Old Testament Archives - Page 120 of 141

The David Chronicles 32: A Study in Failure

Joe Harby on January 22, 2012

Introduction

As 1 Samuel comes to a close, the life of Saul comes to a miserable end. As we will see, the manner of his death was a fitting picture of the way he had lived his life throughout the course of his reign. His reign was a long pattern of self-destruction, and in the end, Saul took his own life—the final act of self-destruction. He died the way he had lived, destroying himself.

The Text

“Now the Philistines fought against Israel: and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain in mount Gilboa. . .” (1 Sam. 31:1-13).

Summary of the Text

The chapter begins with the Philistines attacking, and they routed the men of Israel. As they fled from the Philistines, the carnage took place on the mountain Gilboa (v. 1). The Philistines were in hard pursuit of Saul and his three sons, and they successfully killed Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua (v. 2). In the next verse, the battle was going hard against Saul, and he was badly wounded by the Philistine archers (v. 3). The language here indicates an ongoing battle, which means it was not an utter rout. His wounds apparently made it impossible for him to continue the fight. Saul then told his armor-bearer to kill him, to keep the Philistines from abusing him. The armor-bearer refused, and so Saul fell on a sword, taking his own life (v. 4). When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he followed him, doing the same thing (v. 5). And so Saul, his three sons, his armor-bearer, and a number of other men with him, all died on the same day (v. 6). The men on the other side of the Jordan (not very many miles away), when they saw that the battle had gone badly for them, evacuated their cities, which the Philistines then occupied (v. 7). The Philistines came around the next day to strip the dead, and it was then that they identified Saul and his three sons (v. 8). They decapitated Saul, stripped his armor, and sent the armor to their homeland in triumph (v. 9). They displayed his armor in the temple of Ashtaroth—similar to how the Israelites kept Goliath’s sword at the house of the Lord. Saul’s body was then hung on the wall of Beth-shan (v. 10). When the men of Jabesh-gilead heard what had happened, their valiant men went there and recovered the bodies of Saul and his sons, brought them back and burned them (vv. 11-12). After that, they took the remaining bones, buried them under a tamarisk tree, and fasted for seven days (v. 13).

We should say a quick word here about the story of the Amalekite at the beginning of 2 Samuel who tried to ingratiate himself with David by falsely claiming to have killed Saul. The story was false (conflicting with this narrative), and David convicted him on his own terms. We should rather trust the author of 1 Samuel than a self- aggrandizing (and not very smart) Amalekite.

Burial and Cremation

The customary biblical approach to the dead is that of burial. The customary pagan approach is that of burning the body in cremation. The difference has to do with making a good testimony about the hope of resurrection, and not because it is somehow harder for God to raise someone who has been burned than one who has been buried. The resurrection is not threatened by any degree of decomposition, however it happens.

For example, Joseph gave instructions about his bones, and he did this because he wanted to make a declaration of his faith (Heb. 11:22). In this passage, the heroic men of Jabesh-gilead burned the bodies of Saul and his sons because wanted to prevent any further dishonor to the bodies. This was the whole point of their mission. Jonathan is not going to be short-changed on the day of resurrection. Later in the story, David has the bones of Saul and Jonathan (and presumably the others) moved from this place to the family tomb (2 Sam. 21:12-14). Among the Israelites, there is one other mention of burning bodies (apart from unique penal or sacrificial situations), and it is found in Amos 6:10, where the concern is apparently to stop the spread of contagious disease. Under ordinary circumstances, though, the biblical pattern for dealing with the bodies of the faithful is through burial—in sure and certain hope of the resurrection.

A Study in Failure

The trajectory of Saul’s life had certainly been one of spiraling failure. He was characterized by his stiff-necked and close-fisted jealousies, and it was by this that he destroyed himself. By the end of his life, it could not be said that the Philistines had killed him—he had done it himself. It could not be said that David had removed him from the throne—he had done it himself. It could not be said that anyone other than Saul was responsible for the disaster of his final days. Saul did all of this by his own hand or, more specifically, by his own devouring envy. His end was decisive—he was struck with arrows, pierced in his belly, had his head cut off, and then he was burned.

