes down, but I'm not cutting my emotional attachment to him so it's not so hard to take.  I'm looking at this guy, and wondering if God really wanted him to go down.  He seems to have none of the 'God brought about a victory' sort of thing going on like David's men.  He doesn't seem to be interested in the king he set up since he switches sides rather quickly.  I don't see a 'victory' attached to his leadership, so where's the benefit of his popularity? 

Okay, so here's my take away:  I am bitter.  And I'm bitter because I'm jealous.  I want to be the one people look to for leadership, direction, wisdom, and so on.  I want the attention they got.  But that's wrong, and here's why:  That would make me a distraction from God.  Plain and simple, I'm supposed to be about pointing people to Jesus, not spouting off wisdom and so on.  Who cares what I think when God is waiting to communicate His real wisdom to His human creatures. 

Fortunately for me, I've never really been one of those people just follow charismatically.  The only reason people have followed me is because they thought I was smart.  Once they realized I'm not that smart, well, they found someone else to follow.  But I have craved that fickle tide of acceptance found in the favor of the crowd (or mob).  That craving needs to stop. 

The only sustaining peace for my soul is found in my service to my King.  As He comes to the forefront, and I fade into the background, as by magic, I find peace (or peace finds me).  Peace, the true sort that seeps deep into my soul and gives me a sense of wholeness, is found in the background around the throne of my Master.  Why would I look for it by pandering to the fickle tide of popularity of people just as lost as I am? 

So, I am to follow the example of David, not Abner.  In his example God does His best work.  In Abner, the work of God is simply delayed.  So, I will worship.  That's first.  Then I will serve my Master.  That's second.  Whatever happens after that will at least come from or happen with me in the right context of peace.  I like the sound of that, it sure beats the whole host of alternatives.

The Royal 'Signia'

So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the bracelet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord." (2 Samuel 1:10 NASB)

It came about on the next day when the Philistines came to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his three sons fallen on Mount Gilboa. (1 Samuel 31:8 NASB)

 It is widely assumed that the story of the Amalekite which resulted in his execution by David was a lie.  One element of his story which was true was that he had Saul's crown and arm band.  This makes sense in a way, because it seems that the Philistines missed Saul's body on the day of the battle, and only found it the next day during 'clean up'.  A crown and shiny arm band would have been a 'dead giveaway' that this particular body was different (pun intended).  I think that they were missing was an important factor in Saul's body not being discovered right away.

Battle in those days was chaotic, often undisciplined, and brutal.  It can be assumed that it left a mess.  Among the mess, blood, dirt, and so on, bodies would be difficult to identify.  It says that the archers found him and wounded him, but that he died on his own sword.  Saul's assumption was that if the Philistines found him in that wounded fashion they would have captured him or tortured him (whatever 'sport' meant).  Whatever it meant, Saul was sure he would be found that day, not the next.

So, what the Amalekite actually did was to take those items (crown and arm band) from Saul's body after he had killed himself.  Amidst the chaos of a battle gone very wrong, it's not possible to know what he was doing there, how he got out of there, nor even what side he was on.  Since he wasn't an Israelite nor a Philistine, he could have been on either side, or both when he saw how the battle went.  But when he found the crown and arm band, he formed a plan; a stupid and ill-conceived plan, but a plan.  He would further his own position by going to David with the story that he had taken the life of David's enemy and brought the 'symbols' of the monarchy to him.  Yes, he, an Amalekite, had given the kingdom to David...or so he thought.

It seems that not only was David not all that interested in the crown and arm band, but neither was Saul's family.  No one ever mentions it.  This guy takes these 'baubles' from a dead king, thinking that they are what makes or marks a king.  But really, no one seems to care.  David cares that he says he killed Saul.  But not about the crown and arm band.  In fact, it's not that this guy took these things from a dead king (which is the true part of his story), but that he claimed to not be afraid to destroy the Lord's anointed.  This Amalekite totally missed the point.  He was so focused on the shiny things marking Saul as king, that he missed the more important element of his anointing, his position of being chosen by God.

