Krissi

These particular promises, the six, seem less conditional than other promises in the bible. There is less of an if-X-then-Y quality to these promises. Here, God promises to do something without making the fulfillment of his promise contingent on behavior or belief. What bothers me is that these promises have not yet been fulfilled. Yes, David's name is great among believers, but not the rest of the world. The Jewish/Israeli homeland reappeared in the twentieth century, but could well disappear again. It is certainly not secure. And, the history of israel is not pacific, but militaristic and martial. I don't know if David has a dynasty beyond the obvious advent of Christ. Who are David's ancestors and are they in positions of authority, as was David? Are all Jews considered part of David's dynasty? The everlastingness of David's kingdom cannot be proven or disproven by historical events because we don't know who are his direct lineal descendants. I guess I don't think of Christ as part of a "dynasty" but rather as something that punctuated time, not continued a lineage. I think I'm wrong in this. Christ can be thought of as fulfilling the Davidic covenant. Does this mean, then, that the covenant ended with Christ? Again, conditional promises make the fulfillment of those promises conditioned on beliefs/behaviors of either of the parties in the promise. God promises to do something if humans believe/behave in a certain way OR we promise to do something if God behaves in a certain way in the world in and our lives. Conditional promises aren't mind-games but have real life consequences; they're not esoteric but are very practical in application.

Nathan knew God had anointed David to be king without fully understanding the nature of that anointing. This story exposes two concepts of anointing – we are anointed either 1) for a particular assignment, or 2) because we have, or have been given, some sort of supernatural “essence.” The NT idea of gifting develops the idea of anointing in the OT. In the NT, people are gifted to preach, teach, prophecy, evangelize, etc just as in the OT people were anointed for tasks or roles. In other words, if you see anointing as “essential,” a gifted person would have the ability to do certain things for the Lord irrespective of the particular situation or circumstance. Thus, once a prophet, always a prophet … once a king, always a king. Nathan is such an essentialist. To him, David’s anointing as king extended to whatever David did as king. David's anointing, then, was essential – it cut to David’s identity or person, that is, his essence. Possessing this view of anointing, when David suggested to Nathan that he build a home for the tabernacle, Nathan quickly assumed that this was an idea put in David by God because David had the essence/anointing of kingship with all the power and percs that go with it. But there’s another view of anointing or gifting that is less essential than it is circumstantial. In this view, anointing/gifting is for a season or particular assignment. In this view, one's anointing may come and go, even change. Looking at anointing this way, David was anointed to win particular battles and set up a new government, but not to build the temple. The anointing to build a temple fell to another. Similarly, people today may be gifted to start a school, or speak truth to evil authorities or even win wars, but not to start a denomination or raise children, for example. Similarly, people may be anointed to serve quietly at home but not run for office – or vice versa. Nathan’s “essentialist” view of anointing led him down a false path. (In his defense, when he realized his thinking was wrong, he quickly backpedaled.) Not waiting on the Lord only exacerbated the situation but did not cause it – the main problem was that Nathan's thinking about anointing was wrong. Without changing how he looked at anointing, he could never find the truth. So God did this for him. David was as responsible as Nathan for his misunderstanding of the situation. David didn’t wait. David didn’t bring his idea to the Lord quietly and slowly, as he had done in so many situations in his past. Instead, he blabbed his idea to Nathan, not to God. That was his big mistake.

Michal had known love once, that of Paltiel, from whom she was taken by David after 14 years of marriage. Even though she was loved by Paltiel and David's marriage to her had never been consummated, or so it seems, David was making a point of being the rightful king, publicly asserting his power. David felt he could take her from her husband because had paid for her with the foreskins of two hundred dead men and because she was the daughter of King Saul who had promised her to him. The real reason for taking her was that David wanted to assert Himself to Abner. Abner was a potential political rival. So she became David’s first wife for political reasons only. I’m not surprised that Michal hated David, given that she had been sold like an expensive toy to David, then married to a man who loved her, and later reclaimed like an object by David. She may have thought David was cunning, politically savvy and abusive, a typical secular king. When he was dancing before God, she probably thought he was manipulating the crowd. Because she had been taken from the man whom she regarded as her husband, Michal was bitter. That bitterness caused her to see David as opportunistic and manipulative at a time when David was genuinely worshipping God. Originally, Saul had sold his daughter to David because he thought she would be “a snare” to him. This marriage was supposed to make David vulnerable to the Philistines who were told to sneak into their bedroom to kill him. Michal saved David life by dropping him out of a window. Note that she had been married to Paltiel for 14 years before David came for her. Obviously David did not prioritize retrieving his wife. Pastor Ralph asks what would have happened had David conformed his worship expression to his wife’s preferences. People would not have seen his love for God at that time. He would have expressed his love for God in a more quiet manner. I'm not sure silencing David is what she really wanted, though. I think she wanted a husband who loved her. The question I'm asking myself is this: What would have happened had David respected the love/marriage that Paltiel had for Michal (and vice versa?) and had felt strong/secure enough as a king/man to leave her with him? I pity Michal. I don't see her as a pampered harridan but as an abused, unloved, and very sad woman. -- I'm dealing with bitterness now, pulling it out by the roots, submitting it to him for healing. I do think bitterness impacts a believer's approach to God. I find it difficult to trust and love God because I am bitter about the past, thinking God should have prevented something from happening as well as opened the doors to a promise. Promises unfulfilled have caused bitterness and doubt. Waiting and waiting and waiting for promises to be fulfilled also causes bitterness. I fear more years will go by without His promises being fulfilled, without answer to prayer. This fear breeds distrust and distrust breeds bitterness.

