LESSONS FROM JONATHAN

If people know anything about Jonathan, the son of King Saul, they probably know that he was a faithful friend to David.  I learned two more important things about Jonathan recently. First, he would have made a wonderful king.  Second, he was very sensitive to what God was doing in God's Kingdom.

Jonathan as King
In the past, I have thought of Saul as a foil to David, the poor king versus the good king.  That may be true, but the biblical narrator presents Jonathan in contrast to Saul in 1 Sam 13-14.  In these chapters we get a negative portrayal of Saul.  He does not seek the will of God (e.g. 14:18-19) but tries to coerce God's favor (e.g. 13:12) and, consequentially, loses his right to a dynasty (13:13-14).  (See the previous devotional on religious ritual and Saul).  His men are not confident behind him.  They are trembling and fleeing before the Philistines (13:6-7, 11).
Our portrait of Jonathan in 14:1-15 is quite different.  He trusts God and seeks God’s will.  He goes out against a Philistine outpost with just his armor-bearer, confident that God could deliver by few or by many.  His attack leaves the Philistines trembling and fleeing.  Jonathan had the unwavering support of his armor-bearer (14:7) and gained the support of Saul's army who recognized that God had brought about deliverance from the Philistines through Jonathan (14:45).  Jonathan would have made a great king.

Jonathan as Discerner of God’s Will
We receive another portrait of Jonathan in 18:1-4.  In the previous two chapters we learn that God has now chosen David to be Saul’s successor and God’s Spirit has passed from Saul to David (Ch 16, see verses 13-14); and, we watch David’s faith in God in action as he faces Goliath in battle (Ch 17).  Jonathan was a witness to the latter event.  However, the narrator has left Jonathan out of the scenes about Saul’s dynasty ending (13:13-14) and about David’s anointing to become the next king (Ch 16).  As the audience, we know this about Saul and David.  Jonathan does not have this knowledge.  He, as the first-born son of Saul and second in command of Saul’s army, was the prince who was next in line for the throne.  As we follow the narrative, we are set up to wonder, “How will Jonathan respond to David, the man who threatens to take away his whole future?”  In 18:1-4 we learn the answer.  Jonathan becomes one in spirit with David, makes a covenant with him, and gives him his robe, tunic, sword, bow, and belt.  What is happening here is most significant.  Jonathan gives what would be his royal robe to David, a symbol of passing on his role to David.  We are told that when the prophet Elijah was about to die, he gave his mantle to Elisha who would be his successor (1Kgs 19:19).  We also have a text in Isaiah 22:19-22 in which a person is deposed from office by his robe being taken from him and given to another person.  So without telling us directly, the narrator reveals Jonathan's heart, spiritual discernment, and submission to God.  Jonathan perceives the will of God.  Jonathan recognizes David as the successor to the throne and voluntarily yields to him!

Application:
Jonathan, who would have a made a good, faithful king, gave up all royal power and authority he would have gained to submit to the leading of God.  The overall challenge to me is to examine what pursuits I have that I need to give up in order to be in line with God’s Kingdom.  I think those matters tend to be clear – there is the conviction of the Holy Spirit – but they may still be difficult to surrender.  The daily challenge Jonathan’s story presents to me is to ask, “What is God doing around me that I am not recognizing because I am focused on matters that profit me?”  I start my day praying, “Jesus, what are you up to today?  I would like to be included.”  However, I do not get too far into my day before I become self-absorbed and insensitive to the things of God.

Lord, it is meaningless for me to pursue anything that is not in line with Your will and Your Kingdom.  Help me to become increasingly sensitive to my straying away from that focus.  Call me back by Your Spirit.  Rebuke me and turn me around.  Amen.

ABUSING RELIGIOUS RITUAL: SAUL’S IDOLATRY

Topic: How do we abuse religious rituals?  What are we doing when we abuse religious rituals? 
Saul, the first king over all Israel lost his calling due to disobedience.  David was anointed to replace him, and the Spirit of the Lord left Saul to come upon David (1Sam 16:13-14).  What was Saul’s disobedience?  (Below is a technical description of observations that led to my conclusions regarding Saul’s sin and religious rituals.  The reader may skip the technical details and skip to “Summary” and “Application.”)

