Reference works cited include:

1)IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament by Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas

2) 1, 2 Samuel New American Commentary by Robert D. Bergen

3) Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology by Charles Pfeiffer

4) Monarchs of the Nile by Aidan Dodson

5) NET Bible

 1 Sam 16:1
How long will you mourn: While on the surface this chapter is about the rise of David, it is as our lesson points out very much also about God moving Samuel past Samuel's depression about the seeming failure of Saul (seeming because many people read Saul as meant to fail, to teach Israel a lesson about preferring earthly kings to God as king).

I have rejected him as king: Both Saul and his sons. There was to be no Saul dynasty over Israel. This is likely a part of Samuel's distress, as a monarchy has been set up as part of Israel, yet God has rejected the first candidate. This not only makes Israel look bad to other nations, but leaves even Samuel wondering what Israel's fate would be.

Fill your horn with oil: The recipe for anointing is here:

Exo 30:23-25 NET. "Take choice spices: twelve and a half pounds of free-flowing myrrh, half that — about six and a quarter pounds — of sweet-smelling cinnamon, six and a quarter pounds of sweet-smelling cane, (24) and twelve and a half pounds of cassia, all weighed according to the sanctuary shekel, and four quarts of olive oil. (25) You are to make this into a sacred anointing oil, a perfumed compound, the work of a perfumer. It will be sacred anointing oil.

Anointing was a common practice in the ANE. In Egypt and among the Hittites, anointing supposedly protected one from malign spirits. Hittites would anoint their kings, while in Egypt Pharaoh would anoint his officials. In Nuzi people would anoint each other to seal a business contract. In Israel, there is a definite connection between anointing and the Spirit of God.(BBCOT)

Jesse: son of Obed son of Boaz by his Moabite wife Ruth, heroine of the OT book of the same name.

Bethlehem: A small town through much of its history, its first historical mention may be in one of the Amarna letters, about 350 clay tablet documents found in Egypt in 1887, consisting of letters and state documents sent to Egyptian Pharaohs Amenhotep III and IV from rulers in Canaan, Babylon, and Hatti, circa 1388-1343 BC. Bethlehem only gained some prominence in the Christian era as a pilgrimage site. (BBCOT, Pfeiffer, Dodson)

1 Sam 16:2
Saul will hear and kill me: Samuel anointed Saul king, and was the first national prophet in Israel since Moses. Saul's concern for Samuel's symbolic authority as spokesman of God is clearly shown here:

1Sa 15:30 NET Saul again replied, "I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel. Go back with me so I may worship the LORD your God."

Thus any movement of Samuel is likely noticed by Saul, especially such as this, in which Samuel goes outside his normal circuit and away from the national government, Saul's court.(Bergen)

God provided a simple answer: Samuel would cover his action with a legal action expected of him: He would take a heifer to sacrifice in Bethlehem.

1 Sam 16:3
Invite Jesse to the sacrifice: Presumably a peace offering, in that much of the sacrificed animal was left for participants to eat.

1 Sam 16:4
the elders trembled: Was it because Samuel was the national prophet? Was it the Bethlehemites knew the estrangement between Saul and Samuel and feared to get caught between them in some political fight? Or was it his bringing a heifer, which is traditionally used in the ceremony for an unknown murder?(Bergen)

1 Sam 16:5
consecrate yourself: There is no specific list of steps for consecration, but they seem to include bathing, clean clothes, sexual abstinence and avoiding corpses of any sort. (Bergen)

he consecrated Jesse and his sons: What exactly does this mean? At the least it is saying Jesse somehow singled out Jesse and his family. Most commentators think he selected them to partake of the sacrificial meal after the sacrificial ceremony.

1 Sam 16:6-7
Samuel was immediately impressed by Eliab, Jesse's eldest son, who apparently was tall and handsome. That he was the eldest son also likely influenced Samuel's belief that he was to be the new king.(Bergen)

The classic statement here on man's judgment of people compared to God's judgment varies in translation because the Hebrew is rather terse, perhaps suffering from a scribal omission here (NET) This is a profound statement both on God's superior knowledge and His otherness from our limits.(Bergen)

An intriguing question is whether Samuel's statements before verse 9 are internal, or actually verbalized, presumably to Jesse. Samuel's mission seems a secret one, and certainly David's brothers subsequently don't treat him as the future king of Israel. Thus it is likely that Samuel is thinking to himself before verse 9, and Jesse is not told the true purpose of Samuel's trip to Bethlehem, even at verse 9. Jesse must only know that one of his sons is marked out for something special, not what that special thing is.(NET)

1 Sam 16:8-10
Samuel runs through seven of Jesse's sons without finding the person he was sent to look for. No doubt Samuel was confused and frustrated by this point.

1 Sam 16:11
God had told Samuel he was going to anoint a new king. Thus Samuel reins in his puzzlement and asks Jesse if there are more sons. Jesse has one more, his smallest. The knowledge that another son remains and that he contrasts with Saul in stature at least encourages Samuel to insist on seeing the boy before anyone eats.

1 Sam 16:12
While Samuel had been cautioned not to just by appearance, the son had winning looks: reddish hair and bright eyes, unusual features among the Israelites that would mark him out. But it was God's confirming him as His choice for king that truly marked him out.

16: 13
Samuel anointed David in front of his family, but presumably didn't make explicit exactly what the ceremony was about, for surely Eliab wouldn't have been so offensive about David in 1 Sam 17:28 if he was known to be anointed to be king.

David follows a long line of non-eldest sons chosen for Godly service including: Seth, Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim and Moses.(Bergen)

II. Solomon’s Reign

III. Tearing of the Kingdom

IV. Divided Kingdom

V. Prophets Ministry

VI. Divided Kingdom Continued

VII. Kingdom in Captivity

The author of Kings seems to have arranged the story into seven major sections. The book begins with the death of King David, who lays out the instructions of how the King of Israel should reign. This is a crucial beginning because all of the following kings are judged according to how well they matched up to what David said. In the next section, as David’s son takes the throne, the reader is eager for the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. The author, however, makes it absolutely clear that Solomon is not the coming King. The third section is small, but of vast importance. The author uses the tearing of the kingdom to set up the narrative for a contrasting of Israel and Judah. This remains a constant theme throughout the whole book. It is an especially present theme throughout the next section. As the kings reign over Israel and Judah, the author shows YHWH’s favor towards Judah, while Israel constantly does evil in His eyes. The “divided kingdom” section is interrupted by the ministry of the prophets, who speak the word of YHWH to the kings of His land. The narrative then jumps back into a heavy juxtaposition of the kings of Israel and Judah. Israel does evil in the eyes of YHWH and is taken into captivity. Judah follows in the same path and is defeated by the Babylonians. The author, however, continues to present YHWH’s favor towards Judah to the reader by the way the book ends. The king is set free, and the reader finds hope in the line of David.