So the application for me is to avoid the distraction of the 'trappings' of position, and focus on (or at least be mindful of) the choice of my Master with regard to a position.  I am what I am because of the choice of my Master, and it's not the money I make at my job, the house I live in, not the car I drive, nor my wife or daughter, nor is it the clothes I wear that mark me as what I am before my Master.  Jesus said,

Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat? ' or 'What will we drink? ' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'  For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. (Matthew 6:31, 32 NASB)

In the same way, knowing who I am before my Master doesn't follow the social or cultural definitions.  Rather, my Master sets His own definitions.  He has His own priorities in His choice and use of me.  And these purposes and priorities are distinct from my life situation.  It's not hard to see that life situations change, but my Master's work, priorities, and purposes do not.  I am who I am before Him regardless of what I wear, where I live, or what I eat.  If I'm reduced to a can of beans eaten in a cardboard box in a back alley, I'm still one chosen by my Master to fulfill a purpose He has designed.

Having said that, I'm not at all sure my attitude would be the best in such circumstances.  I'm not confident that the memory of better food, a better home, or better clothes would taint my ability to be about my Father's business when my 'business office' is a box, my 'business attire' are rags, my 'business lunch' is a can of beans, and my 'business location' is a back alley.  It's easy to say I am what I am before my Master when I'm warm, well-fed, and healthy. 

But even so, what will I do today? I am what I am even here, so will I live out what I am before my Master today?  Or will I let the 'wind and waves' of my job or family strife, or even inconveniences distract me from the purposes and priorities of my Master?  What I really need is some time of worship...

Why You, Son-of-an-Amalekite!

The young man who told him said, "By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and behold, Saul was leaning on his spear. And behold, the chariots and the horsemen pursued him closely.  When he looked behind him, he saw me and called to me. And I said, 'Here I am. '  He said to me, 'Who are you? ' And I answered him, ' I am an Amalekite. '  Then he said to me, 'Please stand beside me and kill me, for agony has seized me because my life still lingers in me. '  So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the bracelet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord." (2 Samuel 1:6-10 NASB)

David said to the young man who told him, "Where are you from?" And he answered, " I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite." (2 Samuel 1: 13 NASB)

The setting put forth right in the first verse is that David has returned from the  'slaughter of the Amalekites', and been in his city for 2 days.  To recap, the Amalekites had razed Ziklag on a raid into Southern Judah while David was marshalling with the Philistines to go fight Israel.  He returned home to ashes.  He then spent a night and all the next day attacking those who had burned his city.  As it turns out, the reason he had this problem with the Amalekites was because Saul failed to do his job by killing their king, Agag.  Samuel killed the king, but many of the people and stuff had escaped.  Saul settled for less than complete obedience, and this contributed to his rejection by God.  The Amalekites form this social/ethnic backdrop to Saul's rejection (and eventual death) and David's election by God.

So, David returns from slaughtering Amalekite raiders only to find one a few days later telling him that he had killed Saul.  It's not a good day to be an Amalekite anywhere near David right now.  So, why is this?  What is it about the Amalekites that makes them the enemies of God, and ones He wants to destroy from the earth?  Okay, here's the condensed version:

Amalek is the grandson of Esau and his people are nomads in the region between Canaan and Egypt (Genesis 36:12, 16).  As the people of Israel venture out into the desert, the people of Amalek attack them, and are defeated by Joshua while Moses' arms are held by Aaron and Hur (Exodus 17).  As a result, God promises to 'utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven' (Exodus 17 and Deuteronomy 25:17-19).  Amalek remains a problem through time of the Judges (Judges 3 and 5), and finally, with Samuel, God commands Saul to fulfill God's curse on Amalek (1 Samuel 15) which he fails to do.  Now, the Amalekites continue to be a problem for David.

It seems that, from God's perspective, Amalek continues a form of apathetic rejection of God begun in Esau.  It's not that they are particularly evil, any more than anyone else is evil.  It's not that they raid more, worship more idols, or practice some other behavior that makes them stand out, with one exception:  They consistently attack the people God has chosen.  Others do this occasionally.  For some it varies with who happens to be king.  Edom (Esau) go in and out of favor.  Moab goes in and out of favor, even Egypt garners praise or favorable treatment from God at times.  But not Amalek.  Ishmaelites, yes.  Amalekites, no.