Background Story
The Israelites were involved in a conflict with the Philistines.  Saul is specifically told to by the priest/prophet Samuel to go to Gilgal and wait for Samuel, who would make the appropriate offerings and tell Saul what to do (10:8).  Saul gathered his army at Gilgal, however, as his men were trembling and scattering in the face of the massive Philistine forces assembled against them, Saul makes the offerings before Samuel arrives (13:7-10).  This leads Samuel to tell Saul that because Saul did not keep the Lord’s command, God will take his kingdom away and give it to someone else after God’s heart (13:11-14).

Usual Explanation
It is generally thought that Saul’s disobedience – this first time – was that he encroached on the role of the priest by making an offering.  That is a possible conclusion.  By the time we get to the period of the Torah, the priest is to supervise and participate in such offerings.  Did Saul know that?  In the ancient Near East, kings often had a priestly, cultic role.  Maybe the ancient Israel audience would know/assume that when Samuel explained the regulations of kingship (10:25; see, too, Deut 17:14-20), it was clear that Israelite kings would have no such religious function?  This could be a partial explanation; however, I think Saul’s failing was more than that.

Observations about Saul’s Disobedience
I think the keys to understanding Saul’s disobedience are found in what he initially says and his pattern of behavior that follows.  In 13:12, as Saul defends his actions, he mentions: “The face of Yahweh [God’s favor] I had not entreated.”  Rather than wait for divine guidance through Samuel, Saul acted on his own to encourage his men and get God’s favor.  Two more events show a similar pattern.  In the first similar event, when Saul launches an attack on the Philistines in Ch 14, Saul starts to ask God what to do through the priest, but Saul stops the process (14:18-19) and prepares to attack.  First, though, Saul imposes a fast on his troops (14:24).  It has had negative consequences.  The point to note, though, is that fasts were generally religious rituals of humility and submission to God.  Again, it seems that Saul wanted God's favor, but without seeking God’s will first.  In the second similar event, Saul was commanded to destroy all of the Amalekites and their goods (15:1-3).  However, he let his soldiers keep the plunder, but he says he saved the best to be devoted to God as a sacrifice (15:20-21).  Instead of obeying, he does what he wants, probably to please his men, and plans to offer a sacrifice to gain God’s favor.  Here we get a famous and interesting speech/song from Samuel about how God wants obedience more than offerings (15:22-23).  In this song, we learn more about the sin of Saul in v 23:

For the sin of divination is rebellion,
and ‘awen and teraphim is patzar

The first line is clear.  Saul was being rebellious and that is compared to divination.  In the second line, teraphim were household, personal idols invoked for guidance and protection.  The term patzar receives translations such as “stubbornness, insubordination, presumption, and arrogance.”  It only occurs here as an infinitive in the so-call “causative” stem (Hiphil), so translators rely heavily on context.  Rather literally it has the sense “the act of causing to push, press, or urge.”  So, in the context as I see it, it means an act of coercion.  “’awen,” which falls within the semantic domains of evil, falseness, and deception is often tied to magic ritual and possibly forms a hendiadys with teraphim/idols here for something like “evil idolatry” or “deceptive idolatry,” giving us a better understanding of how God viewed Saul’s use of religious ritual:

For the sin of divination is rebellion,
And evil idolatry is the act of [attempted] coercion. (1Sam 15:23)

Summary
Engaging in religious rituals may be tantamount to the sins of divination and idolatry.  Motive is everything.  The disobedience of Saul is this: rather than seeking the will of God in submissiveness, Saul did what he thought best – in a couple of cases, probably to keep his army happy – and used religious rituals in an attempt to coerce God’s favor on his actions.  Saul rebelliously tried to use rituals of worship magically, manipulatively as one does in divination and idolatrous worship.  He was not submitted to God.  He was not fit to be king.  He lost the dynasty he could have had.

Application
I have no problem seeing parallels in my life.  I want to be in control.  I simple want what I want – and then I want God to bless it.  Prayer is used not as a time of communion with God to draw close to Jesus and hear the Spirit’s guidance.  Fasting, prayer, songs, “worship” are too frequently my attempts to gain God’s favor for my desires.  Such use of religious ritual is comparable to the sins of idolatry and divination.

Lord, have mercy on me.  In my head and heart, I know that, when I try to rule my life, my life turns to chaos.  You are God.  I am not.  I want to be your servant.  I want to serve in Your Kingdom.  Forgive me for the ways I arrogantly try to conform You to my will!  Shape me into a better servant.  Amen.