I attend both a "free church" and a denominational church -- one on Tuesday night, the other on Sunday morning. The free church is a parachurch ministry composed entirely of women. the denominational church is Anglican. The "free church" so emphasizes "spontaneous" worship -- dancing, shouting, drum banging, blowing the shofar, etc. -- that this supposedly free worship has become a new expression of legalism. In the free churches, certain behaviors are de rigeur. Anyone sitting quietly with eyes shut engages in a lesser/lower sort of worship and is a lesser sort of Christian. Free worship has to be publicly costly in a free church. One has to prove to others that he/she is willing to be the fool for Christ by acting foolishly. I've observed a sliding scale of acceptability in the free churches that runs counter to the ways of worship in the denominational churches. They're proud to be free. Very proud. The freer the better. Making a fool of oneself may be costly in denominational churches but NOT making a fool of oneself is costly in "free" churches. Conversely, in denominational churches, or at least the one I go to, NOT expressing oneself in dance, loudness, etc. is de rigeur. No one raises hands, feet or voice. It's orderly. Quiet. Thoughtful. So what's right? I don't know. In some circumstance, times and for some people, perhaps the freer sort is best -- in other times/places/peoples a more orderly worship is best. NOte the example of Jesus, though. When Jesus wanted to commune with God, He pulled away from others -- alone, in an isolated place, He prayed and worshipped. There are no stories of Jesus jumping in the streets, banging a bongo drum or dancing. In fact, Jesus is always calm. During the storm in the boat when His disciples thought they would die, Jesus peacefully slept. It was the frantic disciples who were chastised, not Jesus. BUT ... it is true that the new church was loud and boisterous, unlike Jesus. They spoke loudly in tongues. They preached loudly in public places. They probably danced! Was this His will? Is this how God expects us to worship? Again, I don't know. I do know that the Bible does not tell us to emulate the First Century church, but rather to be like Christ. I do think that "free" churches emphasize emotion over rationality, music over the visual arts, dancing over writing. They choose to worship in a loud, showy, frenetic, and public manner. There is a lot of emotion and tears during their worship times. At the same time, denominationalists choose to worship in an orderly, quiet and more cerebral manner without an overt display of emotion. The "free" churches often discount reason, the intellectual life, quiet prayer, the hard work of reconciling theological tenets, etc. I find these important. Furthermore, I enjoy the visual arts more than music, but right now, the "free" sorts are in ascendency. Thus, I should not expect cathedrals to be built, theology to be argued, books and poetry to be written, nature to be quietly studied, etc. (I miss worshipping with my MIND in both the free and denominational church.) If we are to be like Christ, perhaps we should figure out how Christ worshipped and then do it!

Thank God that the "system" had moved from law to grace in our lives. We are not subject to oppressive laws that can kill -- we are free from these laws, but only unto service. Recall the story of Jesus and his disciples walking through the fields eating grain on the Sabbath and the condemning/pious reaction of the "teachers of the law" and compare it to this story of the moving of arc. These two stories are quite similar, yet with different conclusions. Both were about small infractions of the law. Yet, in the OT, the punishment for breaking the law was death, even a law that was unknown or forgotten and an action that was done "in good faith" with a clean heart. In the NT, there is no punishment for breaking a mere law. The law to have the Levites move the ark was merely a law ... only a law. To move the arc with the right reverence and joy-filled heart was surely more important than having the right moving company do it! Similarly, how one eats on the way to work, a work of service and love, is far less significant than the work itself. Maybe we take a more flippant attitude about ceremony and law than we should, but I don't think so. I think we've moved on. To grace. I think David's mistake has no bearing on us today. It's a look back to a system that no longer applies. It is no more significant today than animal sacrifices, a mere vestige of the past, of historical interest. We do God's will because the Spirit is in our heart, prompting us. We use the OT laws and commandments only as guides to understand the NT commandment to love God and love our neighbors.