So, what's the point here?  Where's the point of application for me? I think one point that I need to accept is that some people have actually been rejected by God.  Whether because He knows they will never repent or because they have entered into that unforgivable state of calling the things of God the things of Satan, I don't know.  I just see that God rejects people.  I think perhaps the grace of God is demonstrated in that He doesn't reject everyone.

In fact, as I read Scripture, it looks like He truly rejects only a very select few.  Besides the Amalekites, the only people of whom I remember God requiring the complete destruction is the Canaanites.  It's instructive to me that in both cases this sentence/command wasn't carried out.  And the people of God suffered in both cases.  God rejects, and asks that His people think as He does, and address people as He does, and treat people as He does.  So, as rare as rejection is, when God makes it clear that He rejects someone, so should I.  They may be popular, it may not 'feel right', and it may not be easy to explain, but it becomes a matter of obedience.

Fortunately, in my community, I don't know of any particular rejected people group.  For that I'm very thankful, but that doesn't mean there aren't some here.  My fear is that I will know what to do when I meet them, but not have the courage to be obedient.  On the other hand, I can't avoid putting myself into the community to avoid meeting such people.  And this category of people whom my Master rejects aren't those who irritate me, I don't like, or who seem senseless and rude to me.  It's never my estimation or my ability to evaluate people, but always my Master's.  And since I'm commanded to love my enemies, it's not that my Master calls me to 'hate' them, but rather to join His perspective of rejection.  I'm not even sure what that would look like.

So, I'm sure I don't know what I would have to do with people I don't know whom my Master may have rejected for reasons I can't see.  Right.  And with that, I say, 'Good day to you'.

If I Only Love Those Who Love Me...

"O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul,
Who clothed you luxuriously in scarlet,
Who put ornaments of gold on your apparel.
" How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!
Jonathan is slain on your high places
(2 Samuel 1:24,25 NASB)

 David was anointed to be king over Israel when they already had a king.  Talk about awkward, he then went to work for the current king and was amazing.  In fact, so amazing that the current king became jealous and tried to kill him on numerous occasions.  Part of the issue was that this was also the first king of Israel, and until one of his sons sat on the throne after him, he was really more of a 'battle chief' than true king.  Well, that wasn't going to happen, he knew it, and David was God's obvious choice.  Of course, the other issue was that Saul was just plain crazy too.

So, after years of being pursued, vilified, attempted murders, having his wife given to another, and so on, David decides to flee Saul by going to live with the Philistines.  He lives a sort of double-life pretending to work for the king of Gath while actually sending gifts to the rulers of Judah.  While that is great for his relationship with Judah, it's not so great for his relationship with the other 11 Tribes of Israel.  David lives in a difficult political situation, somewhat in exile because of a raving egomaniac currently reigning in Israel.  It's a tough life.

And this tough life is after God has chosen him to be king.  That has to rub him the wrong way.  This guy 'sitting in his seat' is trying to kill him, and is making his life difficult.  David has had multiple times to kill Saul, but each time chose not to.  He would not raise his hand against the anointed of the Lord, the one thing they held in common.  That's a good lesson to teach your rough and ready men, but it's a difficult way to live your life.  David is waiting for God, Who chose him, to also provide the opportunity to be what he has been called to be.  In so doing, it would be expected that David would resent Saul, daily.  But such resentment doesn't seem to exist with David.

When the news of the battle reaches David, he mourns over the people, and Jonathan.  But he also mourns for Saul.  The man who claims he killed Saul is executed for 'raising his hand against the Lord's anointed'; even though he thought he was doing David a favor (and that he didn't actually kill Saul - rough consequence for lying).  David then composes a song of lament, and it's about Saul!  He then teaches it to the people of Judah, even though it's about SAUL!  It's about the people and Jonathan too, but it's about SAUL!

