Book Review: Road Signs for the Journey - Chapter Review: 2. God's People Then

Good Bible Hermeneutics takes a deeper look at the Bible passage by understanding everything about it: history, geography, culture, the people and everything else. If Conrad L. Kanagy wants to use Jeremiah to examine the Mennonite Church in the USA, he's got to help the reader fully understand Jeremiah's message in the first place. This includes understanding Jeremiah as a prophet and understing the people he's prophecying to, like what they believe politically and religiously.

The interesting thing about Conrad Kanagy's backround information is that he flip flops on its importance. On one hand, Kanagy says that "scholary views of the book of Jeremiah do no matter" (p.35), is not part of the task at hand(p .34). He also says it's more important to focus on what it means now then what it meant back then (p. 34-35). On the other hand, Conrad does go into detail about the book's background information. He lists all the kings Jeremiah prophecied under. He draws up a map of Israel, Judah and the surrounding territories. He describes where the people of Israel and Judah are religiously and politically during that time. While it may seem like Conrad Kanagy is contradicting himself, I'm glad he did. His background information on the book provides a fuller understanding of Jeremiah's role as prophet and the message he'll deliver.

Conrad Kanagy helps set the message of the book by explaining the all-encompassing roles of a prophet. The roles Conrad Kanagy gives Jeremiah as prophet is a futurist, a time keeper, a social analyst, an activist and a blasphemer. I had two favorites from this list. The first was the social analyst. As prophet, Jeremiah was called to make the people aware of where they were religiously and politically. Sometimes when people become so enamored in their culture, it's hard to realize where they truly are and whether they are doing the right or wrong thing. A prophet must tell it like it is, whether the people like it or not. Perhaps Conrad sees himself as a prophet in this way. His statistics will tell the Mennonite congregations, "This is they way it is, whether you like it or not." The other favorite I had was activist. As a prophet, "Jeremiah not only spoke prophetically for the truth, but also acted prophetically on behalf of the truth" (p. 41). I once heard that stating a problem without providing a solution is just complaining. Jeremiah is not just a complainer about the people falling away from God. He's going to do his to contribute to the people turning to God.

There are two roles that Conrad Kanagy gives a prophet in which I agree with the concept, but I believe he could have chosen a better word. On the lighter end, instead of calling Jeremiah a futurist, I would have called him a visionary. Jeremiah did not merely see the future, but he also saw what it meant in terms of the people moving forward spiritually. For example, not only did Jeremiah foresee the destruction of the temple, but he knew that meant it was sign of hope for the future, for the people would be able to have relationship with God without the temple, holy of holies or the ark of the covenant. On the heavier side, I really don't like Kanagy calling prophets "blasphemers." Blasphemy is the worst sin in the Old Testament, if not the whole Bible. Blasphemy is detestable and unforgivable to God. Why? Because of its definition itself. Blasphemy is speaking lies about God as if it is the truth. It is a misrepresentation of God. Prophets is no way misprespresented God. What they really did was get the people back to the true meaning. The easiest example would be Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus, God the Son, spoke fervently against what the high priest, chief priests, and all the other religious rabbis taught. It wasn't the Scriptures that the religious leaders were teaching from that Jesus spoke against, but rather their intepretation of it. Jesus saw the Pharisees and Sadducees using God's Law to uplift themselves and weigh down those "sinners" not like them. That's what Jesus spoke against. What Jesus really is doing is getting them back to the true meaning of the Scriptres. Certainly Jesus, God the Son, is not a blasphemer. In the same way, Jeremiah is no blasphemer. He is in no way speaking lies about God. Instead, Jeremiah is attempting to get the people back to the true meaning of God, the Scriptures, and the temple. Maybe Kanagy should have chosen the term "revivalist" instead of "blasphemer." Jeremiah is truly a revivalist, reviving the people from an idolatrous faith to a real faith with the true God. I understand why Kanagy might have chosen the term "blasphemer," for it might have seem like blasphemy to the people. But this is in no way a call for Christians as or a whole or Mennonites specifically to be blasphemers. It's a call for Mennonites specifically but to Christians a whole to return to the true meaning of Scripture, instead of emotions or tradition.

Conrad Kanagy concludes with a conclusion that could easily serve as an introduction for the next chapter. Conrad Kanagy already starts to connect the Mennonites of today to the people of Jeremiah's time. Conrad states some of the sins of the Mennonites as the same as the people in Jeremiah's time: apathy, disobedience and idolatry (p. 43). As Jeremiah stated to his people, judgment will come if Mennonites do not turn from this sin. But Jeremiah's message is double-edged, and in a good way. If the Mennonites repent of their sin, God will deliver them and bless them. The question that remains is, "Are Mennonite really guilty of such sins?" The next chapter will reveal if this is true.

Book Review: Road Signs for the Journey - Chapter Review: 1. Road Signs and Guideposts

This summer, the church I am attending, Stony Brook Mennonite Church, is combining the adult Sunday Schools. Together, the adults will be reading and discussing Roads Signs for the Journey: A Profile of Mennonite Church USA by Conrad L Kanagy. Simply put the book is a church member profile project. It reports the data recorded from surveys of Mennonites in the United States and it interprets that data. This interpretation of data can be anything from predictions of the future to suggestion for improvement. When I was introduced to the book, I was currently reading unChristian by David Kimmerman and Gabe Lyons, another book that analyzed and evaluated data. Skimming through it, I found it interesting because I could connect the data between the two books. I am excited for this book that we're studying. Unfortunately, because it's the summer, I naturally have other plans that will not allow me to attend every Sunday School class. Yet I want to be engaged in the discussion. So I am going to do a chapter-by-chapter review of the book, plugging in my thoughts and comments for every chapter.

Naturally, as most survey books, the first chapter explains the author's intent and how the author came about to write the book. In this "making-of" chapter, authour Conrad Kanagy admits he had some hostility with his idea. One of the big problems Kanagy had was that some church pastors were not on board because they saw the surveys as mere information collecting. He quotes a pastor saying, "We don't need anymore information that doesn't lead to transformation." I know how Conrad feels. I often too have felt adversity for presenting information or doctrine in a Sunday School classroom because it doesn't lead to application, transformation, or a feel good feeling. Kanagy makes himself well aware of this criticism and he comes preapred. It can be summed up two words: display and suggest. Corad wants to display where Mennonites are right now, where they might be going, and give advice along the way. And Conrad Kanagy doesn't like where it's going.

Just like most first chapters in most survey books, the first chapter introduces the basic data and his basic interpretation. What Conrad Kanagy's data shows is that most Mennonites in the United States live similiar lives to most middle class white Americans. This disturbed Conrad, as well as myself, because it's not Christian and it's not Mennonite. It's not Christian because Paul gives many verses in Bible telling us not to conform to the world, but to be transformed by living counterculturally. It's not Mennonite because the founding Anabaptists fathers lived by the creed, as found in Acts, "We must obey God rather than men!" Anabaptists beliefs, from simplicity to infant baptism can be traced back to living counter culturally. It's as if the Mennonites today are becoming less Mennonite. Fortunately, Kanagey seems a glimmering light at the end of the tunnel. There is a small blip on his survey radar that has continued to successfully live counter culturally. They are the urban Mennonite churches, which mainly consist of minority races. Conrad believes the rest of the Mennonites in America can learn from these minority churches, and he plans to use their practices as suggestions to improve.

Another topic I'm glad Conrad Kanagy is tackling is the role of politics in the Mennonite life. Personally, I have heard mixed beliefs among Mennonites when it comes to politics. Some of the first Mennonites I first met seemed to be so against the political proccess they even refused to vote. Then I met Mennonites who simply stated that Mennonites were allowed to vote, but the church will not sway anyone to vote a certain way. In high school, the Mennonites I met believed interaction with politics was necessary to bring about social justice. All in all, what I'm trying to get to is that the answer I have received has been mixed. I wondered if Conrad's data would give a more solid answer. What Conrad discovered was that the Mennonite church was heavily influenced either by the conservative evangelicals or liberal mainline protestants. Either, like the conserative evangelicals, look to politics to create a moral civil religion, or like the liberal mainline protestants, they look towards politics to bring about social justice. Both use politics, but by doing so, both unknowingly embrace the dicotomy of them too. By embracing the conservative evangelical's moral civil religion, they have "abandoned the costly requirements of the cross, compromised the truth of the gospel, created questionable alliances with political leaders...and abandoned the poor and needy of society" (Kanagy 26). By embracing the liberal mainline protestant's social justice, they have "ignored the power of Jesus Christ to overcome sin in both the social structure and individual lives" (Kanagy 26). I believe this is where it would be good for Mennonites to sit down and have a council to write up their doctrine of government involvement and political involvement. I hope Conrad Kanagy agrees with me and goes further into this.

