I Wonder as I Wander

Today's passage:  Genesis 37
     Somehow, I have never paid attention, or never noticed this small detail in the story of Joseph.  I've read the passage many times, I've taught the Sunday School lesson, I've even seen Joseph:  King of Dreams.  But there are a few verses here to which I have never paid particular attention.  That gets my attention, because though it may seem like a small detail, if God put it there, it must have some significance.
     Jacob's other sons are in the field in Shechem, tending sheep.  He sends Joseph to go to them, to see how they are doing.  Or does he have another motive?  I ask this question, because I'm wondering if Jacob is a little suspicious of their behavior.  He tells Joseph to come back to him and let him know what they are doing.  I'm intrigued by this because of what I learn a few verses later.
     Joseph goes to Shechem which is a good jaunt from their home in Hebron, about 55 miles.  The fields there must be good for grazing.  But Joseph's brothers aren't in Shechem.  In fact, Joseph is wandering around Shechem, probably checking every field for some sign of them, when some gentleman (these are the verses I'd never really given much attention to) comes to him and asks what he needs.  If it weren't for this gentleman, Joseph would never have learned that his brothers were actually in Dothan, another 20 miles north of Shechem.  Who knows how long Joseph would have wandered about searching for his brothers?  Now what is significant about this?  Well, I read a little about Dothan.  I mean, if the brothers went there without sending word to Dad, that seems a little suspicious.  What I learned was that Dothan was not agricultural, it was a commercial town.  So what are the brothers doing up in Dothan with sheep if there is little, if any, pastureland?  That I don't have an answer for, but it wouldn't surprise me if Jacob's sons were involved in some wheeling and dealing, acquiring fortunes in the northland.  I can't be certain of this, but it does seem a bit peculiar.  So when Joseph arrives on the scene, they know they are in big trouble.  Perhaps they have had business in Dothan for a while now, maybe they have set up some sweet deals with the merchants that come through, and the last thing they need is for kid brother to tattle to Dad about their business ventures, when they should have been taking care of the sheep.  This would only fuel their desire to be rid of Joseph, so they could conduct business as usual.

Joseph, search for his brothers, is told they had gone to Dothan
Taken from Standard Bible Story Readers, Book Two
Illustrated by O.A. Stemler and Bess Bruce Cleaveland
The Standard Publishing Company, 1925

     And has Jacob been suspicious of where the brothers have been?  Did they get home later than usual?  Were the flocks looking skinnier than before?  Did it seem the boys had a little extra income, or did a few sheep mysteriously go missing every time they returned from Shechem, maybe part of a deal?  I don't know, but I do know that though Jacob may be old, he knows a little about scheming, and although he may not be completely wise to their plans, something tells me he knows everything is not on the up and up.  Loyal Joseph would of course report back to Dad, but this time, his brothers will prevent him.  And by securing Joseph's silence, they can continue their Dothan excursions.  Since Dothan was along a prominent trade route, it also was convenient for them to be able to sell Joseph, even if not the original plan.  Though jealousy and hate were the primary factors that led to Joseph's enslavement, the inducement of money may have been a motivation as well, because the Bible tells us that "the love of money is the root of all evil." (I Timothy 6:10)  Twenty silver pieces may have seemed like a small price to pay to rid themselves of a brother who would blow their cover.
     It's all pure speculation, I know, but I don't know why God would have included the verses about Joseph's aimless wandering in Shechem, and a man there, who happened to overhear the brothers' plans redirecting him, if there had not been something amiss.  Every verse in the Bible has a purpose, and maybe I miss it the first, second, or third time (sometimes the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth time as well), but when I keep reading and searching, I'm bound to find something new.  Thank you, Lord, for such a marvelous Book.

Too Close to Home

Today's passage:  Genesis 31
     So I've skipped blogging about a series of chapters just because of lack of quiet time. Not surprisingly, the spring forward time change brings the sun out a little earlier in the morning, signaling Youngest's wake up time.  Though I've read through the passages, albeit only a few verses at a time many mornings, the chance to  sit and write about what I've learned has been rare.  Maybe someday, I'll have the opportunity to go back and share what God taught me in those chapters, but for now, I'll start with today's chapter.
     I'm always fascinated with the relationship dynamics in the Bible.  If you think about it, they aren't too different than relationships today, and when I think about that, it isn't hard to imagine the struggles, difficulties and complications that might take place.

