In Sights

Post Mortem of a Mistake

2007-07-30T16:14:00.000-07:00

When we sin, it is always wise to examine the reasons we fell. Reflection is part of the lesson. The Bible gives us several hints at why David failed...let's take a look.

Remember that David's armies had defeated Nahash of Ammon, who insulted David's messengers, and his alliance which included the Syrians. Now, the following year, Joab leads a campaign against them that reaches into the heart of their kingdom, besieging their very capital city. (Remember the Ammonites descended from the son/grandson of Lot. When Israel took the Promised Land God told them to respect Ammon's borders. The two nations had an uneasy brotherhood that was on and off again...mostly off...throughout their history. Now they had openly insulted David and David's army retaliated.)

Joab broke through the strength of their capital city. Just before the military victory was complete, Joab sent to David saying almost sarcastically, ""Come over here and at least take credit for this, if that's not too much to ask. Otherwise they'll name the city after me." Joab was a lot of things that were despicable, but he did seem to have a real investment in David's interests.

David came with the rest of the army, and they finished off the capital city, taking their kings' crown that weighed 131 pounds! (And more amazingly, setting it on his head...I wonder if there is something I am missing here? Perhaps the weight was "weight worth in gold?") He also claimed the spoil of the city, and made the Ammonites slaves.

So why, again, was David not fighting with his army?

Uriah proved himself a far better man when he refused to be comfortable while his comrades suffered in the field. He would not even go home at night...so dedicated was he to the cause. David, it seems, was happy to stay at home in comfort, even carefree enough to think of indulging his lusts. He had been sleeping all day when he saw Bathsheba.

Perhaps he was indulging in self-pity because of the recent snafu with Nahash, to whom he tried to show kindness. Now embittered about the situation and the messy war that had ensued, he wanted no more to do with it. Maybe also he felt he just needed a break from fighting every year. This would be his season to take a break and recharge. His self-indulgence left him weakened to temptation. Caught "without his armor," he was easy prey to his own lusts.

Far from despising David, I recognize too much of my own heart in him. I often become desensitized to my responsibilities in favor of self-gratification, discouragement, and self-pity!

Back

2007-07-30T15:56:00.000-07:00

It's been almost a year since I posted last. My excuse is pretty pathetic...we moved, I lost track of my old notebook, and really wanted to list my posts in chronological order! So, now that we've moved again & the notebook is relocated, I'll continue where I left off.

II Sam. 12

David's child died because of his sin. David wept, fasted and prayed while it was still alive, but ceased after he died, going into the tabernacle to worship. He "quieted himself as a weaned child." He accepted God's will and did not question it.

God's punishment of David hit on his vulnerable spot...his children, whom he loved very much. God said because of his sin with Bathsheba, his child would die and there would be no peace in his household. We later see the heartache his children caused him, from Amnon's rape of Tamar to Absalom's betrayal and death. The consequences continued for David's own good...to keep him dependent on God and to rein in his wandering heart.

But yet God showed he had forgiven David and Bathsheba by giving them a son--Solomon, whom "the Lord loved." If I were God, I would probably make the couple barren for the rest of their lives, just out of decency if nothing else! But God, being Who He is, delights in bringing good out of evil. Solomon's reign would become a glorious picture of Christ's wise and righteous reign on earth. And through the "unholy union" of David and Bathsheba, would come, in the fullness of time, the Messiah.*

How different God's ways are from mine! He used a union that never should have been, a broken man and woman, as a key element in his plan to save all mankind.

David & Bathsheba's sin reminds me of Adam and Eve's. The same hiding from God. The same guilt, the same brokenness. And yet there is the same fact that God turns their failure into something epic, something good, a tool for redemption.

* Joseph, the assumed father of Jesus, came from Solomon. Mary's genealogy springs from Nathan, a younger, barely-mentioned son of Bathsheba and David. Any real son of Joseph would be prohibited from being a king because of the curse pronounced on one of the last Hebrew kings, Jeconiah. So the "root of David" was necessary, since the main line of kings had been cut off. Yet the Messiah still came from David and Bathsheba's union.

Off Topic Meme

2006-09-04T19:54:00.000-07:00

Ok, now that I know what a "meme" is...no, I'm not up on blog lingo... I decided my OT blog could tolerate a little off-topic something or other occasionally.

In response to being tagged by Jeff's book meme:

One book that changed your life:
Heaven, by Randy Alcorn

One book that you’ve read more than once:
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

One book you’d want on a desert island:
The Bible, or Heaven by Randy Alcorn. (Or maybe Dan Miller's 48 Days to the Work You Love? ha)

One book that made you laugh:
James Herriot's All Creatures Great and Small

One book that made you cry:
Reading Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert depressed me for several days, if that counts.

One book that you wish had been written:
Decorating Using Stuff From Your Back Yard

One book you wish had never been written:
The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

One book you’re currently reading:
Under the Greenwood Tree by Thomas Hardy, one of the few books he's written that has a happy ending.

One book you’ve been meaning to read:
There are a couple... the Faery Queen by Spenser, Beowulf, Milton's Paradise Lost (again)

Nathan, the Tactful Prophet

2006-08-04T08:00:00.000-07:00

Two words we need to see together more often. :) Nathan strikes the perfect balance between hellfire and brimstone and respectful suggestion. The point of his story hits hard, but the way he tells it gives David a chance to draw his own conclusions and make his own decision.

Nathan respects David's intelligence and right to make a choice. He doesn't go to him and lecture him as if he were a child. God does the same thing to us. He gives us time and space to make our own decision--He doesn't beat us over the head.

I am so bad at this. When people don't respond to truth, I want to bang them over the head with LOUDER truth. It just doesn't work that way. According to Proverbs, "a soft word breaketh the bone..."

Correction: Painful Proof of Love

2006-07-04T19:10:00.000-07:00

II Sam. 12
"Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth betimes." I never really noticed the bit that says "And the Lord sent Nathan unto David." Nathan didn't just get it into his head that he needed to tell David off. Never should I assume that correction comes only from the whim of an authority. God has a hand in my life, and often uses authority to correct. This is a great comfort, that God cares enough about my being out of fellowship with Him to send another Christian to confront me. Now if only I responded as well and as quickly as David did.
My prayer is that I would learn to value holiness above looking good. My pride leads me to respond badly to criticism and to authority. I must trust God's goodness enough to know that chastening is proof of His love.

The Cover-Up

2006-07-04T19:05:00.000-07:00

David makes the quick, coldhearted decision that Uriah should be killed in battle. He joins ranks with that practical, calculating man, Joab, who is willing to do his dirty work for him.
There will always be a "way out" of our sin's consequences, but using it leads to worse consequences. "He that covers his sin shall not prosper, but whoso confesseth and forsaketh shall find mercy." (rough paraphrase)
But, it is so much easier to at least forestall painful consequences. Who wants to voluntarily humiliate himself and confess his wickedness or stupidity? Yes, what David did was horrible, killing an innocent man to cover his sin, but haven't we all covered things up before? It is human nature...we see it in the Garden when Adam and Eve hide from God.
Sin shames us, loads us with guilt that is so burdensome it is easier to deny it. Thank God He seeks us out in our hiding...as He did Adam and Eve and as He does David.

Bathsheba, Vixen or Victim?

2006-06-25T17:57:00.000-07:00

I promised to get back around to this. My thinking is that she was mostly a victim...mostly. Here's why I think so. She had a godly upbringing, if her brother's character is any indication. Her family probably held the Abrahamic covenant dear to their hearts, since her name means "daughter of the oath." Her grandfather was a man noted for his wisdom in counsel. She was given in marriage to a good man of high character.