David was at a high point both in his political career and faith. David had (cleverly) submitted to pleblicite whether the ark should be returned. It appears that the people responded unanimously to bring it back. So, David felt he had God's will backing him up, that he was doing the right thing. He also knew that politically he was riding a high wave. I wonder if anyone remembered the rules for moving the ark -- it's not like the priesthood and teaching was well disseminated at that time. My guess is that the men who moved the ark, including Uzzah, didn't know the rules and regulations that God had laid down. So they broke them. Unintentionally. (This could be wrong.) The bible gives no hint as to David's reasoning or reason for his anger. If I were in David's shoes, I'd be mad, too. After all, David HAD consulted God on this. David HAD consulted the people. He had both God and the people's consent and enthusiasm for this project. It was pulling together the people as a nation ... a unifying experience. His heart was in the right place. How often do any of us do something from the right motives as pure as David's were at this moment? I don't think David had a scintilla of doubt that this was God's will. And then, as if putting mere rules over his heart, God pulled the rug out from under David. He asserted His holiness and the rules regarding His holiness over David's good intentions and desire to serve Him faithfully. If this is His standard, will anyone meet it? If picayune-seeming rules and regulations are more important than intention and motivation, God Himself seems petty. I think this is the way David was thinking. Was David wrong? Apparently so. There must have been more to this story. Perhaps the return of the ark had devolved into a jingoistic, patriotic event -- I'm writing this on the 4th July, a time of hamburgers and fireworks, not deep thoughts about the meaning and direction of the country -- and had lost it's religious undergirding? Perhaps Uzzah and the other men (who were spared) were flippant about the meaning of the ark's return, or enjoying the spectacle more than it's meaning ... perhaps the fireworks were more important than the reason for the event, celebration more important than the reason to celebrate ... partying more important than God? It's difficult not to feel sorry for Uzzah, but if he were a rah-rah, firework-gazing patriot and not a humble and reverent believer in Yahweh, this sordid story makes sense.

There does seem to be a cut-off for questions we pose to God. Here's a stupid example: God doesn't care what I eat for breakfast, usually. Whether I have two eggs or hot cereal is not something He cares about nor is it something I bring to Him in prayer. I am an adult. I have an adult -- rational -- mind. When my kids were small, I made decisions for them. As they matured, I told them to make their own breakfast and not bother me with silly queries. This is a lousy example, but the truth is that as adults we go through the overwhelming majority of our day without consulting God ... because we make these decisions. Occasional issues arise, however, that demand a rationality greater than our own. And, of course, pivotal and important decisions always involve His counsel. The issue has to do with finding that cut-off point at which the question is ours to answer or should be turned over to God. I answer this by praying to be sensitive to His leading and voice. Then, I go about my day. If something occurs during the day that causes me to hesitate, I pray. Of course, all big issues go to Him in prayer. But the point a cut-off point exists at which issues rise to the level of concern, and at this point, I pray. Note that most of life doesn't get even slightly close to this cut-off point. I just do life. So I don't think it's pride or a deficient character to make decisions without consulting God but simple maturity. It's a sign of being a rational adult. Again, at times I'm confronted with decisions that should be deferred and delayed until God speaks, but there are not many of these sorts of decisions, to be honest. I'm not going to wait on God about 99 percent of life but I pray to hear His voice regarding important things, as well as things in which I feel a hesitation. At that point, even if the issue insignificant, I should always pray and wait to hear His answer, if possible. Many times in life we have deadlines and so an answer must come. We make a quick decision. But, if after we prayed we still heard no voice as clearly as David heard God tell him to attack the Philistines, we still have to make a decision. So we do. Humbly. Deferentially. We use our minds when He does not speak so clearly. I pray He actively arranges my thoughts as I make a decision that has to be made. I can do no more. I let it go. David was in the middle of a battle. His men would die had he not made the wisest decision ... some would die if he made the wisest of decisions. It makes perfect sense that he would consult God in this important circumstance. In essence, even though David could have made a rational decision by going back to a pattern that had worked well in the past, he willingly asked God to validate or invalidate his logic. He asked God to substitute HIs plans and will in this situation. He asked God for help. To show the best way forward. God answered this prayer.