Religion in the Home, Part 1
By Charlotte M. Yonge
Illustrated by Julius Schnorr Von Karolsfeld
Published by George W. Bertron, 1913

     This chapter is loaded with family drama. Laban, that sneaky scoundrel, has been cheating Jacob for years. I don't doubt that some of this is the principle of sowing and reaping in Jacob's life for the way he deceived his own brother and father. Still, I think that at this point, Jacob has paid his dues. Jacob complains that Laban has changed his wages ten times. I chuckle to myself a little, because I wonder if dear Daddy-in-law Laban doesn't use Jacob's behavior towards Leah and Rachel as an excuse to swindle Jacob. I can just see it now. Jacob talked a little too sternly to Leah; Laban docked his wages that week. Jacob seemed a little insensitive with Rachel's yearning to have a child; Laban cut Jacob's pay in half. I don't even want to know how severely Laban might have dealt with Jacob when he had children with his daughter's handmaidens, twice. Not that Laban would have told Jacob this was what he was doing, but I can imagine a protective father conveniently using it to his advantage. No wonder Jacob is in a hurry to get back to Abraham's land. Perhaps part of his motivation is to get out of the constant watchful eye of his wives' father. When God tells Jacob that it is time to go back to his family's land, Jacob must have breathed a huge sigh of relief. Finally, I'm outta here. Now to tell the girls. It might not be as easy to convince his wives that it was time to leave Daddy behind. I'm sure they are hesitant at first, but they eventually submit. Part of me wonders if this isn't a match between Rachel and Leah. They have been struggling to be the main affection for years (Rachel usually always winning out) and perhaps this was a chance for both ladies to try to win extra points with her husband. The wife who complained about leaving Daddy would most definitely earn Jacob's anger, while the one who complied would maybe rise a little in his eyes. So maybe neither of them were terribly happy about the plan to leave Laban, but neither of them may have admitted it to avoid being the lesser wife. Then again, maybe good old Dad had become a little too overbearing and they were anxious for a change of scenery as well.

     In any case, Jacob leaves quietly, not giving Laban a clue to where he has gone.  Laban eventually catches up to him (or to be truthful, chases after him) probably intending to bring his daughters and grandchildren back, and maybe digging a sandy grave for Jacob in the desert.  Fortunately, God intervenes and Laban and Jacob make a covenant to not harm each other in the future.  Given both of their deceitful pasts, I don't give a lot of credence to this "covenant", but I'm sure the future chapters will show how it holds up.

      I wish I could expand a little more, but children wake up early even on holidays, and getting this much done amid the distractions has been more than challenging.  With summer approaching, I'm hopeful that sleep patterns (for the boys at least) will be a little later, giving me time to share from time to time.  As the daughter of a career military man, I am ever thankful for the commitment to those who have served in our armed forces, and particularly those who have sacrificed their lives for our great nation.  God bless the families who have loved ones that have paid the price.  Have a blessed Memorial Day.
     Forgive the formatting.  I spent the last half hour trying to reformat the last few paragraphs.  I somehow managed to make it the caption for the picture and without erasing and rewriting the whole thing (which I definitely do not have time to do, I just had to leave as is.  GRRRR!

Marked

Today's passage:  Romans 16:1-18
     There was a movement in education several years back (seems like there is always some kind of movement) regarding grading student work.  Studies showed that negative red marks on student work lowered their self esteem. I'm not sure what the solution to this "dilemma" was, because I had pretty well tuned out after that, but I would not be surprised if the recommendation had been never to point out wrong answers on schoolwork.  I guess that explaining to the kindergartner that two plus two is indeed four and not five would shatter his self image too much, and well, we wouldn't want that.
     I just thought to myself, wouldn't it be more harmful to his self esteem if they were allowed to believe that their wrong answers were alright even into adulthood?  Isn't someone along the way going to make him feel ignorant for his well, ignorance and maybe in a much less kind way than a red mark on a paper?  I can understand that a student might be discouraged at seeing a failing test with red x's all over it, but am I doing that child a favor by not pointing it out so he can learn from his mistake and get it right in the future?  And what about his classmates?  When they see each other's work (which they always do somehow), aren't they going to point out to me or to him that he got two plus two equals five wrong too?
     This brings me to the passage today.  In verses 17-18, Paul writes:

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." 