He was buried under a tamarisk tree. The last time we saw him there, he was holding a tyrant’s spear in his hand, and lying about David (1 Sam. 22:6).

And yet, despite the fact that Saul fell to his death in this great catastrophe, we see even in this tragic conclusion, the height from which he fell. The men of Jabesh-gilead who retrieved his body were the first Israelites whom Saul had delivered from their enemies (1 Sam. 11:5-11). They were still grateful for what Saul had done in his better days. This is true also of David, who delivers one of the noblest eulogies ever (2 Sam. 1:17ff).

40 Years for Nothing

This book begins with a leader of Israel dying, along with his sons, as the result of a disastrous battle. The book ends the same way. The book begins with the Philistines in the ascendancy, and the book ends in the same way. The book begins with a great Philistine victory in battle, and it ends the same way. And yet, Saul’s appointed mission had been to deliver Israel from the Philistines (1 Sam. 9:16).

Saul did not do what he was commissioned to do. We are devoted to good works that God has commissioned us to do (Eph. 2:8-10), but our lives will go exactly as Saul’s did—unless we trust in the greater David, the Lord Jesus. He is the only one who perfectly fulfilled the mission that was entrusted to Him. Therefore God has highly exalted Him—as He did with David in a type—and this is why we can walk in the good works that God prepared beforehand for us to do.

The David Chronicles 31: The Open Hand Rules

Joe Harby on January 15, 2012

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

This chapter recounts a victory that David has over the Amalekites, a battle that occurs at the same time that Saul is being overcome by the Philistines. David comes into a great victory on the third day, and his persistent adversary Saul dies at the same time. Although this passage tells of David’s victory, a large portion of the text deals with David as the gift-giver, David as a generous-hearted king.

The Text

“And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag, and burned it with fire; And had taken the women captives, that were therein: they slew not any, either great or small, but carried them away, and went on their way . . .” (1 Sam. 30:1-31).

Summary of the Text

David and his men took three days to get home, and when they got there they found it had been burnt by the Amalekites (v. 1). They had not killed anybody, but took all the women and children captive (v. 2). David and his men came back to devastation (v. 3). They all wept until they had no more ability to weep (v. 4). David’s two wives had been taken as well (v. 5). David was in great trouble; his men were talking about stoning him. But David encouraged himself in the Lord (v. 6). He summoned the ephod that Abiathar had (v. 7). The prophetic word told him to pursue the Amalekites and that they would recover everything (v. 8). And so they took to the chase (v. 9). When they got to the brook Besor, 200 men had to be left there (v. 10). Remember they had all been on the march for three days already.

As they continued their pursuit, they found an Egyptian in the field, and they fed him (v. 11). When they did this, his spirit revived, for he had not eaten for 3 days and 3 nights (v. 12). David found out who he was, and why he was abandoned there (v. 13). He outlined the course the raiding Amalekites had taken (v. 14). David asks if he can lead them to the Amalekites, which he agrees to do upon the condition of being spared (v. 15). When he led them there, they were spread all over the place, celebrating (v. 16). David attacked them immediately, and the fighting lasted into the next day (v. 17). Only 400 of them escaped (the total number that David had with him to begin with). David recovered everything and everyone (vv. 18-19). David was given all the spoil (v. 20).

On the return, they came to the men who couldn’t cross the Besor, and they came out to greet David (v. 21). The men of Belial that David had with him wanted to give them their own wives and children only, and send them off (v. 22). David answers in terms of the Lord’s generosity to them (v. 23). David rules in terms of the law (Num. 31:25-31), but he also legislates in the spirit of it (vv. 24-25). When David returned home, he distributed from the spoil to the elders of Judah, in all the places where David and his men were accustomed to go (v. 26-31).

The Third Day

Paul tells us that Jesus rose on the third day in accordance with the Scripture (1 Cor. 15:4). But how was this in accordance with Scripture? It was not so much a specific prophecy as it was something in agreement with the motifs of Scripture, in harmony with some repeated themes. Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days (Matt. 12:40). On the third day the Lord will raise us up (Hos. 6:2). The first sign of life in the creation week was on the third day (Gen. 1:11-12). Isaac “died” and came back to life on the third day of their journey to Moriah (Gen. 22:4). The Lord made a covenant with the people of Israel at Sinai on the third day (Ex. 19:11,15-16). These days are not just counters; they signify.