David was anointed by Samual when he was a boy shepherd as recorded in 1 Samual 16. The biblical narrative does not tell us how old he was but we can guess that he was old enough to be responsible as a shepherd ... maybe about 12 years of age? So, he was anointed around age 12. Then, he became king at Hebron, according to Pastor Ralph's chronology, at age 30. At age 37 he was crowned king of Israel. It wasn't until he was 47 that the kingdom was fully established. Thus, he waited until from age 12 to 47 to be fully king, or 35 years. OR, looking at it differently, he waited from age 12 to age 30 for his first kingship at Hebron, about 18 years. What matters is that it was a long time. Joseph. too, waited a long time. Abraham never got to see the full promise. Waiting for the promise to be fulfilled is a theme in the bible. It can be a form of suffering and suffering is the way God molds us into His son's image. David suffered for many years, battling and living in caves. He cried out often for relief but I don't know if he specifically asked God to hurry up and make him king. I pray that God would answer my prayers. I don't know if I have specific promises concerning my life -- if I do, I'm not confident about them. The commonly held idea that Christians can take biblical verses from another time and place and interpret them as binding promises in which God will repeat what He had done in the past, well, this strikes me as a shaky hermeneutical principle. But that's what promises are. Though there are few promises in the bible of a timeless nature, most are directed to a particular people or person and therefore historically conditioned. Still, we cling to them as promises for ourselves and wait for their fulfillment. I do this, too. I cling to the promise in Jeremiah that God has a plan that is good, to prosper and not harm, for hope and a future, and yet, I know that that promise wasn't given to me, but to someone else long ago. Right now, I'm not prospering and feel very little hope for the future. The promise-verse in Jeremiah, then, hasn't bee proven true in my life, so perhaps it was never a promise? It is difficult to be patient about the fulfillment of a promise when I'm not fully convinced I've been promised anything. As time passes, my promises are reduced to hopes. A hope is merely a desire which may or may not come to fruition or a prayer yet to be answered. A hope is based on God's character, not His specific revelation, and as such, it not as firm as personally directive words. We do not fully know God. I have three huge, somewhat generic prayers for which I've been waiting for an answer for many years. As I get older, like Sarah waiting for a child, it's less reasonable for me to believe these prayers will be answered. Still, I hope. Do I believe that I've been promised a specific answer to these prayers? I did believe this, but now I'm wavering because it has been too long. The slog has been too hard. God did NOT answer these prayers, so I feel I must have misinterpreted what was promised. Still, I hope. I also hope for a specific promise, for God to speak clearly to me about certain things in the future, that the wait will end with a sort of resolution, an answered prayer. I'll only know He has promised me retrospectively when a prayer is answered. Then, I'll look back, see the places in my prayer-notes in which I prayed for this specifically, and realized that His vague response was really a promise. What I want from God is a promise BEFORE it's fulfillment, that is, the confidence that whatever God has spoken to me, His specific promise, will be fulfilled.

I feel I must put myself in the shoes of Joab to understand his behavior. IN Joab's eyes, his brother had been murdered. Presumably Joab came from a close family so the death of a sibling caused grief and anger. The fact that this death occurred during battle -- yes, I know war ethics are different and the distinction between murder and killing applies here -- meant that Joab had no legal claim to avenge his brother's war-death. But there was enough personal animosity between the two sides of the civil war for Joab to conclude that his brother had been murdered, not killed. Note that Joab didn't avenge his brother's death alone. He took another brother with him to kill Abner. Thus, his family was avenged (according to the prevailing ethic of that time). We don't resonate to Joab's desire for vengeance because we mostly still trust the government to avenge wrongs through the court system. This trust is quickly eroding, however. As past trust in the system of "justice" disappears , Western court systems are increasingly regarded as both corrupt and biased. Many feel that little true justice remains because the government uses the "justice" system as a cudgel to punish those who challenge their power. Increasingly, bureaucrats use torture and death to coerce conformity and subservience. (For example, just yesterday, a sickly and dying J Assange was finally released after years of illegitimate confinement; lawfare against Trump and non-globalists continues unabated and even non-Trump supporters regard judicial decisions against him as despicable and unjust; the regular and inexplicable disappearance and murder of government-foes while in prison hasn't been explained; the extrajudicial murder of international political opponents such as the recent attempted murder of the Slovak PM, was instigated by Western intelligence agents who work outside the law.) In this sort of situation, Joab found himself. He was trapped in unjust circumstances. He didn't trust the government/David to do "the right." He believed the system had crushed and killed his brother. He saw no possibility of justice being served. So he struck out ... he murdered the murderer, in his mind. He exacted justice in a situation in which justice would never be given. So yes, Joab judged rather than let the system mete out justice, and, more importantly, he wrongly didn't trust God to avenge him, to set things right, to square the warped social and political system. He thought he could right wrongs, but merely added more wrongs to those that already existed. -- Ultimately, this act had no impact on David's unification plans, though it did delay them. From a geopolitical point of view, it was a waste of time. I rather doubt Joab was motivated by geopolitics, however, as this was a personal act of extracting justice, the avenging of a brother's death. If Joab was blind, it was because his family had suffered greatly from the death of his brother which they believed to be unjust. The rage a person feels when helpless in the face of injustice is something that many on this site have not felt, apparently. Joab felt this. I dare say that the fighters on both sides of the Western war against Russia currently taking place in the Ukraine also feel this. The injustice of what has happened to the dead soldiers and their remaining families will not be forgotten. Not for decades. Generations. Centuries. Whether you disagree or agree with their conclusions, those who feel righteous anger are not easily be pushed aside. That anger will erupt in a demand for justice. For vengeance. For rightness to be restored. -- Ultimately, in our lives, we have to believe two things about justice. First, we must believe that God will restore to us what has been wrongly stolen, that what has been unjustly taken will be given back including time, money and reputation. Secondly, we must believe those who have harmed us unjustly will not "get away with it." This second aspect of justice is the most potent -- it may not feel good enough to have restitution without punishment. We may be given a financial award by the courts or government, for example, but the fact that a loved one has been murdered by an untested vaccine, or in a fake-pretense war, or has had his career and livelihood destroyed by an unjust verdict or rogue bureaucrat ... this burns in our hearts. We want God to punish our enemies as well as restore our own fortunes, time and reputation. Are we to let go of this desire? Yes. But we are NOT asked, however, to give up our demand for justice, but only to put the onus on God both to restore and avenge. And this Joab didn't do. In my reading of these biblical passages, Joab didn't trust God to punish the evildoers who murdered his brother. This was wrong, of course. Joab SHOULD have trusted God for both restitution and punishment, but didn't. He took the punishment aspect of justice on himself -- he acted God's part.