Demetrius the Silversmith Stirs up a Riot
Taken from Treasures of the Bible
By Henry Davenport Northrop, D.D.
International Publishing Company, 1894

     When I saw that word "mark", I immediately thought of taking a big red marker and drawing an "x" across something. Must be the teacher in me.  This is a hard truth.  And what is harder is that Paul points out the exact method a person uses to do this.  A person who is trying to divide a congregation doesn't go about it like a cyclone, although he has that exact effect.  How?  "By good words and fair speeches".  That would probably mean this is somebody who is very well liked.  I have seen this happen in churches before.  The pastor usually has to call out these particular people because it is what the Bible commands. Half the congregation feels this is extreme, because after all,  Mr. Division was such a helpful person.  He would see a need and be the first person there to assist (all the while planting heresy in the listener's ear).  Or Ms. Offence was always so efficient (especially at explaining why the pastor was wrong about the resurrection).

      The pastor has to expose this kind of behavior.  Why?  The end of verse 18 explains why, so that these deceivers can not lead hearts away.  The Bible calls them "simple", which I think would mean naive or trusting.  And who would be the most trusting in our congregations?  New converts and children.  I don't care how kind or helpful or efficient somebody is, if they are filling my children's ears with wrong doctrine, I don't want them teaching my children.  I don't want them around my children at all.  I would be justified in that because Paul doesn't only say "mark them", but he also says, "avoid them".  When a Mr. Division or Ms. Offence is asked to leave, he and she will more than likely take some followers with them, which is exactly why they have to be asked to leave in the first place.  If that kind of behavior is allowed to continue in a church, the whole congregation could be destroyed. I have never seen a  pastor enjoy exposing this kind of thing, but he is commanded to do it.  People may leave, but losing a few (although it would be preferable not to lose any) has to be risked than losing the whole church to heresy.  Church members who only saw the smiling, jovial, everybody's friend, Mr. Division or Ms. Offence may have been too wise for these people to expose their true selves.  Or true motives.  And this is the hardest part because it would be easier to believe that they are just deceived as well and they just need to grow more in the Lord.  And that may be true, but when they are trying to win others over to their point of view, especially in an already established church with a clear doctrinal statement, Paul says they are only doing it for one reason.  They are trying to serve their own belly.  Serve their own belly?  I've heard of filling a person's belly?  But I would guess it means about the same.  Serving one's belly would mean to have a full one.  And how would he be full?  When he has enough money to fill it.  So I'm guessing these deceivers have only one thing in mind.  Money.  I would like to assign purer motives to people most of the time, as I've said before, I like to think the best about people, but Paul is clear that these people are not trustworthy, and their motives are impure.
     If a pastor were to avoid pointing out these people because he was afraid of crushing someone's self esteem, he would be just as guilty as the teacher who fails to grade a paper properly.  Someone along the way is going to catch on, and the damage then might be far worse.

Look at the Bright Side

Today's passage:  II Samuel 16
     Children have to be taught gratitude.  It doesn't come naturally.  I've met some children who seem to have been born gracious.  But I have been around children for a long time, and I know better. It is a trait that has been carefully instilled by parents, or learned individually through unfortunate experience.  As adults, gratitude either thrives or shrivels, depending on how much we use it.  If we become negative, bitter, critical people, we neglect to see the blessings.  When we praise God for every breath we take, every morsel of food we lift to our lips, every dry, warm night we spend out of the elements, thankfulness grows and envelops us.  Which brings me to today's passage about Ziba.  Do you remember Ziba?  I gave him high praise several posts ago (A Servant's Choice).  Tsk, tsk, tsk.  Alas, Ziba has somehow allowed ingratitude to creep into his heart.

Rainbow on a Cloudy Day--Taken from Standard Bible Story Readers, Book One
By Lillie A. Faris,  Illustrated by O.A. Stemler and Bess Bruce Cleaveland
The Standard Publishing Company, 1925

