Our girls playing in the rain
Originally uploaded by rblackstock
Our girls enjoying the rain yesterday.
Missionary to Latin America, living in El Salvador. Making disciples who will make disciples who will make disciples.
Our girls enjoying the rain yesterday.
As someone that has provided computer tech support to various people over the years, I found this to be pretty funny. Enjoy. :-)
Affluenza, a portmanteau of affluence and influenza, is a term used by critics of consumerism. Sources define this term as follows:
Here I am going to make two assumptions about what happened that cannot be supported nor refuted in the scriptures:3. David sees Bathsheba bathing, sees that she is beautiful to look upon, and decides to keep looking.
- Assumption #1 David was not looking for trouble, his glance simply came to rest on something he had no business looking at. He made the decision to sin in continuing to look and then act upon it further, but the fact that he happened to see her bathing was not necessarily sin. Just as if we are innocently walking down the street and have something inappropriate come into view, the issue is what happens next. Do we keep on looking, or do we look away?
- Assumption #2 Bathsheba was also not looking for trouble, she was simply taking a bath. It was very likely that many "private" places ceased to be private if viewed from a sufficient altitude. The place where she was bathing might have been quite private unless viewed from somewhere up high, such as the roof of the palace. So I am assuming that Bathsheba had no ulterior motives for bathing as she did, other than to be clean.
Here is where I believe we see the role of The Traveller in the real life events.5. The Traveller shows up and needs to be fed. David sees Bathsheba and a sexual desire is stirred within him.
So The Traveller (in this case) is the sexual desire that was stirred up within David after seeing Bathsheba. Without becoming too graphic, think this through with me for a moment.
Is our naturally occuring sex drive something good or something bad when used within the biblical context of marriage? Something good obviously. Used outside of the biblical context of marriage, it is sin. Clearly.6. The Rich Man takes the Cherished Lamb from the Poor Man to feed The Traveller. David chooses to sin in looking more at Bathsheba, inquiring after her, and ultimately bringing her to the palace.
David sees something that "gets his motor running", so to speak, by innocently glancing down from the roof and seeing something he shouldn't have seen, and didn't intend to see.
The Traveller arrives at the Rich Man's house and needs to be fed. A sexual desire that in and of itself is not wrong arrives within David.
Now the question is: Which lamb will feed The Traveller? One of the many lambs from the Rich Man's own flocks of which he is rightfully entitled to, or the Cherished Lamb that does not belong to him.
So the question is: How will David feed this naturally occurring desire? By being with one of his many wives or concubines of which he is rightfully entitled to, or the woman Bathsheba that is loved and cherished by her husband Uriah?
Remember in Part II when we talked about how things would have been different if the Rich Man had simply fed The Traveller one of the many lambs he rightfully owned? No harm, no foul right? The Traveller is fed. The Rich Man is happy. The Poor Man is happy. And The Cherished Lamb goes on being cherished by the Poor Man.
The Traveller did not doing anything wrong did he? He was just hungry. The sin was committed by the Rich Man in how he chose to feed The Traveller.
So how would the story of David be different if he had decided to feed the desire in a righteous way?
Imagine with me how the story would have been different had David accidently seen Bathsheba. His "desire" is stirred. He goes and spends some time with one of his many wives or concubines, as he was righteously entitled to do. No harm, no foul right? The desire is fed. David is happy. Uriah is happy. And Bathsheba goes on being cherished by her own husband Uriah.
OK, so in part II of this short series about King David, we are going to look specifically at the story that the Prophet Nathan used to confront David with his sin in II Samuel chapter 12.
And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
2 Samuel 12:1-4
Let’s begin by breaking down the story into its main characters:
These are the characters in the story that always receive the attention in every sermon I have ever heard about this story. Their parallels in real life are easily identifiable as David (Rich Man), Uriah (Poor Man), and Bathsheba (Cherished Lamb).
But there is another character in the story that doesn’t seem to get much attention. A character whose parallel in real life is a little less obvious than the rest.
Look with me again in verse 4:
And there came a traveller unto the rich man, 2 Samuel 12:4a
We find here our fourth character in this story:
4. The Traveller
Who is this traveller? We aren’t given very much information about him in the story, he just arrives at the home of the Rich Man and the Rich Man is compelled to feed him.
Let’s review briefly what happens in the story as it is written:
Now let’s imagine the story played out in a different way, and I think this will help us to identify who The Traveller represents:
In this imagined version of the story, there is no problem right? No harm, no foul. The Rich Man is happy. The Poor Man is happy with his Cherished Lamb. The Traveller is happy and full of delicious lamb chops.
The point is this: The arrival of The Traveller set things in motion, but the simple fact that the traveller arrived at the house of the rich man was not in and of itself anything bad. It could have ended up differently than it did.
This is getting long. So stay tuned for Part III coming soon!
Who do you think The Traveller represents in the real life story of David? Who do you think The Traveller represents in our lives?
And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.There it is. It's that punch in the gut you know you deserve. As you lay there on the ground gasping for breath, you are incapable of being angry because you know it is exactly what you needed.
And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD.David chose correctly. His repentance didn't eliminate the consequences that followed, but fellowship with the Lord was restored.
I am the Lord's, and now no longer reckon myself to be my own but acknowledge in everything his ownership and authority. That is the attitude God delights in, and to maintain it is true consecration. I do not consecrate myself to be a missionary or a preacher; I consecrate myself to God to do his will where I am, be it in school, office or kitchen or wherever he ordains for me is sure to be the very best, for nothing but good can come to those who are wholly his.
May we always be possessed by the consciousness that we are not our own.
"For it is our wills that are in question here. That strong self-assertive will of mine must go to the Cross, and I must give myself wholly to the Lord. We cannot expect a tailor to make us a coat if we do not give him any cloth, nor a builder to build us a house if we let him have no building material; and in just the same way we cannot expect the Lord to live out his life in us if we do not give him our lives in which to live. Without reservations, without controversy, we must give ourselves to him to do as he pleases with us."
I have been spending some time these past few weeks in Psalm 119 and have really been refreshed by the continual challenge to love and obey God’s Word.
This morning I read the following verse and was challenged by God to think about my attitude toward obedience.
I have inclined mine heart to perform thy statutes alway, even unto the end. Psalms 119:112
David made a decision today about what he was going to do in the future. He decided that he was going to obey God’s statutes unto the end.
David had premeditated obedience.
David committed to obeying God for the rest of his life. Would he fail again even after making this strong commitment to God? Sure, just like we will. But the point is that his life was aimed at obedience. Obedience was the driving force. Obedience was the plan.
Failures caused temporary deviations from the plan of obedience, but David was committed to getting back on course as quickly as possible.
How far in advance are you committed to obeying God? Are you just taking things day-by-day, seeing how things will go, and then deciding to obey God or not depending on what circumstances exist in your life?
I want to have premeditated obedience like David did. Every new circumstance that God allows in my life should not require the question to be answered anew, “Will I obey this time?”.
Lord, I have inclined my heart to perform thy statutes always, even unto the end.