I. David’s Last Days (I Kings 1:1-2:11)

A. Adonijah makes preparations to become king (I Kings 1:1-1:27)

B. David anoints Solomon king (I Kings 1:28-2:9)

C. David’s death and burial (I Kings 2:10-2:11)

The author sets up the book of Kings with the last days of David. Although he passes away at the beginning of the story, his role throughout the rest of the narrative is crucial. All of the kings in the rest of the book are judged by how well they matched up to King David. The author begins by first of all showing that Solomon (not Adonijah) is the rightful heir to David’s throne. Second, he has David tell Solomon how the King should rule over Israel. As this dialog is laid out, the author of Kings seems to assume that the reader is already familiar with the Davidic Covenant of II Samuel 7. In 1 Kings 2:3-4, David says, “Do the job the LORD your God has assigned you by following his instructions and obeying his rules, commandments, regulations, and laws as written in the law of Moses. Then you will succeed in all you do and seek to accomplish, and the LORD will fulfill his promise to me, ‘If your descendants watch their step and live faithfully in my presence with all their heart and being then,’ he promised, ‘you will not fail to have a successor on the throne of Israel.” (NET) The section concludes with King David’s death. At this point the reader is waiting for the coming King, and now has the means necessary to judge each of the following kings’ success throughout the rest of the narrative.

II. Solomon’s Reign (I Kings 2:12-11:43)

A. Solomon’s throne established (I Kings 2:12-2:46)

B. Solomon’s wisdom (I Kings 3:1-4:28)

i. Solomon requests wisdom (I Kings 3:1-3:15)

ii. Solomon’s wisdom displayed (I Kings 3:16-4:28)

C. Solomon constructs the temple (I Kings 4:29-7:51)

i. Solomon constructs his palace (I Kings 7:1-7:12)

D. Ark brought into the temple (I Kings 8:1-8:11)

E. Solomon’s blessing of Israel and prayer of dedication (I Kings 8:12-8:66)

F. YHWH appears to Solomon (I Kings 9:1-9:9)

G. Solomon’s riches and downfall (I Kings 9:10-11:43)

i. Solomon’s other activities and Queen of Sheba (I Kings 9:10-10:13)

ii. Solomon’s wealth and splendor- gold and silver, horses, foreign wives (I Kings 10:14-11:13)

iii. Solomon’s adversaries (I Kings 11:14-11:25)

iv. Jeroboam’s rebellion (I Kings 11:26-11:40)

v. Solomon’s death (I Kings 11:41-11:43)

Now that King David has died, the reader is awaiting his son’s rule (the coming King who will fulfill YHWH’s promise.) The author makes it evident in the text that Solomon believes himself to be this coming King. This is especially clear in verse 5:5. “So I have decided to build a temple to honor the LORD my God, as the LORD instructed my father David, ‘Your son, whom I will put on your throne in your place, is the one who will build a temple to honor me.’” (NET) Although Solomon is shown at points as pleasing to YHWH (verse 3:10), wise, wealthy, and even brining the Ark to the temple (which is yet another instance where Solomon is depicted as thinking that he is the coming King- verse 8:20); the author makes it absolutely clear that Solomon is not the King whose throne will be established forever. In chapters 6 and 7, Solomon takes twice as long, and spends twice as much on building his own palace than he does building YHWH’s temple. During Solomon’s prayer of dedication, he speaks of Israel being defeated by an enemy (verse 8:32), which shows that his rule will not be forever. To complete the disapproval, as the author is describing Solomon’s wealth and achievements, he also clearly presents Solomon as a direct antithesis of the kingship requirements of Deuteronomy 17. He accumulates large amounts of silver, gold, horses from Egypt, and foreign wives. Irony soaks the pages as the reader observes Israel at the peek of success (which is made clear in the story of the Queen of Sheba), and a king that falls miserably short of the requirements of the Torah. As Solomon sins and dies, the reader is left waiting for the tearing apart of the kingdom (as YHWH declared), and still anticipating the coming King.

III. Tearing of the Kingdom (I Kings 12:1-12:19)

A. Jeroboam challenges Rehoboam (I Kings 12:1-12:16)

B. Kingdom division (I Kings 12:17-12:19)

The initial tearing of the kingdom, although such a short section, is much like David’s last days in the aspect that it plays a crucial role throughout the book as a whole. The author uses the kingdom tearing to begin the contrast between the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah, which becomes one of the most prominent themes of the entire narrative. The reader, who is awaiting the Davidic King but is aware (due to Solomon’s prayer) that captivity is on its way, now reads on to evaluate each coming king.

IV. Divided Kingdom (I Kings 12:20- 16:34)

A. Kingdom split between Jeroboam and Rehoboam (I Kings 12:20-12:33)

i. YHWH orders Jeroboam to fight against Israel (I Kings 12:20-12:24)

ii. Jeroboam forms two golden calves (I Kings 12:25-12:33)

B. Prophecies against Jeroboam (I Kings 13:1-14:20)

i. Man of God from Judah (I Kings 13:1-13:34)

ii. Ahijah’s prophecy against Jeroboam and his death (I Kings 14:1-14:20)

C. Kings of Judah- Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa (I Kings 14:21-15:24)

i. Rehoboam and Abijah do evil in the eyes of YHWH (I Kings 14:21-15:8)

ii. Asa does what is right in the eyes of YHWH (I Kings 15:9-15:24)

D. Kings of Israel- Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, Ahab (15:25-16:34)

i. Nadab does evil in the eyes of YHWH (I Kings 15:25-15:32)

ii. Baasha does evil in the eyes of YHWH (I Kings 15:33-16:7)

iii. Elah does evil in the eyes of YHWH (I Kings 16:8-16:14)

iv. Zimri does evil in the eyes of YHWH (I Kings 16:15-16-20)

v. Omri does evil in the eyes of YHWH (I Kings 16:21-16:28)

vi. Ahab does more does evil in the eyes of YHWH than all before him (I Kings 16:29-16:34)

Now that the kingdom is divided, the author begins to show each king’s rule and failure. Sin covers the land, and sits on the throne both Israel and Judah. Over and over, evil is done in the eyes of YHWH and the reader observes that no king seems to match up to the kingship instructions of David or Moses. Although evil in the eyes of YHWH is done from both Israel and Judah, the author gives a glimpse of obedience from Asa of Judah in chapter 15. This gives the reader hope for line of David. Following Asa’s story is a section filled with sinful king after sinful king of Israel. Finally, the section concludes with Ahab of Israel, who does more evil in the eyes of YHWH than all before him. The juxtaposition of Israel and Judah makes it blatant to the reader that the author is portraying Judah in a distinct way. Even when the king falls short of David, YHWH remembers his promise and is pleased with Judah. The reader is still awaiting the coming King, and is drawn towards Judah.

