Don't Bring God Cows

According to the liturgical calendar, today is the 3rd Sunday of Easter. Yes, there is more than 1 Sunday of Easter. As I have said in the past, while we should be living out the truth of the resurrection every Sunday (after all, Christians moved the Sabbath to Sunday because of the resurrection), Easter can be a time to reflect on how much we actually do live out the resurrection, and if we're not, a time to get us back on track. Clearly, doing so will take more than 1 Sunday or 1 week, so Easter needs to extend beyond 1 Sunday. This 3rd Sunday of Easter, let's take some more time to reflect on what the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus did for us. Today, we're going to look in the most unusual place - the life of King Saul, as found in 1 Samuel.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (ESV)-

14 “When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. 18 “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

Before heading into 1 Samuel, I'd like to take a quick pit stop in Deuteronomy, more specifically, Deuteronomy 17. The first question that arises when examining King Saul is, "Did Yahweh really want Saul to become king?" Before asking that question, however, a better question to ask would be, "Did the Lord want Israel to have a king in the first place?" Well, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 has laws for a king, but your interpretation on why those laws exist all depends on whether you're a Calvinist or Arminian, whether you fall more on the side of predestination or free will. If you're Calvinist or believe in predestination, you believe God did predestine Israel to have kings, best proved by the fact that Yahweh established laws for a king centuries before a king takes the throne. The point of the Judges was to prove why Israel could not establish a theocratic government in which the Lord directly ruled over the people. Simply put, according to the Calvinists, the book of Judges proves why Israel can't have nice things. If you are Arminian or believe in free will, you believe God did want to rule directly over his people in a theocratic government, like in the book of Judges, but he foresaw the people of Israel asking for a king. Therefore, Yahweh got ahead of the people by establishing laws for a king, so he could grant their request in a way that was mutually beneficial to both sides. Simply put, according to the Arminian, it is as if the Lord is saying, "I don't like kings, but I will allow kings, as long as I can put up safeguards." Either way, these laws in Deuteronomy 17 prove that God did not disprove of Saul merely because he was a king. If you were to ask me which side of the debate I fall on, however, I would probably say the Arminian or free will side, for I think the life of Saul would support that side of the argument.

So did Yahweh really want Saul to become a king, especially when David is a man's after God's own heart, whereas Saul had no heart for God? After all, if you do the math, David would have been 18 years old when Samuel anointed Saul king of Israel. Surely the Lord could have Samuel anoint David instead of Saul. The best answer to that question is, again, simply put, to prove to Israel why it can't have nice things. Yahweh picks the first king according to Israel's standards. The fact that 1 Samuel 10:23 mentions that Saul was a head above the average Israelite meant that Saul looked the part of a king - he was tall, dark and handsome. The Lord picks the second king in accordance to his standards. David might be ruddy, as stated in 1 Samuel 16:12, but this ruddy boy becomes the man after God's own heart. Yahweh has to remind even his own prophet Samuel to look beyond the boy David's looks to see the heart of a king, as found in 1 Samuel 16:7. Therefore, I would not say God predestined Saul to fail as king, but rather, God foresaw Saul would fail, so he made it an opportune time to teach the people of Israel a lesson.

Indeed, I do believe Yahweh gave Saul a fair chance to serve both Yahweh and Israel as king, as evident in the book of 1 Samuel. To borrow baseball terms, reading through 1 Samuel, it becomes apparent that the Lord gave Saul 3 strikes before he was out, and each strike came with discipline or a punishment. The first strike resulted in loss of a dynasty, as evident in 1 Samuel 13:8-15. The second strike resulted in loss of kingship, as can be read in 1 Samuel 15. The third strike results in loss of life, as recorded in 1 Samuel 28. Of those 3 passages, I imagine most people are most familiar with 1 Samuel 28, as that chapter is the famous (infamous?) Witch of Endor passage, in which Saul consults a medium. The other 2 passages are less familiar, but they are both important passages for Saul's life, for upon closer examining, they reveal the same truth about Saul. Without further ado, take a closer look at Saul in 1 Samuel 13:8-15 and 1 Samuel 15.