TRUE WORKS AND HUMAN PRIDE, JOHN 3:20-21

Back-to-back opposite statements in John 3:20-21 speak to me about the nature of truly good “works.”  Verse 20 states:

For those who practice base [common, worthless] things hate the light and do not come into the light, so that their works might not be exposed.

Comments:  1) The word for “practice” (prasso) tends to emphasize something that is repeated as opposed to a specific act.  2) Several translations call the practices “evil,” when the term here (phaula) is not the word for “evil” (poneros) as in v 19.  Since v 20 picks up on that thought about evil deeds and light, the author could be using phaula as a synonym for “evil;” however, my guess is that the author has broadened the category.  Something that is phaula is rather base, common, worthless.  “Evil” would be a subset.  4) The word “exposed” (elencho) has the sense of being exposed in a negative way for reproof.

The way verse 21 starts, the reader expects it to give a parallel but opposite balance about those come into the light:

But the one who does the truth, comes to the light, so that that one’s works might be revealed…

However, the parallel balance does not stop there.  “Works” is qualified by the clause, “that in/by God they are produced.”  Verse 21 might awkwardly be translated:

But the one who does the truth, comes to the light, so that that one’s works (because they are produced by God) might be revealed.

Comments: 1) “Does” (poieo) may be used generally, but in distinction from “practice” (prasso)  in v 20, it can speak of something new, specific.  2) “Does the truth” is an interesting idiom.  Truth (aletheia), in John’s gospel is something that comes to be in Christ (1:14, 17; 14:6) and characterizes the Spirit (14:17; 15:26; 16:13).  It is of the divine realm.  It is absolute.  3) The word for “produced” (ergazomai) emphasizes effort and indicates here where the locus of the effort or labor is, "in/by God."

Main point: The qualification of one’s works/deeds in v 21 by “that in/by God they are produced,” places the credit for acts of truth in the hands of God.  When the contrast is fully made between these two lines, the reader sees that our base, worthless, deeds are our own doing (v 20); however, the deeds “we” do in the truth are actually produced by God (v 21).  God gets the credit, not us.  If we were to apply this to our concepts of success in life, the lesson would be: Worldly “success” is a product of our efforts.  Moreover, when it is brought into divine Light, it is exposed as worthless.  To the contrary, success that matters eternally – perhaps a gracious word or an act of righteousness – is done by God through us.  There is no room for pride.  In fact, we might not even see it as divine “success.”

My following thought is not said in this text, but I think that although there is no room for pride, there is room for joy – joy that God condescended to use us for eternal purposes.  That is amazing!  Perhaps one could read this thought into John 15:1-17.  There we learn that abiding in Jesus and his love allows Jesus’ joy to be in us.  When we participate in what Jesus is doing, we participate in Jesus’ joy.

Lord, shine your Light on my prideful heart that likes to give me credit for doing “good.”  Help me to see that all that is of eternal value is wrought in/by You.  It would be an honor to be used by You for Your glory and Your joy.  May it be so.  Amen.

BOOK OF RUTH: RIGHTEOUS SPEECH AND ACTION

The Book of Ruth has much to say about the people of God.  (You may wish to read it before reading the following reflections.)  Here are some of the key motifs to notice in the book.

The first named character is Elimelech, whose name means, “My God is King.”  That name sets the tone of the book.  One of the narrative ironies of the book is that there is very little overt activity of God mentioned, but the audience still has a sense of God’s hand at work behind the scenes.  For example, the narrator tells us in 2:1 that Naomi (mother-in-law) of Ruth has a relative from her deceased husband’s side named Boaz in the area.  We watch as Ruth goes out to glean in a field and discovers “her happenstance happened” [trying to catch the word play of the Hebrew] that she was working in the field of Boaz.  The audience sees God’s hand at work on behalf of the key characters Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz.

But why is God at work for them?  The first defining personal quality of the main Israelite characters of Naomi and Boaz is that when they speak, they speak blessing.  For Naomi, see 1:8-9; 2:19.  For Boaz, see 2:4, 12; 3:10.  Ruth, a foreigner, manifests her character by making an oath in the name of Yahweh in which she gives up all of her family rights and attaches herself to Naomi to care for her (1:16-17).