V. Prophets Ministry (I Kings 17:1-II Kings 9:13)

A. Beginning of Elijah’s Ministry (1 Kings 17:1-19:21)

i. Elijah prophecies famine and is fed by ravens (I Kings 17:1-17:6)

ii. Elijah feeds a widow and raises her son (I Kings 17:7-17:24)

iii. Elijah meets Obadiah (I Kings 18:1-15)

iv. Elijah/YHWH vs. Prophets/Baal (1 Kings 18:16-18:40)

v. Elijah prophecies rain (1 Kings 18:16-18:45)

vi. YHWH appears to Elijah in Horeb (1 Kings 18:46-19:18)

vii. Elijah calls Elisha (1 Kings 19:19-19:21)

B. Prophet vs. Ahab (1 Kings 20:1-22:40)

i. Ahab defeats Ben Hadad with aid of a prophet (1 Kings 20:1-20:34)

ii. Prophet denounces Ahab’s actions (1 Kings 20:35-20:43)

iii. Ahab murders Naboth (1 Kings 21:1-21:16)

iv. Elijah prophecies against Ahab, Micaiah prophecies against Ahab (I Kings 21:17-22:28)

v. Ahab killed (I Kings 22:29-22:40)

C. Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, does good in the eyes of YHWH (1 Kings 22:41-50)

D. Ahaziah’s reign over Israel- does evil in the eyes of YHWH (1 Kings 22:51-II Kings 1:18)

i. Ahaziah’s reign (1 Kings 22:51-22:53)

ii. Ahaziah injures himself and sends men to Elijah (II Kings 1:1-1:9)

iii. Elijah calls down fire on Ahaziah’s men three times (II Kings 1:10-1:18)

E. Elijah is taken to Heaven (II Kings 2:1-2:12)

F. Elisha takes over after Elijah leaves (II Kings 2:13-8:15)

i. Elisha divides the Jordan, men search for Elijah (II Kings 2:13-2:18)

ii. Elisha heals the water, Elisha is jeered (II Kings 2:19-2:25)

iii. Jehoshaphat (Judah) joins forces with Joram (Israel) against Moab (II Kings 3:1-3:12)

iv. Elisha prophecies victory for Jehoshaphat (Judah), and the battle is won (II Kings 3:13-3:27)

v. Elisha provides for a widow and her sons (II Kings 4:1-4:7)

vi. Shunammite’s son restored to life (II Kings 4:8-4:37)

vii. Elisha cures death in a pot of stew, and feeds a hundred (II Kings 4:38-4:44)

viii. Elisha cures Naaman’s leprosy, Gehazi sin results in leprosy (II Kings 5:1-5:27)

ix. Elisha makes an ax head float (II Kings 6:1-6:7)

x. Elisha traps blinded Arameans (II Kings 6:8-6:23)

xi. Elisha prophecies victory for besieged Samaria (II Kings 6:24-7:20)

xii. Elisha restores the land of the Shunammite woman (II Kings 8:1-8:6)

xiii. Elisha declares Hazael as king of Aram, Hazael murders Ben Hadad (II Kings 8:7-8:15)

With apparent intentionality, the author places the prophets’ ministry directly in between the story of the kings of Israel and Judah. As the juxtaposition of Israel and Judah continues, it begins between the kings and YHWH’s prophets. While sin flows from the palace of the kings, the Word of YHWH is spoken through His prophets. The author constantly shows the reader YHWH’s evaluation of the kings’ success, based upon the Torah and David’s words (I Kings 2:3-4), through the mouth of His prophets. Elijah, who summons in the ministry of the prophets, is displayed by the author as a parallel to Moses. This leaves the reader wondering if he is the Prophet like Moses that the Torah has spoken of (Deut 18). Although Elijah’s character functions as Moses, the author clearly shows that Elijah is not the Prophet that is to come. In II Kings 2, Elisha is given a double portion of Elijah’s spirit, and throughout the narrative he does twice as many miracles. This plainly confirms to the reader, who is familiar with the Torah, that Elijah was not the Prophet like Moses (Deut 34:10-12). He does, however, give the reader hope. The author uses Elijah and the prophets to point the reader not only toward the coming King, but also the coming Prophet. As the story prolongs, YHWH continues to speak His Word and bring His judgment, based on the Torah and David’s words, through His prophets. Those who follow the prophets’ words (YHWH’s words) are blessed, and those who do not are cursed. The author continues to show favor with Judah, and the reader is now waiting for the coming King and Prophet.

VI. Divided Kingdom Cont… (II Kings 8:16-17:6)

A. Kings of Judah- Jehoram and Ahazia (II Kings 8:16-8:29)

i. Jehoram (8:16-8:24)

ii. Ahazia (8:25-8:29

B. Jehu rules Israel (II Kings 9:1-10:36)

i. Jehu is anointed king (II Kings 9:1-9:13)

ii. Jehu kills Joram, Ahaziah, Jezebel, Ahab’s family, and priests of Baal (II Kings 9:14-10:36)

C. Life of Joash- does right in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 11:1-12:21)

i. Jehosheba hides Joash from Athaliah (II Kings 11:1-11:11)

ii. Joash is crowned king, and Athaliah is killed (II Kings 11:12-11:20)

iii. Joash repairs the Temple, and is assassinated by Jozabad Jehozabad (II Kings 11:21-12:21

D. Kings of Israel- Jehoahaz and Jehoash (II Kings 13:1-13:25)

i. Jehoahaz- does evil in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 13:1-13:9)

ii. Jehoash- does evil in the eyes of YHWH, Elisha dies and is buried ( II Kings 13:10-13:24)

E. Amaziah (king of Judah) does right in the eyes of YHWH- but not as David (II Kings 14:1-14:22)

F. Jeroboam II- does evil in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 14:23-14:29)

G. Azariah- does right in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 15:1-15:7)

H. Kings of Israel do evil in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 15:8-15:31)

i. Zachariah (II Kings 15:8-15:12)

ii. Shallum (II Kings 15:13-15:16

iii. Menahem (II Kings 15:17-15:22)

iv. Pekahiah (II Kings 15:23-15:26)

v. Pekah (II Kings 15:27-15:31)

I. Jotham rules Judah- does right in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 15:32-15:38)

J. Ahaz rules Judah- does evil in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 16:1-16:20)

K. The last king of Israel- Hoshea- does evil in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 17:1-17:6)

i. King of Assyria invades Israel and deports Israelites (17:3-17:6)

The author resumes to the divided kingdom that started in section IV after his intentional interruption with the prophets. The kings of Israel and Judah are back in the spotlight. The thesis of this section is nearly identical to the divided kingdom before the prophets. Evil is continually done in the eyes of YHWH, but Judah is portrayed as doing what is right. This, again, leaves the reader with hope for the line of David. However, the author is clear to point out that the high places are not destroyed, and no king of Judah follows YHWH the way that King David did. But as always, YHWH remembers his promise to David. The reader continues waiting for the arrival of the coming King, and places hope in YHWH’s promise to Judah.

