God tempts David?

For the past nine months or so I've been reading through the Bible chronologically. I'm far behind my in my reading plan, so a week or two ago I was reading in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. I love this reading plan because you often read the exact same story in two different places. It opens your eyes to nuances and perspectives you might miss if you read the stories separately months apart. Here's a great example.

2 Samuel 24:1 read, "Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah." (ESV)

When I read that, a big 'red flag' went up. How do I reconcile this with James 1:13 which says, "Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one."?

Notice a few things though. Here, David's census taking is a punishment. God is angry at David and Israel and he 'incited' David to take a census which would result in judgment (pestilence) on the land. Why was God angry? That is one of the details we wish we knew, but we don't get the answer - at least not in this text. This is a narrative example of what Paul teaches in Romans one - that God 'gives people over' to sin as punishment (Romans 1:24, 26). So God was angry with David and Israel and incites them to greater sin (taking a census was a display of trusting in their military might, not God) and judging them for their sin. Ultimately, this episode leads to the purchase of the land on which Solomon would build the temple. But that still doesn't resolve the issue of God tempting David to take the census!?

Read next the same story in 1 Chronicles 21:1, "Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel." (ESV). Ah. The Chronicler has a more immediate perspective - Satan tempted David. His perspective is like the servants in the book of Job that came with the report "the Sabeans fell upon them and took them and struck down the servants with the edge of the sword...The Chaldeans formed three groups and made a raid on the camels and took them and struck down the servants with the edge of the sword...a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people, and they are dead" (Job 1:15, 17, 19).

This immediate perspective is balanced by a more 'cosmic' perspective which recognized God's absolute sovereignty, even over evil and evil moral agents. You see it in Job's words, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." (Job 1:21). I think this is the perspective you get looking at the 2 Samuel passage. The Chronicler looks to the immediate circumstance - Satan tempted David. The author of Samuel looks to God's sovereignty as the ultimate explanation. Satan does it, but does it according to God's plan. God does it, but using Satan as him intermediate tool.

Nothing falls outside the scope of God's sovereignty, so I can say with utter confidence (and gratefulness) , that "we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28, ESV). God's toolbox is huge as he works for his glory and our eternal good!

The answer I should've given...

The debate on Monday night was a blessing in a lot of ways for me. Chiefly, it was incredibly for me to see the love and support of my church family and to feel their prayers. I couldn't have done this without the help Matt and Doug and Bob and Scott and David and Tim and my dad as well as those encouraging me and praying for me.

I spent most of Monday night rehashing the debate in my mind - what I wish I had said, what I wish I hadn't said, etc. One point I wanted to clarify because I made a mistake that really misrepresents who God is and has practical implications also (I expect this to be the only post-debate clarification. I could spend months restating and clarifying, but this is the only blunder I feel I really need to clarify).

Me: "God designed us male and female for the purpose of highlighting the Trinity, the difference that exists in unity. So male and female coming together as husband and wife highlights that in a way that homosexual union does not."
Dan Barker: "God is male and Jesus is male. What is the Holy Spirit?"
Me: "He is also I believe male"

From there is was me stammering for a little while. I was lost, not sure how clear that was to everyone, but it was to me. Why? Because I admitted to something I should never have admitted to. I think I even surprised Dan Barker with this admission! Oops. We do speak of the Spirit in masculine pronouns and that's what I was thinking when I answered. However, I don't think you can say God is male or the Holy Spirit is male. You obviously must say Jesus was male, but I don't think 'maleness' applies to the eternal, pre-incarnate Son. Speaking of God in male pronouns is a form of anthropomorphism - attributing to God human characteristics - like having hands, etc. There are good reasons we refer to God using male pronouns and predominately male titles, but that's a different post for a a different time (I think I've posted on it before, actually, in response to 'gender neutral' bible translations).

Despite that, I think it is important to not that God is not completely or even adequately pictured solely in male terms. Hence, Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." I believe there is something about male and female together that more adequately conveys the image than does maleness or femaleness in isolation. It follows, from that then, the heterosexual marriage communicates something that a homosexual union does not. That is how I should've responded. Do I understand all the in's and out's of how heterosexual marriage more adequately reflects the Trinity? Of course not. Should that surprise us - that we don't understand all the inner workings and mystery of the Trinity? We do take some things simply at God's word without fully comprehending them. But I believe that Scripture is clear, both in the NT and the Old that God has designed marriage to reflect his nature and his relationship with his people. I have an understanding of how that works and look forward to when I understand more fully!

Song of the Week

Warrior - Sojourn

Blog on Break

I am sure many of you have notice that I haven't been posting much of substance on this blog for a while. I have been incredibly busy with church work, family life and preparing for an upcoming debate with Dan Barker (October 19th @ 7pm, Woodburn Hall, Room 100) . I'm looking forward to regaining a little leisure time when the debate is over and writing more frequent and substantial posts. I'm sure I'll be posting more thoughts on 'Can you Be Good without God', the topic of the debate (hopefully no retractions or clarifications). I'd also like to post, as was requested, on pro-life laws. To do this I'll need to read up, something I've been meaning to do for some time now. Church history is something I've been finding a lot of pleasure reading and thinking about recently, so I'd like to write more on some of those great characters in history (hero's and villains of the faith). Thanks for being patient and still following the blog.

Baseball Jeopardy

Victor Martinez, Rafael Betancourt, Ben Francisco, Cliff Lee, Mark DeRosa, CC Sabathia, Paul Byrd all have these two things in common.

What is they are all playing in the playoffs this year and played for the Cleveland Indians in the last two years!

Oh, and don't forget about Ryan Ludwig, Casey Blake, and Manny Ramirez who are also playing in the playoffs and used to play for the Indians.

GRRR!