We have no idea how God judged Saul and shouldn't presume or guess His response. There were many times that Saul repented, though his repentance wasn't lasting. David also repented many times in a manner presumably more sincere and lasting. Both were flawed men and leaders. I pray that both were forgiven. I'm looking at Saul and David from the outside, judging them only on the basis of a few lines of scripture. I want to think that David is gracious but I hesitate because his words are also self-serving and expedient -- soon, David will need the loyalty and forgiveness of his own soldiers after he murdered Uriah. Of course, he did not know this when he eulogized Saul. He may have known his own heart, or his own tendencies to sin, however, which we all have. Some aspects of David are incredibly appealing -- his faith, quietness before God, and immediate turning to God for answers in tight spots. David wants to be thought of as a hero, just as he eulogized Saul. The writer that we refer to as "the chronicler," in contrast, has a more jaded view of Saul. These are morally nuanced men. It's difficult to not pity Saul ... and just as difficult to see David as the persistently faith-filled man.

David knows where to focus his mind -- on His father -- and though David had to re-focus continually, expressing the same idea in different ways, he never stopped. Our faith can hang on a thread, at times, but as long as we don't give up and keep re-focusing on God, He will pull us through. In the lowest times, David cried, screamed, doubted, felt abandoned ... but he didn't give up. Not entirely. And, I am quite certain, that God takes the wee bit we have left after we have been so devastated by life, and slowly and methodically multiplies this mustard seed of desperate faith. David just hung on. I wouldn't call what he did/said/prayed as a "devotional exercise" but rather an act of desperation, a clinging on to memory when the present seems empty. He just survives. Weathers the storm. Gets up in a daze and puts his shoes on. It's another day. A day of God's silence. And yet, days of silence do end and I think, in David's rather young heart, he knows that this horrible time of life will end in His victory.

Why do the men blame David? David was blamed because as the leader he is responsible for what happens during his tenure. This "blaming" makes perfect sense. It has nothing to do with the merit or demerit of blaming David but is only an acknowledgment of his role as the leader. Why is the situation so explosive at this point? David's leadership is about to be challenged. As a leader who failed -- again, he is responsible AS THE LEADER even though he is not directly responsible for these particular circumstances -- his followers are about to rise up and usurp his role. What does David do in the situation? David makes a public display of praying. He does not silently pray or pray without anyone knowing it, but prays in such a way that the people of Israel can see and understand what he is doing. This has the effect of insulating him from their anger and responses. David openly takes the role of the wise, praying, God-anointed leader which makes it more difficult for his followers to challenge him. Why doesn’t he act immediately? Leaders who act impetuously are often seen as prideful and ego-driven. Calling an election because a leader doesn't like the voting results, for instance, can create a political climate in which other political leaders feel at liberty to challenge the weak, ego-driven leader. Blustering and bravado in war often causes the enemy to call the bluff. Immediate acts, like this, are unwise. Leaders who act immediately are NOT perceived as strong and decisive, but as weak and narcissistic. Thus, an immediate response generally undercuts the leader who doesn't show hesitation to his followers. David handled this trying and dangerous situation well -- genuinely or otherwise.

It seems that every society/religion includes many people who seek an "advantage" over others or even over God Himself, by knowing the future. I suppose channeling the dead is part of this. Even though channeling is talking to the dead (the past), it is done with a desire to know the future or to understand the present. From the little I know, most spiritualists are asked questions that confer advantage in dealing with both the present and future. As a Christian, I must leave the future to God. Part of submission to Him involves not questioning the future, living for the day and trusting Him to take care of all the details of the future. This, admittedly, is very difficult for me. I worry often about the future. Such a worry is a symptom of not trusting Him. Just recently, I hired a late-teen boy to help me do heavy tasks who told me his mother was a spiritualist. People contact her, he said, to know about relationships. She brings together long-separated relatives -- that's her "speciality." Honestly, I had never heard of such a thing but knowing this about the boy caused me to pray deeply for his salvation and protection. Intercessory prayer for those involved in such strange stuff is the right response. This includes their relatives and friends who may be tempted into this way of thinking. There's a subset of charismatics who go back in a person's history to disgorge the consequences of long-ago relations who may have been Masons or engaged in witchcraft, etc. The logic behind this is has to do with demons who attach themselves to family lines. I don't know if this is true. If it is, then a person would have to confess to sins he/she didn't commit, just to get rid of these attached demonic beings. I have never been involved in such stuff except for junior high school girls sleepovers when we played with oujie boards. I've confessed this even though at the time I thought it was ridiculous -- I was not a believer, just rational. I do not think it opened me to evil spirits. -- As an aside, there's a passage in the weekly Anglican liturgy during which we remember/pray for dead relatives. It has to do with the idea of a communion of saints that stretches back in time to include those who are dead but remains present to us today. I disagree with this and don't say anything as others read these words. A quiet disagreement.