Corand Kanagy believes the best Biblical passage to approach this study from is the book of Jeremiah. I will admit that when people announce they plan to talk about Jeremiah, I am a little hesistant to listen. It's because of so many misuses of the book. Too many times I have heard people center the whole book around Jeremiah, making it a feel good story, when the real message of the book is far from it. Too many times I have heard people (mainly charsmatics) use the book in a militaristic way, turning Israel to America, and thus turning to message to call America into a moral nation in order to get God's earthly blessings. I'm glad Kanagy does not use Jeremiah either way. It seems that Kanagy gets what Jeremiah is all about: a severe warning for God's people to change the ways they are going wrong or face dire consequences. I can't wait to see how Kanagy exegetes Jeremiah in the next chapter.

1 Samuel 27: Sneaking In and Out

After another near encounter with Saul, David comes to realize he can’t play this hide and seek game anymore. Eventually, Saul will catch up to David and kill him. So David decides to run away from Saul by heading into Philistia and living with the Philistines. So Saul has all his men pack up their families and their possessions and move to Gath. David’s plan works. Sure enough, when Saul hears David moved to Gath, Saul quits his pursuit.

At this point the reader has to pause and ask “Why?” Why does David move to Philistia, after killing so many Philistines (especially Gath, the home of Goliath)? Wasn’t it wrong for David to leave his home country to live in the enemy’s territory? And what about Saul? Why did Saul stop pursuing? Really, it’s common sense. In common sense terms, David made the right decision to leave the nation of Israel and go to the Philistine country. A king only has jurisdiction in his own country. Only in rare circumstances, with permission, could a king go into a foreign nation after his adversary, but that would never happen when the two nations were enemies. David knew that and took advantage of it. Saul could only hunt David down while David was in Israel. Once David left Israel and entered Philistia, Saul could not follow him into Philistia. There was no way that King Achish would help Saul get David because Achish saw Saul as his enemy. I wouldn’t be surprised if Achish went by the old adage, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and thus decided to house David in his land. Saul must have already realized too that he could not pursue David into a foreign land. But it’s not like it’s going to bother Saul. Saul probably saw David only as a threat to his throne while David was in Israel. Now with David out of Israel, Saul believes there is no way for David to get the throne of Israel. So Saul ceases his search.

While David has moved into the land of Philistia, he’s not willing to fully integrate his life and his men’s lives into the Philistine society and Philistine culture. He boldly asks King Achish for a plot of land or some kind of territory for him and his men and their families to be separate from everyone else. David uses the guise of servants like himself living separate from a royal family, like Achish’s family. Achish likes the sound of David being his servant, so he grants David a whole town, called Ziklag. Ziklag is another town that borders Philistia and Israel. It’s about 15 miles northwest of Beersheba, the southern-most point of Israel. The author makes a note that this city has been in the hands of the kings of Judah since David received it. This side note makes two statements. First, it shows that this book was written during the days of the Divide Kingdoms of Israel and Judah because it separates the kings of Judah from the kings of Israel. Second, this verse demonstrates that even when David is in Philistia, he’s already gaining territory for the nation of Israel. David stays in this town for 1 year and 4 months.

So what’s a man to do while living in a foreign town for 1 year and 4 months? Invade foreign people groups of course! Verse 8 explains that the area between Egypt and Shur was occupied by 3 different people groups: the Amalekites, the Geshurites and the Girzites. The fact the author needs to explain this demonstrates a late date where the audience would not have known of these people groups, or at least would not know that these people were in that region. David’s method was simple. David would take his men to their land, kill all the men and women, and take the animals and the clothes. Then David would return to Ziklag. It’s key that David is killing all the men and women. Saul was commanded by the Lord to do the same thing. Saul failed, keeping people alive, but David succeeded.

Obviously King Achish knows David is raiding, for David keeps bringing back animals and clothes. What Achish does not know is where David is raiding or who David is raiding. Achish asks David, but all David gives is the generic answer, “Against the Negev of the [people’s name].” This explains why David killed everyone: so no one could rep ort back to Achish who David is really killing and why. King Achish has no reason to doubt David, so he believes David. His thinking: If David keeps attacking the Negev, he’ll only be seen poorly by the Israelites. According to Achish, it only helps the Philistines and hurts the Israelites.

I am going to continue to 1 Samuel 28:1,2 because I believe these two verses fit better with 1 Samuel 27 than 1 Samuel 28. The transition is much more smooth when those 2 verses are added to 1 Samuel 27. King Achish probably wants to attack because he believes that David has weakened Israel with all the attacks in Negev. But he still needs one more piece. So Achish requests that David fight with the Philistines against Israel. David replies by saying, “Then you will see for yourself what your servant can do.” Does this mean that David, the one the Lord anointed as King of Israel, will fight God’s people in Israel? Some scholars would say yes, that’s exactly what David had in mind. Other scholars disagree, claiming David is using word play and irony here. While Achish might interpret it as a “Yes,” what David means is, “You will see for yourself what your servant can do…when I turn on you in battle.” I have to stick more with the second interpretation.

Do you see what happened in the story? In the beginning, David leaves Israel for Philistia. The reader might think that, by doing so, David has disobeyed God and sinned. But instead of jumping to that conclusion, we let the narrative help us determine whether are not David’s actions are good or sinful. The narrative would lean the decision towards the good. By moving to Philistia, David gets Saul off his back, and allows his men peace and safety. Because of the move, David can focus on invading and raiding the pagan people groups still in the Promise Land. But also remember that David and his men aren’t assimilating into the culture. David insists that his Israelite men and their families have their own separate town. This town will eventually become part of the territory of Judah. In all these ways, David is helping the kingdom of Israel grow, even when he’s not in the land of Israel. David sneaks into Israel to get rid of the foreign people groups, and he sneaks out to deceive the Philistines into peace. David helps Israel, both internally and externally. Although I think God might have appreciated David more if David would have lived by faith and stayed in the land, God took David’s positions and used that to bring blessing to both David and the whole land of Israel.

So I think a good application is God can use you wherever you are in life, even if you are sinning. I want to make clear this is no permission to sin. Rather, I’m saying that no one can get so far off the path of God’s will that he or she can never be used by God ever again. David could account for this. At sometimes it would seem like David trusted the Philistines more than God for safety. Yet God used the Philistines to provide David with the safety and the town of Ziklag so David could grow the kingdom of Israel. Perhaps you too have fallen away from God’s will in your life, and you are doing your own thing, depending on yourself rather than God. Take this time to call God back into guiding you through His will. I guarantee you the first thing God will do is get you back onto His will.

1 Samuel 26: Double Testimony

Upon reading 1 Samuel 26, I was unsure if I wanted to write a devotional commentary on 1 Samuel 26 because I didn’t feel like I had nothing new to add. The reason I felt like I had nothing new to add was because 1 Samuel 26 reflects 1 Samuel 24 to a great extent. 1 Samuel 26 and 1 Samuel 24 are so similar it has led some scholars to even believe that 1 Samuel 26 is a re-telling of 1 Samuel 24. So is it? I’m going to briefly re-tell the story, putting in a few points. Then we’ll compare and contrast, and we’ll come to a conclusion.

Just like in 1 Samuel 23:19, Ziphites rat out David to Saul. This is quite the surprise. The Ziphites are from the tribe of Judah, just like David. You would think the Ziphites would be friends of David then. Instead, they side with Saul. Perhaps the Ziphites fear Saul as the king, so they submit to his every will. Maybe the Ziphites fear David and hope that King Saul’s force can get rid of him. Whatever the reason, the Ziphites keep a watchful eye. The minute David and his men are back in the Desert of Ziph, the Ziphites report it to Saul. Saul immediately heads to Desert of Ziph. The minute Saul the Desert of Ziph, David sends scouts to watch every moment.

After scouting David, David himself wants to go down to Saul’s camp to check it out. David doesn’t want to attract too much attention, so he only asks for one volunteer to come with him. The volunteer is Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, the brother of Joab, and the nephew of David (1 Chroincles 2:16). The two of them go at night. Since it is night, when the two men arrive, Saul’s entire camp is asleep, leading Saul wide open for a possible attack. Abishai tells David that God has delivered Saul into David’s hand yet again. Since God has done this a second, surely this must be God’s sign that Saul is indeed in David’s hands, to do as David pleases, and David should kill him. Well, that’s Abishai’s interpretation. David interprets the scene as God handing over Saul to David, but not in a violent matter. David believes that when the time comes for Saul to die, he will die in battle, in disease or in old age. Either way, it’s not going to be by the hand of David. Instead of killing David, David takes Saul’s water jug and the spear. The water jug and the spear have both practical meaning and symbolic meaning. The water jug obviously contained water for Saul to drink. In the hot Judean deserts, it’s easy to become dehydrated. Saul needed that water for hydration. By taking the water jug, Saul’s health was in David’s hands. The spear is a weapon used in battle to kill. It provides protection of life in battle. Spears also can be a sign of authority. When David takes away the spear, David removes Saul’s protection and authority. Saul’s protection and authority is now David’s hands. Truly the Lord has given over Saul into the hands of David! If anyone needs further proof, check out verse 12, which explains that David and Abishai were able to do this because the Lord himself put everyone in a deep sleep.