1 Samuel 13:8-15 (ESV)-

8 He waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel. But Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people were scattering from him. 9 So Saul said, “Bring the burnt offering here to me, and the peace offerings.” And he offered the burnt offering. 10 As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came. And Saul went out to meet him and greet him. 11 Samuel said, “What have you done?” And Saul said, “When I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines had mustered at Michmash, 12 I said, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favor of the Lord.’ So I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering.” 13 And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the Lord your God, with which he commanded you. For then the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. 14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.” 15 And Samuel arose and went up from Gilgal. The rest of the people went up after Saul to meet the army; they went up from Gilgal to Gibeah of Benjamin

1 Samuel 15 (ESV)-

1 And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ” 4 So Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to the city of Amalek and lay in wait in the valley. 6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart; go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive and devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction. 10 The word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the Lord all night. 12 And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning. And it was told Samuel, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself and turned and passed on and went down to Gilgal.” 13 And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed be you to the Lord. I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” 14 And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” 15 Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the Lord your God, and the rest we have devoted to destruction.” 16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stop! I will tell you what the Lord said to me this night.” And he said to him, “Speak.” 17 And Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And the Lord sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?” 20 And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord. I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. 21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” 22 And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. 23  For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.” 24 Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may bow before the Lord.” 26 And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.” 27 As Samuel turned to go away, Saul seized the skirt of his robe, and it tore. 28 And Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” 30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the Lord your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul bowed before the Lord. 32 Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully. Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” 33 And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. 34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

In both passages, Saul has received commands from Yahweh, in written in the Law or spoken by the prophet Samuel. In both passages, Saul instead does what is right in his own eyes, and he attempts to justify it. It is as if Saul is saying, "No, God really wants this" or "No, I got something better for God that he'll enjoy more." It's like Saul thinks he know God better than God knows God! In both passages, instead of Saul truly confessing and repenting of his sin, Saul opts for doing penance. In other words, whereas Saul should have said sorry, learned his lesson and stopped his disobedience to the Lord, Saul instead tries to do something good in its place, hoping that the Lord will forget about the sin or no longer care about the sin. In both passages, God punishes Saul's kingship, in hope that the discipline would make Saul learn a lesson, but Saul does not learn his lesson. The message should have been clear to Saul: You can't pay off the Lord!

While the message was not clear to Saul, the message became very clear to David, Israel's next king. David saw the mistakes his predecessor made, and he must have vowed that he would not repeat those mistakes. That's why Saul was the man who had no heart for God, and David became the man after God's own heart. One of those ways was the handling of sin. David was by no means perfect. He too sinned. Where David improved from Saul, however, is he knew what do when he sinned. Whereas Saul would attempt to justify his sin or try to do penance for his sin, David knew what the Lord really wanted him to do when he sinned: confess and repent. Just read about it in Psalm 51:16&17.

Psalm 51:16&17 (ESV)-

16  For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. 17  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

Psalm 51:16&17 is a psalm David wrote after he commited adultery against Bathsheba, murdered Uriah and was confronted by Nathan. David had an affair with Bathsheba, got her pregnant, tried to cover it up with Uriah, and then murdered Uriah when the cover up did not work. If Saul would have committed the same sin, Saul probably would have justified as his right as king, or he would have made sacrifices, hoping the sacrifices would make everything go away. Again, David realizes the mistakes Saul made and decides not to make the same mistakes. Instead of justifying it, or making a sacrifice or a burnt offering, he merely confesses and repents. that's why David ends up the man after God's own heart, despite the sins he committed against Bathsheba and Uriah. David's attitude is again reflected in the previous psalm, Psalm 50. Now Psalm 50 is written by Asaph. While not everybody agree with this, I believe Asaph was David's worship leader for the tabernacle and eventually the temple. Therefore, I imagine David and Asaph shared ideas, such as David learning from Saul's mistakes and not making the same mistakes. The lesson David learned from Saul to not make sacrifices or do penance for sins must have stuck with Asaph, for he has a similar reflection.

Psalm 50:7-11 (ESV)-

7  “Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you. I am God, your God. 8  Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me. 9  I will not accept a bull from your house or goats from your folds. 10  For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. 11  I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine.