VII. Kingdom in Captivity (II Kings 17:7-25:30)

A. Summary of Kings (II Kings 17:7-17:41)

B. Hezekiah rules Judah- does right in the eyes of YHWH, tears down high places (II Kings 18:1-20:21)

i. Hezekiah restores Judah to YHWH (18:1-18:16)

ii. Assyria threatens Hezekiah, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah prophecies victory for Judah (18:17-19:37)

iii. Hezekiah is healed (20:1-20:11)

iv. Isaiah prophecies Judah’s downfall (20:12-20:21)

C. Last kings of Judah

i. Manasseh- does evil in the eyes of YHWH, rebuilds high places (II Kings 21:1-21:18)

ii. Amon- does evil in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 21:19-21:26)

iii. Josiah- does right in the eyes of YHWH, finds the law scroll, renews covenant (22:1-23:30)

iv. Jehoahaz- does evil in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 23:31-35)

v. Jehoiakim- does evil in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 23:36-24:7)

vi. Jehoiachin- does evil in the eyes of YHWH, Isaiah’s prophecy fulfilled- Babylon takes Judah into captivity (II Kings 24:8-24:17)

vii. Zedekiah- does evil in the eyes of YHWH (II Kings 24:18-24:19)

D. Fall of Jerusalem (II Kings 24:20-25:30)

i. Zedekiah rebels against Babylon, and is defeated (II Kings 24:20-25:7)

ii. Nebuchadnezzar destroys Jerusalem (II Kings 25:8-25:21)

iii. Gedaliah governs Judah, and is assassinated (II Kings 25:22-25:26)

iv. Jehoiachin is released (II Kings 25:27-30)

In II Kings 17, Israel is taken into captivity. Starting in verse 7, the author provides the reader a summary of the entire book of Kings, and a theological interpretation of all that has been previously read. Verse 7- “This happened because the Israelites sinned against the LORD their God, who brought them up from the land of Egypt and freed them from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt…” (NET) The section continues to provide a summary of all the sins that Israel and the kings had done (an editorial comment in which the reader should interpret the narrative by). Solomon’s prayer from I Kings 8 is partially fulfilled now that YHWH’s people have gone into captivity. The author then continues with the contrast between Israel and Judah by showing Hezekiah of Judah doing right in the eyes of YHWH. This is perhaps the strongest contrast that has been read so far- Hezekiah restores Judah to YHWH and the high places are finally torn down right after Israel has been utterly defeated. However, Isaiah prophecies the downfall of Judah and much evil is done in the eyes of YHWH by the last kings. Judah is finally defeated by Babylon. At the very end of the book, after the reader has seen how much sin and failure fills YHWH’s people and kings, the author throws in the small story of Jehoiachin. Much like David, Jehoiachin plays a small but crucial role in the narrative as a whole. He is released, and the dedication prayer of Solomon (I Kings 8:46-50) is fulfilled. Just as the reader sees Judah in complete depravity, the author shows once again that there is hope in the Davidic line. No matter how much the kings fail, YHWH will not forsake his promise with David. The reader ends the narrative still waiting for the coming King.

Iedereen zegt dat de foto een hoog vintage gehalte heeft daarom de titel... more to come .. later :-)

Tobleronen är fortfarande oöppnad. Den står vi min sida men är orörd. Det känns bra.

Igår var jag ute och tog lite bilder i kvällsljuset. Det gick bra. Jag lägger upp några av bilderna här. Jag har verkligen ingeting att skriva idag därför nöjer jag mig med bilderna.

Vi hörs.

David, von Michelangelo - der perfekte Mann? Nun, jedenfalls war er aus der Ferne zu sehen, als wir entlang der Stadtmauer nach unten gingen. Es scheinen also Drillinge zu sein ;-) der grüne David auf der Piazzale Michelangelo, die Kopie neben den Uffizien und das Original im Museum.

What Who goes up must go down - hier war es umgekehrt, hoch und runter und dann viele angenehm zu gehende Stufen bis zur Piazza hoch über der Stadt. Wer trotzdem unterwegs verschnaufen musste, hatte guten Grund dazu: mit jedem Schritt weiter nach oben ergaben sich atemberaubende Ausblicke auf die Stadt Florenz. Der weite Platz oben ist nicht unbedingt schön zu nennen: asphaltiert, voller Andenkenverkäufer, David weitgehend unbeachtet, denn alle Leute stehen 'auf den Balkonen', an den Ballustraden ringsherum. Die hinreißende Aussicht verschlug so manchem die Sprache und stiehlt auch der berühmten Statue die Schau.

Und was sieht Pinocchio Besonderes? Das zeige ich morgen ... oder übermorgen ... (es gibt auch wieder einen Bericht im anderen Blog und Fotos bei Ipernity).

Jag har varit godisfri i fem dar sen jag tog beslutet och det är 10 dar sedan jag åt godis sist. Inatt var första natten som jag drömde om godis. Det var jobbigt.

Men idag kom min mamma hem från en semestervecka i Grekland. Lyckligt ovetande hade hon såklart köpt en present till mig. Som vanligt när det gäller presenter till mig av min släkt och närhet brukar det vara godis.

Nu sitter jag i mitt rum och försöker jobba samtidigt som det ligger en gigantisk toblerone till vänster om mig. Det är inte bra grejer.

Jag ska nu göra en ny lista på för- och nackdelar med att bryta mitt löfte om godisätning.

Fördelar:

Jag får en sockerkick

Jag blir mätt

Jag gör inte min mamma ledsen genom att inte äta hennas present

Jag får känna smaken av toblerone och slippa minnas det äckliga marknadsgodiset

Jag har bara varit utan i fem dar så det är inte så farligt att börja om

Nackdelar:

Min mamma blir ledsen när hennes present var överflödig och onödig

Jag är en fjant som inte kan hålla mitt löfte

Adam kommer alltid att reta mig

Jag har bara klarat fem dar, det är fjantigt lite

David kommer också att reta mig

Jag har en hel del funderingar framför mig. Vi hörs i framtiden.

My life in Bullet/Dash Points lately

~ Friday - did not work (swapped out Thurs for Fri.) finished some things up for my "surprise" bullet point (coming to it, keep your pants on) and cleaned the carpet and vacuumed @ home.