Once David and Abishai are a safe distance from Saul’s camp, David calls out to Abner, the commander of Saul’s army. David mockingly taunts Abner, whose suppose to be one of the best soldiers in Israel, for leaving the king of Israel wide open for attack. In that mocking taunt, David also lays down judgment on Abner. David says Abner and his men deserve to be punished for leaving the king of Israel, the Lord’s anointed, exposed for attack. This connects well with verse 9. Not only are those who attack the Lord’s anointed guilty, but also those who allow the Lord’s anointed to be attacked.

From the yelling back and forth between David and Abner, Saul wakes up. Unlike Abner, who had to ask for the man’s identity, Saul immediately recognizes the man as David because of his voice alone. Once David acknowledges Saul’s recognition, David again asks Saul why Saul is pursuing David. David reasons someone or something must be antagonizing Saul to do so. If it’s God antagonizing Saul, then David proposes that the proper offerings would be made to repair and restore the relationship. If it’s any human being antagonizing Saul, David brings down a curse to that man/those men because of all the hardship such a person/people has brought upon David, his men, and his family.

When Saul realizes it’s David, and also realizes his water jug and spear are missing, he is amazed at the mercy and grace that has fallen over him. It leads King Saul to confess his sin again. Saul even calls himself a fool for erring greatly by trying to harm David. Saul begs for David to come back, but he doesn’t. No one can blame David for doing so. This scene has already happened before, and Saul didn’t change then. Instead, to show good measure, David returns the spear to Saul. Once again, consider the symbolism. David hands the protection and authority back to Saul. He does not keep the spear’s protection and authority for himself because he trusts and relies on God for protection and authority.

The stories do have remarkable similarities. Both stories have David in a desert. In both stories, David takes back some kind of evidence to prove how close he was to Saul. Both stories have someone interpreting Saul being wide open for attack as Saul in David’s hands. In both stories David refuses to act violently towards Saul. Both stories also have Saul confessing doing what is wrong and then proclaiming David to have a grand future. At the same times, the stories have differences. In chapter 24, David is in the Desert of En Gedi, while in chapter 26, David is in the Desert of Ziph. In chapter 24, David cuts off a corner of Saul’s robe, but in chapter 24, David takes the water jug and the spear In chapter 26, David purposely visits Saul, while in chapter 24, Saul ends up in the same cave as David by pure accident. Chapter 26 also adds Abner in the story. So are 1 Samuel 24 and 1 Samuel 26 the same story or different?

I believe these two stories are different. While they share similarities, their differences are too great to harmonize into one story. So why have 2 similar stories together? I like how the New Bible Commentary puts it: double testimony. David is given a second (some say third) test to see what he’ll do when Saul’s life is put in his hands. David resists the temptation to kill Saul, but does show Saul how close he was. That’s what makes David such a great king. Time after time, temptation after temptation, no matter how many times the good deal is thrown in David’s face, David can refuse, and he’ll always do the right thing. So a man after God’s heart is one who can refuse the temptation to sin, time after time.

1 Samuel 25: Vengeance is the Lord's

In the last chapter, 1 Samuel 24, we concluded that the moral of the story is that a [wo]man after God’s heart is one who loves his enemies. Usually, when conversation about loving enemies comes up, the discussion focuses more on how to love your enemies instead of why we need to love our enemies. I believe there’s a couple chapters in the Bible that explains why. 1 Samuel 25 is one of those chapters.

Chapter 25 begins by mentioning the death of Samuel. The one verse seems thrown in there, as it seems to disrupt the flow between chapter 24 and the rest of chapter 25. Scholars disagree why the verse is thrown in there. It could simply be the order of chronological events, but there’s got to be something significant to need to mention it. Some scholars zone in on the phrase “all Israel assembled and mourned.” Even David might have traveled to Ramah, and he could even have been in the presence of Saul. Other scholars trace the verse back to chapter 24. In chapter 24, even Saul has admitted David is the next king of Israel. Now with all Israel looking forward to David as the king, Samuel’s role is done and can rest in peace. Even the Hebrew word that NIV translates “house” is uncertain. After all, who gets buried in their house? Other possible translations could be “tomb,” “mausoleum” or “cave.” “Cave” might be the best, as many people lived in caves. Thus, in that sense, it makes sense to say someone got buried in their home.

The supposed final resting place of Samuel

 

After the brief mention of Samuel’s death, the story focuses on another two characters: Nabal and Abigail, husband and wife. Opposites must have attracted for these two, for they could not be further apart in differences. Abigail is intelligent; Nabal’s name means fool, and his name reflects his personality. Abigail is beautiful; Nabal has an ugly personality, as he is mean and nasty in dealing with people. This couple lives near Carmel, which is near the Desert of Maon, or the Desert of Paran. This couple is also an upper class couple. Their faith is measure in the number of sheep and goats: 1,000 goats and 3,000 sheep. All these pieces together set the scene for the story.

During the time of sheep shearing, David contacts Nabal via 10 messengers. First, David sends warm greetings and blessings to him and his household. Second, David tells Nabal that neither he nor his men harmed, stole, or even touched any of Nabal’s sheep or goats. In fact, David and his men protected them. This is a valuable service. Back in those days, it wasn’t common for traveling nomads and invading foreigners to take livestock as they pleased. Not only did David and his men not partake in that, but they also prevented anyone else, like the Philistines or the Amalekites, to partake in Nabal’s sheep or goats. Therefore, third, David asks for a favor. He requests that Nabal give them, “whatever you can find for them,” or simply put, whatever leftovers Nabal has that he does not want or need.

But that’s the problem with Nabal. Nabal is so greedy that he wants to keep everything for himself. He’s not giving handouts. Nobody gets hand outs, no matter what reason. At David’s message, Nabal gives a very negative and ridiculing reply. First, he questions, “Who is this David?” David is the most famous person of Judah, if not all of Israel. The rhetorical question shows not that Nabal doesn’t know David, but he knows David and thinks very little or nothing of him. Second, he asks, “Who is the Son of Jesse?” Calling David “the son of Jesse” is another belittling term, as we see Saul use it to refer to David in earlier chapters. Third, Nabal says, “Many servants are breaking away from their masters these days.” It could be a reference that David was once a servant of Saul, but it has deeper symbolic meaning then that. Wealthy, upper-class Nabal is calling David a servant, a lower-class nobody. To Nabal, David is a beggar, begging as his living. In Nabal’s mind, there is no way he’s going to support a beggar lifestyle. To him, it’s illogical. Why give up his hard work and his men’s hard work to strangers that, in his mind, did not help?

In David’s mind, David and his men did help. They protected the flocks and the herdsmen. So David believes he fully deserves a payment. So David tells two-thirds of his men to strap up their swords. If Nabal won’t volunteer a gift, then David is going to take a gift by force.

Don’t worry. Remember, Nabal’s got another side of him: his wife Abigail. Once Nabal’s servants hear what David is going to do, they quickly rush a message to Abigal. They reaffirm all that what David says is true, and they even agree he deserves the reward. Abigail is quick to act. Abigail just doesn’t find leftovers in the house. Instead, she is bountiful in her gifts. She starts out to meet David, but she sends servants ahead just in case it’s too late.

It’s a good thing Abigail acted so quickly. Back at David’s camp, David’s really regretting his decision. He calls it useless. Here, it’s still unclear whether David made Nabal aware of the service he was providing. Either way, David sees it as a no brainer. Good things in exchange for good things; bad things in exchange for bad things. David believes Nabal has given him a bad thing for his good thing. So David decides to repay the bad thing with another bad thing. He’s threatening to kill all the adult men. Now there’s a textual problem here. The Masoretic text, an early Hebrew text, says “May God deal with David’s enemies ever so severely…” but the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Old Testament, says “May God deal with David ever so severely…” Scholars and translations alike disagree of which phrase to use. Most literal translations stick with the Masoretic text and translate it “May God deal with David’s enemies ever so severely…” They believe the Septuagint changed it to make it theologically understable, but changed the meaning. Dynamic equivalencies stick with the Septuagint and translate it “May God deal with David ever so severely…” They believe these later Hebrew texts changed it to make it seem like the vow came true. Personally, I would stick with the original Hebrew and literal translations. But either way, David seems to commit very little focus on what’s he saying or what the consequences could be.