If her later actions show her basic character, they paint a favorable picture as well. Most Bible scholars think she is the mother of "Lemuel," probably another name for Solomon. Her prophecy is recorded in Proverbs 31.

That fact makes me laugh out loud at the irony. Bathsheba is a woman we think of as badly messed up, ruined, tragically fallen, in the middle of a huge mess of adultery, lies, and murder. She writes a chapter about the PERFECT WOMAN who has intimidated females for centuries! (Think of that line "the heart of her husband doth safely trust in her." That must have hurt to write.) Scholars believe she is the woman who uttered these words because it is addressed to a king, the name "Lemuel" may be a nickname for Solomon, and she warns her son about the main weaknesses Solomon had....wine and women. She warns him not to drink, lest he pervert judgement. She then goes on to describe a suitable wife for him. (Alas, even with all his 700 wives and 300 concubines, I bet Solomon couldn't find one who fit the bill.) If Bathsheba described this Proverbs 31 woman, chances are she shared, or at least valued, some of her characteristics.

My third reason for believing her mostly the victim, not the seductress: her actions in interceding for Adonijah (this was soon after Solomon gained the throne). Adonijah was already on "probation," you might say, for trying to take the throne as David lay dying. Solomon graciously gave him a second chance. In a political move, Adonijah went to Bathsheba, asking her to intercede on his behalf and allow him to marry David's concubine. Bathsheba innocently did it. She just was not a "machinations" kinda gal. She just didn't get all the intrigues. She didn't understand that Adonijah was only doing this to gain an edge to the throne. Solomon saw through it and had him killed.

So, given her parentage, writings, and somewhat naive, ready-to-please character, I believe she was a victim in this matter. When David called for her, how could she refuse him? She was not like Abigail, who with a few deftly-wielded words kept David from sin, even in the white-heat of his anger. But I said she was "mostly" a victim.

She may have averted disaster if she had tried--if she had thought in that moment of her faithful husband, who loved her "like a ewe lamb" and "cherished her in his bosom" (Nathan's description). If she had only thought of the reputation of the king of Israel. If only she had thought of the consequences that must come to the nation and to David. If she had even thought of her own family, or her own reputation...

But I feel so for her. What a horrible burden to carry, for someone who was not hardened in sin. She had to keep the adultery secret...and those months must have been torture, once she knew she was going to have a child. She must have known that her husband was murdered, not killed in battle. She knew why her child died. She did suffer, indeed.

Her story is a warning to me, and to all women. God has made women vulnerable. This is not a weakness (or should not be). Beauty invites. God has given women this characteristic. In a way they picture Christ. He became vulnerable, risking openness when he came to earth, ministering and opening his heart to others. But there is great strength in his vulnerability and openness, because he submits to his Father. He does not close himself off to protect Himself or lash out in self-defense. He remains soft, open, submissive, yet He directs this openness and submission to God. Therein lies His glory and his strength.

The Family of Bathsheba

2006-06-19T07:38:00.000-07:00

The more I dig for info concerning Bathsheba, the more interesting it gets! The Bible actually has quite a bit to say about her family. Remember the "unsung hero," Machir of Lodebar, who harbored Mephibosheth and aided David? He was none other than her brother. And her grandfather was David's chief advisor, Ahithophel, whose advice was "like the oracles of God," who later betrayed David in Absalom's uprising, and who hung himself when his counsel was defeated by Hushai. So, Bathsheba had connections, and was no stranger to David or to the palace. (Her nationality is still not certain, though her name may give us some clues...it means "daughter of an oath," referring to Abraham's covenant.)
More info on Uriah. It is possible he may have been a second-generation converted Jew, since his name contains the suffix for "Jehovah." Uriah is presented as a noble character, more devoted to Israel's causes than David himself (at this time.) His loyalty to a nation that, by blood, was not his own, is amazing, and makes his murder all the more heinous.
Bathsheba was no doubt a cherished prize to Uriah. She was of noble birth, was endowed with unusual beauty, and was valued by her family. Her name at birth was "Bathshua," "daughter of my prosperity." Later it was changed by her father to "daughter of an oath." (Names were often changed to reflect a child's character when the child came of age.) This, by the way, was a prophetic name, as she does figure in the Abrahamic covenant as an ancestor of Christ. It also shows her father's growing assessment of her worth.

Bathsheba, Hittites, and Genealogies

2006-06-19T07:11:00.000-07:00

Now, you gotta see the irony in that...BATHsheba!

We aren't told much about this woman. She was married to a Hittite, one of David's mighty men. (Warning: Beginning rabbit trail here) The Hittites were a powerful nation that, though they'd been chased back and discouraged from settling near the Israelites, ruled a vast tract of land in the mountains of Turkey. They were not a literary society, so for many years archeologists knew little about them. In the early 1900s, archeologists (particularly the Germans, who believed the Hittites to be their ancestors) deciphered their language and discovered that the Hittites, far from being minor players, were a world power that rivaled Egypt and conquered Babylon.

Their language bears similarities to German--some words are nearly identical. For example, their word for "water" (vaser) is nearly the same. Probably of European origin, they may have migrated south through the Balkans.

The Hittite culture, in my mind at least, bears some similarities to American culture. Masters of chariot-making and iron work, they were most interested in government and laws, not poetry and art. Their laws were admirable, even by modern standards. Though inherited from the Old Babylonians (think Hammurabi), they were an improvement as far as fairness and reasonableness. They were not into despotic central authority. Only a handful of crimes were capital crimes (unlike Hammurabi's code, where you could be executed for getting rowdy drunk). They were non-dogmatic when it came to religion, tolerating any and all gods. (Sounds a bit like America too.) Their interests included colonies in far corners of the Mediterranean and trade. They spread Mesopotamian culture all over the ancient world through commerce. (Again, like America...the great cultural definer for most of the world.) They were sheep raisers and grain growers, who also had rich natural resources of silver, copper, and lead ore. They were the earliest makers of iron. You might say they were on the cutting edge of technology.

So, Uriah the Hittite was from no small tribe...he was a member of a powerful nation. What was he doing fighting for David? We're not sure. David attracted several foreign "mighty men," though. An outcast and renegade couldn't be picky about his friends. Any ally was a welcome ally.

The question is, was Bathsheba Hittite, or Jewish? We don't know that, either. She was the "daughter of Ammiel." (She is mentioned in the genealogy of I Chron. 3:5 as the mother of 4 sons...apparently remaining a favorite wife with David.) She is in the line of Christ, amazingly enough. She is even mentioned in the genealogy of Matthew, along with three other women...Tamar, Ruth, and Rahab. (Interesting...Tamar was an adulteress, Rahab a Canaanite harlot, Ruth a Moabitess.)

This alone--the fact that these four women of dubious repute were mentioned in Christ's genealogy--shows that God mercifully works through "sinners," and through unlikely people, non-Jewish people. It also shows that Christ was no "pure-blood" Jew by any means. God is not a racist.

Better stop here since I'm running the risk of information overload...but that genealogy really speaks to me. Bathsheba, a woman whose very name brings up shameful associations, and who was involved in the moral downfall of Israel's most beloved king, is honored (along with three other "strange women") with a place in the predominately male genealogy of Christ. Instead of covering up Christ's "less acceptable" roots, Matthew highlights them by mentioning these four women of ill-repute. That gives us all a lot of hope. It's God's righteousness, not ours, that brings about His perfect plan.

Messing Up Royally

2006-06-14T20:46:00.000-07:00

II Sam. 11
Probably the biggest threat to Israel's existence had been successfully dealt with. David probably breathed a big sigh of relief. Finally he could get some R&R....and we all know what happens next.