~ Friday pm - went to school. Did about 3 or 4 more hair do's on my manny. Actually managed to get my house clean an hour early so got 5 hours in that night at school (instead of 4) - 1491 to go.

~ Sat am - Regan and I got coffee (well, she got a cookie, I got the coffee), took her to MIL's and went to school. Ended up doing 2 official updo's for homecoming clients. Was at school until 4pm instead of 3pm (7 more hours, 1484 hrs to go).

~ Sat pm - Picked up Regan, David got off work early. Told him to go take a power nap, Regan and I hung out for a little while. David got up, took Regan to MIL's for the night. My aunt arrived, we all (David, aunt and myself) went out for sushi. Got back watched a little video - went to SLEEP - (thankfully).

(This is the SURPRISE part coming)

~ Sun am - David was picked up by his friend for a 9 hole round of golf. Aunt and I went to pick up Regan from MIL's. Took Regan to another friend (sound like a HORRIBLE mother, don't I - [believe me, there is a GOOD reason]). Came back to the area, picked up MIL and some food (that she made), got home. We got all the food ready that we could. Decorated. Set up the tables outside. And waited....... for David to get home.

We had a SURPRISE party for him for his accomplishments this past year. He was surprised and he was very thankful. Everyone had a good time and it was just adults and we hung out and ate burgers, dogs and bbq. Had soda, and water. Had a special cake made and plus my neighbors had some pies that we ate too!

~ Sun pm - EXHAUSTED was the only word I could use. David and I picked up Regan. Didn't even bother with a bath, she didn't have a nap so she was OUT at 7:45pm. I was out by 8:45pm. Middle of the night, I was SWEATING!!

~ Mon am - SICK!!! Sweats, chills. Got Regan off to school, met with David and the ?? (I have no idea what their job title name is), the guy to do the closing on our refi., went back home, called the doc's office, slept for an hour. David took me to the doc appt., they took strep cultures, had 102. temp, doc said I was sick as a dog - go home and rest and drink plenty. He also said it was too early in the season for flu - hhhmmmpphhhh - WTF??!

~ Mon pm - fever broke sometime in the afternoon, throat was KILLING me, felt very weak. Did not go to work.

~ Tues - didn't make it too work that day either.

~ Wed. - Plant shutdown day. Laid around a bit after dropping Regan at school. Got a shower and all that - went to school. Took my test (well quiz.....we will get into that later), went back home. Lazed around some more, took a REALLY good afternoon (1 hour) nap. Picked up Regan and didn't go back to school last night.

~ Thurs. - FINALLY made it into work. Throat is still a little off but doing better. Feel okay so far and just trying to take it easy as I will have Regan tonight and be putting her to sleep as well. Maybe I can get to sleep early too though. Here's to hoping.

So there is my week in bullet points so far. I hope that I have caught you all up at this point. Can you catch me up on your lives that quickly?? (It does feel like it was a monster post though - sorry about that!)

Last night's was the last of those three. After the bee encounter, I really needed a mommy. I wanted someone to pet my hair and feel sorry for me. I don't need these things very often, but it was a shitty, pointless day and I really needed it. I told him this in IM, but he thought I was kidding or exaggerating, not that I was being serious. Instead, he wanted to stay home and watch the Vice Presidential debates and then watch a hockey movie. I was disappointed, but he was going to come over last night, so I figured I could buck up and put my need for pity on hold and deal with it then.

I made a really nice dinner with seared tuna, sauteed spinach with garlic, and fried brown rice (ok, from a bag from Trader Joe's). Everything was going nicely, but when I laid my head on his lap, there was zeroh petting to be had. I gave him hint motions (you know, grabbing his hand and making a petting motion), but there was no petting. And definitely no "poor baby" or anything like that.

And then when it came time to go to bed, he told me he wasn't staying. What? Oh man... it's because Diva always keeps him awake when he sleeps over. But I was planning on keeping Diva in the main house so he could sleep, and hey, if he wanted to have a different situation, he could have asked! I'm always very flexible and understanding and open to communication, but the communication has to be out there. He countered with that I could have asked if he was staying, too, but then I talked about how I was really looking forward to last night because I didn't get my "poor baby" the night before, when I really needed it. He didn't know what I was talking about, so I reminded him that I even asked for what I needed (I think many girls expect psychic stuff, but I don't. If I need something, I put it out there), and that I didn't think I could have been more clear about my specific needs.

So here's my dilemma: I just don't understand it. I don't understand how he could have heard that I really needed him and thought I was joking. I don't understand how he could have not communicated with me about what he needed to be comfortable at my place, when I've been so clear about being open to his needs and wants. I just don't understand this whole thing.

I called him and said that it was just inconsiderate. He was being inconsiderate of my feelings. He said he didn't think it was inconsiderate because that meant that he knew my feelings and just ignored them, but I said that was a value judgment on the meaning of the word. Just by the definition of the word, he was not considering or being sensitive to my feelings.

It's hard, because I feel like I'm really trying to be the most awesome girlfriend I can be. I encourage him to do things he wants to do. I don't complain about things he does. I communicate in a really straightforward, non-nagging way. I don't get angry or fly off the handle. Even when I'm angry, I tell him I am in a calm way and then tell him exactly why I am angry. I don't fling blame around, but rather, I use the Nonviolent Communication method and say things like, "When you x, I feel y." It's exhausting, but I think it's rewarding...

... except when I do all the "right things" and it still doesn't work. And then I get really irritated because I'm doing everything right and things still aren't perfect!

Anyways, I've got to get on the dog walk. I guess this is the part of the relationship where I have to keep working on it even though it isn't fun to work on it anymore. And maybe try to help David learn to communicate and hear me when I communicate.

$50 for the first to master this song in its splendid entirety

Adam väckte mig i morse, som vanligt. Samtalet gick som följer:

J: aaaaaaahhhhh (jag svara så när jag är trött)

A: Sov du din griiiiiis!

J: Ja vad annars?

A: Skulle vi inte träna idag

J: Joo, men det är ju länge kvar!

A: Nae, klockan är ju kvart i tolv! Innan klockan var åtta i morse så var jag uppe och då bar det iväg på promenad.

J: suck.. det ser ut som att det fortfarande är morgon. (det var dimma)

Sen fortlöpte samtalet lite till om träningnen och mina sovvanor. Men nu är jag vaken, nyvaken.

Nu ska jag till arbetsförmedlingen, sen ska jag träna. Vi hörs.

• eine Ganzkörperspritzentherapie
• eine Wirbelsäulenmassage mit spitzen Popoknochen
• einen Austausch sämtlicher kaputter Blutzellen
• eine Akkupressur an allen Fingern und Zehen
• eine Handdruckmessung
• eine Messung der Arm- und Beinstärken, sowie die Korrekturmedikation für die richtige Stärke
• sowie das Geraderücken meines Herzens.