The second defining feature of these characters is their righteous behavior.  Naomi is concerned about the well-being of her widowed daughters-in-law (1:8-13).  Ruth is concerned about the well-being of her mother-in-law (1:16-18), laboring for her (Ch 2), and proposing marriage to Boaz not for her own sake, but to carry on the lineage of her deceased husband (3:1-10).  Their circumstances set them apart as the epitome of the needy.  They are both widows, “orphaned” from their families, and are poor and homeless.  Ruth, moreover, is a foreign immigrant.  That is: together, they almost fully represent the class of people whom God cares most about.  One of many such commands that are found in the Law, the Prophets, and the Wisdom literature about caring for the needy is Deut 10:17-18):

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God who is unbiased and takes no bribe, ¹⁸ who does justice toward the orphan and widow, and who loves resident foreigners, giving them food and clothing. (Deut. 10:17-18) 

Boaz demonstrates his righteousness by caring for Ruth and Naomi (2:8-16) and serving as the kinsman-redeemer (4:9-10) so that Elimelech’s family lineage could carry on.  [The kinsman redeemer married the widow, with the result that the first-born son would carry on the deceased husband’s line and not his own.]

The closing surprise to the Book of Ruth is that the son who is born to Ruth and Boaz is the grandfather of David (4:16-22).  Without the righteousness of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz, there would not have been a King David.

Applications:
First, what are the words that come out of my mouth?  Out of the same mouth comes cursing and blessing (paraphrase of James 3:10).  Decades ago, an impact the Book of Ruth had on me was to encourage me to bless people.  I try to do it both openly with people and silently when I see people in need.

Second, am I practicing righteousness?  There is popular notion among some Christians in our culture that righteousness is a judicial matter.  That is, they rest on a teaching that Christ’s righteousness is legally imputed to them so that God sees them as righteous.  That notion fails to understand what the Bible explicitly teaches about righteousness.  When someone entrusts themselves to God through faith in Jesus, that person is now “right” with God.  Moreover, someone who is right with God will then act rightly in God’s sight (e.g. Matt 25:31-46, James).  They will practice righteousness.  And, throughout the Bible, the people who deserve righteous treatment are the needy: the widow, the orphan, the poor, the foreigner, the prisoner, the naked, the oppressed, etc.  My eyes are to be looking for them; my feet are to walking toward them; my hands are to be acting for them.  Righteous behavior comes from those who are right with God.

The message of the Book of Ruth can be summarized thus: speak blessing and act righteously!  Such are the people of God.

May it be so in my life.  Amen.

THE TANGIBILITY OF “SIN” (chata)

What does the word “sin” mean?  There are four main word roots in Hebrew (OT) for the basic semantic range and others in Greek (NT) that each express different nuances.  However, in English, we basically use two words, “sin” and “guilt.”  What might we be missing?

Warning: This is a technical “devotional” about the main Hebrew word root for “sin” (ḥṭʾ) and probably not for anyone feeling brain weary.  However, I have found the exploration of “sin” important for me, so I will share what I have learned.  (The brain-weary may skip to “Conclusion.”)

Technical Stuff
Problem: The main Hebrew (OT) verb translated in English as “to sin” is ḥāṭāʾ (pronounced chata).  There is a problem understanding and translating this word.  Hebrew has root words with three letters that have a basic (etymological) meaning.  For example, the letters lmd employed as a basic-stem verb has the nuance of “to come to an apprehension or become familiar.”  It is often translated, “to learn.”  When the root is modified for the “doubled stem,” it makes an intransitive verb (no object) factitive with an object.  Therefore, lmd becomes lmmd and now means “to make apprehension to someone,” or better “to teach.”

Here is the problem with ḥāṭāʾ.  Its basic-stem meaning as a verb is “to miss hitting/reaching the desired end, the goal.”  It can literally mean that someone misses one’s target.  However, it is mainly used figuratively for human personal failure in terms of some kind of life standard, whether it be legal, communal, covenantal (with God), or just according to the standard of God’s holiness.  Most contextual uses make sense in terms of a failure to meet an end goal (whether intentional or unintentional).  The problem arises when it is a doubled-stem verb ḥiṭṭēʾ (pronounced chittā).  In its figurative use, it appears to mean “to cleanse from sin” (e.g. Exod 29:36).  Moreover, the noun that is formed from the doubled-stem verb ḥaṭṭāʾt (pronounced chattat) is the main technical term for the “sin-purification offering” (Lev 4:26).  On the surface that conversion of meaning from “to miss the goal” (basic stem) to “cleanse from sin” (doubled stem) does not make sense.  One would expect a meaning like “to make missing the goal to someone.”  What is happening?
Note: Since in the NT, Paul, using a Greek equivalent term, calls Jesus the sin-purification offering (Rom 8:23; 2Cor 5:21), the concept behind the word is important to grasp.