I really do not like reading this chapter. No one likes seeing someone mess up...royally. It is painful reading.

I'm not sure what to focus on here in this story of David and Bathsheba, but, considering my gender, perhaps I should take a look at Bathsheba. What was she like? Siren, or simpleton? Vixen, or victim? More to come on this later...

A Big Nasty War

2006-06-14T20:38:00.000-07:00

II Sam. 10

The insult to David's men caused a war. When Hanun and the Ammonites were thrashed by David's army, you'd have thought it was over. But no. The Ammonites had brought along their buddies, the proud Syrians, and they didn't take the loss very well. The Syrian king (who was probably just waiting for an excuse to fight Israel, anyway, and jumped at the chance) rallied a huge army and renewed the conflict. This high king of the Syrians, Hadradezer, called out all the vassal Syrian kings to fight.

David in turn called out all the host of Israel. David's men won again! After this second defeat, the Syrians made peace with Israel, and served them, and "feared to help the Ammonites any more."

Just proof that history repeats itself. Palestine takes unwarranted offense at Israel, stirs up a bunch of neighboring countries who likewise hate Israel, and tries to wipe it off the face of the earth.

Israel existed only by the grace of God. It still exists only by His grace and for His purpose.

Kindness Rejected

2006-06-05T04:18:00.000-07:00

II Sam. 10
David tries to show kindness to the son of Nahash king of Ammon when his father dies. This is following on the heels of an instance of David's kindness doing much good--now it backfires. Hanun is suspicious, listening to his counselors, and believes David's emissaries are spies. He insults David's men, cutting off their beards and their garments. His vicious response started a war.

The fact that this story and the story of Mephibosheth are so close together is no accident. (That's one thing I'm finding with the OT...where stories are told in relation to the book often has significance!) In the one case, a destitute man is humble enough to accept kindness. In this case, a proud king suspects the motives of the one offering kindness and insults his messengers.

That has to be a picture of two responses to God's offer of salvation. Mephib. was poor and needy, and he knew it. Hanun was proud and insulting. One receives salvation, the other causes a war. This is a picture of God giving grace to the humble, but resisting the proud who reject Him.

So...how often do I mistrust God's goodness and believe Satan's accusations that God's goodness is not pure, that He has an ulterior motive? I may not admit it to myself, but don't I sometimes think He does not have my good in mind? Yep, I can be just like Hanun!

Unfortunately, I identify more with the screw-ups in the Bible than the "good guys..."

Unsung Hero

2006-05-29T16:53:00.000-07:00

II Samuel 9

When David's men found him, Mephibosheth was staying in the house of Machir, son of Ammiel, in Lodebar (meaning "no pasture"). To complete the picture of Mephib. as the sinner, he is hiding out from David/God in a desolate place.

Machir is just mentioned in passing here, but later we find him helping David when he flees from Absalom. He, along with two other men, brings food, beds, and clay vessels for David and the royal household. Machir was a man with discernment and compassion, who just didn't care about popular opinion. It certainly was not popular to care for a grandson of Saul's, or a fleeing king with few followers. He didn't care about the inconvenience to himself, either. We don't know how long Mephibosheth stayed with him, but it may have been a long time, and a cripple would be a drain on his time and finances. Likewise in the case of David, Machir must have been put out quite a bit to provide for an entire royal household. Machir cared when no one else dared. He's a rather simple man, really--when he sees a need, he shows compassion.

Machir is a picture of those in the world who care for lost souls. He could not "save" Mephibosheth, but he could care for him and keep him safe until such time as David would call him. He probably didn't have much himself, living in a barren area, but such as he had he shared with Mephibosheth. Likewise we may not think we have much to offer, but God wants to use us.

Unmerited Favor: Mephibosheth

2006-05-29T12:58:00.000-07:00

II Samuel 9

I'm seeing pictures of Christ everywhere in the OT. It's especially evident in the story of Mephibosheth. Mephibosheth is the grandson of Saul, and therefore an enemy. If David were to follow the practice of most kings of the time, he would have killed Mephibosheth as a potential threat to the throne. But because of the merits of his father (Jonathan), he is instead treated like one of the royal household.

God is kind to us, children of the enemy, because of the merits of Christ. Out of honor and love for Jonathan David accepts Mephibosheth. Out of honor and love for His Son God accepts us, cripples and enemies that we are. We are both enemies, subject to wrath and judgement, and cripples, evoking pity. Both wretched and dangerous, we are accepted on the merits of another--because of a covenant that has been made.

Mephibosheth had no pretensions to greatness. (His very name means "a shameful thing.") He knew he was defenseless and at David's mercy. When David's servants appeared to fetch him, he no doubt trembled in fear. Would David kill him, grandson of the enemy, as was the practice? Maybe he did not know of the promise David had made to his father.

Mephibosheth, with his crutches, or on his litter, must have made a pitiable figure as he entered the grand throne room and faced David, seated majestically on his throne. He fell on his face before David. He couldn't stand--now he demeans himself further by falling on his face. The moment of truth has come. What will David say? He utters one word..."Mephibosheth." He calls him by name, and no doubt there is kindness in his voice. In his fear, Mephibosheth doesn't hear it. He hastens to say "Behold, thy servant."

Notice Mephibosheth's humble, open attitude, that enables David to show him mercy. This is how we must come to Christ...humbly, making no attempt to hide our wretchedness, realizing we are dependent on Him for all and deserving of nothing. "Behold, thy servant." Those words are so hard for us to say, but maybe that is because we don't realize our true station, as Mephibosheth did.

David reassures him--"Fear not: for I will surely shew thee kindness for Jonathan thy father's sake." He also promises to restore Saul's lands, the original family plot, to Mephibosheth. He is undoing all the trouble caused by Mephibosheth's sinful grandfather and restoring things as they would have been--Mephibosheth becomes a landowner, not as rich as a king, but not one who relies on the mercy of another, either. He doesn't just allow Mephib. to be a hanger-on at the palace, a "welfare recipient," a "pity friend" who is tolerated. He gives him back his responsibility and manhood.

Isn't that what God in his goodness does for us? He doesn't just save us from hell and say "ok, you can hang out in a corner of heaven when you die, but don't expect anything else." No, He gives us a job and an inheritance and a position. He makes us His own children. He restores what sin has corrupted.

Mephibosheth's response is one of wonder: "Why should you look upon such a dead dog as me?" He is astounded at this powerful king's mercy, not understanding the love that prompts David to show it. David had been looking for someone to whom he could show mercy for Jonathan's sake. Now that he had found him his heart yearned to show him kindness, in honor of his dear friend.

The story doesn't end with Mephibosheth's life. We see him eating at the king's table, treated like one of the king's own sons. But we find out later that the blessing continues...God sent him a line of descendants known for their power and prowess in battle. They were experts with the bow, as their ancestor Jonathan had been.

David overturned Mephibosheth's life of shame and taught him his value as one that was loved. Now that he was in the palace, befriended of the king and treated as a son, it would do him no good to act as before--shamefaced, craven, apologetic, hiding. To have done so would have been an insult to David's kindness.

To be honest, Mephibosheth was not a man of great spirit or courage. We see him later taken advantage of by his servant, and not coming with David when David is exiled by Absalom. He offers the excuse that he could not saddle a donkey for himself, and Ziba tricked him. But he must have had other servants besides Ziba. His motives were not malicious as Ziba said ("he hoped to gain the throne for himself") but neither did he do all that was possible to show his allegiance to David.

This, too, is too often a realistic portrayal of the Christian. Years pass and we forget to be grateful and loyal to the One who has done so much for us. We offer excuses and claim weakness as our reasons for not doing all we can to be loyal. May we never forget that we are "Mephibosheth" and may we never stop wondering at the mercy that brought us into the royal family.