When Abigail sees David on his way to attack her household, she is quick to act. In the longest speech by a female in the Old Testament (153 Hebrew words), Abigail gives her defense. First, she condemns her husband’s actions as foolish. Second, she declares herself as innocent because she was unaware of her husband’s dealings. Third, she blesses David with death to his enemies, making clear that Nabal is his enemy, not Abigail. Fourth, she asks for forgiveness, and it shows it with her plentiful gift. Fifth, Abigail gives a final blessing of her unyielding support of David as the next king of Israel.

Abigail’s prophet words do a number on David. David recognizes that Abigail is a message sent from God. Once again, we see the dynamic character in David. David was ready to act as God, making decisions on his own, not waiting for God’s answer. But just as he was about to, God intervened via Abigail. He came to realize what he was doing was wrong. After David confesses his wrong, he repents. He will not kill the adult males in Abigail’s household. He will wait for the Lord to act accordingly with justice.

Sure enough, God does act accordingly. God uses Abigail to pronounce judgment on Nabal. Abigail waits for the next morning, for Nabal is drunk after a feast. The feast and the drinking just goes to show Nabal is only concerned about using his wealth for his own pleasure, not caring about anyone else. In the morning, Abigail repeats her conversation with David prophetically. Upon hearing the words, the Hebrew text literally says, his “heart/soul died within him.” Some scholars take this to mean a heart attack, while other scholars understand this to be a stroke. Either could work because both make the body weaker. 10 days later, Nabal dies, most likely for another heart attack or stroke. While it might seem like a normal human disease, the Bible makes it clear it was an action of the Lord. Once David hears the news, he praises God, because he saw God at work. Not only has God prevented David from performing evil, but God has brought about the justice himself.

Now here’s the perfect place to insert the application. With the last chapter, chapter 24, I mentioned the application is that a [wo]man after God’s heart is one loves his enemies instead of seeking revenge. Chapter 25 answers that question. Actually, in the bigger picture of the whole Bible, 1 Samuel 25 is a real life case study of Romans 12:17-21. Let’s look at it.

Romans 12:17-21-

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

I love this passage because it is rich in Old Testament Scripture. It shows that this application is one of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Most likely the Proverb quoted was after David’s life, but David definitely would have known Deuteronomy 32:35, which also says that it is the Lord’s to avenge and repay. Now David comes to know it in real life. Why should we love our enemies and not seek revenge on them? Because it’s God’s job, not ours. We as humans tend to think we’re good and we can do good things when we try to avenge an evil action. But the Bible reminds us that no one is perfectly good, and everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:10). So what we call to be justice ends up becoming revenge. Only God is perfectly good, so only he can truly bring justice, and his justice involves forgiveness and reconciliation. Even when we do get it right, it’s not our job to carry it out. God will carry out; we trust need to trust him for it. It’s not our job to judge, but it is our job to love. So I say, let us love everyone, and let God do the sorting. David finally understood it in 1 Samuel 25. If he would have carried out the judgment, he would have carried out the judgment too far. That wouldn’t have been justice; it would have been revenge. It would have been sin to David. God perfectly executed the judgment, sparing David for sin. That’s why David praised God, and that’s why we should praise God. A man after God’s heart allows room for God to avenge.

I wish I could close here, but I bet you want an explanation of David marrying Abigail and Ahinoram after being married to Michal, especially if David is suppose to be a godly example. First, let’s look right at the text. The text says in verse 44 that Michal was handed to Paltiel in marriage. Obviously, this shows how much Saul hated David that he withdrew the promises of giving his daughter as a wife. Clearly to me, that means the King Saul divorced Michal from David (he’s the king, he can do that), making David a divorcee, allowing him to marry. Still, why de he take two wives? The New Bible Commentary says that just as Saul divorced David and Michal for political reasons, David is marrying women of big standing in Israel to make himself look politically good. Some commentaries have suggested that David is being Abigail’s kindsman-redeemer. Thus, the marriage is more of a “wife adoption.” It’s interesting that the author does not show God’s approval or disapproval. If anything, it looks like the author is saying this is part of God’s plan. The only way we can see if it is, we have to let it play out. So before we pronounce judgment, let’s see how it plays out.

1 Samuel 24: Loving Your Enemies

Have you ever wanted to seek revenge on someone? Have you ever wanted to get even? It would seem like our culture seems to approve of revenge, or at least accepts it. Think about it in the movies and TV shows you watch. You cheer when the nerds get revenge on the jocks, the boy gets revenge on his ex-girlfriend with a new girlfriend, etc.  Even if our culture says revenge is OK, what about the Bible? Does the Bible say revenge is OK? I believe the Bible does not approve or accept revenge. Naturally, the first verse that comes to mind is Matthew 5:44, but it would be nice to more have a “case study” or a real-life event in the Bible that backs this verse up. How much more powerful would it be if it came from the Old Testament, years before Jesus preached on this earth! Well, 1 Samuel 24 is here for that reason. 1 Samuel 24 will be one of a few chapters in 1 Samuel that promotes loving your enemy. Now it wouldn’t surprise me if some of you reading know me well and you are thinking to yourself, “That’s eisegesis (reading one’s own beliefs into the text)! Your pushing your Anabaptist-Mennonite beliefs into this chapter!” If you are thinking that, I hope to show you by the end of the chapter, if the text is left to speak for itself, the text will preach loving your enemies. Therefore, I plan to teach this chapter using the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (T.I.S.) for my interpretation. Remember T.I.S. has God as the main character and looks at other parts of the Bible to make sure its interpretation is correct.

Chapter 24 picks up right where chapter 23 leaves the reader: with the setting. David is in the desert of En Gedi. En Gedi means “Spring of the [goat] kid.” Surrounded by the Judean Desert, En Gedi is an oasis in the desert. The surrounding Judean Desert makes the air hot, but the waters in En Gedi are nice and cool. The source of this cool water is a spring, which trickles down in a beautiful waterfall. The waterfall leaves behind pools of water throughout the mountain. Even to this day, En Gedi is treated like a beach for the locals and the tourists alike. A spring, a waterfall and pools aren’t the only things at En Gedi. En Gedi has a lot of broom trees, not mentioned in 1 Samuel 24, but mentioned in other parts of the Bible, such as 1 Kings 19:4, Job 30:4, and Psalm 120:4. There are also a lot of wild goats, known locally as ibex, which live in the caves. It’s hard to go a day without seeing an ibex. I was fortunate enough to go to En Gedi while I was touring Israel. So throughout this devotional, I will put pictures of En Gedi in so you can see what it looks like and imagine the story happening there.

 

The En Gedi waterfall.

David is hiding in En Gedi with 600 of his men. With a crowd so big, word eventually spreads, and it eventually reaches the ears of Saul. So Saul takes his own men, numbering 3,000, five times the amount, and heads out to search for David in En Gedi. Since En Gedi has so many caves, it makes sense to search them one by one, but it takes a while to do so. Eventually, nature calls for Saul. Literally, the Bible says in Hebrew that Saul “went to cover his feet.” This is a euphemism, which is switching out an offensive word or phrase for a nicer, less offensive one. The euphemism is a good one. When someone needs to go, the person squats, and the robe covers the feet. The only translation that keeps the phrase “cover his feet” is the King James Version. All the other translations replace it with a similar English euphemism. Saul went to relieve himself. Once again, it’s an accurate euphemism. A person does feel relieved afterwards. This euphemism is a better one than “go to the bathroom” as that phrase would insinuate an actual room, while Saul is going outside. (And yes, I just spent a whole paragraph talking about going to the bathroom/relieving oneself.)

 

The En Gedi waterfall.

Unknown to Saul, David and his men (at least some of them) are in the same cave, just farther back. David’s men get giddy. They say to David and each other, “This has to be it! The Lord promised that Saul would be in David’s hands. Today must be that day!” David’s men push David to kill Saul, but David doesn’t do it. Instead, he simply cuts off the corner of Saul’s robe. David does it so successfully that Saul does not even know what happened to him. As for why David merely cut off a piece of robe instead of killing Saul, it will become clear later on in the chapter.

 

A pool at En Gedi

Most people probably wouldn’t make a big deal of cutting off a corner of a garment. I bet David’s men didn’t make a big deal of it either. David, however, did make a big deal out of it. Literally, the Hebrews reads in 1 Samuel 24:5 “his heart smote him.” The NIV helps clear it up a bit better, saying that David was “conscience stricken.” The UBS Handbook on the First Book of Samuel says that phrase even fully doesn’t encompass what the original Hebrew phrase meant. It would translate it “he was sad in his heart” or “his heart felt sorrowful” because this conscious-strickenness is one that’s both intellectual and emotional. David quickly repents of his actions, declaring that even cutting off the robe’s corner was too much for him to do. David still recognizes Saul as the Lord’s anointed, the king over all of Israel, even after Samuel anointed him the next king of Israel. David is also concerned that he sent the wrong message to his men, who look up to him. David quickly rebukes anyone who even thinks of harming Saul. Saul then leaves, totally unaware of what happened to him.