Asaph understood why you can't pay off the Lord - because the Lord already owns everything! Since Yahweh created everything, he is the owner of everything in the world, including all the wealth of the world. There is nothing that a human being can give God that God does not have because he made it all. Psalm 50:7-11 not only teaches why it is impossible to pay off the Lord, but it also reminds the reader the reason the sacrificial exists in the first place. Sacrifices were never meant as a penance to sin. The point of offerings were to recognize that there has been a loss on the victim's side (even if that loss is a loss of relationship trust, which would be the case for sins against God), which has brought about pain. Thus, the sinner, by performing the sacrifice, was personally and voluntarily taking on a loss himself or herself, which would bring pain upon sinner. Not only would this voluntarily sacrifice allow the sinner to emphathize with the victim, the pain of loss on the sinner's part would deter the sinner from ever committing the sin again. In short, the point of offerings was to provide a way to show how you were sorry or to show how sorry you were, not to be a way do penance or make up for your sin. Therefore, by doing sacrifices or giving an offering, you are not paying off the Lord, but rather, you are disciplining yourself before God to demonstrate your repentance.

Not only does David reflect on how his predecessor Saul made the mistake of attempting to pay off the Lord, the prophets, both major prophets and minor prophets, make the same reflection in the hopes of communicating to the respective audiences how much Yahweh wants them to stop sinning instead of giving offerings and sacrifices alongside sinning. To start, check out the words of the major prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Isaiah 1:11-17 (ESV)-

11  “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12  “When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? 13  Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. 14  Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. 15  When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. 16  Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17  learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

Jeremiah 7:22-24 (ESV)-

22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

This Jeremiah passage I have to pause to comment on briefly because I myself did not believe. Yes, I fact checked the Lord by briefly skimming over Exodus, and indeed, in the book of Exodus, God does not command anything concerning burnt offering and sacrifices. Yes, in Exodus 10:25, Moses casually mentions to Pharaoh that the people of Israel need their livestock for sacrifices and burnt offering, but this line is more of Moses informing Pharaoh of the purpose of going out into the desert to worship, and it is less of Yahweh commanding the the people of Israel how to perform the sacrifices and burnt offerings. True, Exodus 20:22-26 provides laws on how to build altar, which verse 24 states has the purpose of sacrificing, but in the passage, the Lord never goes into detail how the Israelites are to perform these sacrifices and offerings. God holds that all off until the book of Leviticus. In the book of Exodus, all the laws and instructions center around loving God and loving your neighbor, not performing sacrifices and offerings. Clearly, God holds in preference obedience over sacrifices, as the minor prophets will continue to demonstrate.

Hosea 6:6 (ESV)

6  For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Amos 5:21-24 (ESV)-

21  “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. 22  Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them. 23  Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. 24  But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Micah 6:6-8 (ESV)-

6  “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7  Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8  He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Notice the words of the major prophets and minor prophets sound very similar to what the former prophet Samuel said to King Saul. I would argue that the major prophets and the minor prophets here are purposely alluding to or echoing the former prophet Samuel. When the major and minor prophets prophesied these words, they are thinking about what the former prophet Samuel said to King Saul, and they realized that the people of Israel and Judah are acting no different than their king from antiquity. It is as if the major and minor prophets are prophesying to the people of Israel and Judah, "You should have learned from your former king of old that you can't pay off the Lord!" More specifically to Isaiah, Amos and Micah, notice how these prophets substitute Samuel's words of obeying with justice. On the surface level, I believe that this is God, in his grace and mercy, revealing to Israel and Judah their specific sin, so they know what exactly sin from which they need to confess and repent. It is like Yahweh is crying out the people of Israel and Judah, "I don't need sacrifices and offerings because of your sin of injustice; I just need you to stop the injustice and start the justice!" On a more deeper level, however, the prophecies of Isaiah, Amos and Micah teach why you can't pay off the Lord - a God that can be paid off is an unjust God, for a God that can be paid off favors the rich and shows partiality against the poor. Think about it. If somebody can pay off God and is rich, that somebody can afford to sin. It doesn't matter if the rich person has a wild and crazy night of sinning, as long as he or she makes the correct offerings or sacrifices the next morning, that person is fine, and that person can continue the pattern for all his or her life and end up in heaven. If someone can pay off the Lord, but that someone is poor, he or she doesn't dare to sin because he or she cannot afford to sin. If that poor person does sin, that person will be in debt all his or her life, become even poorer and still worry about going to hell because he or she could not afford to give God the payment for sin. This isn't fair; this isn't just. Nobody should be able to afford to sin; no one should fear to sin because they don't have wealth. Everybody should have access to way to repent from sin and seek forgiveness and reconciliation, despite money, assets or other wealth. That is the just God we worship, not an unjust God that can be paid off. We need to worship God in a way that reflects that. Any attempts to pay off God does not reflect that.