Preservation

2006-05-29T12:20:00.000-07:00

II Samuel 8

David fought first the Philistines, then Moab. The Moabites became his servants. The whole chapter resounds with David's astounding military victories. The Bible says twice that "God preserved David whithersoever he went." His success was due to God's protection.
What room is there for fear if we know our safety depends on God? We should trust Him to do what is best. By the same token, if we are successful, we need to remember it's all of God.

Indestructible Mercy

2006-05-29T12:18:00.000-07:00

II Sam. 7:14-15

How can God be just and fair, and still promise everlasting mercy, no matter what? Christ is the answer. He takes our punishment so that He may bless us instead of punishing us. It seems so obvious that Messiah is the answer to the sin problem. Man cannot righteously be blessed by God, because man is evil. To bless evil would be unfair and unrighteous. I wonder how many OT figures saw this, saw that a Messiah to bridge the gap would be needed. This Messiah would be the ultimate scapegoat for all of man's sin, and allow us to approach God as righteous. It had to be.

God tells David He will bless his son Solomon. If Solomon sins, God will chasten him, but will not turn away His mercy from him, like He did with Saul. These are the "sure mercies" of David, non-dependent on the actions of the blessed. This is our same state as NT saved. We are forever assured of the mercies of God. He has made a covenant with us that is not dependent on our faithfulness. He chastens us for our own good, but ultimately, we are blessed, safe, holy, and beloved, thanks to the merits of Christ.

How amazing!

But I Would Have Done It....

2006-05-12T17:50:00.000-07:00

II Sam. 7
This chapter makes me think of my mom and her unfulfilled desire to be a missionary. It was the only thing she wanted to do, but God in His providence didn't allow it. Instead she got married and became a "missionary to five little savages," me and my four brothers.

David really, really wanted to build God a temple. It was his passion and desire. But God did not allow it. His will was that the building be left to David's son. Was He being cruel? Did He scold David for asking to do something that was not His will? No, He heard David's prayer with gladness in His heart. He blessed David with a revelation and a promise that David's throne would endure forever. (Even David could not have imagined how this would be fulfilled--that his offspring would be God Incarnate, and that Christ would reign forever as the perfect King.)

I think it shows God's heart toward David that He grants Him a fuller knowledge of His plan when David asks for the privilege of doing something for Him. God responds graciously and with abundant promises and blessings.

Maybe it's not that God is "hiding things from us." Maybe He's just waiting for us to show some interest in His plan, even if we bumble the timing and job assignment. I think it rejoices His heart when we're interested in bringing Him glory, and He may even honor us with a deeper understanding of Himself and His plan as a result.

Charismatic or Conservative?

2006-05-08T09:37:00.000-07:00

II Samuel 6

The Charismatic movement (among other things) celebrates the free expression of the emotions to worship God. Conservative fundamentalist movements stress the importance of worshipping by the rules. I can't think of a more perfect chapter than this one to show us how to deal with these two issues!

There are two lessons here, and they are not in conflict. 1) Worship must be done God's way, according to His rules. 2) Never despise a man who is sold out to Christ to the point of self-forgetfulness.

David went to fetch the ark and bring it back to Jerusalem. (The ark had been in exile for many years...it's a long story that you can read about in I Samuel.) He had it brought in a cart, though, not carried on poles by the priests. Who knows why they neglected this clear command for moving the ark. Maybe the priests were afraid to get near it. Maybe it was because all of the high priestly family was dead (Saul killed them*), and no one else volunteered for the job. In any case, they ignored God's way of moving the ark and brought it in a cart. The "breach of Uzzah"-- where he reached out to steady it and was struck dead--would not have happened had protocol been followed.

David was afraid after this happened, and delayed the bringing of the ark. Later, though, seeing that the man who kept the ark had been greatly blessed, he returned for it. This second time they brought the ark to Jerusalem, David was so overcome with joy that he danced with abandon before it. (Here is where the conservatives reading this story begin to squirm.) God does not look askance on David for this. On the contrary, Michal, David's wife, who reproved him, is the "bad guy." She despised him for what she saw as an undignified display. But there is no room for false dignity when completely overcome by a love for God. So many instances in Scripture--the woman who washed Christ's feet with her tears, the woman with the alabaster box--show "senseless" abandon because of love for Christ.

Yep, I'm a lot like Michal. Squinchy, picky, careful of my dignity and the dignity of others. Not focused on adoring Christ. But what room is there for dignity and self-preservation when we have been so lavishly loved by Christ?

If I throw all rules to the wind and worship God however I like, I sin. If I focus on the externals of worship but have no heart of worship, I sin.

How much of our Sunday morning "worship" is actually an exercise in self-righteous pride? How many of us would dare close our eyes in worship as we sing a hymn or let our love for Christ show in our expression? God never condemns lavish, loving displays of gratitude to Him. He does condemn carelessness in worship. These are two very different things that I think we sometimes confuse.

God, help me to forget my pride and false dignity and have a pure heart of worship toward You!

*This incidentally was a fulfillment of the prophecy to Samuel that Eli's family would be wiped out.

Attack!

2006-05-08T09:20:00.000-07:00

David has been joyfully accepted as king over all Israel. The trials of being an outlaw, being scorned and disowned by his supposed friends, living in fear of death daily...all of that was over.

But the reason God made David king is not that David could enjoy a well-deserved rest from all his sufferings. The very purpose of a king is to protect and fight for the people. And immediately after his coronation, David faces an enemy. The Philistines, who had won a major defeat over Saul's army, come back to "finish the kill." They probably wanted to attack while David was weak and had not yet established a large army.

David's great public victory...acceptance by Israel...was followed by a great public threat, the Philistines.

On the heels of great victory often come great obstacles. There is no way we can face them without the grace of God. David had learned much about God while hiding from Saul. He had firm, tried-and-tested promises to lean on.

We must grow in grace at all times, so we can withstand the wiles of the devil.

Two Essential Qualifications for Leadership

2006-05-08T09:11:00.000-07:00

II Sam. 5
After Abner's assassination and Ishbosheth's death, all of Israel acknowledges David's right to the throne. He is worthy of the throne both by merit ("thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel") and by appointment ("and the Lord said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel.") In this sense David is a picture of the Messiah.
Christ is worthy to be King over all the earth through appointment. God has "put all things under his feet." He is also worthy by merit. He proved His love for mankind by His sacrifice on the cross.
The perfect leader is both appointed by God and acts in a way worthy to the appointment. We all have God-given areas of leadership, even if it's just influencing a friend. We need grace to act in a way worthy of the leadership. Christ (and David as a shadow of Christ) is our perfect example of leadership...ordained of God (not taking something upon Himself without God's blessing), and sacrificially concerned about the welfare of His flock.
The "appointment" area is where it may be tempting for wives to overstep bounds. If we take it upon ourselves to be the spiritual leaders, decision makers, or head of the home, we cannot be good leaders (even if we honestly have better leadership qualities). We can only lead in the areas God has appointed us.
The "merit" area is where it may be tempting for husbands to be lacking. Knowing they are chosen of God to lead, they may be tempted to use that appointment to be high-handed or selfish.
We must be sure, in an area of leadership, that we are appointed to it by God, and that we strive, by God's grace, to merit the appointment.

Righteous Judge

2006-05-03T08:56:00.000-07:00

II Samuel 4
Ishbosheth's two captains assassinated him while he lay resting on his bed, then took his head to David, thinking to receive a reward. Instead, David has them slain for their evil deed.