Some of the pools of En Gedi, as seen from above

 

Shortly after Saul leaves, David calls back to Saul from the mouth of the cave. What surprise must have met Saul when Saul realizes that the man he’s hunting was in the cave with him the whole time! Then David waves around the cut corner in his hands. Even more surprise fell on Saul when he realizes how close David was to him. David wants Saul to not only to recognize how close David was to him, but David also wants Saul to recognize how close David was to killing him. David wants Saul to recognize this in order to prove to Saul that David himself is not a threat or danger to Saul. If David is not guilty of a wrongdoing against Saul, then Saul is guilty of a wrongdoing against David by pursuing him. Finally, David leaves it up to the Lord to be the judge. David’s request to God is the guilty be punished and the innocent be protected. But maybe David’s more concentrated on the protection of the innocent over the punishment of the guilty. David requests of Saul to stop pursuing him because David is innocent. Both Saul and David know Exodus 23:7, which says that killing an innocent person is a sin that God will not pardon (remember this is the Old Covenant, and that verse might be talking about a prosecutor or a judge who declares an innocent person guilty in court). By asking Saul to stop pursuing him, David is asking Saul to spare both David’s life and Saul’s own life. In the same manner, with the same caution, David will not kill Saul, but he will leave it up to the Lord.

There are many caves in En Gedi. Good hiding places. Maybe this is why David hid here from Saul
 

After a heart-felt moment from David, Saul responds with his own heart-wrenching moment. Hearing David’s voice alone leads Saul to tears. Saul knows what should have happened. Any time a person gets the chance to attack and kill his enemy, he does it! Saul knows that he would have. But David has let Saul go unharmed. David’s grace and mercy leads Saul to proclaim David as more righteous than him. It also leads Saul to confessing that his actions are bad and David’s are good. Saul finds himself blessing David and acknowledging David as the future king of Israel. With this acknowledgement, all Saul can do is ask David to be kind to his descendants and his family. It was a good request, for it was common practice in the Ancient Near East for new kings to kill the entire family of old kings. What I find interesting is that Saul does not ask David to spare his own life. For a split second, it seems like Saul is accepting the fate he deserves for his harsh treatment on David: his life. David grants Saul’s wish. He kind of has to. It’s very similar to the covenant David made with Jonathan.

The last verse of 1 Samuel 24 ends the chapter in an interesting way. It states that Saul went home, but David returned to hiding. Let’s start with Saul. This verse seems to actually be further proof that Saul’s change of heart was legitimate. Saul did not kill David on the spot, nor give him a head start just to pursue him further. Instead, Saul went home, like it’s all over. It seems like Saul has stopped hunting David. David, on the other hand, does not go home. David goes back into hiding. It would seem like David doesn’t trust Saul. But you can’t blame him. Remember, Saul threw a spear twice at David, and David tried to go back like nothing happened. But after the third time, David gave up and left. David’s already made the mistake of hanging around Saul longer than he should have and outstaying his welcome. This time, even if it’s just to be on the cautious side, David is staying his distance.

Alright, now let’s get our T.I.S. thinking caps on. So first, let’s see what God does as the main character. While the narrator makes no description of God moving, the people within the story do notice it. First, David’s men state that God has given Saul into David’s hands by leaving Saul so vulnerable. Second, David mentions God a lot, and each mention reveals something about God. David reminds his men, as well as the reader, that God did indeed anoint Saul, so he should still be treated as God’s anointed one. Next, David repeats his men’s philosophy to Saul: Saul was left so vulnerable because God has given David Saul. Then, near the end of his speech, David declares God to be the one who judges and the one who avenges. That right there, as found in 1 Samuel 24:12, is the key verse for this chapter. That’s what the reader needs to learn about God in this chapter that God is the one who judges and the one who avenges, or punishes.

The judge and punisher is not to be man, and David is the example of that. Just as David’s men point out, God has delivered Saul into David’s hands and has left Saul wide open for attack. God allows David to do whatever he pleases with Saul. I think that David must have recognized that this must be a test from God. Will David take matters into his own hands, or will he surrender that to the Lord? Previously, as seen in 1 Samuel 21, the reader would expect David to take matters into his own hand. But now, David has changed, and God is molding him into the person God wants him to be. Here, we learn that a man after God’s heart does not take judging or seeking revenge into his own hands, but relies on God for justice.

Therefore, the reader is invited to do the same thing. The Christian who wants to sanctify his or her life will learn to love his or her enemies and do good to them. It could be anybody. It could be the co-worker who always blames you for the problems. It could be the classmate who picks on you and bullies you. It could be the former friend who made you look bad. It could be the terrorist in the Middle East who hates your country. It could be the politician from the political party you oppose who just got elected into office. It should even be the murderers, rapists and robbers, whether they have committed crimes directly against you or not. God asks us not to seek revenge against these people, for revenge shows hate, not love. Revenge is circular, going back and forth, but love can end that. So we need to love our enemies. C.S. Lewis had a lot of good ideas for loving your enemy in his book Mere Christianity. Lewis said that a good start to loving your enemies is to something kind for them, even if you don’t feel like it. The more you do those nice, kind things, the more the negatives feelings will go away and positive feelings will replace them. I couldn’t agree more. So if someone curses at you or calls you a name, give a compliment or two back. If someone wrongs you, or seeks revenge on you, do not seek revenge back. Instead, do something nice back. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is for Christians this is how Jesus taught us to live counter-culturally in Matthew 5:44-47. It’s easy to teach loving family and friends, but really, that makes Christians no different from non-Christians because non-Christians even do that. What makes Christians stick out and be salt of the earth and the light of the world is that we love everyone, including our enemies. And don’t worry if an injustice comes from loving you enemies. Remember that the Lord God is the one who judges and avenges, so we can trust in him to do so.

But this isn’t the last we’ve heard about loving our enemies. We’re going to get a similar message out of the next chapter. David will once again be faced with taking vengeance into his own hands. Will David make the right choice again?

1 Samuel 23: F.R.O.G.

Christians are known for acronyms about their faith. The most famous is W.W.J.D., which stands for “What Would Jesus Do?” A lesser but still famous one makes a word: F.R.O.G. I personally have heard it two ways, and the only difference is what the F stands for. Some Christians say, “Fully Rely of God,” while other Christians say, “Faithfully Rely of God.” Either way, I believe both combine to make a powerful message. The Christian needs to fully and faithfully rely on God for everything, from the basic needs of life to God’s great promises. David makes a good example of what it means to fully and faithfully rely on God, making David a F.R.O.G.

David receives word that Keilah is under attack by the Philistines. Keilah is located in the region of Judah, less than 3 miles from the cave of Adullam, which is probably why David received the news so quickly. Keilah is a fortified city on some of Judah’s richest land, so it’s a prime city for any kingdom, and the Philistines want it. Not only were they trying to conquer the city, but they were also stealing the harvest! David seriously has to beg the question, “Shall I go attack the Philistines?” His focuses right now are on keeping himself and his men alive. Does he have the time to help his fellow people (not only are the Keilahites Israelites, but also from the tribe of Judah)? Of course! Even though David’s on the run, he has to still be the king as God anointed him. When a king’s people are in danger, the king is expected to help them and save them. King David needs to help and save his people in Keilah.

There’s only one problem. The men following David have become tired traveling from place to place . Not only are weary, but also scared. Running from the mad Saul and his small band of men is already scary enough, the men might not have the courage to face a full foreign army. So David inquires of the Lord. This is nothing new. Good leaders, like the judges Ehud, Deborah and Gideon, first inquired of the Lord before going into battle, and only went in if they knew the Lord would provide victory. David follows that example. David inquires the Lord. Since Abiathar isn’t with David yet (I see verse 6 as a sequential clause and not a parenthetical clause. After David reclaims Keilah, then Abiathar comes to David.), so most likely David inquired the Lord through the prophet Gad. God assures and re-assures David that he will win, and does he! Not only do they win, they take the Philistine’s livestock, too! Even when David is on the run, God uses his king to bring salvation to his people.

But there’s no rest for David and his men. Saul hears the same news as David, but he hears David is in the city. Now when Saul hears the same news, the proper response would be to also to inquire of the Lord and save the town in the Lord’s name. But all Saul sees is an opportunity to trap his enemy in a gated community. So Saul calls up his men to prepare them to attack once David is done. Saul doesn’t care about his nation’s welfare, but about seeking his own person vengeance.