Leider bekam ich keine Springforelle mit Mandelkernsoße und Petersilie, auch Boullion wurde nicht gereicht.

Dafür gehts mir trotzdem schon vieeeeeeeel besser und ich sorge jetzt für Bratwürstchen mit Kartoffelgratin. Ist auch gut.

Masih kusimpan cintaku padamu
Tak ada tempat sembunyi
Tak ada kata tunggu
Tak ada tempat berdusta
Tak ada dunia seluas ini
Jangan susahkan hatiku..

Mata hatiku mengungkapmu
Dalam hidup terombang-ambing
Orang gila macam apa engkau dan aku ?
Sangat ketakutan
Katakan mengapa ?
Jangan susahkan hatiku
Jangan susahkan hatiku

Masih kusimpan cintaku padamu

Engkau buat janji dengan pasti
Engkau melingkar dalam hatiku
Engkau menghantui pikiranku
Tidak mau hilang
Jangan susahkan hatiku..
Jangan susahkan hatiku..

Still I give my love for you
No place to hide, nowhere to go
No word to lie, no world so wide
At second time I’m telling you
Don’t let me down and down and down
Don’t let me down and down and down

Still I give my love for you
Still I give my love for you

Bisa tebak lagu siapa ini?

The one & only David Bowie...dengan judul"Jangan Susahkan Hatiku" dari album "Black Tie White Noise"

Penasaran lagunya kayak apa? Keren deh...sayang gue ngga bisa share file-nya!

*lyrics & pic courtesy of indolawas

A QUESTION OF THE AGES.

Is a Lie Ever Justifiable?--Two Proffered Answers.--Inducements
and Temptations Influencing a Decision.--Incident in Army Prison
Life.--Difference in Opinion.--Killing Enemy, or Lying to
Him.--Killing, but not Lying, Possibility with God.--Beginning of this
Discussion.--Its Continuance.--Origin of this Book.

II.

ETHNIC CONCEPTIONS.

Standards and Practices of Primitive Peoples.--Sayings and Doings of
Hindoos.--Teachings of the Mahabharata.--Harischandra and
Viswamitra, the Job and Satan of Hindoo Passion-Play.--Scandinavian
Legends.--Fridthjof and Ingeborg.--Persian Ideals.--Zoroastrian Heaven
and Hell.--"Home of Song," and "Home of the Lie."--Truth the Main
Cardinal Virtue with Egyptians.--No Hope for the Liar.--Ptah, "Lord
of Truth."--Truth Fundamental to Deity.--Relatively Low Standard
of Greeks.--Incidental Testimony of Herodotus.--Truthfulness of
Achilles.--Plato.--Aristotle.--Theognis.--Pindar.--Tragedy of
Philoctetes.--Roman Standard.--Cicero.--Marcus Aurelius.--German
Ideal.--Veracity a Primitive Conception.--Lie Abhorrent among Hill
Tribes of India.--Khonds.--Sonthals.--Todas.--Bheels.--Sowrahs.--
Tipperahs.--Arabs.--American Indians.--Patagonians.--Hottentots.--
East Africans.--Mandingoes.--Dyaks of Borneo,--"Lying Heaps."--Veddahs
of Ceylon.--Javanese.--Lying Incident of Civilization.--Influence of
Spirit of Barter.--"Punic Faith."--False Philosophy of Morals.

III.

BIBLE TEACHINGS.

Principles, not Rules, the Bible Standard.--Two Pictures of
Paradise.--Place of Liars.--God True, though Men Lie.--Hebrew
Midwives.--Jacob and Esau.--Rahab the Lying Harlot.--Samuel at
Bethlehem.--Micaiah before Jehoshaphat and Ahab.--Character
and Conduct.--Abraham.--Isaac.--Jacob.--David.--Ananias and
Sapphira.--Bible Injunctions and Warnings.

IV.

DEFINITIONS.

Importance of a Definition.--Lie Positive, and Lie Negative.--Speech
and Act.--Element of Intention.--Concealment Justifiable, and
Concealment Unjustifiable.--Witness in Court.--Concealment that is
Right.--Concealment that is Sinful.--First Duty of Fallen Man.--Brutal
Frankness.--Indecent Exposure of Personal Opinion.--Lie Never
Tolerable as Means of Concealing.--False Leg or Eye.--Duty of
Disclosure Conditioned on Relations to Others.--Deception Purposed,
and Resultant Deception.--Limits of Responsibility for Results of
Action.--Surgeon Refusing to Leave Patient.--Father with Drowning
Child.--Mother and Wife Choosing.--Others Self-Deceived concerning
Us.--Facial Expression.--"A Blind Patch."--Broken Vase.--Closed
Shutters in Midsummer.--Opened Shutters.--Absent Man's Hat in
Front Hall.--When Concealment is Proper.--When Concealment is
Wrong.--Contagious Diseases.--Selling a Horse or Cow.--Covering
Pit.--Wearing Wig.--God's Method with Man.--Delicate Distinction.--
Truthful Statements Resulting in False Impressions.--Concealing
Family Trouble.--Physician and Inquiring Patient.--Illustrations
Explain Principle, not Define it.

V.

THE PLEA OF "NECESSITY."

Quaker and Dry-goods Salesman.--Supposed Profitableness of
Lying.--Plea for "Lies of Necessity."--Lying not Justifiable between
Enemies in War-time.--Rightfulness of Concealing Movements and Plans
from Enemy.--Responsibility with Flag of Truce.--Difference
between Scout and Spy.--Ethical Distinctions Recognized by
Belligerents.--Illustration: Federal Prisoner Questioned by
Confederate Captors.--Libby Prison Experiences.--Physicians and
Patients.--Concealment not Necessarily Deception.--Loss of
Reputation for Truthfulness by Lying Physicians.--Loss of
Power Thereby.--Impolicy of Lying to Insane.--Dr. Kirkbride's
Testimony.--Life not Worth Saving by Lie.--Concealing One's Condition
from Robber in Bedroom.--Questions of Would-be Murderer.--"Do Right
though the Heavens Fall."--Duty to God not to be Counted out of
Problem.--Deserting God's Service by Lying.--Parting Prayer.

VI.

CENTURIES OF DISCUSSION.