On the third day, Saul dies. On the third day, David weeps, seeks encouragement from God, and is raised up. And what a resurrection! On the third day, David finds an Egyptian slave who had been without food and water for three days. On the third day, the Amalekites are scattered. On the third day, David takes plunder from the adversary. On the third day, David gives gifts to men. On the third day back in Ziklag, David receives news of the death of Saul.

David Honored

David had sought encouragement from God, and God had granted it. When confronted with an obstacle, unlike Saul, David did not conclude that God had abandoned him. An obstacle was simply and opportunity to trust. He seeks God’s direction, and when he gets it, he follows it. When he follows it, what does God do for him? The one who honors God, God will honor. David smote them (v. 17), David recovered all (v. 18), David rescued (v. 18), David recovered all (v. 19), David took (v. 20), and so it was all David’s spoil (v. 20).

All of Scripture ties together. Moses was also in the wilderness for a time, and had to deal with the people wanting to stone him (Ex. 17:4). And Moses had to deal with this right before a victory over the Amalekites (Ex. 17:8). God loves to put on the same play over and over again, casting different actors in the same role. And they picked up stones to throw at Jesus (Jn. 8:59).

The Kingly Heart

A despot knows how to work with bribes and influence peddlers (1 Sam. 22:7). This is not the same thing as imitating the generosity of God. The cosmos works according to the laws of reciprocity without being a vending machine. You can trick a vending machine.

When 200 of his men grow faint, David is an understanding leader (vv. 9-10). When they come upon an Egyptian slave, they feed him—before knowing if he can be a help to them or not (v. 12). When they return to the men who had been left with the supplies, David makes a law for Israel—the supply corps shares in the spoil (v. 23). Compare this to the sons of Belial who thought they were being generous (v. 22). And David then gives gifts throughout the region (vv. 26-31).

The key principle is found in v.23, and in the heart of David. Freely we have received; freely let us give (Matt. 10:8).

The David Chronicles 30: The God of Brinksmanship

Joe Harby on January 8, 2012

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

The set-up for the battle of Mt. Gilboa had provoked Saul to seek out the witch of Endor. With that episode done, we come now to a fork in the road. Chapter 30 describes David’s victorious battle against the Amalekites, and chapter 31 describes Saul’s disastrous defeat at the hands of the Philistines. The book of 1 Samuel ends with that marked contrast.

The Text

“Now the Philistines gathered together all their armies to Aphek: and the Israelites pitched by a fountain which is in Jezreel . . ..” (1 Sam. 29:1-11).

Summary of the Text

The Philistines gathered together for war at Aphek (v. 1), the same place where they had captured the ark of the covenant earlier in this book, many years before. The lords of the Philistines were the kings of each of their five major cities. Achish was the last of them to arrive at the muster, and David came with him (v. 2). The Philistine leaders were dubious about the presence of Hebrew soldiers as they prepared for a great battle with the Hebrew nation (v. 3). Achish, with perhaps a lack of appropriate diplomacy, said, “Oh, that’s actually David” (v. 3). The Philistine leaders, with more insight than Achish had, were angry with Achish and demanded that David be sent back to wherever Achish was keeping him (v. 4). They knew that David could force a reconciliation with Saul by turning on them in the midst of the battle (v. 4), and they even knew the song that had turned Saul against David in the first place (v. 5). Achish summons David, and swears to him in the name of YHWH (v. 6). This indicates he was perhaps a convert, and assures David that he had found no fault with him at all . . . but the Philistine lords were of a different mind (v. 6). So Achish asks David to go quietly, lest trouble flare up with the Philistine lords on the spot (v. 7). David’s reply is filled with possible ironies. Why can he not go out and fight against the enemies of “my lord the king” (v. 8)? This is how David had spoken about Saul on various occasions (1 Sam. 24:8, 10; 1 Sam. 26:17-18). Achish says that David had been an “angel of God” in his sight, but the other guys don’t think so. They were afraid he would turn and become an adversary to them. Their word for adversary (v. 4) is satan. He asks David to get up and depart at the break of the new day (v. 10), which, as it turns out, was the break of Israel’s new day. So David returned home to Ziklag (v.11), and the Philistines advanced toward the death of Saul (v. 11).