David receives the news of Saul’s plan, and now he’s worried. He was sure he was doing the right thing by helping his fellow tribe in danger. Now it looks like he’s made himself a sitting duck for Saul. David really needs to inquire of the Lord. David whips out the big guns. Not only does he call in a priest, but asks the priest to bring in the ephod, a headpiece used for priests during important duties and ceremonies. David asks the Lord whether or not Saul will come, and if the Keilah’s citizens will hand David over to Saul. David seems to know the answer, and the Lord affirms: Saul will, and the people of Keilah will. You might think, “How could Keilah hand over their fellow Judahites, especially after they saved Keilah?” Even if Keilah is grateful, they also fear Saul because they still recognize him as their king. Also keep in mind that Saul is treating poorly anyone associated with David. For their own safety, they have to turn over David. So David takes six hundred men and moves on.

David and the six hundred men go to Desert of Ziph. Saul and his men pursue David and his men into the desert, but they can never catch up to David. Why? The Bible simply says, “because God did give David into his hands.” Clearly we saw God’s favor left Saul and came to David because God helps David run away, but God does not help Saul catch David. Even Jonathan comes to David and confirms this, announcing that David will be king over Israel. At the most, Jonathan can only be second to David. It would seem, though, the one who would need more assurance is Jonathan. Jonathan once against needs a covenant to be established between David and Jonathan. Jonathan knows it’s God’s will for David to be king, and that means David will be king, and there’s no stopping it. Jonathan just wants to make sure that David will not steamroll over Jonathan when he becomes king. At the end of this last recorded meeting between David and Jonathan, the Bible simply says, “Jonathan went home.” The text makes it clear that Jonathan wants to nothing to do with Saul’s hunt for David. And from context clues like those found in 1 Samuel 20, Saul doesn’t want anyone in his army that’s not zealous about hunting down David.

Saul does have allies, though. Currently, both Saul and David, with their respective men, are in the Desert of Ziph. When the Ziphites hear Saul is in the Desert of Ziph, they fear the same fear that Keilah fears: Saul will treat them poorly if they do not hand over information about David. So the Ziphites meet up with Saul in Gibeah and provide Saul with the exact location of David’s hiding spot. With great irony, Saul proclaims, “The Lord bless you!” First of all, Saul has no power to claim the Lord’s blessing since the Lord left him. Second, it is hardly the Lord’s blessing to betray the Lord’s anointed one. In fact, it’s the opposite. Now anyone would think that the exact location is good enough, but that’s no enough for Saul. Saul wants to know what the area is like so he can plan the perfect attack. Saul also wants to know David’s daily habits so he knows what to expect.

The Ziphites provide the information that Saul asked for and it’s exactly what Saul needed. The rest of 1 Samuel 23 is a chapter is a cat-and-mouse chase of Saul and David, with Saul tailing David very up close. And it seems like Saul comes close, very close, to actually capturing David and winning this whole chase. But just as Saul is coming in for the win, a messenger delivers word to Saul that the Philistines are invading Israel! I bet Saul wanted to finish his pursuit and capture David, but Saul realized that at that present time, he didn’t have to worry about David taking the kingdom from him, but rather he had to worry about the Philistines taking the kingdom from him! Saul leaves and David lives to fight another day. Both David and the author of the book of Samuel wants you to recognize that David was spared by God’s providence, so David names the place Sela Hammahlekoth, which means “Rock of Parting” or “Rock of Escape.” It was there Saul parted from David, and David escaped Saul.

Do you see how much David has changed in the past few chapters? In 1 Samuel 21, the reader sees David making back-up plans to protect himself, just in case God doesn’t show up. Now, in 1 Samuel 23, the reader sees David inquiring of the Lord with every decision he makes. David is consulting prophets and priests. David moves exactly as the Lord tells him. God rewards it by answering him and protecting him from Saul. Through this chapter, the reader sees how David went from fully relying on himself to fully relying on God. The chapter invites the reader to make the same decision. Do not rely on yourself to move yourself along in life. Inquire of the Lord to see where the Lord wants you. If you have trouble figuring that out on your own, consult prophets, pastors and mentors. When you do that, you’ll find out that God provides all your needs, and he’ll give you the best life you can have. Then, you will be like David, and be a F.R.O.G.

1 Samuel 23:11,12

1 Samuel 22: Taking It Personally

What does King Saul and Osama bin Laden have in common? Do you think you know the answer to my riddle? Read through 1 Samuel 22. Then read through what I wrote in 1 Samuel 22. Hopefully by then you’ll know the answer. But before we talk about Saul, let’s talk first about David so we can set the scene.

David doesn’t stay long in Gath. Shortly after Gath, David goes to Adullum. Adullum is located on the right on the border of Israel and Philistine, on the Philistine side, near Gath and Bethlehem. Since it’s so close to Bethlehem, word reaches David’s family that David is hiding in a cave at Adullum and they go to see him. As the text tells us, David’s family might not be going just to see about David’s well-being, but also to hide themselves. For shortly after, other refugees who are distressed, discontent or in debt with Saul follow David’s family to the cave. Apparently Saul’s degrading sanity has created quite a few enemies. When they see David, a natural leader, also becomes an enemy of Saul, they all flock to David to lead them. This may be a start of a small revolution.

All these Israelites flocking to one cave will naturally bring attention. So David moves his family and friends to Mizpah in Moab. David approaches the King of Moab and asks for permission to leave his parents there, and the king accepts. Why does the king take care of this Israelite’s family? Some have suggested that since David’s great-grandmother and Jesse’s grandmother, Ruth, is a Moabite, the king considers them partial Moabites and partial citizens. But most likely, the King of Moab believes in the phrase, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” When the king finds out David is an enemy of King Saul, he is more than happy to help David. So David drops his family off with the king, and he heads for a stronghold in Mizpah. A stronghold is some kind of fort. So David bunkers down in Mizpah.

The only problem with this is that David still isn’t showing the greatest of faith. He’s moved from just one foreign country to the next, and now that’s he’s in a new country, he just hides in a fort. David is doing his own thing for protection; he’s still not fully relying on God. This isn’t the proper behavior for the future king. So in verse 5, God sends the prophet Gad to call David out on this. The prophet Gad tells David to not stay in the stronghold at Moab, but to go back to Judah. God doesn’t want David to flee the land God promised he would rule over, but God wants him to claim his kingdom. David gets the message, and he turns his thinking around. No longer is David going to flee and hide on his own will. David will trust in God for protection, so David will go back to the land God has promised that he will rule over. He starts out heading for a forest just south of Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, back in the region of Judah, Saul receives report that David has re-entered Israel. The reader can tell from the context of the text that Saul has been searching for David all throughout Israel, so in human terms, what David did was fairly smart. His life was in danger being in the land, and so he fled the land. But now instead of flight, David is going to fight. But back to Saul. Saul calls all his officials together, who are Benjaminites. Remember that Saul too is a Benjaminiate. Saul’s close officials were all related to him. David is the son of Jesse, which makes both from the tribe of Judah. Saul begins making this a family thing. Saul rheotorically asks his men why they have left the tribe of Benjamin to side with someone from Judah. What’s he saying is, “I have given you such how positions because you are family. Do you really think life would be better for you if David was your king?” Saul attempts to guilt trip his officials to making them feel bad about not keeping Saul informed. Saul also attempts to guilt trip his officials to cough up any information they might have, but they don’t seem to know any more information than Saul does.

This is where Doeg the Edomite finds his opportunity. The reader meets Doeg the Edomite in 1 Samuel 21. He’s the one watching Ahimilech and David conversing. The reader might also might remember Doeg is being detained. In the last blog, I honestly said that we don’t know why or how Doeg was detained, but whatever way it is, it’s not good. So Doeg sees his opportunity to get in good with the king by ratting David out. Not only does he rat David out, but he rats out Ahimelech, too, as the one who gave David food, weapons and a blessing from God. Saul takes that mean to a rebellion forming against him. So Saul responds by having all the priests from Nob come before him.

Saul brings forth accusations of conspiracy, rebellion and treason for siding with David. His rhetorical question asks Ahimelech for a defense. Ahimelech doesn’t defend himself first, but rather David. He defends David five times with five descriptions: Saul’s servant, loyal, Saul’s son-in-law, captain of Saul’s body guard, and highly respected in Saul’s household. Just one of those would be a good defense, but all five of them clearly don’t sound like an enemy of the king. Then Ahimelech goes into the defense of himself. Ahimelech describes his meeting with David as a regular ordeal. He’s done it before, and he’ll do it again. Ahimelech also states that even if David’s intentions were a rebellion, he would have no knowledge of it, for David did not inform him of any such thing. Here is where David’s deceitful lie in 1 Samuel 21:3 is helpful. Ahimelech can honestly and truthfully say that he does not know David’s intention. Actually, if you remember 1 Samuel 21:3, David said he was on a mission from the king. If Ahimelech takes that seriously, for all Ahimelech knows, what David is doing is for Saul!