So the application here is obvious and ridiculous.  I'm supposed to love those who try to bring me down and destroy me.  I'm supposed to love those who are taking up a place I've been given by God; they're in the way, blocking me from fulfilling God's purpose in my life...and I love them.  Seriously?  They rebel against God, treat the call and relationship with my Master with contempt, and I'm supposed to love and respect them? Yes.  Wait, they prevent me from the life God has called me to, try to kill me, defame me before all the people I'm supposed to lead, and I'm supposed to love them?  Yes.  Okay, so I'm in exile because of their actions and I'm supposed to love them?  Really?  Yes.

How many times have I read the Sermon on the Mount, and thought, "Well, yeah, but that's Jesus; I can't do that," and therefore excuse myself from His commands and teaching?  So, David, a "man after God's own heart", is also a wild sinner committing adultery and murder, and is therefore someone I can sort of identify with (at least we both love God and fail miserably).  And here I find him living out the Sermon on the Mount; only he's not Jesus.  Great, I'm out of excuses.  Lovely.  The guy-like-me lives out Jesus' impossible commands some 1,000 years before Jesus walks on the earth.  Awesome!  Okay, fine, I'll love my enemies; I'll pray for those who persecute me; I'll follow the path of my Master and not merely love those who love me.  Wow, how do I do THAT?

This is probably one of those things I can only do through worship.  I have to honor my Master, praise Him, acknowledge His Awesomeness, His reign, His power, and His glory.  Then I will be in the right frame of mind to obey, even when it's nuts to do so, or impossible.  One bright spot in this challenge is that, right now, no one is in the way of my calling, trying to kill me, or causing me to live in exile.  In counting my blessings, I certainly need to include that one.  It could be worse, and by the mercy of my Master it's not.  Still, there are those who fit in the category of 'my enemy', and I'm still supposed to love them along with my neighbors.  Better get to praising.  I've got a lot of worshiping to do.

The Danger of Bringing News to David

David said to the young man who told him, "Where are you from?" And he answered, " I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite." Then David said to him, "How is it you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy the Lord's anointed?" And David called one of the young men and said, "Go, cut him down." So he struck him and he died. David said to him, " Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the Lord's anointed. '" (2 Samuel 1:13-16 NASB)

 The sequence of the narrative in 2 Samuel 1 goes as follows: 1) An Amalekite comes to David and tells of the death of Saul and Jonathan and the loss by Israel. 2) David and his men mourn for the loss of Israel. 3) David has the Amalekite killed. 4) David writes a dirge for Saul and Jonathan.

Sandwiched in the middle is the death of this 'young man' who brought David news.  Ironically, the boy's news does not match the account in 1 Samuel of Saul's death, so it's possible the boy is exaggerating his role.  What he does have is the crown and the bracelet from Saul.  So, if nothing else, he got to Saul's body first, before the Philistines, and 'rescued' these items.

I think it's interesting that this guy is an Amalekite, the same people who plundered Ziklag, taking David's wives; whom David caught and fought for a day and a half, and then he plundered them.  David's not all that well disposed toward Amalekites anyway, especially right now.  And then, after David has taught his men that it's not right to strike 'The Lord's Anointed' (1 Sam 24 and 26), here's another opportunity.  And David doesn't even condescend to execute the man himself, he has one of his men do it.

Because it comes after the initial clothes-rending and wailing, I wonder if it's an 'afterthought' of David.  On the other hand, it's much more likely it simply occurs to him in the normal path of grief, when he gets to the 'anger' stage, and there's this guy who says he killed the king and that he's an Amalekite; a double-whammy in David's book.  Also, the sense I get, or how I imagine David pronouncing this judgement is with distaste in his mouth for such a person; as if this Amalekite disgusts him (my imagination, it doesn't say that).

David makes a statement in his response to this news brought by this unlikely messenger.  His command and response makes it plain that he finds no joy or relief in the death of Saul and Jonathan.  A case could be made he's more upset about Jonathan, but it's both of them together he laments.  Saul pursued him, eventually drove him from his homeland, and tried to kill him numerous times.  Yet David laments his death, and avenges him on the one claiming to have killed him.