     David has resumed to living in the hills, now that Absalom is acting king.  Every person who approaches David is either friend or foe, and I'm sure that he can't tell who is who anymore.  Ziba arrives over the hill bearing nourishment for the deposed king.  Naturally, David wants to know where Mephibosheth stands in all of this rebellion.  Ziba tells him that Mephibosheth is looking forward to recapturing the glory days of his father, Saul.  In other words, he is aiding Absalom in this thing.  As we will see a few chapters later, Ziba is lying.  Now why would this man, who had been living in poor conditions before David found them, who had probably been Mephibosheth's feet, who had been rewarded by this king with all of Saul's former lands, make up this story?  It has to start with ingratitude.  Some people can not handle good things.  The more good they have, the more they want.  I have to think this is what happened in Ziba's life.  When he was living among the ruins, he forgot what it was like to serve in Saul's palace.  He got used to the gruel and broth for meals, he became accustomed to unmended clothes, leaky roofs, chopping his own wood for the fire.  When he was far from the high life, he forgot how low he had been plunged.  Now that he was a little closer, now that he could see the fanfare at the castle while working the field, he began to savor the taste of ambition.  The lands and home he tended in service to Mephibosheth became menial.  He was the man, after all, who had reunited Jonathan's son and King David.  Why should he be planting vineyards and plowing fields?  Why should he be figuring expenses and directing servants when he could be using his skills to advise a king?  I imagine that when Mephibosheth becomes a resident of the palace, he would need servants to attend to his needs. As Ziba saw some of his former household drafted into these positions, I wonder if Ziba was offended that none of those positions went to him.  Perhaps Ziba viewed his groundskeeper/lands manager position as a curse instead of a blessing.  Ziba needed a good dose of gratitude.  He needed to remember where he had been living prior to David's calling for them.  He needed to remember that any other king would have had the household of the previous king killed, with no mercy spared.  He needed to remember that living in the palace at the beck and call of someone else was tiring.
     Our former pastor often used the illustration of the older lady who always saw the positive side of everything.  It drove people crazy, because no matter what subject was brought up, she could always see the bright side. Determined to get her to say something negative, one man asked her if she could find anything good to say about Satan.  She just gave a little chuckle, shook her head and said, "Well, that devil, he never gives up!"  What a spectacular way to look at things!  I'm not saying we should smile when we are facing sorrow.  I'm not suggesting that we plaster a smile on our face everywhere we go.  But some people never smile or never look happy.  It makes me think they have forgotten their blessings.  It makes me think they didn't know they had any to begin with.
     When we are tempted to be somewhere other than where we are, when we yearn for things we don't have, we are preparing our hearts to go the way of Ziba.  We are acting out of ingratitude.  God has a way of dealing with that.  He is expert in stripping away all we held as dear, and showing us what is really important.  It is not always easy to magnify the good, when the bad seems so much greater.  I know that.  But shouldn't we try?  When my humdrum life seems too hum or drum, I need to look to God for giving me simple things to enjoy.  When life seems hard and steep, I need to thank God He sustains me, pushes me, keeps me going.  Ziba forgot what a blessing it was to be the loyal friend of Mephibosheth.  He failed to see that not just anyone would have been given such a position of trust.  Instead of wishing for more, he should have seen that not just anyone could do his job.  When we do what God calls us to do with gratitude, it may be that He will give us more.  Then we have to choose to be thankful for the more.