Irony and Loyalty

David had been true to Saul, and yet Saul was treacherous toward him. David had been (understandably) false with Achish, and yet Achish was true toward him. Saul attacked David multiple times; Achish defended David multiple times. Achish had made David his bodyguard for life (1 Sam. 28:2), while Saul had chased David out of his service. The Gentile king swore by YHWH and declared an innocent man innocent. The Israelite king swore by YHWH and declared an innocent man guilty. David is in a truly tight spot.

Setting the State for the Final Contrast

Given how tight the chronology is here, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that David was fighting the Amalekites in chapter 30 at the same time Saul was fighting the Philistines in 31. David fights and is victorious, while Saul fights and is utterly defeated. David fights with the Amalekites—and it was Saul’s disastrous disobedience with his Amalekite victory that set his disintegration in motion. The prospect for Saul’s battle looked very bad, and it was bad. The prospect for David’s battle looked very bad, and it was good.

Cliffhanger Sanctification

You have heard before that God loves cliffhangers. He loves them because He loves what happens to us when we learn to trust Him in the tight spot. Trust learned there is a lesson long remembered. On the mount of the Lord it will be provided (Gen. 22:14). The Red Sea was not divided until the last possible moment, when the Israelite multitude had water lapping at their toes, and an Egyptian army at their back (Ex. 14:10). Trust God one day at a time (Matt. 6:34), and this of course includes those days when there is no apparent means of deliverance. And then here is this instance. David was penned in, and it looked as though he was going to have to choose between treachery toward a king who had been treacherous toward him and treachery toward a king who had been very kind to him.

We can be sure of two things here. One is that if it had come to the point, David would have behaved as the Philistine lords predicted he would. The second is that David was trusting God that it would not come to that point, and God honored his trust. God did this by using the anger of the Philistine lords, and He uses all things, to His glory. As He tells His great story, the holy God is not contaminated by unholy instruments, any more Tolkien was contaminated by Gollum.

Book Learning

We all want to learn godly steadfastness, which is good, but our problem is that we want to learn all of it from books. We can and should learn “the plan” from books. After all, God wrote a book for us. The problem does not lie in the possession of a book, or in the reading of it, or in the study of it. All such things are good. The problem occurs when we come to think that studying the playbook that the coach gave you is the same thing as showing up for the game. Some Christians show up for the game without knowing the playbook at all, and sure, they have their problems. Other Christians (let us call them “Reformed”), write massive tomes showing the greatness and wisdom of the playbook, and they provide us with detailed commentaries on the playbook. They find which plays are arranged as a chiasm. Since a football team has eleven players, everything is some kind of chiasm.

Why is this so easy to do? Scripture says that a man deceives himself in three ways, and all of them seem appropriate here. He deceives himself when he hears the word without doing it (Jas. 1:22), he deceives himself while claiming religion with an unbridled tongue (Jas. 1:26), and he deceives himself when he thinks he is something when he is nothing (Gal. 6:3). Why do we not take the field in order to run the plays? Well, there appears to be another team out there.

State of the Church 2012

Joe Harby on January 1, 2012

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

Our duties toward God and man are concrete duties. All of our duties are attached to names, and faces, and places. We have no duties in isolation; all duties occur in the context of relationships. But in order to love as we ought in each particular instance of a relationship we need to understand how important abstract generalizations are. God gives us generalities, not so that we might hide in them, but so that we will know what to do when the particular time comes (as it always does). The proof is in the pudding, which is particular and concrete. But the recipe for the pudding need not be particular—in fact it really shouldn’t be.

The Text

“Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD” (Lev. 19:11-18 ).