Incidentally, their act does finally secure Israel's allegiance to David. If David were not bent on judging righteously, he may have overlooked their crime. After all, he had had no end of trouble and loss of lives over Ishbosheth. With the last claim to the throne on Saul's end done away with, David could breathe easy and go about God's business of shepherding Israel. But David is no pragmatist. He has a higher moral code...we saw it in his refusal to kill Saul, in his punishment of the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul, and now in the case of the assassination of Saul's heir.

David had a clear idea of right and wrong when it came to war. You might say he followed a chivalric code that believed (naively, we might say) that right would triumph, and had no need of underhanded machinations or foul play.

Let's remember that he was right! God will avenge any wrong done to us. It is not our job to avenge ourselves, and we should never cover up a crime just because it is to our benefit.

Another thought...by acting this way, David discouraged other assassinations or mistreatment of Saul's followers. If he had rewarded the captains, many other killings may have followed. By his righteous judgement, he encouraged right behavior.

Obeying out of Pride

2006-05-01T05:46:00.000-07:00

II Sam. 3
Abner was the real source of the trouble between Saul's house and David's. Ishbosheth, "man of shame," was just a pawn, and a weak one at that. He knew he had no chance of being king without Abner's help. However, the two had a falling-out over Abner's relationship to Rizpah, Saul's concubine. Ishbosheth was outraged that (true or not) Abner was having a fling with Saul's former wife. This probably implied an attempt to gain more power. Maybe Ishbosheth was already annoyed with Abner's high-handedness and this was the final straw.

When Abner is accused, he indignantly turns to David's side. He's had enough of Ishbosheth's weak, mealy ways. The only problem was, Joab did not trust his "conversion." Perhaps he was justified in this, as he knew Abner quite well. Joab, ever a pragmatic man of action, assassinated Abner. The general who once had been so "chummy" with Abner had a personal reason for the assasination as well: Abner had killed Joab's brother Asahel.

Abner ought never to have attempted to raise up a king of one of Saul's sons, since he knew God had anointed David, and he had personally seen the ruin of Saul. His pride and hope of power leads him to attempt it. And his pride leads him to change sides and sympathize with David. He thinks he has the power to act out a prophecy (and take the credit): "As the Lord hath sworn to David, even so shall I do to him." As God showed, He could give the kingdom to David without Abner's help. It is dangerous to act against what you know is the will of God, and presumptuous to think you can "help" God.

Abner's downfall was his pride (as it is for all of us!). He disobeys God in pride, and then turns to Him in pride. If he was going to go along with God's plans, he was going to do it on his own terms. This type of "obedience" is just sinful pride.

To be honest, many times I do right things because I want to do them. It is my plan and I either want to feel very important...like a key player, one God really needs to get the job done...or I want to appear like a "super nice person" to others. I've got to remember that motives are key! Just because I'm doing the right things doesn't mean my heart is right.

Roots of Trouble

2006-05-01T05:24:00.000-07:00

II Samuel 3
David had six sons during the 7 years he ruled Judah, and each by a different wife. The more I read about David, the more I realize he had a lot of faults. Absalom was one of the sons born to him (the third), and he was the son of a pagan princess, Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur. David and his men had made inroads against the Geshurites while he was with Achish of Gath, and had utterly destroyed their cities and every living person. Apparently they did not destroy the entire people group of the Geshurites, because Absalom later runs to his Geshurite grandfather (a king) as an exile. How David came to marry a Geshurite princess, daughter of a pagan and enemy nation, the Bible doesn't record. The Bible forbade marriages with pagan wives, though not when they are captive virgins of a conquered nation. However, this must not have been the case, because her father was still alive and ruling a kingdom during Absalom's youth. It must have been an arranged political match.

Later, when David sins with Bathsheba, God says "from now on there will be trouble in your house." I don't think it is as if God stirs up trouble. The trouble is already there waiting to happen! David has disobeyed God's injunction to kings not to "multiply to themselves wives..." and has also disobeyed the injunction to avoid marrying heathen wives. David is a busy king (and as we will see, a permissive parent) and must leave the rearing of his sons to their mothers. David did well enough in taking his first wife Ahinoam, who was with him during all the time of his hiding from Saul, and perhaps we might say he did well in taking his second wife, godly Abigail (whose son, Nathan, by the way, we hear nothing of...perhaps he was simply a well-behaved and dutiful son?). But when he begins to multiply more wives to himself...simply because God has finally placed him in a situation where he is powerful and secure...he does wrong.

It is no wonder Absalom behaves as he does. He had been raised by a pagan princess, probably spoiled herself, and very beautiful (judging from Absalom's remarkable physical beauty). She apparently maintains close ties with her pagan father-king, since Absalom is on familiar enough terms to flee to him when he is banished.

It seems that God witholds the fruits of my bad decisions and disobedience many times. To quote Jim Berg in Quieting a Noisy Soul, the human heart is so toxic that God has only to give it up to itself in order to bring its destruction. We will probably never know all of God's mercy to us until we reach heaven!

The Civil War Begins

2006-04-19T10:25:00.000-07:00

II Sam. 2
David is king, but his troubles were not all over. Judah, his own tribe, accepted him with open arms. The rest of Israel, however, was not immediately convinced. They attempted to raise up Saul's son Ishbosheth ("man of shame") as king. The driving force behind this move was Abner, Saul's cousin and former captain of his army.

We have to remember, though, that though there was differences of opinion about who would rule, there was still a measure of friendliness and familiarity between the two armies. This is seen in the relationship between Joab and Abner.* The two seem a bit chummy. They meet together, almost to prove who is stronger in a friendly way, but what begins in a game ends in a battle. Abner was the instigator. "Let the young men play before us." It starts like a tennis match almost, with men evenly paired to fight. Each young man kills the other, though, and the match turns into a free-for-all. It ends in a massacre.

In this contest of skill, both generals were foolish, but Abner especially so. He, in his pride, suggested the contest. Later, when his army was losing, he called for terms of peace. Abner's desire to flaunt his power actually had the effect of revealing his inferiority when his men suffered the worst losses--320 versus Joab's 19!

Pride always calls for comparisons to prove itself. And pride comes before a fall. I've found in my own life that I am most prone to comparisons when I've just learned something or gained a new skill. "Hey, look what I discovered! Look what I can do!" I just can't help sharing it with everyone, with the ulterior motive that maybe they will share my newly-inflated view of myself! Usually I find out (and God usually has this happen on purpose, I think) that the person I'm crowing to has known these things for years and has practiced them as a matter of course for a long time. It's better to keep my pride to myself, and seek to mortify it, rather than crow about it. As Abner found, it just causes strife and brings shame.

*The friendly terms of the two generals is further illustrated by Abner's reluctance to kill Asahel, for, as he says, "how then should I hold up my face to Joab thy brother?" He has some standing in Joab's eyes and doesn't wish to upset it.

Thank God He Doesn't Turn Off the TV

2006-04-08T19:15:00.000-07:00

I'm skipping ahead of myself a little...this is not from my journal, and I'm a lot farther in the story of the Israelite kings...but this is an overall impression I'm getting from my readings.

I'm considering this whole, long, drawn-out saga of the Israelites. There are a couple of bright spots but for the most part it's a downward slide.

Have you ever started flipping through channels on a lazy Saturday and get drawn into some drama...maybe you're not even sure what it is, but the characters look interesting? Then the thing starts going downhill. You keep watching, thinking surely it's got to get better, redeem itself, but no, the characters keep doing stupid things...cheating on each other, lying, blindly making the same mistakes over and over.

What do you do? You finally turn the thing off in disgust. Well, thank God he didn't turn off the TV after watching Israel mess up over and over and over again. He kept intervening, saving them from their enemies, warning them, sending prophets.