In bits and dribbles, David's character is revealed in the scriptures. He's a passionate man, a man who possesses great strengths and truly loves God, but is also a man who has great weaknesses which he never quite overcomes. I note, however, that David is young here ... probably in his 20s or 30s? At the end of the Nabal story, David praised Nabal's wife saying she had good judgment and had kept him from "bloodguilt." Here, David would have killed Nabal because David was too proud to let Nabal's insults roll off him. He took them personally, as a younger man would often do: without enough of life's humbling experience, he would have avenged himself. Abagail is a fascinating character of dubious moral grounding. She went behind her husband's back to save her own skin as well as that of her family and "household." She openly described her husband as greedy and evil before David. She bribed David with gifts. She cleverly appealed to David's ego and pride ... and conscience. She manipulated David into making a promise that he, in time, couldn't keep. Abagail is an underhanded, scheming, manipulative woman who wanted to save her own life and probably the lifestule to which she had become accustomed. My hunch is that she was a good partner to Nabal until Nabal's pride and greed threatened her. God eventually killed Nabal and clever Abagail ended up "promoted" as David's second wife, "failing up", as is said. -- This is a sordid little story. I have no idea why it's included other than to add complexity to our understanding of David, who is a truly remarkable man of great extremes, abilities and passions.

Why are “God’s anointed” presumed to be leaders? I would think that the humble woman who cleans up after the kids in daycare is just as anointed as the pastor, if not more. Anointing isn’t just for leaders. All of us are anointed. As Christians, we have the Spirit. Thus, I choose to not slander ALL people … but speak the truth. This is where Pastor Ralph and I may disagree. If a person, particularly someone invested with enough power to harm/help others, misuses his office, I pray God will reject him quickly. When our political leaders do evil by targeting and harming innocent citizens or fomenting needless wars, to purposely gag ourselves into silence or coerced inactivity strikes me as grossly sinful. It is sinful to not help others. It is sinful to not call out people who are evil-doers and thus protect others. It is sinful to look away and pretend nothing is happening. Passivity in the face of injustice is sin. Injustice has a face. Someone's face. A person is unjust. Injustice doesn't rain down inexplicably, but comes into a system -- religious or political -- through evil-doing people. Perhaps it’s time to revisit David. It was written that David did not harm Saul out of respect for his ‘office.’ Fair enough. In my eyes, this was more of a political and spiritual calculation on the part of David, but bracketing this, what if lives could have been preserved or strengthened if David killed Saul earlier, precisely because the Spirit had already left Saul and had entered himself? I will never respect “offices” but rather will respect (or not) the people who hold those offices. I do not respect the president because he is president, for example -- I cannot imagine respecting an abstraction like the “office” of the president. Instead, I choose to respect those who are respectable. And, conversely, I disrespect evil-doers, particularly if they are in a position to harm others. God calls ALL of to account for the words we say about ALL other people. In fact, if a Christian is in a position of power, God may judge them more stringently because their potential to do harm is so much greater. It is not slander to "out" a leader who is sexually perverted, abusive, stealing, etc. It is not persecution to send out mass emails about political leaders who are secretly fomenting unnecessary wars. And if evil political leaders die at the hand of an enemy combatant, this is not martyrdom but His welcome justice. I have no statistics to back up this statement, but my hunch is that many more evil leaders have been murdered than godly men/women leaders have been martyred.

I have always loved this story but am more confused than before I reread it. David was God's anointed, not Saul. The Spirit had left Saul, the bible says, and was put on David. So when David claims that Saul is God's anointed, is he being tongue-in-cheek? Surely David knew that he had been anointed king, but was hovering in an interregnum period, one between kings ... a time of growth and waiting. So, I'm not sure what David meant, now, when he said that Saul was God's anointed so he didn't want to go against God. After all, the reason Saul was pursuing David was jealousy/envy over David's anointing. I always thought that David was extraordinarily humble and patient when it came to assuming the throne, but now it seems that David is taunting Saul. The cutting off the corner of his cloak as Saul was "indisposed" was an act of mockery -- I think David realized his own moral lapse and regretted it. He was saying, in essence, that he was stronger than Saul, had had many opportunities to kill him, but chose not to (because of his faith in Yahweh). The implication was clear -- Saul was trying to kill David, though he couldn't catch him: David was NOT trying to kill Saul though he could catch him. This is the paragraph that's so intriguing to me: "May the LORD judge between you and me. And may the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you. As the old saying goes, 'From evildoers come evil deeds,' so my hand will not touch you." David may have intuited that his own future kingship, like that of Saul, could be endangered by people who wanted to kill him, perhaps for good reason. After his horrible affair with the wife of one of his trusted fighting men, it would have made sense if other fighters sought justice for their compatriot Uriah. Killing David would have brought such justice. Here David, without knowing his own sordid future, was laying down a principle that justice should be delayed until God meted it out. He was saying that any man who touches the anointed king -- himself! -- was an evildoer who presumed God's prerogative of justice-dealing. I like David as a man and character in the bible, but he has more than a touch of arrogance and cleverness in these passages. He seems willing to pose as a moral man as a way of mocking his opposition. Cutting off the corner of Saul's cloak was an incredibly mocking and demeaning act. That's why he did it, though David seemed to regret his own behavior. But his overpowering instinct was to mock. To challenge. To demean Saul by NOT killing him in a face-to-face battle. This may be a continuation of the Goliath narrative during which the young, scrawny David mocked the big Goliath with his mere presence.