Solution: (This is where it gets interesting!)  In its figurative use, the verb ḥāṭāʾ focuses frequently on the end failure, a negative consequence, more than on the action.  The noun that spins off this verb ḥēṭʾ (chāt) is also more about that negative result than the act itself.  Most importantly, words and concepts associated with the basic-stem verb and noun show that people envisaged sin-results as “tangibly” real.  They concretized the negative result.  For example: God sees the sin (1Sam 2:17); a person must bear one’s sin (Lev 20:20); when God forgives sin, God lifts it (Exod 32:32) or covers it (Ps 32:1) or washes it (Psa 51:7); or in the Temple symbol system, it is likened to filth polluting God’s dwelling place/altar and needing to be cleansed away (Exod 29:36).

A modern analogy would be the “sin” of running a red light.  No one was around to see.  There was no danger.  There appears to be no tangible result.  However, a camera caught you and now the consequence becomes tangible as a ticket and a fine.

With this focus on the “tangible” result in mind, the doubled-stem verb makes sense.  The verb means “to make the result (sin-weight) to someone/something.”  Used literally in Gen 31:39, Jacob says to Laban that regarding any sheep lost under Jacob’s care, Jacob will “make the ḥiṭṭēʾ (sin-result – here financial loss) to himself.”  That is, he move/removes the resultant sin-weight (financial loss) to himself.  That makes sense now in the figurative use of the tangible sin-consequence.  The consequence of sin (ḥāṭāʾ) is moved/removed, which in context basically means to “cleanse/purify from sin.”  So, too, the atonement-technical noun form from the doubled-stem (ḥaṭṭāʾt) refers to the ritual act that moves/removes the consequence (sin-weight) makes sense.  The focus is on what is happening to the “tangible” consequence.

Conclusion:
The concrete, root concept of ḥāṭāʾ is about failing to hit the end goal (e.g. Jud 20:16, stone-slingers miss their target; Prov 19:2, one misses the way).  Abstractly it is used in terms of personal behavior measured against standards (e.g. legal contract of social groups, Gen 43:9) or in terms of religious abstraction of God’s standard or spiritual wholeness (Lev 4:2).  The focus of the idioms is on the negative consequences.  Particularly in a religious context, that consequence is conceptualized as real and “tangible” like a weight (Lev 20:20) or like unclean pollution (Psa 51:2).  Sin (ḥāṭāʾ) results in real consequences for which one is accountable.  In particular, the atonement ritual system sought to concretize the nature of sin as well as God’s graceful acts of forgiveness.  Such concretizing of the intangible in rituals helped the Israelites to comprehend the utmost seriousness of sin and the amazing grace of God’s forgiveness.  I need this help as well.

Application
Every offense I commit, intentional or not, against others and against God, not only is a failure to achieve the right (righteous) end goal, but it also results in real consequences.  Whether I can see them or not, God sees them.  As one who sins, I bear the weight of those consequences whether I feel it or not.  I must accept the reality of sin.  However, when I seek God, confess and repent of my sins, my God merciful moves/removes that “tangible” consequence.  God “bears/lifts” (=forgives) my sin.

Note: this is also the meaning in 1 Peter 2:24: “For our sins he [Jesus] bore in his body on the cross….”  That verse is the same OT idiom of divine forgiveness.  It is not picturing a forensic transfer of one’s legal death-penalty onto Jesus.  It presents Jesus showing God’s mercy of lifting our burden.

Lord, please always show me the error of my ways, all of my sins (ḥāṭāʾ), unintentional as well as intentional.  Help me to see the weight, to see the filth, to see it as in Your eyes.  So that I might be ashamed and appalled.  So that I might bow before You, confess, and repent.  So that You in Your mercy might lift it away.  So that there might not be any impediment between me and You.  Amen.