Summary of the Text

This passage contains the commandment that Jesus identified as the second greatest commandment in all of Scripture (Matt. 22:39 ). I began at verse 11 because it is important for us to see what kind of neighborhood this commandment lives in. When we discover that the greatest commandment comes from a passage on covenant education of children, we gain a great deal (Dt. 6:4-9 ). So also we see here what love for our neighbor is supposed to look like.

Reject every form of fraud and ungodly deceit (v. 11). Honor the name of God (v. 12). Stop it with the sharp-edged business practices (v. 13). Do not abuse the handicapped (v. 14). Judge every case on the merits; pay no attention whatever to the wealth or poverty of the disputants (v. 15). Don’t be a tale-bearer; don’t jeopardize your neighbor’s life (v. 16). Don’t hate your brother by refusing to tell him what he clearly needs to hear (v. 17). Don’t take vengeance; don’t bear a grudge. So love your neighbor as yourself (v. 18).

Abstractions

If I were to ask you all to think about the idea of dog, all of you could summon up that idea up in your mind. And if you found yourself imagining your own pet, I could ask you to make it more general and nebulous. You could do that as well, and the result would be no dog in particular, but still recognizably canine.

If the house next door to you sells, before the new owner moves in, you can do the same thing to your new “neighbor.” You can know your neighbor before you know him. This ability to think in abstractions is a gift of God. In the passage from Leviticus, a number of general principles are stated, without any local color added. Blind man is more specific than man, but we are not yet talking about an individual.

Neighborism

If you think like a Christian about culture and society, it will not be long before you are accused of holding to some sort of “individualism,” and with that abstraction dismissed with a sneer. But the Christian form of this is not individualism at all. If we must label it, let us call it neighborism. We must be committed to the rights of our neighbor, and we must be committed to them before we know his name, before we know his identity. If a collectivist taunts us with being dedicated to the bloodless abstraction called “the rights of the individual,” and we don’t even know his name, let us answer by saying that we are actually motivated by “love of our neighbor,” even though we might not know his name either. When the scribe asked Jesus for the name of his neighbor, he was trying to justify himself.

What Love Looks Like

The law of God gives shape to love. The law of God teaches us what love is supposed to look like before we get into the details. The law of God cuts up the pie for us before we know which piece we are going to get. And when we let God define love for us, we are frequently surprised . . . but not always.

In this passage, we see that love means not tripping a blind man. We like to think we would have guessed that. But we also see that we must decide against that same blind man in a dispute if the facts demand it. We might not have guessed that. And paying a 30-day note after 60 days is out, even if it is industry standard. And to refuse to speak frankly to your brother about his fault is a way of hating him (Gal. 6:1 ).

Moving Constantly Back and Forth

If you live in the particular only, you remember Smith, but you don’t remember “your neighbor.” You have become narrow and provincial. But if you live in the abstraction, you fall prey to the observation that Linus once made—that he loved mankind; it was people he couldn’t stand. The obedient life moves constantly back and forth. The adept cook moves back and forth between the recipe and the pudding.

Life Together

As you consider our culture, our nation, our society, and all the lunatic follies that beset us in it, it is tempting to despair, thinking that there is nothing really that we can do. You find yourself asking, “Where are we going, and why are we in this hand-basket?” In that situation, what sort of resolutions should you make for 2012?

The resolution should in fact be this: live in koinonia-community. Love one another. Love the neighbors you know, and love the neighbor whose van is not yet unloaded. Talk about our community—it is not bragging. We didn’t do anything except get in the way. Ask God to have His Spirit get us out of the way. If we want reformation-fire to spread, it doesn’t much matter where it first ignites. Why not here?

A Brief History of Christmas

Joe Harby on December 11, 2011

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

We celebrate the birth of Christ, and we are able to do this because we have seen what His rule has accomplished in the world. Jesus told Thomas once that there was a blessing for those who would believe without having seen the risen Christ, as Thomas had (John 20:29). On this principle, our place in history gives us access to a greater blessing because we have not seen Christ with our eyes. But it goes the other way also. Those at the time of Christ had not yet seen what His rule would do in history (as we have). And so they are more greatly blessed looking toward the future—the same way that we will be blessed by looking forward to what Christ has yet to do (1 Cor. 2:9).