The word "struggle" is a euphemism for suffering, trials and pain. Lets call it what it is -- SUFFERING. God uses suffering to grow us. He uses pain to create maturity. I so wish that it were possible to mature in Christ in an easier manner, to grow when life is peaceful and full of love and optimism, but it is not God's way of forming me into His likeness. I wish that the Christian life were easier, but God's ways are difficult, painful and a trek down a very narrow and dangerous path. The idea that God leads me besides still waters may be true, for a short time, but during most of life He seems to lead through turbulent waters, so dangerous that they could drown me. It makse sense, then, that David's most poignant poems were written during times of intense suffering. This is also the case throughout the life of Paul, who suffered endlessly until his brutal murder. Paul's writings reflect that inner pain and turmoil. Even Jesus begged His Father to remove the cup of suffering from him, to no avail. This tells me that sufferers are closer to God than those who lead easy lives. They most tightly cling to God during hard times compared to times of ease. David was close to God, in short, because God had brought him though years of suffering, persecution and pain. During those difficult years, his faith grew. Recently, the 91st psalm has been meaningful to me ... it is written on my phone so I can re-read it whenever prompted by the Spirit. I loosely rewrote it into the first person. God, you’re my refuge. I trust in you and I’m safe!” He rescues me from hidden traps, shields me from deadly hazards. His huge outstretched arms protect me— under them I am perfectly safe His arms fend off all harm. Fear nothing ...

1. Why does Jonathan visit David in the wilderness? 2. What risk is there for David? 3. What risk is there for Jonathan? 4. What do you think it meant to David? 5. Have you ever received a visit from a friend when you needed it most? ---- 1. I'm certain that Jonathan visited David to let him know that the terms of their loyal friendship still applied. Though Jonathan was in the retinue of his father Saul, he remained loyal to David, expecting to be his "number two." 2. David had little risk. He knew Jonathan would not reveal his whereabouts. 3. Jonathan, in contrast, assumed a large risk. His father could have discovered Jonathan's visit to David ... or someone with Jonathan could have revealed what had happened. 4. From a geopolitical standpoint, David would see this visit as reaffirming a stated contract between himself and Jonathan. From a personal standpoint, it must have been comforting to know that his friendship was intact in spite of the many months(?) that had passed without contact with Jonathan. 5. No. Not in the past few years. God has forced me to be alone with Him when times are rough by eliminating the support/compassion of Christians. I have learned to not let nearby people know of my needs because God alone must meet those needs, in His time. Running to others for support and comfort is an understandable response of either seculars or Christians, but it is not a mature Christian response. Although it may bind together the church to help someone, this may actually be delaying that person's maturing in Christ. Horizontal dependencies are an early stage in the Christian life ... not the end stage. Just as we die alone, we die to our flesh alone, that is, with God.

I think of divination (occult practices like astrology, ouija boards, runes, crystal balls, etc.) as an attempt to gain advantage over those who only have this-earthly information to go on. In this case, David needed battle strategy and knowledge to give him an advantage over his enemies. This included knowing the future. If David knew what to do and where the enemy would be located, his advantage in information could provide the edge needed for victory. Divination always solves this-worldly problems. It's not a way of knowing the heart or essence of God, but is rather a way to tap into the knowledge of what God will do next and the ability or power to take advantage of this information. Priests at that time carried little sticks or stones in a pocket (?) in their priestly garment called an ephod. They would take out those stones when they needed a specific answer to a problem. When a king or other important figure wanted to know (something), they'd ask the priest to take out the urim and thummin (little sticks/stones) and "roll the dice" to get an answer. David wanted to know what God would do in the future. He wanted to know if he had the power to prevail over his enemy in a specific context so he went to the priest who was carrying the urim and thummin and asked him to reveal the future. In other words, David wanted divination. -- This seems almost satanic. It reminds me of Greek oracles in Homer. But, it's biblical! In the book of 1Samuel, Saul consulted the oracle (urim and thummin) and nothing happened. The power to know the future or demand that a priest predicts the future signified the anointing had moved from Saul to David. Why weren't the urim and thummin part of the garb worn by a prophet, not a priest? Prophets predict the future, not priests, though maybe there is overlap between these spiritual occupations. I would like the directional clarity provided by an oracle, like the urim and thummin. I'd love to know which way to go, which path to take, what to do ... if I would be victorious/successful. Other people hear God's audible voice -- I have never heard HIm speak with clarity. And yet, as I ask God what I should do at this inflection point in my life, a moment of huge transition, I hear nothing. I want to do His will but cannot do that which I do not know, and frankly, I don't know His will with clarity. God seems to reveal Himself in bits and drabs, not in a complete sentence as He did with David: "Go down to Keilah, for I am going to give the Philistines into your hand.'" I'm envious. I want God to talk to me like this! It is said that faith is enlarged when God is silent, that our motion forward in the dark, not knowing the destination, increases our faith in Him. It certainly increases our desperation ... Our dependence on Him to get us through the mire and quicksand is deepened when we cannot even see where the bad stuff is located. It increases our dependence on Him to go blindly forward without knowing the destination or goal. I understand this (but don't like it.) I wish God would just tell me what to do -- I can see how my faith would be greatly enlarged by first knowing God's will and then seeing it happen before my own amazed eyes. I will pray for a thummin-like clarity of vision for the near future. If God gave clear instructions to David, why would He not do the same for me?