David was no idiot.  He didn't hang out with Saul when he knew Saul would kill him if he could.  He realized he couldn't even be in the same country with Saul.  Yet, while he didn't trust his king, David always treated him with the respect that Saul was chosen by God.  Even when it became clear God had also rejected Saul, David never stopped treating him as the 'Anointed of God'.

'Anointed' is 'messiah' in Hebrew and 'christ' in Greek.  The Anointed is Jesus, the Jewish Messiah and Universal Christ.  And our culture and society treats this One as a 'historical figure', a 'wise man', a 'prophet', a 'teacher', a myth, and so on.  They truly destroy the Anointed of the Lord, seeking to treat with contempt the Eternal Son of God, the One chosen from before time to rescue His human creatures.  It's ironic we, as a race, have rejected our Creator and Savior.

So, the application is for me to have someone wipe out all humanity...wait, no.  That's not it.  I know, the application is for me to wipe out all humanity...hmmm, no, that's not it either.  Okay, here it is: my Master will wipe us all out...um, still no.  So, what is the application of this passage?  Where do I see the connection between David and Saul, and me and my circumstances?

David loved Saul to the end.  I'm to love my Savior to the end.  But I'm also to acknowledge those around me chosen by my Master as authorities over me.  For instance, pastors, teachers, elders, and so on in my church.  I would say, especially pastors.  Churches are so quick to condemn anyone, especially pastors.  Even pastors seem to have such little regard for each other.  I am particularly critical (I call it being 'picky').

When Jesus stands and speaks to John on Patmos, He says that he has 7 stars in his right hand, and that these stars are the 'angels' of the seven churches.  Angels.  My pastor said that he thought it was cool to think that every church had an angel.  I think that, in this sense or application, the word really referred to the normal Greek meaning of 'messenger'.  I think the 'pastors' are the angels; messengers of God.  That's my opinion, and there are plenty of other opinions from which to choose.  But my opinion would mean that my pastor is not only one 'anointed' but also that he is held in the right hand of my Master and Savior. 

So then, the application is to never raise my hand against the anointed of the Lord, human or deity.  It's Thanksgiving tomorrow.  Do I express thanks for my pastor?  Do I support him behind his back?  Do speak of him with the respect as one held in the right hand of my Master?  Do I consider him the messenger of my Master to our congregation?  Do I honor him even when he seeks my demise?  Do I honor him even when I don't agree with him?  What if he is out to get me (and I don't think he is)?  Do I turn on him then?  What is the application in my circumstances?  Maybe you can find the application in yours?  In any case, I don't recommend you bragging to me about how you 'brought down your pastor'...and heaven help you should you tell me you're bringing down mine.  I'm just saying.

When It's The People In Church...

But I will come to you after I go through Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; and perhaps I will stay with you, or even spend the winter, so that you may send me on my way wherever I may go.  For I do not wish to see you now just in passing; for I hope to remain with you for some time, if the Lord permits.  But I will remain in Ephesus until Pentecost; for a wide door for effective service has opened to me, and there are many adversaries. (1 Corinthians 16:5-9 NASB)

 One of the most frustrating elements of ministry is the people who make up the church.  It's a common joke among ministers that ministry would be great if it weren't for the people.  Paul's strained relationship with the people in the church in Corinth is not hard to spot all throughout the letter.  He clearly has issues with the way they have dealt with him, how they have treated his teaching, and so on.  He is not nearly as impressed with them as they are with themselves.

Yet with all that included, Paul still looks forward to being with them.  It sounds strange, but then, read carefully, especially the last part of the paragraph above.  He's staying in Ephesus "for a wide door for effective service has opened to me", which you would expect to encourage him to continue to serve there.  But then he adds this little nugget, "and there are many adversaries."  One of the reasons he is staying in Ephesus through Pentecost (early summer) is because there are many adversaries.

I have said before and I will say again, Paul is the most frustrating ministry example in Scripture for me.  He says and seems to do things that I just can't bring myself to match.  He sets the bar so high that I truly can't imagine hitting it, let alone going over it.  Here again, the bar is raised.  Who chooses to minister because it's hard?  Who does that?  Who looks at the frustrating people ministered to, ministered with, ministered among, and goes, "Wow, this is hard.  These people are whacked!  Let's keep going!"

