Sunday, February 8, 2009
Moving to WordPress
I know I only have a dozen or so posts, but I'm already moving to a new blog. WordPress is my new poison. It seems to be more refined than Blogger. The new site is http://isworthy.wordpress.com/ and the feed is http://isworthy.wordpress.com/feed/. I've migrated all the posts and comments.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Jonathan's Fate
I love my Sunday School class. Our teacher is Mr. Stemen who is actually an even better Sunday School teacher than a computer teacher. I learn a lot at Sunday School and am continually challenged on a personal level. A few Sundays ago we were in I Samuel.
In chapter 13 Saul offers the sacrifice before Samuel comes and Samuel says, "Thou has done foolishly". In chapter 14 Jonathan and his armor bearer defeat a 20 man garrison of the Philistines. In 14:3 "the people knew not that Jonathan was gone". After their victory it says vs. 15 that the "earth quaked". Saul then numbered his company in vs. 17 and found that "Jonathan and his armor bearer were not there". For the trembling Saul "talked unto a priest" apparently looking for direction from God as to what to do, but "noise that was in the host of the Philistines went on and increased" Saul stopped consulting and assembled the people and went to meet the Philistines. There they found "every man's sword was against his fellow". Such sets the stage for the account I am interested in.
At some point during the battle Saul "adjured the people, saying Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies." We are specifically told that "Jonathan heard not when his father charged the people with the oath", therefore when he saw a honeycomb he ate some honey and "his eyes were enlightened." Only then did one of the people tell him of his fathers command. Jonathan defends his actions and implies that his fathers command limited their victory.
As for the remainder of the people they "flew upon the spoil" and "did eat them with the blood". When Saul was told he stops the practice. Later Saul asks God if they should mount a night attack on the Philistines. When God doesn't answer "that day" Saul assumes there is sin and deepens the punishment from the "Cursed be the man" earlier to "shall surely die." Saul also specifically says "though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die".
Lots are drawn, and when Jonathan's lot is taken he tells his father about the honey saying "and, lo, I must die." Mr. Stemen took this along the lines of You're kidding right? Die for eating a bit of honey when I didn't know of the command? It was also later pointed out in our class that Saul knew Jonathan had not heard the decree because he had numbered the people and found Jonathan missing. I have no reason to doubt this interpretation. In my mind I had been thinking that it was more of a confirmation of the results of the command saying I understand I have violated the command and must therefore receive the punishment of the death., but I know of no support either way.
Regardless Saul says "for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan". Verse 45 then says "And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought his great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not."
It was pointed out by someone in our class that when Saul first became king he prevented those that had opposed him from being killed, but that here opposition from his own son should meet with death. On the other hand it was also pointed out that it appears God did not answer Saul about the battle because of Jonathan's vioation of the king's command.
Thinking about these things leads me to several questions. Why is Jonathan held accountable for a command he did not hear? Was is going against the garrison wrong because it was not a command of Saul? Is it just that the violation of the command must be punished even though Jonathan's action was not a personal sin? Was Jonathan's sin that of not explaining the situation to his father as soon as he heard of the command? In this later case Jonathan could have prevented his fathers seeming elevation of the punishment from curse to death.
On the other hand the text as a whole seems to cast Jonathan in a better light than Saul. Saul had just sinned before God with the sacrifice and then stopped from inquiring of God to go to battle and then makes a decree that made it difficult for the people not to sin in eating the blood. At the same time Jonathan covenants with God for a battle, trusts God for strength in the battle, and of course later basically gives the kingdom he was destined for to David. Of course good does not justify wrongdoing.
So the question is, should Jonathan have died. The command was clear -- death. Saul gave no exception for Jonathan or his armorbearer even though he knew they were not present for the command, going as far as to specifically point out that if it Jonathan that he will be killed. God apparently was honoring his King by witholding an answer.
Unfortunatly this is a situation I don't know the answer for. My heart goes out to Jonathan as did the people's, yet my logic says he should have died. Perhaps I'm missing something that will bring this all into focus.
In chapter 13 Saul offers the sacrifice before Samuel comes and Samuel says, "Thou has done foolishly". In chapter 14 Jonathan and his armor bearer defeat a 20 man garrison of the Philistines. In 14:3 "the people knew not that Jonathan was gone". After their victory it says vs. 15 that the "earth quaked". Saul then numbered his company in vs. 17 and found that "Jonathan and his armor bearer were not there". For the trembling Saul "talked unto a priest" apparently looking for direction from God as to what to do, but "noise that was in the host of the Philistines went on and increased" Saul stopped consulting and assembled the people and went to meet the Philistines. There they found "every man's sword was against his fellow". Such sets the stage for the account I am interested in.
At some point during the battle Saul "adjured the people, saying Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies." We are specifically told that "Jonathan heard not when his father charged the people with the oath", therefore when he saw a honeycomb he ate some honey and "his eyes were enlightened." Only then did one of the people tell him of his fathers command. Jonathan defends his actions and implies that his fathers command limited their victory.