And at the end of the OT we might be tempted to think He finally turned off the TV. There is complete silence, unbroken by a single word of Holy Writ. But He was just preparing the most wonderful intervention of all. Christ appears and breaks the silence. God is faithful and keeps His promise. He not only blesses Israel but the whole world as well.

I am so glad God doesn't "turn me off" after watching me mess up so many times. I'm glad His patience and love are a lot stronger than mine. I'm struck--this time reading through the OT--with what a longsuffering, loving God we have. Before I sometimes had trouble justifying some of His actions to myself. He seemed harsh and unloving. I don't know how I missed it before, but there are so very many instances of His delaying judgement, warning people, and giving second and third (and fourth and fifth!) chances. He doesn't want everyone miserable. He wants to warn them from evil and its consequences. He is not looking for an excuse to destroy these people. He is looking for an excuse to forgive them.

Dealing With the Aftermath of a Bad Leader

2006-04-07T18:54:00.000-07:00

II Samuel 2
So, Israel's first king turned out to be a dismal failure. David handles the transition beautifully. He doesn't slander Saul or his followers. They've suffered enough, been disillusioned and seen their hopes crushed. His response reminds me of Lincoln's after the Civil War--comforting the losers and promising to rebuild. David lets it be known that he is pleased with the men who stole Saul's body from the Philistines. He doesn't tell them they were wrong to serve Saul, simply that it is over now and that he has been anointed king by the men of Judah.

David has learned his lesson from his liason with Achish. This time he inquires of the Lord whether he should go into Judah or not, and where. He doesn't rush into the opportunity pell-mell.

David must have been genuinely sad at Saul's death (certainly at Jonathan's), but also elated because at last he was no longer an outlaw! Finally he could live safely in his own country.

What a great lesson to us to be gracious to those led astray by sinful leaders. We ought not condemn but restore. When we finally "get our day in court" and come up on top, we ought not to gloat or seek to get back at others. I think of Germany after WWI...because they were treated unmercifully for their belligerence, they grew hopeless and bitter. This led them to be open to the leading of an evil man like Hitler, who played on their feelings of hopelessness and loss of national pride. The Allies learned from this mistake in WWII, and made deliberate efforts to restore Germany. Going after our "pound of flesh" only begets more hatred, more wounds. The problem is made worse. Punishment of someone according to every jot and tittle of the law leaves us all in hopelessness. Vengeance is the Lord's, and see how He dealt with us in mercy.

Mercy gives hope and allows others to change.

Melville and the Bible

2006-04-07T17:41:00.000-07:00

It is helpful to read literature with Bible characters in mind. You can gain a clearer understanding of the Biblical character. And you can see how their flaws and strengths might work out in a different setting.

Melville read the Bible (most educated people did) so his "Moby Dick" could have been influenced by the story of Saul. Parallels between Captain Ahab and Saul: Ahab is hurt by the Whale and blames it on God. Saul is injured (he thinks) by David, and rebels against God. Ahab seeks the company of a heathen who has occult powers. Saul seeks advice from the Witch of Endor. Both Fedallah and the Witch of Endor predict how the men will die. Ahab and Saul are obsessive in their quest for vengeance. Starbuck, the good-hearted first mate, remains loyal to Ahab, though he knows it will be fatal. Sounds a bit like Jonathan. The ship's crew correspond to the army of Israel, all of which are brought down by Ahab's/Saul's madness.

When you read "Moby," you can see how a man like Ahab, though close to insanity, can still inspire respect and loyalty. I imagine Saul in his decaying state still retained a commanding presence. Saul has his moments of lucidity as well as his "fits." So does Ahab. At one point in the story, after an emotional appeal by Starbuck, he nearly changes his mind and gives up the chase. This is like Saul's response when David reasons with him. Both characters are plagued by dark moods...Ahab pacing the decks by night, Saul plunging into depression.

I think "Moby" rings true because the flaws of the characters and the effects of their flaws ring true.

Remembering Jonathan

2006-03-30T16:41:00.000-08:00

II Samuel 1

I am reading David's "Song of the Bow" where he mourns Saul and his dear friend Jonathan. This man Jonathan is the best example of true friendship in the Bible (apart from Christ Himself).

Jonathan represents selfless, disinterested friendship--and there isn't much of that in the Bible (though Ruth and Naomi come to mind). There are plenty of examples of false or failing friends. Laban, Judas Iscariot, Amnon's friend Jonadab, Job's friends. If we are honest, we will all admit it is hard to overcome the Adamic nature that wants only our good, and cares very little about the good of others. Jonathan is a true hero because he conquers that selfishness in himself. The Bible says Jonathan loved David "as his own soul." Is that not what the second greatest commandment is...to love our neighbor as ourselves? Maybe this is why Jonathan stands out in Bible history as a sterling example, as a picture of Christ, even.

Let's face it, most of us feel a little twinge of jealousy when we see someone excell in our own field. Yet that is what Jonathan saw when he watched David fight Goliath. Jonathan's reaction was, surprisingly, genuine delight! He was glad to see someone of enough pluck to fight God's battles. How different this was from David's brothers' jealousy and suspicion.

I started thinking of ways that Jonathan is a type of, or at least points to, Christ. Here is a son of a king. He gives up the coat off his back, his bow, and his sword for a poor shepherd boy of low birth (not even the firstborn). He helps David to escape death by Saul. (There's a parallel...Christ Son of a King, giving up his glory for men of low repute, saving them from the wrath of his Father.) He rejoices in the fact that David will be exalted. He is not the least bit jealous. (Christ elevates us to reign with Him. Christ prays that God the Father would love us as He has loved Christ Himself.)

I stand in awe of Jonathan's friendship. I wish I could be as selfless, as eager to rejoice in the successes of others, as eager to give all I have for them. Jonathan was actively and clearly "for" David. He cheered him on, helped him, befriended him. It must have meant a great deal to David that Jonathan came to him secretly when he was fleeing from Saul, to encourage him.

I thought what it would mean to have a friend like Jonathan. Then I remembered that Jonathan's friendship is a picture of Christ's friendship. I do have a friend like Jonathan, only better. That is what Christ is like.

That is what Christ is like, and not an accusing friend like Job's friends. Not a trickster who messes with my emotions and my life like Laban. Not someone who will ultimately betray me like Judas. I have a friend that would give me the coat off his back, who would give me the best weapons of war (His Word, His promises, His Spirit), who rejoices in what I will become (though I am no where near it now), and who comes to me when I am most discouraged to strengthen me. Amazing!

An Amalek Shortie

2006-03-29T07:06:00.000-08:00

II Samuel 1

Amalek seems to play a large part in the "Saul and David" saga. I was reading the part where an Amalekite comes up to David, holding Saul's crown, and claims to have finished him off. David angrily has him put to death, asking, "Were you not afraid to touch the Lord's anointed?"

No, he wasn't afraid. Remember, he was an Amalekite, and they are quite free from moral hang-ups. They have no fear of God and do whatever brings them the most gain. Of course, he really didn't kill Saul. He just wanted to ingratiate himself to David, perhaps hoping to get a reward.

Anyway. I read a little more closely and discovered that he was the "son of a stranger, an Amalekite." Yet he was with the camp of Israel. Perhaps he was the product of intermarriage between Israel and Amalek, which God had forbidden. Maybe this is another window to the heinousness of Saul's sin--Israel was befriending and intermarrying with Amalek, and God wanted it stopped!

Personal application here: Let us not accept what causes God's wrath and indignation. Let us not allow "little" sins and let our spiritual borders become fuzzy (intermarry with Amalek). Let us be valiant for the truth, and not sin in refusing to completely purge evil from our lives.