The Cookie Crumbles

Today's passage:  II Samuel 13
     This is not a passage for the faint of heart.  It is one of the more difficult passages of the Bible because of the adult content in it.  In fact, trying to deal delicately with such subject matter must be a difficult job for a preacher, because there is little way to handle it delicately and still deliver the message that needs to be presented.  It is a chapter that causes me to cringe.  And yet, there is something here God wants us to learn.  Probably several somethings.
     One thing that God wants us to know is that marrying several women can create complications among the children.  I've said it before, and I will say it again, because I assure you, the movement is on the horizon.  Polygamy is trying to make a big comeback in this country.  There are TV shows promoting it, and while maybe not advocating for it, trying to pave the way for acceptance.  I don't watch any of them, but I have heard of at least 2 or 3 shows where a man has more than one wife.  And the entire point is to make them seem like a normal family.  Well, it is not normal.  God never designed for man to have more than one wife.  If He had, Adam would have had Eve #1 and Eve #2.  It happened a lot in the Old Testament, and in every instance it was trouble.  As early back as Abram and Sarai, when Hagar is introduced into the picture and Ishmael is born, multiple wives produced complications.  And that is a complication that has continued on to this day, with the Muslim world declaring Ishmael to be God's heir when clearly it was to be Isaac. The ancestors of these two children are still fighting.  It was not necessary.  Unfortunately, David's marriages were going to cause another kind of trouble among his children.  I'm sure there must have been a lot of arguing about which wife had preeminence, and therefore which son would be the next king.  It was natural that these jealousies would arise. Would they have surfaced had all the children been from the same woman?  Yes, it was likely that could have happened too, but everyone would eventually agree that the firstborn was heir to the throne.  In David's case, he had a firstborn with Maachah (Absalom), and a firstborn with Abigail (Chileab), and a firstborn with Ahinoam (Amnon) and a firstborn with Bath-sheba (the firstborn died, but the first to live was Solomon).  I mean there would be a lot of disputes as to whose son was the real firstborn.  But having so many wives with children from each wife also brings about other difficulties as seen in this passage.
     God also would want us to realize that love and lust are two completely different things.  Amnon does not love his half-sister.  He tries to convince others he does because that sounds nobler than to say he just wants to rob her of her virginity.  There is no love involved here.    Love does not deceive a young maiden into being a nursemaid for a person who is not sick in order to prey upon her.  Love does not turn to hatred within minutes. Love does not force a person against her will, and then having its way throw the person out into the cold. That is not true love.  Those are the characteristics of lust.  This poor, poor girl.  After the act is committed against her, she is more horrified because no other man will want her now, and Amnon doesn't even have the decency to take her as his wife, now that he has stolen the most precious gift she had to offer any man.  It is no wonder that when Tamar's full-blood brother Absalom learns of it, he is enraged.
     But here is the most shocking thing of all in this passage, and I can't wrap my head around it.  Maybe I'm too unfamiliar with Middle Eastern culture to understand, but David finds out about this horrific deed and does nothing.  "But when king David heard of all these things, he was very wroth."  That's it.  That is all that is said about the matter.  It is obvious that he didn't deal with the situation, or if he did he must have been extremely lenient, because it is what drives Absalom to take matters into his own hands and avenge his violated sister.  And really, I can't say I blame him.  I cheer for vigilante justice sometimes in the movies, and this just seems to be another brand.  But really, what was David thinking?  How could he let such an act go? This was his oldest son, the future king behaving this way?  It is obvious that Amnon was indulged, perhaps because he was the successor to the throne.  But being an indulgent father, and a father who completely looks the other way are two different things.  It is shameful.
     Two years go by, and Amnon is still strolling about the palace, possibly smugly smiling at Absalom like the cat who ate the canary every time he passes him by.  Very likely, sneering at Tamar any time he has the chance.  Absalom shows remarkable restraint.  "And Absalom spake unto his brother Amnon neither good nor bad:  for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar."  What is that saying--  "Watch out for the quiet ones." ? This is one of those cases.   Absalom waits two years to carry out revenge.  And I'm not saying he was right to do it, but it is easy to see why he would when King David did nothing.  Amnon continued to bait Absalom all the while.  I'm starting to think that David's family put the dys- in dysfunctional.  Actually, that may have started with Jacob and his several wives/several children brood.
     This is just not a pleasant chapter to read.  It goes from bad to worse.  Absalom is not punished for murdering his brother, which conveniently puts Absalom as next in line for the throne.  No power motives there, right?  David's boys must have been used to having things done their way, and if in the past they have not suffered consequences for their actions, it is no wonder they think this.
     What can I learn here?  As awful a parent as David is in this chapter, there are going to be times in my life when I really will not know what to do with my children, or how to deal with them properly.