So far, all the Bible passages covered have all come from the Old Testament, so the question that then arises is if the 1st century church of the New Testament ever struggled with this sin of attempting to pay off God. As far as my recollection of the New Testament stands, I cannot think of such of an example. Some may bring up Simon the Magician/Sorcerer in Acts 8:9-24, but he's trying to pay John and Peter for the power of the Holy Spirit, not because of sin. Others might bring up Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, in Acts 5:1-11, but their sin is lying about the amount of money offered to the church, not paying off the church for sin. No, the 1st century church does not seem to struggle with this sin, or even is tempted with the sin. This does not mean, however, the church has been immune from this sin. Going through church history will reveal that the church has struggled with this sin.

In the 900s AD, the church began the practice of indulgences, which is a monetary payment paid to the church for the forgiveness of sins. Some church historians have argued this practice of indulgences began in the 600s AD, but at best, this practice of indulgences indirectly exchanged money for the forgiveness of sins. For example, a person could donate a large sum of money to a charity, and the church would recognize this donation to charity as an act of penance. As another example, a person would go to confessional to confess their sins, the priest would tell them, "You need to pray 50 unique prayers as your act of penance," and it would just so happen that the church is selling a book of prayers. Again, this person would be paying for a book of prayers, not paying the church specifically for the forgiveness of sins. No, it's not until the 900s AD that the church would allow a donation of money directly to the church as an act of penance, but even then, indulgences was just 1 of many ways a person could do penance. It's not until the 1500s that the practice of indulgences became a sin the church struggled with, thanks to Pope Leo X. See, Leo X was born into nobility, so he's next in line to become a king of a kingdom, but he gets stuck with the assignment of pope. That wasn't going to stop Leo X from living like a king. He would not only redecorate the Vatican and the papal palace with the best artwork of the day, he would constantly host parties with kings and other nobility to prove he was one of them. Naturally, doing so racked up a big bill, one that dried up the Vatican's funds, which is hard to do, but Leo X did it. Leo X found the solution to the lack of money problem in pushing the sales of indulgences, so much so that many friars and monks pretty much became indulgences salesmen. Things were going smoothly until Martin Luther appeared on the scene. The sales of indulgences became one of the top targets of his 95 Theses. It's worth looking at some of the theses that do target indulgences, for they drive home the point of all the verses examined in 1 Samuel, the Psalms and the prophetic books. Before doing so, however, one other point is worth mentioning. Most Christians today know that putting money in the church offering plate does not forgive sins or bring about salvation. Even the Roman Catholic Church understands this, as they abolished the sales of indulges in the 1970s! Many Christians, however, still sometimes think that God will forgive their sin, or at least forget their sin or ignore their sin if they do some good work or practice some spiritual discipline. With that in mind, I encourage you, as you're reading these theses, replace the word indulgences with a good work or a spiritual discipline that you or some Christian might think they can do as penance for the forgiveness of a sin or to bring about salvation from sin. Without further ado, take a look at these theses from Martin Luther against indulgences.