As for the remainder of the people they "flew upon the spoil" and "did eat them with the blood". When Saul was told he stops the practice. Later Saul asks God if they should mount a night attack on the Philistines. When God doesn't answer "that day" Saul assumes there is sin and deepens the punishment from the "Cursed be the man" earlier to "shall surely die." Saul also specifically says "though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die".
Lots are drawn, and when Jonathan's lot is taken he tells his father about the honey saying "and, lo, I must die." Mr. Stemen took this along the lines of You're kidding right? Die for eating a bit of honey when I didn't know of the command? It was also later pointed out in our class that Saul knew Jonathan had not heard the decree because he had numbered the people and found Jonathan missing. I have no reason to doubt this interpretation. In my mind I had been thinking that it was more of a confirmation of the results of the command saying I understand I have violated the command and must therefore receive the punishment of the death., but I know of no support either way.
Regardless Saul says "for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan". Verse 45 then says "And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought his great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not."
It was pointed out by someone in our class that when Saul first became king he prevented those that had opposed him from being killed, but that here opposition from his own son should meet with death. On the other hand it was also pointed out that it appears God did not answer Saul about the battle because of Jonathan's vioation of the king's command.
Thinking about these things leads me to several questions. Why is Jonathan held accountable for a command he did not hear? Was is going against the garrison wrong because it was not a command of Saul? Is it just that the violation of the command must be punished even though Jonathan's action was not a personal sin? Was Jonathan's sin that of not explaining the situation to his father as soon as he heard of the command? In this later case Jonathan could have prevented his fathers seeming elevation of the punishment from curse to death.
On the other hand the text as a whole seems to cast Jonathan in a better light than Saul. Saul had just sinned before God with the sacrifice and then stopped from inquiring of God to go to battle and then makes a decree that made it difficult for the people not to sin in eating the blood. At the same time Jonathan covenants with God for a battle, trusts God for strength in the battle, and of course later basically gives the kingdom he was destined for to David. Of course good does not justify wrongdoing.
So the question is, should Jonathan have died. The command was clear -- death. Saul gave no exception for Jonathan or his armorbearer even though he knew they were not present for the command, going as far as to specifically point out that if it Jonathan that he will be killed. God apparently was honoring his King by witholding an answer.
Unfortunatly this is a situation I don't know the answer for. My heart goes out to Jonathan as did the people's, yet my logic says he should have died. Perhaps I'm missing something that will bring this all into focus.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Do Right
My eldest son Luke did something the other day and I thought, I should blog about that. It was then that I came to the shocking realization that I haven't blogged about my children at all. Perhaps I thought the posts would be too whimsical or lacking in broad enough appeal. In any case I'm not trying to sell you anything so here goes.
The other day I gave Luke and Emily some instructions before bedtime about some things I wanted done in the morning. I was surprised to find that not only had they followed my instructions to the letter, but they did a good job as well. We don't normally reward our children for obedience, but sometimes we like to just so they know we are watching and appreciate their cheerful submission. In this case we decided to take them to Chick-fil-a. They seemed to enjoy it. That night I was giving Luke instructions for the next morning and he asked the question, "And what will I get if I do that?" Needless to say we had a little chat about doing right because it is right to do.
The other day I gave Luke and Emily some instructions before bedtime about some things I wanted done in the morning. I was surprised to find that not only had they followed my instructions to the letter, but they did a good job as well. We don't normally reward our children for obedience, but sometimes we like to just so they know we are watching and appreciate their cheerful submission. In this case we decided to take them to Chick-fil-a. They seemed to enjoy it. That night I was giving Luke instructions for the next morning and he asked the question, "And what will I get if I do that?" Needless to say we had a little chat about doing right because it is right to do.
Friday, January 23, 2009
More Than Just A Command
Most people know the content of Exodus 20:14 - "Thou shalt not commit adultery." While this is true and is surely sufficient reason to avoid adultery, the scripture has more to say about the subject.
Proverbs 6: 32-33 for example tells us the nature of the person committing adultery as well as some of the grave results.
Proverbs 6: 32-33 for example tells us the nature of the person committing adultery as well as some of the grave results.
But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.Often we don't get all of the why behind God's commands, but in this case God gives us a little more than just the command. All the more reason to love and trust him more.
A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Competition and Regulation
In the December 15, 2008 issue of InformationWeek the Feedback section had a comment from Wally Garneau that I found interesting. Regarding the government's roll in proping up companies and markets he said "...while competition is far better than regulation, in the absence of true competition, you'd better have regulation." This comment in a nutshell explains what is so wrong with the bailouts. By removing competition as a factor in eliminating unsuccessful companies the only way to make sure the money is not missued is to regulate it, but the regulator is government which is itself inherently worse at big business. It's an all around failure. We borrow money we don't have to give to companies. We add a layer of ineffective government monitoring, and we save an unprofitable company temporarily from demise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