I NEVER THOUGHT I COULD NOT HEAR (CONSCIENCE)

Today I read a devotional that suggested that our natural conscience faces the highest goal that a person knows.  Only when it is focused on God, though, is one on the best track.*  I was reminded of Proverbs 20:12, “Ears that hear and eyes that see – the LORD makes both of the them.”
Comments:
This proverb first teases people to think by creating a pause that makes the audience want more.  If I were to say in a conversation, “Ears that hear and eyes that see,” and stop, the listener would think or say, “OK, so what about ears and eyes?  What are you saying?  Finish your thought.”  Now that I have their attention, I finish, “They are made by God.”
Secondly, this conclusion challenges the audience to ponder what the point is.  The teaching here operates on two levels.  On the first level, it may cause one to pause and marvel at the wonder of our sensory perceptions.  How is it that we do hear and see?  Only God could do this!  The second level is deeper.  As a proverb, this saying is meant to impart wisdom.  Hearing and seeing are also spiritual faculties.  To really “hear” means to obey.  To really “see” means to have an enlightened path.  These, then, are faculties opened to their fullest by a person in relationship with God.  Therefore, this proverb prompts us to ask, “Do I really hear?  Do I really see?  Am I in close communion with God?”
Application:
I will leave the development of application to the reader.  Here, though, is a poem/song that I wrote in application to myself.

I NEVER THOUGHT I COULD NOT HEAR#

Verse 1
I never thought I could not hear, until I heard my Lord.
I never knew where I belonged, until he said, “With me.”

Chorus
The Lord who makes the ears that hear and forms the eyes that see.
He gently whispered in my ear and showed his love for me.

Verse 2
I thought I was a righteous man, until he came near me.
I never clearly knew my shame, until I knelt to him.

Verse 3
I never thought I could not see, until I saw my Lord.
And now my world has opened wide, with life and joy and peace.

Lord Jesus, I want ears that hear with obedience and eyes that see and follow your way.  Bless me with such ears and eyes.  Amen.
-------
*The devotional reading was from Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, May 13.
#If requested, I will send a simple musical score of the song with the melody line and the chords.

LOSS AND GRIEF: IN CHRIST

I have been thinking about the loss and grief one experiences over a loved one.  I do not claim that the following thoughts are explicit teaching in Scripture, but I think they cohere with it.

In regard to Adam and Eve, Genesis 2:24 states, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family [literally “one flesh”] (NET).  This translation has captured the sense of “one flesh” that is often misunderstood on a popular level.  It is not about sexual union.  It is about the beginning of a new kinship unit (“one flesh”).

I think there is a psychological truth about this relationship and its loss.  There are many examples in our natural world of discrete elements uniting to form a system in which new properties emerge.  The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.*  I suggest that in personal relationships something new emerges in the nature of our existence.  When I married, I did not merely have an identity label change to “husband.”  In a real sense, in my relationship with my wife, a new aspect of my existence emerged that would not be there were we apart.  Our relationship has formed part of who I am.  Therefore, when someone in a close relationship dies, we experience not just a loss of their presence, but also a loss to an aspect of our existence, to who we were.  The loss and grief are deep.

A theological truth about Christ helps with this sense of loss.  Faith in God creates a participatory relationship.  One entrusts one’s life in God.  The Greek NT expression of faith in Christ, pisteo eis. means “entrusting into” Christ.  It creates a new emergent reality.  Paul, particularly in Colossians and Romans 8, addresses believers’ struggles by teaching them about the significance of being a new creation “in Christ.”  Moreover, we are “in Christ” in community jointly with others.  What struck me recently was the thought that for those “in Christ,” when a loved one dies, our relationship with that loved one has not really come to an end.  Being jointly together in Christ means that relationship still exists.  Even though we miss that person’s presence, who we were in that relationship is still there within the being of God.  I find that thought comforting.

Father, bless those who are grieving over loss of loved ones.  Comfort them with your Presence.  Comfort them not just with the thought that they will once again meet those loved ones, but with the awareness that those relationships still exist in Christ.  Amen.
--------
*Probably the most universally known example of emergent properties is how the elements of hydrogen and oxygen (gasses at normal temperatures) come together to form water molecules with properties completely unlike the individual elements.