Ahimelech’s defense won’t work, for Saul has already made up his mind. Saul pronounces a judgment using an infinite absolute. In Hebrew, when an infinite absolute is used, an infinite verb is used next to the same conjugated verb to intensify the verb. If you were to literally translate the phrase the NIV translates as “You will surely die,” it would literally translate to “dying you shall die.” The dying is what Saul intensifies. As the rest of the verse hints, Saul is going to kill everyone and everything in the town of Nob.

Immediately Saul gives the command to his guards, but his guards don’t move a muscle. Some have suggested that these men don’t want to carry out the order because they once followed David, and they did not want to harm anyone who helped David. But I see a better reason that fits the immediate and near context. The guards probably didn’t want to kill the priests because of their sacred role. The priests spoke to God on the people’s behalf. The priests were the representatives and the messengers from the people to God. They didn’t want to send a bad message. Because of the priests sacred role, the Israelite guards might have seen the priests as righteous or holy, and to kill a righteous or holy man would be a much greater sin. I believe this is the correct view because I think this is what Saul saw in his men, and so he turned to Doeg, an Edomite. Since Doeg is an Edomite and not an Israelite, he doesn’t see what the big deal is about killing a priest. Furthermore, Doeg is still trying to get in good with King Saul. He will do anything to get in good with Saul, even if it’s mass murder. Besides, this would good revenge for the town of Nob detaining him in the last chapter. So Doeg kills all 85 priests. The author mentions the ephod as a reminder that these priests were ordained by God. Not only did Saul kill all 85 priests, but their women and their animals as well.

But Doeg doesn’t kill everyone. There is a single survivor. His name is Abiathar. He is a son of Ahimelech and the grandson of Ahitub. He is a priest just as much as his father and his grandfather. He escapes, and, being a fugitive of Saul himself, goes to find all the other fugitives, who are with David. He reports everything he saw and heard, and everything Saul did. For the first time, David has to deal with the results of his doubts. If David would have trusted the Lord more, he wouldn’t have asked the priest for food or for weapons, and maybe Saul wouldn’t have killed all the priests. David has to face what he’s done, and he does the right thing. He confesses that it is his fault, and he repents. He takes responsibility for the death of Nob. He even tries to make it up to Abiathar by taking him in, providing shelter and protection. At this point, David realizes the consequences of his wrong actions, and seeks to do the right thing by seeking what God wants him to do.

So what does King Saul and Osama bin Laden have in common? On May 2, 2011, a Navy Seal time raided bin Laden’s compound and killed bin Laden. Upon further inspection of the compound he was staying in, the place was full of pornography. Pornography is a sin in Islam just as much as in Christianity, deserving God’s punishment. Then what is an Islamic extremist terrorist doing with a pornography stash? I believe the answer is simple. At some point, bringing death to America was no longer a spiritual for bin Laden. It was no longer about Allah bringing judgment and punishment to America. It was purely for political reason, whatever those reasons may be. King Saul was in the same camp. In the beginning, he rivalry with David could have been spiritual. David’s anointing was a private matter among his family. No one else knew about the anointing. Saul could have argued that he was God’s anointed king, not David. He could have argued that God was on his side, not David’s. But the minute he ordered death to the priests, it was no longer spiritual, but political. It was no longer Saul vs. David, but Saul vs. God. Saul wants to make sure he is king and his family is dynasty, even if it is a direct defiance against God’s order. But the truth is when Samuel anoints Saul in 1 Samuel 16, any time Saul is against David, he is against God. But Saul goes from indirectly against God to directly against God. With David trusting more in God, and Saul trusting less, the outcomes will become even more obvious then they are now.

But it’s not just David and God. It’s the priests. It’s those in debt. It’s even the officials who are clueless. What do they all have in common? Saul claims they are all against him. On the opposite side, you have Doeg, the Edomite. Doeg’s a bad egg, but Saul treats him well. Why? He does what Saul asks. See what is happening? Saul is making this rivalry between David and himself person. Either you’re on Saul’s side or David’s side. The lines will be drawn, and each and every Israelite will have to choose a side. Those who will follow Saul will realize they are following a selfish madman. Those who follow David will realize they are following God.

1 Samuel 21: Just In Case

What does the phrase “just in case” mean? You’re not going to be able to find a definition in a typical dictionary, for a typical diction defines words, not phrases. But the Free Dictionary by Farlex (thefreedictionary.com) does have definitions for phrases, and even idioms, such as the idiom “just in case.” The Free Dictionary defines the idiom “just in case” to mean “in the event that…” or “only if something happens.” These definitions are quite true, but to me, they seem a bit broad. I thought about the phrase myself. I realized that a lot of time I hear or say the phrase “just in case” it’s a back plan. I bring an umbrella just in case it rains. I buy extra batteries just in case the batteries I’m using die. I pack a snack just in case I have to skip lunch. See what I mean? I plan to have lunch, but if something were to come up, my back up plan is to snack while working. I plan to have a dry walk back and forth from my classrooms to my car, but if it were to rain, my backup plan is to use an umbrella to keep me dry. Then I thought about it more, and I started to think that the phrase “just in case” does subtly and subconsciously reflects doubt. I might not see a cloud in the sky in the sky, and the weatherman could report a clear day, but I doubt both the weather report and my vision, it will be reflected in grabbing an umbrella. The phrase “just in case” could display how much you trust something or someone.

When you grew up in church and heard the stories of David, it’s very possible you were told that, besides David’s 2 sins (Bathsheba and the census), David was a righteous and upright man, always pleasing God. But that’s just not human. In our human nature, we don’t just sin, get over it and move on. Some of the “worst” sins to get over are the ones that habitual and addicting, the ones the sinful nature wants to keep going back to. Such examples would be envy, wrath, pride, lust and doubt. That last one, doubt, is the key one when it comes to David. I am going to argue that in 1 Samuel 22, David doubts God by not trusting God for help in his time of need. Instead of going to God, he goes after material possessions for help. I am going show that David does this at least 5 times in this chapter: 3 times in Nob and 2 times in Gath. I also know that this viewpoint isn’t the most popular viewpoint, although there are scholars who do agree with me. So at the end, I will show an alternative interpretation to the events of 1 Samuel 21.

Let’s set the scene before we go into these doubts. After saying goodbye to Jonathan, David heads to Nob, a Levitical city just northeast of Jerusalem, where priests and Levites lived and worshipped. There David meets Ahimelech. From the context of 1 Samuel 21-22, the readers gets the idea that Ahimelech is the priest running worship at Nob. When Ahimelech sees David, the Bible says Ahimelech trembles in fear. Perhaps Ahimelech knows that Saul considers David and enemy and Saul is hunting down David and anyone in between. Maybe Ahimelech is think about how David went to Naioth, the home of the prophets, and almost endangered the prophets there. Surely Ahimelech doesn’t want David bringing the same danger to the priests. So Ahimelech asks David why he’s alone with no company. On the surface, it seems to be a simple question. But rhetorically, Ahimelech asks, “What sneaky business are you here to do if you don’t want any witnesses around?”

Doubt #1: Lying about his purpose. The first instance of doubt we see is right away in 1 Samuel 21:2. David creates this deceptive lie, in which he claims that the king sent him on a secret mission, and he is meeting with his men at a secret place. This is clearly a lie, for it is quite opposite of the truth. King Saul did not send David to do anything. If anything, Saul sent men on a mission for David. Saul and David could not be any further apart socially. Why couldn’t David tell the truth and say, “I am running away, for I am hiding from Saul.” David’s lie shows David’s distrust. David did not trust the priest, not even a holy priest. He must have been afraid that the priest would report to Saul his whereabouts if he told the priest where he was hiding, or he might have thought the priest would not help if he was fugitive of the king. What makes this lie so bad, the worst, is that he isn’t just lying to anyone, but a priest, who is a holy man working for a holy God. It’s almost as bad as lying to God Himself. Maybe David lying to the priest demonstrates that David not only doesn’t trust the priest, but doesn’t trust God.