Trust Issues

Today's passage:  II Samuel 3
      Abner was a crafty fellow.  He obviously was in this king-making business for how it benefitted him.  Most people in politics are in it for what they can get, and I think that is why we become so disillusioned with them.  Backroom deals, compromises, loophole promises pave the way for power and influence.  Abner was no exception to these schemes.  "Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David:  but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker."  Abner is on a sinking ship, and he knows it.  The numbers would seem to be in Ish-bosheth's favor.  After all, most of the tribes had gone with him.  But God was on David's side, and that makes up for any weakness in numbers.  When Ish-bosheth accuses Abner of a liaison with his father's concubine, Abner makes a great deal of being offended.  He makes it clear to Ish-bosheth that all he need do is say the word and Ish-bosheth will be ousted.  It is obvious who is running the show.  I think Abner was looking for any excuse to go work for David.  David's kingdom was on the rise, and Abner now realizes he picked the wrong side.  He also remembers what happened at Gibeon.  He knows that Joab will never rest until he has avenged the death of his brother, Asahel.  Ish-bosheth knows that Abner can dethrone him and doesn't push the concubine matter any farther.
     Still, Abner decides to do some under-the-table dealings anyway.  He contacts David and assures him of his allegiance, and the future allegiance of the other tribes.  David accepts with the condition that Abner will bring Michal, the wife Saul had promised to him so long ago but then married off to someone else.  David feels it is time that Saul's promise be honored.  So Abner arrives, treated like a guest.  It is fortunate for him that Joab and his men are in battle, because he may have not been received so graciously.  Abner leaves with an assurance from David that he will leave in peace.  I believe this is all Abner was really after.  Unlike that other king, Ish-bosheth, David was in command of his men.  Abner knows this.  He knows that if David makes a promise, it will be kept.  He knows that if David says to withhold harm from Abner, he will be given safe passage. 
     When Joab gets word of Abner's visit, treated like a respected ambassador, Joab is furious.  He confronts David about the matter.  He tells David he is being played, just as Ish-bosheth had been.  David apparently does not give Joab the answers he is looking for, because Joab sends servants to retrieve Abner, without David's knowledge. 
     Under other circumstances, Abner might have had cause for concern.  But he knows David.  This is the man who spared Saul's life in the cave.  This is the man who tiptoed around Abner's sleeping men to confiscate Saul's spear and water canteen.  Abner had become quite familiar with David's character.  He knew that he was not given to deceit or masquerades.  So when Joab requests a private conversation with Abner, Abner doesn't worry.  I'm sure he smiled smugly at Joab, knowing there was little Joab could do.  Although Abner may have known David's character, he obviously did not know Joab's.  Joab takes Abner's life in the same style Abner had taken his brother's. 
     When David learns of the news, he orders Joab to mourn this man.  Joab had his revenge, but Abner will have the last play.  Joab must humiliate himself by being respectful of this man's death.  The man who had murdered his brother would be given a statesmen's burial.  I'm surprised that David does not require a more stringent punishment upon Joab.  This action would make it appear that Joab was calling the shots.  It might make David appear weak.  It might make people question David's word.  But Joab is also family.  He is David's nephew.  Asahel was David's nephew.  Maybe just a little part of him knew that Abner got what was coming.  So for now, Joab is spared any further punishment. 
     Abner played the political game.  His allegiance was with whoever he thought was the rising star at the time.  When it was Saul, he was loyal to Saul.  When he thought it would be Ish-bosheth, he was loyal to Ish-bosheth.  Now that David's influence had increased, he became loyal to David.  In reality, he was only loyal to himself.  Shifting allegiances make a lot of enemies.  Abner thought if he befriended his enemies, that would cause them to forget their grievances, or at least be controlled by them.  He thought he had cleverly ingratiated himself to David enough that his nephew could only follow his lead.  He didn't take into account that like himself, Joab had a mind of his own.  He didn't trust Joab, but he trusted his pact with David, and he assumed that Joab was loyalty bound as David was.  It was his undoing. 
     This is what David says at Abner's memorial:  "Died Abner as a fool dieth?  Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters:  as a man falleth before wicked men, so fellest thou."  Abner's life and death are reminders that we can never be too sure of others.  Our trust is only entirely safe in one place.  In Him.

Mousetrap

Today's passage:  I Samuel 26
     One of my favorite cartoons in childhood was Tom and Jerry.  That cat and mouse worked hard to outwit each other at every turn.  In the later years, the ones that were broadcast when I was in upper elementary school, suddenly had Tom and Jerry as friends, working together to accomplish something, but with conflict along the way.  I never cared for the new format, because I could never buy into it.  In the older episodes, Tom and Jerry would cooperate on occasion, if it was in their interest, but never for very long.  It was much more fun to watch them chase each other around the house, devising traps for each other.  And besides, I knew the history of these two critters, how had they suddenly become friends?  It just didn't make any sense to me.
      I guess David and Saul's relationship reminds me a bit of Tom and Jerry.  I don't think David was trying to outwit Saul, as much as he was trying to prove that he would never harm his king.  David again spares Saul's life, to Abishai's great frustration and dismay, and to Abner's embarrassment.  Saul, even though David had a chance to kill him before and didn't, still pursues David.  Saul himself decides to embark on this endeavor to capture David.  It would seem from the last time we saw this scenario, that all would have been well between David and Saul.  But Saul did not invite David back to the palace, and David did not leave his wilderness living.  After a second time of showing mercy on Saul, David pleads with Saul to tell him what he has done to deserve such treatment.  David wished he could have at least had a reason.  But a godly man and an ungodly man living in the same residence is like a cat and mouse trying to live peacefully together.  How could Saul tell David what he did wrong, unless he were to admit he was less of a man?  That he wanted to live his life his way and not be reminded by this godly lad what God would prefer.  Just David's presence would be a constant reminder to Saul.

