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...