Doubt #2: Food Provisions. After stating his purpose, David quickly asks for five loaves of bread, and if the priest doesn’t have that, whatever food he can scramble together will do. Ahimelech replies that he does not have any household bread, but it does have the consecrated bread. Every week the priests were to offer 12 loaves of unleavened, fine flour bread. A fresh batch of bread was placed on the table of showbread at the beginning of the week, and it would remain there until the end of the week. At the end of the week, the priests would come together to eat the bread together, and a new batch of bread would be put in its place. This bread was to be only eaten by the priest, for it symbolically represented the fellowship God had with the priests. David was well aware of this. David should have said (all of it or some of it), “Far be it from me to take the consecrated bread that is meant only for the Lord and his priests! To take that bread would be like stealing from the Lord Himself! I will not take the bread because I know that the Lord will provide food along the way. And if he does not, then he will give me the strength to not feel the pains of hunger.” But that’s not what David said. Instead, David pretty much says, “That’ll work. Good enough.” Then he proceeds to take the bread. Why does David take the bread? Doubt. David does not trust the Lord will provide food for him, so he’s got to fetch his own food. Even if he does believe God will provide the food, he takes the bread, just in case God doesn’t. Not the best of faith.

Now before you get to the bottom, both you and I can already suspect what my opponents would say. They would bring up that Jesus used this story, in Matthew 12:3,4 and in Mark 2:25,26, to explain that the disciples aren’t breaking God’s Law by picking wheat on the Sabbath. I’m not going to give details on how my opponents would use this passage to defend their view, but I will take the time to use this story to defend my point. Actually, I’m not going to use it to defend my point, but I will use it to counter-argue the typical defense we might be expecting. Simply, I will say that David is not sinning when he takes the bread. That’s the point Jesus is making, and I will also make the same point: David is not sinning. But on the same subject on the opposite end, I’m not ready to say David is making a great act of faith either. A great act of faith would be turning down the consecrated bread and depending on God and His promises to sustain you (see Deut. 8:9. It is repeated by Jesus in Matt 4:4 and Luke 4:4, but David would have only known the Deut 8:9 passage). In a way, what I’m saying is David didn’t do anything wrong, but David didn’t do the right thing either. The space between the wrong thing and the right thing is doubt.

Before we move on any further, pay attention to verse 7. In the English language and literature, it’s known as an aside, but in the Hebrew language and literature it’s known as a parenthetical clause. It’s when the author wants to put information into the narrative that doesn’t belong in any special place in the narrative. This parenthetical clause mentions there’s a witness to all this. His name is Doeg. Doeg is an Edomite. Edomites are the descendants of Edom, better known to us as Esau, the brother Jacob/Israel. So you’d think the Edomites would see Israel as their cousins. Actually, you’d be wrong. Since Israelites wandering in the desert, as recorded by Numbers, the Israelites and Edomites have been enemies. We even see them battling each other in 1 Samuel 14. Now 1 Samuel 21:7 tells us that Doeg the Edomite was detained. Now the Hebrew word is netsar, and scholars debate what do with the word in both Hebrew and English. What does netsar mean and what does detain mean? Some scholars think that Doeg is an Edomite whose converted to the Israelite’s religion and become a legal immigrant to Israel. Other scholars believe that Saul captured Doeg as a prisoner of war in the Israelites’ battle in 1 Samuel 14. I personally believe the second to be the more plausible answer. The aside also tells us that Doeg was the head shepherd of Saul’s flocks. In those days, it was naturally for kings to own large flocks of animals to tailor to their personal needs. Of course, the king himself would not take care of them, so he would hire shepherds to take care of the animals. Doeg was the head of the shepherds, so he had close ties to Saul. What’s Saul doing trusting an Edomite, no one knows. This could be a sign of Saul falling even further away from God. But the text wants us to know that he was witnessing the exchange between David and Ahimelech. That’s going to be important for the next chapter, for there we will find out Doeg is a bad egg.

Doubt #3: Protection. Next David asks for some kind of weapon to protect him. Ahimelech informs David that there are no weapons there but the sword of Goliath, which David had placed there himself. David quickly takes it. Once again, I ask, “Where is David’s faith?” Remember we said that in 1 Samuel 17 David clearly demonstrates that victory is given through the Lord and not through earthly weapons. David even supports that himself when he turns down the king’s armor (which probably also included a sword) for his regular clothes because He is confident that the Lord will bring him victory. The fact that David insists he needs a sword shows that David doesn’t have that confidence that he had when he face Goliath. He needs a sword, just in case the Lord doesn’t protect.

Doubt #4: Fleeing to Gath. This doesn’t take much explanation if you know the geography and the history. Israel is God’s chosen people in the Promised Land. Gath is the land of the Philistines, the enemy of God’s people who keep invading the Promised Land. Gath is also the hometown of Goliath, and even might be a capital of Philistia. No good, God-fearing Israelite would dare leave Israel for that land. That’s exactly what David does. He leaves the Promised Land, God’s land, for a foreign land. To me, this shows doubt. To me, it seems like David does not trust God to provide him protection in the kingdom that has been promised to him. So he leaves everyone and everything behind to tread in the enemies territory.

Doubt #5: Acting insane. David goes to Gath, hoping that no one will notice him and that everyone will leave him alone. It’s hard, though, to try to keep yourself hidden in the hometown of the champion you just slaughtered. Everyone immediately recognizes David as the one the sing about in Israel. So much for leaving your past life behind. Now David fears that the Philistines will also seek to kill David in order to avenge Goliath. So David comes up with a brilliant plan: to act like an insane madman. In Bible times, if someone were to act like an insane madman, people would automatically assume he’s demon-possessed and would want to avoid such evil. David acts insane so people think he’s demon-possessed and will leave him alone. I hope that you see where this is going. This cannot be the godly response to danger. Instead of trusting in God, David relies in a deceptive act to keep him safe. What makes it even worse is that David acts like there’s demons inside of him, not the Holy Spirit. David should be living a life that lets the Holy Spirit shine, not hide it.

Alright, as promised, now I will quickly give my opponents objections to my 5 doubts that David has. Their objections will be followed by what they see in those 5 sections.

#1: Lying about his purpose. While David may not have told the full truth, he did not lie. He was generic. David doesn’t say “King Saul” or even “Saul,” David just says “king.” Many times in the psalms David refers to the Lord God as king. So David might be saying he’s sent on a secret mission from King Yahweh because many times in the Bible both Yahweh and Jesus have asked people to keep secrets to themselves.

#2: Food provisions. David was not sinning by taking the bread. The bread had already completed its week-long life cycle as an offering to God, and now it’s up to the priests to decide what to do with it. The priest Ahimelech decides it’s alright for David and his men to eat of it as long as they act like priests; they must be ceremonially clean. Just as God used this bread to provide food to the priests, so God used this bread to provide food to David. Besides, Jesus mentions this story in Matthew 12:3,4 and Mark 2:25,26. If David had done something wrong, would Jesus really use this story as part of an argument? Speaking of Jesus, these few verses provide foreshadowing. Remember that Jesus was prophet, priest and king. If Jesus is to be the second, last and final David, David needs to foreshadow Jesus as prophet, priest and king. This is the priest part, as David acts like a priest.

#3: Protection. When Goliath’s sword enters the holy sanctuary, the sword becomes God’s property. Thus the priest giving David the sword is God’s way of providing protection of David. God provides protection by giving David the sword of Goliath. (Something similar to that could be said for point 2 on food provisions.

#4: Fleeing to Gath. This is just common sense. King Saul only has control over Israel; he does not have control in Philistia. If David goes to Philistia, he doesn’t have to worry about Saul because Saul does not reach him. Besides, leaving the Promise Land does not mean leaving God or leaving His will. Even Abraham and Jacob, with their families, left the Promised Land for Egypt when things got bad.

#5: Acting insane. A deceptive act is nothing new for the Israelites. We see the Israelite forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob deceiving left and right. Just like David deceived Achish to keep himself safe, so Abraham and Isaac deceived the king of Gerar, telling the king their wife was their sister, in order to keep themselves safe.

Now you’ve heard both sides, and both have given their reasons. With the reasons, you can choose which one to believe. But let me give you a few more reasons why I believe it’s best to see them as doubts. First, I want to remind you that I’m not suggesting that David sinned or is doing anything sinful. But at the same, it’s not that David’s doing the right thing or the good thing. He’s somewhere in the middle, struggling with doubts, having backup plans, just in case God doesn’t come through. So it doesn’t mess with the character of David, being a man after God’s heart. Second, there are application reasons. If you believe David was doing the good, right thing, then David’s example is to be followed: it’s ok to lie and deceive, take from God when he doesn’t provide, and flee from all danger. Those applications don’t seem Biblical. In fact, God seems to want the opposite from us. Third, take into consideration discourse analysis. Think about where we are in David narrative part of 1 Samuel. Some scholars seem 1 Samuel 21:10-15 and 1 Samuel 22:1-5 as a pivotal turning point in David’s story in 1 Samuel. David is faced with the question “In what or whom am I trusting in?” and he makes the pivotal change for the better. You’ll just have to wait for 1 Samuel 22 to see how David does that.