David prevents Saul from being killed--Taken from Standard Bible Readers, Book Four
By Lillie A. Faris, Illustrated by O.A. Stemler and Bess Bruce Cleaveland
The Standard Publishing Company, 1927

     Instead, Saul tries out the later episodes of Tom and Jerry "friends" ploy.   He asks  David for forgiveness and tells David he can return.  But David is too familiar with the old Tom and Jerry episodes, when Tom was always trying to bait Jerry.  David tells Saul if he would like his spear back, to send one of his men after it.  The end of this conversation may have sounded like all was well between them, but they both knew that neither of them could live together.  Hence, Saul returns to his palace, willing to be foiled again, and David returns to the wilderness, anticipating a new trap. 
     It seems sad that Saul (like Tom cat) could not be trusted.  He could put on the smile, recite the forgiveness speech and pretend he wanted David back, but only to destroy him, not to fellowship with him.  David (like Jerry mouse) continually had to judge these speeches, sidestep the traps and live waiting for the next cat chase.  Not the life for me.  But really, my relationship with the devil is the same.  Satan is Tom cat trying to win me over with sweet words while keeping his carefully laid trap covered, hoping I will not discover it before I step in.  If I am as savvy as Jerry mouse, I will look past the grand speeches and instinctively know about the trap he has devised for me.  Satan and I cannot, and can never be friends.  His only motive for winning me over is to have me for lunch.  If I ever believe anything else, I will have bought into those later episodes of Tom and Jerry. 

Outlaws

Today's passage: I Samuel 22
     I have always loved the story of Robin Hood.  I've watched movies, cartoons, TV shows about the noble turned outlaw who brings justice to England by stealing from Prince John and showering the peasants with riches.  I'm not endorsing this kind of behavior, but it makes for a fun story. 
     The next several chapters in Samuel seem to be the beginning of David's "Robin Hood" days.  Maybe Robin Hood was loosely based on David's life.  Can you see the similarities?  David lives in forests and caves, think Sherwood Forest.  David is surrounded by mighty instead of merry men.  They flee from town to town to escape the king who is after them.  The only thing missing is the "rob from the rich to give to the poor" theme.
     God had already prepared David for roaming the countryside.  When David was a shepherd, he would have led his sheep to many pastures, to many streams.  David would have been very familiar with the land, because as a shepherd, he had to be.  David had no idea this was knowledge he was going to need in the future, but it was.  He knew where enemies resided, he knew the borders, he knew the landscape.  I wonder if David felt a little like Moses in the wilderness.  I wonder if David thought about Moses and his ancestors as they wandered the length of Israel, not being yet able to settle in the Promised Land.  When he started to feel discouraged, maybe he remembered that he was not the only Israelite who had a season of wandering.
     David secures the safety of his family in Bethlehem.  He asks the king of Moab to shelter them until he is no longer in danger.  David probably figures that Saul would have no qualms harming his family, taking them as hostages, to coax David out of his hiding place.  The king of Moab agrees, not at all concerned about angering Israel's king.  An enemy of Saul's was a friend of his.  David uses this to his advantage.  Unfortunately, as we saw in last chapter he also used his celebrity and his relationship as son-in-law to the king to his advantage as well.  Ahimelech is discovered to have helped David (thanks to Doeg the Edomite).  Saul requests a conference with him, and Ahimelech is surprised to learn that David had lied to him.  Completely.  Ahimelech cannot convince Saul that he had no knowledge that David was a fugitive.  Saul believes him to be in league with David.  Ahimelech and all the priests of Nob are executed.  Only Abiathar, Ahimelech's grandson (I think) escapes.  Doeg the Edomite (who would not care at all what God's Word said about how to treat a priest) is the only man who will lay a hand on God's men.  No other of Saul's servants will do this dastardly deed. 
     Abiathar locates David.  He reports to David what has happened in Nob.  I'm sure David is greatly affected by this news.  "And David said unto Abiathar,...I have occasioned the death of all the persons of thy father's house."  Really there is no excuse I can offer for David.  He was responsible, he was the reason.  Ahimelech may have elected to help David anyway had he known the truth about why David had come to him.  But that should have been Ahimelech's choice.  He should have been able to choose for himself whether he was going to defy the king and help the outlaw, not be deceived into it.  Was it right for Ahimelech to aid and abet David?  Absolutely.  God was with David.  But Ahimelech was tricked.  I'm sure David felt the full weight of responsibility for the outcome.  Would it change David's future behavior?  We shall see.
     Robin Hood may have been a legend.  David was real.  David's actions brought real consequences.  Our choices in life affect others.  I'm sure if David could take back these actions, he would have.  If he could have seen the forest for the trees, he may have behaved differently.  Nothing I do in this life affects only me.  My choices affect others around me.  My sin will taint other lives, whether I choose to believe that or not.  My good choices will produce good results and will be a good influence.  My poor choices will bring about bad results and bad influences.  Abiathar had no where else to go.  Now he had no choice but to run with David, because to do otherwise would mean death.  Saul would never be convinced that Abiathar was not involved in a conspiracy against him.  David is still God's man.  He failed, as we all fail.  He will fail again, as we all will fail again.  Still God is merciful to us and gives us chance upon chance to do better. 
   Although I love the story of Robin Hood, I can't say that I approve of his methods.  Stealing is never right, no matter how it is fashioned.  Deceit is wrong whether you are a fugitive storybook hero, or the king's fugitive son-in-law.   And the results do not bring about a happy ending.

