Skip to main content

Wednesday Wanderings for 5/14

We’re taking a look in 1 Chronicles 22 tonight, and I’m hung up on the idea that David wasn’t permitted to build the Temple. The reason given is that he had shed much blood (1 Chronicles 22:8). I can see that in light of the continual warfare, but was it not done at God’s command?

I think, but I’m not sure, that there are a few more things to consider in light of this.

First, David went overboard at times. Consider back to his time at Ziklag in 1 Samuel 30, among others. David not only fought, but he tended to go ahead and kill off survivors or slaughter whole towns.

Second, David went along with violent men. Looking at Joab and others, David allowed violent people into his inner circle, and went along with their actions. Even when he knew what they had been up to and disagreed with it.

Third, violence retains consequences. Every person killed in battle with David and Israel, and every civilian killed afterward in the mop-up work, was a bearer of the image of God. True, many of them were in opposition to Israel and would have gladly done the same had their side won, but death is still a loss. Violence is still a problem.

Fourth, our actions for God may not be as much in line with God’s righteousness as we think. Take note of how many wars David fought that were neither defensive nor commanded by God. God was with him as he fought, but were these righteous? I’m not sure—but it reads like David thought so.

This all leads me to wonder: What am I doing that, in the long run, disqualifies from serving God fully? Is there some way in which I think I am doing for God but am not?

I’m not sure. But it bears consideration in all our lives.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Independence Day 2017

I don’t know if Thomas Paine will be aggrieved that I paste his thoughts from Common Sense here, from the electronic edition. It’s a Public Domain work at this point, so hopefully none will be bothered that I am not paying for it...I think there is value in seeing the underlying reasons of Independence. I find a couple of things noteworthy in his introduction:First, he speaks of those who disagree and, while calling those out, holds the strength of his affirmative argument will be enough to straighten them out. We could do well to think more like that.Second, his final sentence should be a required view: the influence of reason and principle. Not self-interest masquerading as principle. Not party propaganda disguised as reason.That being said, not everything Paine said is right. If he and I lived at the same time, we’d argue religion over a great deal. However, the idea of “natural rights of man” follows from the idea of humanity as a special creation—that all are created equal and en…