The Text

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this” (Is. 9:6-7).

Summary of the Text

There are many lessons that can be drawn from a rich text like this, but our task this morning will be to consider just two of them. The first is the Christmas element—the fact that a child is born unto us, and that a son is given unto us (v. 6).The second has to do with this child’s relationship to what is here called “government.”We are told that this child was born in order to rule, for the government will be upon his shoulder. And the second thing we are told about His government is that it will continually increase (v. 7). He will bear the government upon His shoulder, and it will be a continually increasing government. This increase—unlike the growth of secular governments—will be a blessing, and not a pestilence.

Territory and Time

The fact that Jesus was born into this world (unto us, it says) tells us that He is Lord of all things. He is the Lord of the earth. Further than this, after He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, He was given rule and authority over all things in Heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18-20). And the fact that we are told that His government will steadily increase, without ever stopping, tells us that He is the Lord of time, the Lord of all history. He is Lord of the entire process. This includes those earlier times in the process when “the increase of His government” was not yet as obvious as it is now. This means that celebrations of His rule will contain corruptions that need to be weeded out. The kingdom grows gradually, and problems are addressed gradually. But patience is a virtue. Jesus is the Lord of it all.

A Brief History of Christmas

The early church celebrated what we call Easter (and others, Pascha) right away. This included the weekly “Easter” of the Lord’s Day (Heb. 4:10; Rev. 1:10). One of the biggest controversies of the second century concerned how the date of this annual Easter was to be calculated. So the early church celebrated the Lord’s resurrection (His being firstborn from the dead) from the very beginning. They were a bit slower with celebrating His birth. But given the amount of space the gospel writers gave to accounts of His birth, it is not surprising that this celebration came eventually.

· The birth of the Lord began to be commemorated (on an annual basis) somewhere in the third or fourth centuries, A.D.
· It is commonly argued that this was a “takeover” of a pagan holiday, celebrating the winter solstice. But it just as likely, in my view, that this was actually the other way around. Sol Invictus was established as a holiday by Aurelian in 274 A.D., when the Christians were already a major force. So who was copying whom? And Saturnalia, another popular candidate for being an “ancestor” of Christmas, actually occurred on December 17.
· St. Nicolas, who was later morphed into Santa Claus, was a godly man, known for his generosity to children. He attended the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), and at least one urban legend has him punching out Arius the heretic. Let us hope so.
· In the medieval period, the holiday became known by its current name (Christmas) in the 11th century. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives us the first use, recording something that happened in 1038. A.D. An archbishop died, “and a little after, Ethelric, bishop in Sussex, and then before Christmas, Briteagus. Bishop in Worcestshire.” Some may object to the fact that the suffix -mass is still in the name. But the objectionable doctrine of transubstantiation was not codified by the Roman church until the 13th century (1215) at the Fourth Lateran Council. The word mass originally came from the fact that in the ancient church catechumens were dismissed from the service before the Lord’s Supper was observed. “Ite, missa est,” which roughly translated means that “you may go now.” We see it still in our word dismissed. The vestigial reference to the Mass in this name should not be a trouble; Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to celebrate Christmas at all, and they deny the deity of Christ.
· By the time of the Reformation, the ship of the church was absolutely covered with barnacles—saints’ days and whatnot. The Reformers scraped virtually all of them off, keeping only what they called the “five evangelical feast days”—Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost. All five are related to things that Jesus did, and we are not distracted by the Feast of St. Bartholomew’s Finger Bone.
· Much of what we identify as “Christmas-y” is no more than a century or two old—our idea of a “traditional” Christmas is basically Victorian. This is not bad, although it can be bad if you are not paying attention to your heart, and wind up judging your neighbor. I refer to Christmas cards, snow, silver bells, electric lights for your house, and a Saturday Evening Post Santa with a Coke.

Looking Forward

We expect the government of the Lord Jesus to grow, and this means that what we do will look quite different from what was done 500 or 1,000 years ago. We may hope that 500 years from now, it will be even more mature. In the meantime, we walk by faith in the one who is carrying all of human history on His shoulders—taking us home like an errant lamb.