David and Authority

2006-03-29T06:49:00.000-08:00

Painting of Saul and David by Rembrandt

Here is one of those "moral dilemmas" that is solved in so Christ-like a way in the life of David. Throughout their relationship, David maintained respect and deference to Saul, though that became increasingly difficult. Saul was his authority on the one hand (as the annointed king of Israel), but was his mortal enemy and out of fellowship with God on the other. What was David to do? He could have reasoned that any king so murderous (killed the Levites that helped David), so mentally unbalanced, and so disobedient to God deserved judgement. Why couldn't that judgement come at the hand of David, who had been annointed king himself? But...and forgive the LOTR allusions...as Gandalf tells Frodo, not all that deserve life get it, and not all that deserve death get it. Is it Frodo's job to give it to them?

David knew he was not God, and that God had the situation under control. As the situation got worse, David may have been tempted to solve it to preserve his own life. But he trusted God enough to leave his life in His hand. Many times David may have been able to convince himself that this was his chance...God was handing Saul over to him. In fact, his men encouraged him twice that this was God's timing and David could finally avenge himself. They would even do the dirty work themselves. But David did not allow it. The situations where he could have killed Saul were not honorable...he would be stabbing a man in the back, or spearing him while he slept. David was patient, waiting for God's timing.

And then...when Saul died (and this just blows me away), instead of thinking..."whew...so glad that's over. I've suffered enough. Thank you Lord for getting rid of that wicked man who dogged my every step for the last decade,"....he writes him an elegy, possibly the most beautiful little gem of OT poetry extant.

He couldn't have faked that. He really loved Saul. Like Samuel, he saw the tragedy in Saul's disobedience and mourned what could have been. Above all, I think his trust in God allowed him to maintain respect for Saul. Again and again he refers to Saul as "the Lord's anointed." He will not touch a man who has been placed in leadership by God.

Amazing. And we are so easily provoked by little faults in our authority... whether a parent, or boss, or spouse. We see sinful actions in them as grounds for rebellion.

Now, if our authority is really and truly wrong, and even threatens our wellbeing by their decisions, we ought to follow David's example and remove ourselves from the situation. David didn't just stay around waiting for a spear to pin him to the wall. However, do try to prove to the authority that you are willing to be submissive. David did this twice, taking the spear and water jug and cutting Saul's robe. His appeals to Saul on both occasions were humble and creative!

Here's a personal application for wives out there: Seek to respectfully restore your spouse when he is really and truly wrong. Restrain your own flesh when he has not sinned, and you are just picking at non-issues or being irritable. Most of all, remember that a loving God has placed him in leadership.

Sorry, and I just have to add this post script: this does NOT mean that your spouse is perfect and represents "God's will on earth." (Saul certainly wasn't a good reflection of God.) It does mean that you are getting a chance to honor God by your trust in Him.

Amalekites, Gollums of the OT

2006-03-27T06:08:00.000-08:00

II Samuel 1
The first verse of this chapter struck me--"after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites..." Saul lost God's favor for not utterly destroying the Amalekites and all they had. Now David has finished the job.

Some trivia about the Amalekites--they were descendants of a grandson of Esau (at least the ones during this time of history. Another group of people is called "Amalekites" as early as the days of Abraham). Esau's children and grandchildren were given Mt. Seir (meaning "rough, hairy") by God. In fact later in the minor prophets God equates the giving of Mt. Seir to Edom with the giving of the Promised Land to Israel. It was Esau's portion. The Amalekites came from a union between Esau's son Eliphaz and an "aborigine," a woman whose Horite tribe had previously inhabited Mt. Seir. "Horite" means "cave-dweller." Apparently the Mt. Seir area is full of limestone caves.

It seems to me the Amalekites were sort of the cave-dwelling Gollums of the OT--cowardly, sneaking, and opportunistic. You'll remember that Gollum found his prey among the orcs who had wandered away from their group or were trapped and helpless. There's something of this kind of a national personality seen in the two instances of Amalekite attacks...killing the helpless and weak in the rear of the camp of Israel as they entered the Promised Land, and attacking David's village when all the men were gone to war. Is it any mistake that the man who deceitfully claimed to have killed Saul--to have finished off a dying man-- was an Amalekite? Jewish writers say that whereas the other Gentile nations believed in false gods, Amalek believed in nothing. It would follow that they had no moral code, no "right and wrong" to govern their actions. Therefore the Amalekites were basically cowards and sneaks--doing whatever was expedient and that they could get away with. Sort of Stinkers and Slinkers.

God doesn't miss much when it comes to these pagan nations, though He is merciful with them, even at the expense of his own chosen people. Israel stayed in bondage for 400 years, partly because the "iniquity of the [pagan nations] was not yet full." They were not yet wicked enough to warrant losing their lives and their land. So, when God says a nation should be destroyed, be sure He has given them plenty of chances. The Amalekite king was no doubt a wicked man, worthy of death, but Saul, like a soft judge, let him off on good behavior. This king was a smooth talker...he came to Samuel delicately, saying "Surely the bitterness of death is past." Samuel did the right (though messy) thing and carried out the capital punishment he deserved.

The point is, God wanted this wicked nation destroyed, and David carried out His judgement. David was interested in being an instrument of God's divine program. Saul was interested in his own self-promotion. Another point from this story: David's reason for destroying the Amalekites was a personal motive God gave him. They had burned his city, Ziklag. So the Ziklag incident actually served two purposes, in retrospect: cutting ties to the city so David and his men could move on, and giving them a strong reason to carry out God's mission.

Saul and Unbelief

2006-03-22T19:06:00.000-08:00

Modern psychoanalysis might say Saul was just insecure in his worth. It seems there's a lot of evidence for that. Here is a humble guy, no pretensions toward greatness, looking for his father's donkeys and listening to the advice of a servant. Though he's tall and striking in appearance, he's not stuck on himself. In fact he hides in the baggage when Samuel tries to present him as Israel's new king. In God's own words, he is "little in his own sight." But this seemingly winsome bashfulness is disguising a root of unbelief. Saul did not fundamentally believe in God's wisdom and love for him. This started the "way down" (to quote Berg's phrase from Quieting a Noisy Soul). First panic that led to sin (think waiting for Samuel to come perform the sacrifice), then depression, then maniacal rage (trying to pin his son to the wall), obsessions (chasing David), paranoia, despair, and turning to unthinkable sources to relieve his problems (witch of Endor.) All this because he did not believe God was in control, and that God did not love him. Contrast Saul's youthful hiding among the baggage to David's youthful courage in the face of a giant. The difference was not a superiority in personality. It was a difference in trust.

I don't see how anyone can really hate Saul. If we're honest we can all see some of his failures in ourselves. His unbelief in God's goodness and love led to the destruction and twisting of his personality, gifts, calling. It destroyed his family and brought his nation to its knees. I can't think of a better or clearer warning against seemingly "harmless" unbelief. (After all, it's not a malicious thing like murder or adultery...right?)

The more I read, the more "relevant" I find the OT to be! Maybe I relate to stories and examples better than plain principle. Or maybe it's the woman side of me that just gets into a good messy soap opera. At any rate, I'm really enjoying my previously-dry OT readings. :)

Wages of Saul

2006-03-22T09:26:00.000-08:00

II Samuel 1

Here's where Saul's sin, which has been growing up like weeds during most of his reign, finally chokes him. The OT is full of illustrations of the principle of sowing and reaping. The principle never fails. Even if the reaping doesn't come in your lifetime, it comes later. Think of Solomon and his idolatry. Nothing really happened to Israel or to him in his lifetime, but God told him that it was because of HIS sin, not the cumulative sin of thousands of Israelites that were yet to be born, that Israel would be taken into captivity. It took several hundred years, but Solomon's sin bore fruit and Israel was taken into Babylon.
Anyway, here is Saul's sin, which has been pretty fruitful throughout his life...causing him a depressed mental condition, making a rift in his relationships with his own son and his right-hand-man David, ruining the fellowship he could have had with Samuel, separating him from God's leading...now bearing the ultimate wages, death. With him fell his son Jonathan and the best of the Israelite soldiers.