A Little Truth

Today's passage: I Samuel 21
     In a day where we have electronic devices that give us information at a moment's notice, Ahimelech the priest was at a great disadvantage.  He did not have a computer to access the morning news reporting about David fleeing from Saul.  He couldn't text his friends in the palace to verify David's story.  He didn't have an I-pad that had an app for fugitive lists.  Ahimelech had to do something that few of us need to do today.  He had to trust David.  He had to believe that David was telling him the truth.  Of course, David wasn't.  Saul had not sent David on a mission, David was the mission.  David was not in Saul's service now, but he pretended to be. 
     David had a reputation that preceded him.  He was a kind of celebrity in Israel.  He had beaten the giant, he had killed other Philistines, he had married the king's daughter, he was known to be a man of God.  So Ahimelech does not feel the need to check out David's story.  He believes him.  He may have also been a little dazzled by David.  This famous man was in his tent, asking him for bread.  Who wouldn't be a little star struck?
     David was not perfect.  David chose to lie his way out of the situation, so he could seek safety and so he could satisfy his hunger.  God did not strike him down with lightning for this, but there is a much deeper issue.  David must have been trustworthy, but would he continue to be?  Would David burn a bridge with Ahimelech, when the priest learned the truth?  Would Ahimelech feel as if he had been played for a fool?  Nobody likes to feel foolish.  Nobody likes to have egg on their face.  David was only concerned about the rescue, not the relationship. 
     It is never to our advantage if a person looks at us with skepticism, it is never to our credit if someone has to refer to other sources to secure whether we are being truthful.  We need to deal truthfully in all areas of our life, not just generally.  Just because David did it, doesn't mean he got away with it.  He did what he felt was necessary, but God could have made another way for him, if he had elected to wait on Him.  This became an unfortunate pattern in David's life, which extended down into his children.
     Lying takes many different forms in excuses, deceit, pretense.  God wants us to be rid of all of it.  I would like to think that I have never been involved in any of it, but if I examine myself, I have.  It is not worth it.  It will cost me trust with my children, it will cause my friends to be wary, it will make me less useful for my Lord.  How honest am I with the police officer when he pulls me over for a ticket?  Do I pretend I did not realize I was going so fast or didn't see the "No Parking" sign?  When I am craving chocolate and there are only two cookies left, do I tell the boys there is no dessert so I can pocket them later because I don't want to admit to my selfishness?  When I am asked how I like someone's haircut, do I smile and rave when I hadn't even noticed, or truthfully am not that crazy about the new style?  I would like to think that God does not really care about these silly little things, but He cares about it all.  If I want to be honest, I have to first start with being honest with myself.  And truthfully, really truthfully, I could improve in this area. 
     In a world where a handshake means nothing, every story has to be checked with snopes, and someone's word has to be challenged, honesty is important.  If God's people can't be trusted in every area of life, how can we be trusted to be telling the truth about God?  That is why we ultimately need to be honest in all of our dealings.  If someone discovers we were dishonest about something small, they will automatically assume we will be dishonest about something big.  And nobody's soul is worth that.  Honestly, it is not.