41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

The 613 Laws can be summarized in the greatest and second greatest commandment, the greatest being to love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and the second being to love your neighbor as yourself. As Samuel said to Saul, the Lord will always desire obedience to the Law over any offering or any sacrifice. Put it together, and God will always want you to love him and to love others over any offering ans sacrifice. No offering, no sacrifice, no spiritual discipline will ever become more important than loving the Lord God and loving your neighbor.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

Again, reflect back on the words of Isaiah, Amos and Micah. The Lord revealed through these prophets that people of Israel and Judah angered him by thinking they continue acting merciless and unjustly towards other people, especially the poor, if they continued the offerings and sacrifices. Instead, God would have been more satisfied if they turned around from merciless to merciful and from injustice to justice. Again, the Lord God will always prefer bringing justice to injustice over any offering, any sacrifice, or any spiritual discipline. No offering, no sacrifice, no spiritual will ever become more important than justice and mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

No joke - Martin Luther observed people passing poor beggars on their way to pay large sums of money for indulgences. This fact carries a sense of irony, for this practice of receiving indulgences for giving money began as a practice of giving alms to charities, not the church! Those poor beggars needing the money more than the pope, for the poor beggars needed the money to survive, whereas the pope needed the money to continue living in luxury. Once again, this fact calls back to the injustice of which Isaiah, Amos and Micah spoke. The poor and needy should not live in poverty, so the church can become rich. If so, then the church becomes guilty of the injustice of which Isaiah, Amos and Micah spoke. If the church has its bank book balanced, and as long as the church does not spend its money wastefully, any offering to the poor will mean more to the Lord God than tithing to a church. If this fact offends the chuch, and the church still insists tithing has more importance than offerings to the poor and needy (and the charities that focuses on the poor and needy), then the church should dedicate a percentage of their tithes to the poor, the needy, the widow and the orphan.

44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

While the Lord does command tithing and offerings, tithing and offerings do not make anybody a good person. Anyone can give tithes and offering, yet that person can still live in sin. A person becomes less like the old, sinful self and more like new, Christ-like self by loving the Lord God will all his or her heart, soul, mind and strength, loving his or her neighbor like the self. That's the sanctification the Lord God requires of every Christian, not giving money. (For the record, I think the phrase "is merely freed from penalties" is Martin Luther attempting to compromise with the Roman Catholic Church)

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.

Since the first half of this thesis already has the same meaning has thesis number 43, the second half of this thesis will take on the main focus here. If anything, thesis 43 and 45 are two sides of the same coin. Thesis 43 puts it in a positive light. Those who give offerings to the poor and needy instead of buying indulgences please the Lord and make the Lord happy. Thesis 45 puts it in a negative light. Those who buy indulgences instead of giving that money to the poor and needy displease God and make God mad. If anybody thinks that good works or spiritual disciplines make the Lord happy enough to avoid the sin, quite the opposite is true. The wrath of God burns against anyone who use good works or spiritual disciples to cover up sin. Again, Martin Luther points out the irony that those people buying indulgences thought they just bought the Lord's pleasure instead bought God's wrath.

46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.

No joke - Martin Luther observe financially-stable families bring themselves to poverty buying indulgences, not just for themselves but also for their dead relatives (another way Pope Leo X expanded indulgences to get more income to the church)! The Lord had a reason for commanding the Old Testament Israelites to tithe ten percent, and not just because Abraham did so to Melchizedek. Whether rich or poor, anybody giving ten percent will always have ninety percent left to take care of the family. Giving tithes and offerings should never bankrupt a family, as the indulgences that Pope Leo X promoted and Martin Luther rejected did.

47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.

Tithing is mandatory; offerings are optional. Thanks to the New Covenant, the New Testament teaches that there is no tithing; there is only offering. In accordance with 2 Corinthians 8-9, Jesus only commands believers to give generously and give joyfully. Such a command does not excuse Christians from giving if they give neither generously nor joyfully, but rather, the command encourages Christians to develop a heart that desires to giving generously and joyfully. If you want to give money because you feel thankful for what Jesus did on the cross for your sins, that's amazing! If you want to give because you want your heart to match Christ's heart, and you want to work with the Holy Spirit to make yourself less like the old, sinful self and more like the new, Christ-like self, that's awesome! If you want to give money because you want to participate alongside the church in a worth cause that needs financial backing, that's excellent! If want to give money because your heart breaks for those suffering in their poverty, that's fantastic! No one, however, should give because they feel like their Savior demands it from them. As witnessed in Psalm 50, the Messiah already owns all the wealth of the world. He does not need yours.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