Wide Differences of Opinion.--Views of Talmudists.--Hamburger's
Testimony.--Strictness in Principle.--Exceptions in Practice.--Isaac
Abohab's Testimony.--Christian Fathers not Agreed.--Martyrdom Price
of Truthtelling.--Justin Martyr's Testimony.--Temptations of
Early Christians.--Words of Shepherd of Hermas.--Tertullian's
Estimate.--Origen on False Speaking.--Peter and Paul at Antioch.--
Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great.--Deceit in Interests of
Harmony.--Chrysostom's Deception of Basil.--Chrysostom's Defense
of Deceit.--Augustine's Firmness of Position.--Condemnation of
Lying.--Examination of Excuses.--Jerome's Weakness and Error.--Final
Agreement with Augustine.--Repetition of Arguments of Augustine and
Chrysostom.--Representative Disputants.--Thomas Aquinas.--Masterly
Discussion.--Errors of Duns Scotus.--John Calvin.--Martin Luther.--
Ignatius Loyola.--Position of Jesuits.--Protestants Defending Lying.
--Jeremy Taylor.--Errors and Inconsistencies.--Wrong Definitions.--
Misapplication of Scripture.--Richard Rothe.--Character, Ability,
and Influence. in Definition of Lie.--Failure to Recognize.--Error
Love to God as Only Basis of Love to Man.--Exceptions in Favor of
Lying.--Nitzsch's Claim of Wiser and Nobler Methods than Lying in
Love.--Rothe's Claim of Responsibility of Loving Guardianship--No
Countenance of Deception in Example of Jesus.--Prime Error of Rothe.
--Opinions of Contemporary Critics.--Isaac Augustus Dorner.--
Character and Principles.--Keen Definitions.--High Standards.--
Clearness and Consistency.--Hans Lassen Martensen.--Logic Swayed by
Feeling.--Right Premises and Wavering Reasonings.--Lofty Ideals.--
Story of Jeanie Deans.--Correct Conclusions.--Influence of Personal
Peculiarities on Ethical Convictions.--Contrast of Charles Hodge and
James H. Thornwell.--Dr. Hodge's Correct Premises and Amiable
Inconsistencies.--Truth the Substratum of Deity.--Misconceptions of
Bible Teachings.--Suggestion of Deception by Jesus Christ.--Error as
to General Opinion of Christians.--Dr. Hodge's Conclusions Crushed
by his Premises.--Dr. Thornwell's Thorough Treatment of Subject.--
Right Basis.--Sound Argument.--Correct Definitions.--Firmness for
Truth.--Newman Smyth's Manual.--Good Beginning and Bad Ending.--
Confusion of Terms.--Inconsistencies in Argument.--Loose Reasoning.
--Dangerous Teachings.--James Martineau.--Fine Moral Sense.--Conflict
between Feeling and Conviction.--Safe Instincts.--Thomas Fowler.--
Higher Expediency of Veracity.--Importance to General Good.--Leslie
Stephen.--Duty of Veracity Result of Moral Progress.--Kant and
Fichte.--Jacobi Misrepresented.--False Assumptions by Advocates of Lie
of Necessity.--Enemies in Warfare not Justified in Lying.--Testimony
of Cicero.--Macaulay on Lord Clive's Treachery.--Woolsey on
International Law.--No Place for Lying in Medical Ethics.--Opinions
and Experiences of Physicians.--Pliny's Story of Roman Matron.--Victor
Hugo's Sister Simplice.--Words of Abbe Sicard.--Tact and
Principle.--Legal Ethics.--Whewell's View.--Opinion of Chief-Justice
Sharswood.--Mistakes of Dr. Hodge.--Lord Brougham's Claim.--False
Charge against Charles Phillips.--Chancellor Kent on Moral
Obligations in Law and in Equity.--Clerical Profession Chiefly
Involved.--Clergymen for and against Lying.--Temptation to Lies of
Love.--Supreme Importance of Sound Principle.--Duty of Veracity to
Lower Animals.--Dr. Dabney's View.--Views of Dr. Newman Smyth.--Duty
of Truthfulness an Obligation toward God.--Lower Animals not Exempt
from Principle of Universal Application.--Fishing.--Hunting.--Catching
Horse.--Professor Bowne's Psychological View.--No Place for Lying
in God's Universe.--Small Improvement on Chrysostom's Argument for
Lying.--Limits of Consistency in Logical Plea.--God, or Satan.

VII.

THE GIST OF THE MATTER.

One All-Dividing Line.--Primal and Eternal Difference.--Lie Inevitably
Hostile to God.--Lying Separates from God.--Sin _per se_.--Perjury
Justifiable if Lying be Justifiable.--Lying--Lying Defiles Liar,
apart from Questions of Gain in Lying.--Social Evils Resultant from
Lying.--Confidence Essential to Society.--Lying Destructive of
Confidence.--Lie Never Harmless.

INDEXES.

TOPICAL INDEX. SCRIPTURAL INDEX.

Prominent in the earlier recorded discussions of the centuries
concerning the admissibility of the lie, are those of the Jewish
Talmudists and of the Christian Fathers. As in the Bible story the
standard of right is recognized as unvariable, even though such Bible
characters as Abraham and Jacob and David, and Ananias and Sapphira,
fail to conform to it in personal practice; so in the records of the
Talmud and the Fathers there are not wanting instances of godly men
who are ready to speak in favor of a departure from the strictest
requirement of the law of truth, even while the great sweep of
sentiment is seen to be in favor of the line that separates the lie
from the truth eternally.

Hamburger, a recognized Jewish authority in this sphere, represents
the teachings of the Talmud as even more comprehensive and explicit
than the Bible itself, in favor of the universal duty of truthfulness.
He says: "Mosaism, with its fundamental law of holiness, has
established the standard of truthfulness with incomparable
definiteness and sharpness (see Lev. 19: 2, 12, 13, 34-37).
Truthfulness is here presented as derived directly from the principle
of holiness, and to be practiced without regard to resulting benefit
or injury to foe or to friend, to foreigner or to countryman. In this
moral loftiness these Mosaic teachings as to truthfulness pervade the
whole Bible. In the Talmud they receive a profounder comprehension and
a further development. Truthfulness toward men is represented as a
duty toward God; and, on the other hand, any departure from it is a
departure from God."[1]

[Footnote 1: Hamburger's _Real-Encyclopadie fuer Bibel und Talmud_, I.,
art. "Truthfulness" (_Wahrhaftigkeit_).]

As specimen illustrations of the teachings of the Talmud on this
theme, Hamburger quotes these utterances from its pages: "He who
alters his word, at the same time commits idolatry." "Three are hated
of God: he who speaks with his mouth otherwise than as he feels with
his heart; he who knows of evidence against any one, and does not
disclose it," etc. "Four cannot appear before God: the scorner, the
hypocrite, the liar, and the slanderer." "'A just measure thou shalt
keep;' that is, we should not think one thing in our heart, and speak
another with our mouth." "Seven commit the offense of theft: he who
steals [sneaks into] the good will of another; he who invites his
friend to visit him, and does not mean it in his heart; he who offers
his neighbor presents, knowing beforehand that he will not receive
them," etc.