This isn't an adrenaline junky in for the quick success in the face of massive odds.  This isn't the tough wrangler in for the immediate struggle against evil.  It's not the kind meek person just rolling with the 'waves' of life.  This is the guy who simply outlasts his opponents regardless of how many there are or how long it takes.  Paul is the Olympic Marathon runner of tough difficult ridiculous ministry.  Wherever, with whomever, for whomever, for however long it takes, he's going to minister.  He makes US Marines tired.  He makes Navy Seals seem like slackers.  He makes me really frustrated!

Paul wants to go to Corinth.  He wants to be among these people who slander him, disrespect him, denounce his teaching in favor of pagan philosophy, who quarrel among themselves, treat each other with contempt, treat God with contempt, have contempt for the sacrifice of Jesus as they celebrate His last meal, and basically run around as if they have 'arrived' spiritually.  I wouldn't want to be in the same city, forget being within their number.  I wouldn't even know where to start with such people.  He wants to dive right in, stay a while, share their lives, be a part of their worship and celebration.  Seriously?

Okay, it's already obvious to you, so I'll confess.  I'm ashamed that I don't have Paul's attitude toward service in the church.  In a sense I'm jealous, in a sense I'm convicted, my shortcomings are exposed, my wrong attitude made obvious in comparison to his perfect one.  And just as obvious, I don't feel like repenting of my position in favor of his.  If I did, my tone would be different, but I don't, so it isn't.  I don't want to wade into conflict, stupid arguments, foolish people, and pointless practices.  I don't.  I don't!  But who am I trying to convince?

This isn't about me, it's about my Master, His calling on my life, and only then about my obedience.  And it's not about obedience because He somehow needs me for some reason.  It's only about my obedience so that I am more available to Him, enter into a deeper dependence upon Him, and find that I am only sufficient in Him, His power, and His wisdom.  This is about the Teacher coming alongside me to help me learn that I need Him, and He is faithful.  It's about deepening faith, strengthening dependence upon my Master, and creating an environment where the lost are drawn to the throne of the King.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not in vocational ministry.  So, for the record, this is about what I do as a volunteer among such frustrating circumstances and people.  And also on that record should be the roll call of those who have been amazing blessings to me, for instance the people of my small group.  I have seen growth, I have seen faith, I have witnessed compassion for each other, and I have been a part of service with them to each other, them to me and us to others.  If you are exempting yourself from this perspective, this call to minister in the ridiculous, then you are way off.  Unfortunately for all of us, the example of Paul is for everyone, not just vocational ministers.  See, now you are frustrated with him too, aren't you?

The challenge for me is to wade into the fray of my Master's human creatures, and lovingly come alongside them as my Master has come alongside me.  It's messy, it's painful, it's time consuming, and it's sometimes fruitless.  But it is a call to follow my Master.  He didn't touch or heal everyone in Palestine or even Jerusalem.  He didn't just hang around those with whom He was popular, or help just those He liked or liked Him.  He didn't just...Instead He went where He did, met whomever was there or along the way, and did what He knew needed to be done.  He was obedient to His Father. 

And He left a trail for me to follow.  That's the challenge.  I don't like 'Pharisees' and they don't like me.  But it seems I should have a meal with them; and I shouldn't serve ham just to irk them either.  I'm not a big fan of fickle religious 'fan's' (followers of whoever or whatever is popular at the moment).  But it seems I should walk with them; and not entertain myself with kicking the frail props of their theological positions.  I'm not comfortable with those who seem to have a small god and wimpy Jesus.  But it seems that the true Son of the Creator all matter wants me to invite them over to look through my telescope at the universe, and not so I can shame them with my much bigger stronger version of God either.  Where's the fun in all that?  Well, so long 'comfort zone', good bye cynicism, ciao sarcasm, my old friends, it's been fun...

Who's Money Is It?