For the Roman Catholic reader out there, keep this statement as pope. For the Protestant Christian reader, change pope to pastor. A good pope or a good pastor knows more power exists in prayer rather than in money, and therefore, a good pope or pastor asks for prayer more than money. On the flip side, a bad pope or pastor asks for money more than asking for prayer. Thus, Pope Leo X was a bad pope. If you have a pastor who always seems concerned about the income of church, aside from numbers in the red (unless the church spends excessively), then you have a toxic pastor, and you don't need that kind of negativity in your life.

49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.

Any good work or any spiritual discipline should bring the Christian closer to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not further away from him. The difference may lie in whether the Christian believes that the good work or the spiritual discipline determines whether the Christian has salvation and gets to go to heaven. If the Christian put his or her trust in Jesus Christ for salvation and eternal life, all good works and spiritual disciplines, including the giving of offerings, can be beneficial for spiritual growth. If the Christian thinks that good works and spiritual disciplines, including giving offerings, bring about salvation and eternal life, not a relationship with the Lord Jesus, then that Christian has taken a step back in the faith.

The list could go on and on, as Martin Luther mentions indulgences in 45 of his 95 theses, yet for the sake of time, the list stops here. While worth reading all 95 theses, especially the 45 that cover indulgences, these 9 theses testify to the same points the Scriptures mentioned. You can't pay off the Lord! God will always desire obedience, especially obedience in terms of justice, over any offering or sacrifice.

To conclude the way I introduced this topic, as we reflect back on Easter and the resurrection, I want everybody know that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ paid your debt of sin in full. There's is nothing more that you need to do. You don't need to pay off the Lord for your sin because Jesus already paid his Father with his life. Again, I repeat, Jesus paid it all. With that in mind, if you are a Christian, who believes Jesus paid it all, stop trying to pay off the Lord with your good works. If you're doing good works as a sign of thankfulness for the salvation Jesus has given you, that's amazing! If you're doing good works because you're working with the Holy Spirit to create that clean heart that's less like the old, sinful self and more like the new, Christlike self, that's awesome! If you do good works because you want to see the kingdom of God on earth, that's excellent! If you do good works because your heart breaks for those suffering in their sin, that's fantastic! If you're doing good works, however, hoping the Lord will ignore the sin in your life or to justify the sin in your life, you are attempting to pay off the Lord. Once again, you cannot pay off the Lord! If that's the case, stop doing good works and start confessing and repenting.

Easter has another importance. Easter marks the end of Lent. Many Christians choose to fast for Lent. This teaching should get you reflecting on why you fast during Lent. If you fasted from something during Lent because you realize you've made that something a higher priority in life than the Lord, and you chose to fast from it to put the Lord back in the number 1 spot in your life, you've done your Lent fast correctly. If you fasted from something during Lent because you were going to that thing for something when you really should have been going to God, and you fasted from it to put your dependency back in God, then you did your Lent fast right. If you fasted from something during Lent because you think it impressive God, then you did your Lent fast wrong. What "impresses" the Lord is a repentant heart, not spiritual disciplines.

In closing, for those disappointed that I did not use a New Testament verse, let me throw in 1 New Testament verse-

Matthew 4:17 (ESV)-

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

In the few couple theses of Martin Luther's 95 Theses, Martin Luther cited Matthew 4:17 as the start of the downfall of the church. No, it has nothing to do with what Jesus said, it has everything to do with St. Jerome said. Jerome is the man who translate the Bible into the Latin Vulgate. When Jerome got to Matthew 4:17, he took Jesus's first word μετανοέω (metanoeo), which most English translations accurately translate as "repent," and Jerome translated it as poenitentia, or "do penance." This mistranslation got the ball rolling into a Roman Catholic church that accepted indulgences for a payment of sin, which Martin Luther saw deserving criticism. Still, the truth remains that the kingdom of heaven is not seen at hand when we give offerings, do good works or practice spiritual disciplines. No, the kingdom of heaven is seen at hand when people repent of their sin.

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