And Hamburger adds: "Every lie, therefore, however excellent the
motive, is decidedly forbidden.... In the tract Jebamoth, 63, Raba
blames his son for employing a 'lie of necessity' _(nothluege)_ to
restore peace between his father and his mother.... It is clear that
the Talmud decidedly rejects the principle that 'the end justifies the
means.'"[1]

[Footnote 1: Compare also art. "Falseness" _(Falscheit)_.]

On the other hand, Hamburger cites Rabbi Ishmael, one of the
Talmudists, as teaching that a Jew might transgress even the
prohibition of idolatry (and lying is, according to Talmudic teaching,
equivalent to idolatry) in order to save his life, provided the act
was not done in public. In support of his position, Rabbi Ishmael
cited the declaration concerning the statutes of Moses in Leviticus
18: 5, "which if a man do he shall live in them," and added by way of
explanation: "He [the Israelite] is to live through the law, but is
not to die through it."[1]

[Footnote 1: See Hamburger's _Real-Encyc_., II., art. "Ismael R."]

And Isaac Abohab, an eminent Spanish rabbi, in his _Menorath
Hammaor_[1] gives other illustrations from the Talmud of the advocacy
of special exceptions to the strict law of truthfulness, with a good
purpose in view, notwithstanding the sweeping claim to the contrary
by Hamburger. He says: "Only when it is the intention to bring about
peace between men, may anything be altered in discourse; as is taught
in the tract Jebamoth. Rabbi Ilai says, in the name of Rabbi Jehuda,
son of Rabbi Simeon: 'One may alter something in discourse for the
sake of establishing harmony.'... Rabbi Nathan says: 'This indeed is a
duty.'... Rabbi Ishmael taught: 'Peace is of such importance that for
its sake God even alters facts.'" In each of these cases the rabbi
cited misapplies a Bible passage in support of his position.

[Footnote 1: See German translation by R.J. Fuerstenthal, Discourse
II., I.]

Isaac Abohab adds: "In like manner the rabbis say that one may praise
a bride in the presence of her bridegroom, and say that she
is handsome and devout, when she is neither, if the intention
predominates to make her attractive in the eyes of her bridegroom.
Nevertheless a man is not to tell lies even in trifling matters, lest
lying should come to be a habit with him, as is warned against in the
tract Jebamoth."

Thus it would appear that there were discussions on this subject
among the rabbis of the Talmud, and that while there were those who
advocated the "lie of necessity," as a matter of personal gain or as a
means of good to others, there were those who stood firmly against any
form of the lie, or any falsity, as in itself at variance with the
very nature of God, and with the plain duty of God's children.

Among the Christian Fathers it was much the same as among the Jewish
rabbis, in discussions over this question. The one unvarying standard
was recognized, by the clearest thinkers, as binding on all for
always; yet there were individuals inclined to find a reason for
exceptions in the practical application of this standard. The phase of
the question that immediately presented itself to the early Christians
was, whether it were allowable for a man to deny to a pagan enemy that
he was a Christian, or that one whom he held dear was a Christian,
when the speaking of the truth would cost him his life, or cost the
life of one whom he loved.

There were those who held that the duty to speak the truth was merely
a social obligation, and that when a man showed himself as an enemy
of God and of his fellows, he shut himself out from the pale of this
social obligation; moreover, that when such a man could be deterred
from crime, and at the same time a Christian's life could be
preserved, by the telling of an untruth, a falsehood would be
justifiable. If the lie were told in private under such circumstances,
it was by such persons considered different from a public denial of
one's faith. But, on the other hand, the great body of Christians,
in the apostolic age, and in the age early following, acted on the
conviction that a lie is a sin _per se_, and that no emergency could
make a lie a necessity. And it was in fidelity to this conviction that
the roll of Christian martyrs was so gloriously extended.

Justin Martyr, whose Apologies in behalf of the Christians are the
earliest extant, speaks for the best of the class he represents when
he says: "It is in our power, when we are examined, to deny that we
are Christians; but we would not live by telling a lie."[1] And again:
"When we are examined, we make no denial, because we are not conscious
of any evil, but count it impious not to speak the truth in all
things, which also we know is pleasing to God."[2] There was no
thought in such a mind as Justin Martyr's, or in the minds of his
fellow-martyrs, that any life was worth saving at the cost of a lie in
God's sight.

[Footnote 1: First Apology, Chapter 8.]

[Footnote 2: Second Apology, Chapter 4.]

There were many temptations, and great ones, to the early Christians,
to evade the consequences of being known as refusers to worship the
gods of the Romans; and it is not to be wondered at that many poor
mortals yielded to those temptations. Exemption from punishment could
be purchased by saying that one had offered sacrifices to the gods,
or by accepting a certificate that such sacrifice had been made, even
when such was not the fact; or, again, by professing a readiness to
sacrifice, without the intention of such compliance, or by permitting
a friend to testify falsely as to the facts; and there were those who
thought a lie of this sort justifiable, for the saving of their lives,
when they would not have openly renounced their Christian faith.[1]
There was much discussion over these practices in the writings of the
Fathers; but while there was recognized a difference between open
apostasy and the tolerance of a falsehood in one's behalf, it was held
by the church authorities that a lie was always sinful, even though
there were degrees in modes of sinning.

[Footnote 1: See Smith and Cheetham's _Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities_, art. "Libelli." See also Bingham's _Antiquities of the
Christian Church_, Book XVI., Chap. 13, Section 5; also Book XVI.,
Chap. 3, Section 14; with citations from Tertullian, Origen, and
Cyprian.]

Ringing words against all forms of lying were spoken by some of the
Christian Fathers. Says the Shepherd of Hermas: "Love the truth, and
let nothing but truth proceed from your mouth, that the spirit which
God has placed in your flesh may be found truthful before all men; and
the Lord, who dwelleth in you, will be glorified, because the Lord is
truthful in every word, and in him is no falsehood. They, therefore,
who lie, deny the Lord, and rob him, not giving back to him the
deposit which they have received. For they received from him a spirit
free from falsehood. If they give him back this spirit untruthful,
they pollute the commandment of the Lord, and become robbers."[1]

[Footnote 1: Book II., Commandment Third. _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_
(Am. ed.), II., 21.]

Tertullian names among "sins of daily committal, to which we all
are liable," the "sin" of "lying, from bashfulness [or modesty], or
'necessity.'"[1] Origen also speaks of the frequency of "lying, or of
idle talking;"[2] as if possibly its frequency were in some sense an
excuse for it. And Origen specifically claimed that the apostles
Peter and Paul agreed together to deceive their hearers at Antioch by
simulati