Saul had many sins, but the root seemed to be vanity, a concern with surface things, something I recognize in myself. His personal god was "honor before the people." He forgot even the heinousness of his own sin in light of this god. When he offered the sacrifice before Samuel arrived, he said something like "Sure I've sinned. Sorry. Could you please still honor me before the people? I've got to save face here." The one thing that turned him against David was not necessarily jealousy of David's talents. It was the idea that public opinion honored David more than himself. Saul's obsession with the opinions of others showed up early on, when he hid among the baggage just before being presented to Israel as king. His desire for approval, and fear that he wouldn't get it, led him to hide. In fact the difference between Saul, collossal failure, and David, hero of the faith, was that David repented, not caring who knew. Saul could not let go of his love of approbation.

But to get back to the principle of sowing and reaping...no matter what the sin, it ALWAYS works. It isn't even interrupted by confessing and forsaking. David felt the consequences of his adultery for the rest of his life. Manasseh, even though he repented, still brought down God's judgement on Israel for his deeds. You might say, well, that was the OT. Now we have the NT, where we are not made to suffer the consequences for sin. The God of the New is a lot more forgiving than the God of the Old.

But think a minute...God is "the same yesterday, today, and forever," and it's not like Him to break His own rules. Like the "Deep Magic" in the Narnia tales, His law cannot be changed and must be satisfied. The wonderful truth is that God put his Son in our place to take the consequences. We sowed, Christ reaped. Now whatever consequences come to us from our sin are to discipline us for our own good, not to damn us. That gives me a great feeling of freedom when I am being chastened.

Ziklag

2006-03-21T04:28:00.000-08:00

Birdseye view of Ziklag

I began keeping a Bible-reading journal about where David runs off to the Philistine king to hide from Saul. So I'm starting "in medias res" at that point.

I Sam. 30

God uses gentle chastening to teach David to trust him. The men's wives and children were taken captive and David's city was burnt. This city of Ziklag had been given to David by Achish, and David never should have lived in it anyway. It represented his compromise with Achish of Gath!--and it's no mistake that it was Achish of GATH, the same city of Goliath's origin. In fear, David had given up hiding from Saul and said "now surely Saul will kill me," and fled to the enemy. God in His mercy burned the city...he didn't want David settling there...yet spared all the captives and the men's belongings.

What I learned: God is so merciful! He uses just the amount of force needed to get the job done...no more or less. He didn't allow David's wives or his men's wives and families to be killed to make His point. He burned the bridges...the city they may have been tempted to return to...and prepared them to move out. Shortly after this, the Phillistines marched against Israel, and David was spared from fighting his own people by God's intervention. In this great battle Saul was killed and David was able to finally gain the throne.

If God had left Ziklag intact as a home for the long-homeless followers of David, it may have been hard to get them moving on to the next part of God's agenda. God means for us to be willing to leave attachments behind that are not part of his ultimate plan for us. Often he helps us to that end in ways that seem catastrophic, but are for our good and His glory.

This story has a very personal application for me. For many of my growing-up years, we lived in an "ancestral home" in SC that was built by my great-grandfather just after the Civil War (and here's an odd fact I happen to know...with the help of a former slave named Simon). This same home had seen births and deaths in my mother's family for three generations. The problem was, the place was falling in around us. The gloom of it seemed to affect (or reflect?) our family life, and I developed an unhealthy fixation on somehow fixing it up, making it new again. I even read up on carpentry and chimneys and such. (I didn't get very far.) During college I would come home in the summers and get depressed all over again at the state of the place. I felt like if I could fix that old place up, the pain of my growing-up years would be fixed in some way too. The years passed, and my dream of fixing up the house grew faint. It left behind a feeling of unfinished business, unanswered prayers, unresolved problems. I felt God had failed me somehow.

Last summer the place burned down. To my surprise I felt immense relief at the news. No one was hurt...my parents had been visiting my grandmother at the time. Nothing of great material value was lost or even missed...except perhaps the photo albums, and we gradually began to replace them with the help of friends and relatives. My dad, who had been living practically alone while my mom cared for my grandmother, now moved in with them. Over the months I saw the three older people get used to living together. My grandmother, at 90, seemed to rally in health and spirits with the constant care my mom was able to give her. My parents were together again as they should be. No one was obligated to decide what to do about the old decaying house. God had mercifully decided for us, and He had freed me from the past...several generations of it...to move on to the future.

As I thought over what had happened, I remembered how many of my prayers and thoughts had been expended on that old house, and how during all that time I had forgotten that it was God's. I had made a sort of idol of renewing the old house. He showed me that He has greater things ahead for me in the future, and I must forget the past. He can take care of it, and even through calamity create a better solution for everyone involved.

Insights

2006-03-21T04:00:00.000-08:00

I decided to start a blog to record my insights and "interesting facts" about my readings in the Old Testament. As a layman I realize my entries may be occasionally skewed or shallow. However, I wanted to put these thoughts online so I could have them in a manageable format as a record of what I've learned.

I remember vividly the morning when I decided "I will read the Bible today." I was four. I opened the huge book with the black cover and started out. "In the"--got that much. Easy. That third long word stumped me and I had to quit. As I grew older I made it a goal of mine to read through the Bible. It hasn't always made sense to me, especially the O.T. Now on my fourth or fifth reading, some things are finally starting to make sense. I used to read the stories as what I call an "exercise in recognition." I'd be reading along, some of the text unfamiliar or incomprehensible, and there, in the middle of all those odd circumstances and unpronounceable names would pop up a familiar story like "David and Goliath." There was instant recognition and anticipated pleasure in reading over the events I knew would happen. "Here's the part where he picks up five stones." Of course it had to be five. That was the story. "And here Goliath says he will feed David to the birds. Ha! He'll find out better in a few lines." I was reading as if I were watching a flannelgraph presentation. Here's David, here's Goliath, here's the famous slingshot, and the five stones.

Maybe it was the literature classes in grad school. Maybe it was a more mature understanding of life. Anyway, this time around, I began to see the characters as real people, with real motivations, fears, faults, and a complex environment. It was enlightening and thrilling to newly appreciate stories like David and Goliath, realizing all the characters were real people and were at least as complex as I am. I started to think about what it meant to a camp of hardened soldiers to have a giant like Goliath threaten them. I learned about the history of the giants (or Rephaim), and how they had been symbols of wicked tyranny in generations past. I learned how God wanted them systematically destroyed. I imagined what it meant for David to offer to fight one single-handedly.

I began keeping a journal and writing down my insights. I began looking up all the cross-references, checking out archeological sites, and creating a backdrop for the dramas recorded in the Bible. I began seeing the characters as real people, with "like passions" such as mine. As I told my husband about the things I was discovering, he told me I needed to write them down--others might be interested. It could be he's just biased, but at any rate I wanted to record these things down for myself. I don't want to lose the blessing of discovery and the strengthening of my faith that has come as I read about Bible heroes. I don't want to lose the sinking feeling of self-recognition as I read about the failures. So, hoping no true Bible scholars hurl any projectiles at me, I'm recording my insights here.

Youthful David by Andrea del Castagno