On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.  When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem; (1 Corinthians 16:2,3 NASB)

I rejoice over the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have supplied what was lacking on your part.  For they have refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men. (1 Corinthians 16:17,18 NASB)

Probably one of the most difficult subjects to discuss in church is money.  Simply put, there never seems to be enough of it.  On a deeper, more personal level, 'there's never enough to make me content'.  I don't believe we were created with the capacity to have money bring us contentment.  I just don't think it's possible.  Regardless of the psychological things involved, the bottom line is the same; no contentment from cash.

But it is probably equally true that we have the innate sense that money is somehow tied to our personal welfare.  So, while it may never bring contentment, it still captures our attention on the 'self-preservation' level, which is so basic and visceral that it defies reason.  As you might expect, this doesn't catch our Creator off guard.  Believe it or not, He's very aware of this problem we have.

So, the answer to this problem is a 'spiritual discipline' which is usually approached with a subjective sense of obligation.   All spiritual disciplines are supposed to bring us closer to our Savior by breaking down those barriers we create in our lives hindering our connection with Him.  Rarely are they the exact same for everyone, but there are normative categories, one of the most common of which is money.  Therefore the spiritual discipline involved in breaking down the barrier of focus on money is giving that money to the church.

It's a real fun opportunity to watch people give.  On the one hand, people find every excuse not to give to the church.  They will claim it's a human institution, that those humans running it are flawed, that the money given is being mismanaged, and so on.  All of these excuses, and any others, are just attempts to maintain the hold on that substance we have come to believe makes the world go 'round.  As you might expect, this sort of behavior and belief is somewhat irritating to the one spinning the earth...along with the rest of the elements in the entire universe.

On the other hand, those who's vocation it is to minister within the church are bombarded regularly with the constant needs of the church, the community, themselves and their own families, the world on some level or levels, and so on.  All that funnels through them into a 'supply' that is wanting, usually because of the above excuses taking precedence over the presence and power and love of our Savior.

With all the problems of Corinth (and there are 15 chapters full of them), giving was something they seemed capable of even when it was for a person (Paul) of whom they did not fully approve.  It's possible, and from 2 Corinthians even more probable, that they had a problem sending money away to Jerusalem.  But giving in general isn't part of their problems.  After the instructions in verses 2 and 3 comes a 'thank you' for their gift to him in verses 17 and 18.  Sure something was 'lacking' but it was made up.  They gave something.

So the problem wasn't giving.  It may have been immorality, pride, arrogance, foolishness, even dabbling in idolatry.  But it seems they were doing okay on giving; at least to Paul.  Perhaps it was the three people mentioned who gave any or at all.  I don't know, and from Paul's wording it could very well be. Or it could be that they hadn't, to that point in time, gave or contributed to Paul.  Either way, or any other way it could be taken, at that point, Paul received from this church.

So, the challenge is to give.  Giving is the exercise, even to a flawed group of people administered by a flawed group of people with the trust that somehow our Master and Savior multiplies it to meet needs.  The point is to give, and having given, to release our 'claim' on the gift.  Giving without 'strings', without a say.  Otherwise we've contributed to an investment where we evaluate the return on the investment, and demand a vote as if each dollar grants us a 'share' (the more shares, the more votes). 

For me, the challenge is more to not take my giving for granted.  Sometimes it simply slips through process, and here's how.  My wife and I budget, and in that budget we tithe.  But God has blessed us sometimes with excess and we know that the imperative to 'budget' that particular paycheck isn't necessary.  We can just set it aside and live off what is already there, or so we think.  So, in that situation, we also neglect to 'budget' the tithe.  Because I didn't do the one, I didn't do the other.  Truthfully, I need to do both every time.

So, for me, the lesson is to give as well.  The charge is to discipline myself to make the return to my Master the priority it must be to ensure no walls (or at least that wall) don't get built in my life with Him.  The purpose is His Kingdom, and taking my place in it.  The result will be a closer and more loving and powerful relationship with my Master.  Any other charge, purpose, or result is paltry and worthless.  Holidays are coming, the gifts are expected, the sales and 'things' are pushed into my face.  But my charge is to give, the purpose is the King being celebrated, and the result is a season of worship.  So, Happy Thankful Christmas!