Why were David's men attracted to him? They weren't. Most of his men didn't know David, but only of his reputation, so in a sense, they were less attracted to David-the-man than the aura that had settled around David. It's impossible to know more than a couple dozen people -- this crowd was comprised of 400 men (and their wives and kids), a group far too big to "know." David represented an alternative to corruption as he was an honest man persecuted and hounded by a government that acted as if it's powers were unlimited. The government did whatever Saul wanted done. It paid no heed to the citizens of the state. So, David's rebellion against the government was very attractive to those who had been victimized by the government. David's men saw in David a figure that embodied the hope that the government could be overthrown and one more gentle, honest and amenable to righteousness and justice installed. What did David's men have in common? What kind of men were these? They were all victims of the government -- they had been persecuted, that is. His family, "distressed" citizens, debtors, discontents, those condemned unjustly, even criminals ... all were victims of the government. These were people with an axe to grind as they either had a personal grievance or legal dispute unjustly adjudicated. What difficulties did David have in leading them? They were easy to lead as long as their basic needs were met. These men shared a common enemy whose persecution was raw and recent. Their memories of what had happened to them had not been tempered by time -- those negative memories of what Saul's government had done to them were recent and potent. A group of men with a common enemy who feared for their lives would be much easier to lead than, say, a group of men addicted to the Internet or wealthy insiders who liked the status quo.

What is the nature of the covenant between David and Jonathan? What does David receive? What does Jonathan receive? Who benefits the most from this covenant? Is it self-serving -- or not? What is the significance that God is witness to the covenant? A covenant is a form of a treaty. Treaties should be subject to international law just as covenants should be subject to God's law. Both imply a commitment to a legal framework and way of thinking. Covenants are more personal, between individuals or an individual and God whereas treaties are impersonal as they are hammered out by lawyers. So, in this story, David and Jonathan entered into a covenant. That covenant was binding not because of their strong friendship but because they both had submitted to the same moral framework, that of Yahweh. They shared the values of honesty and word-keeping (not entering into a covenant with duplicity or intention to break it in the future). The covenant was mutually beneficial. Since Jonathan knew that his family line in the monarchy would end with his father, he received the promise from David to protect those who survived the upcoming monarchic upheavals. David received Jonathan's loyalty and a similar promise of family protection. Yes, this is self-serving. Covenants are rarely done (from a human standpoint) self-sacrificially. They assure some sort of benefit that accrues to the future. Without God as "witness" the covenant has no moral heft or binding character. Note that the binding power of the covenant is contingent on future generations sharing the same faith as David/Jonathan. Individuals in the future who would not share their faith in God would also not feel an obligation to respect the covenants of dead ancestors. -- Right now, popular Christian figures are pointing at long-ago covenants made and recorded by early settlers to the United States as proof that God will "save" the United States (Robert Hunt at Cape Henry, 1607). But a covenant is only as secure as the willing agreement of it's signatories. And, I'm not at all certain that, from the stand point of a Christian hundreds of years later, that this covenant is binding on me, God, or others. Nor do I have any proof that God agreed to this covenant. All I have is the written desire of a settler who wanted to see his own errand into the wilderness as something God ordained and would bless forever. His covenant, as far as I know, is one-sided, for God's participation and willing submission to the terms of the covenant are not known (or expected). Robert Hunt cannot bind God with a covenant he conceived and wrote. I cannot bind God with my words, either. I cannot force Him to agree to something, irrespective of how morally good my want may be. God is not bound by my fantasies, prayers, dreams and desires. So, the prayer of a man, long ago, on the shoreline of America, never obligated God. There is no covenant. God could choose to agree to the terms of Hunt's covenant ... or choose not to. God is not limited or coerced by our covenantal-like words. The desire of Christians to assume divine power -- binding and loosing, releasing angels, making covenants -- does not mean that these powers are real or that any of their uttered words forever bind God to respond in ways they desire.

1. What does it tell us about Saul’s faith that he pursues David even when he has sought the sanctuary of the prophet Samuel? Saul is obsessed with the idea of losing his powerful kingship to David ... he cannot cope with losing, emotionally. The fact that he continues to pursue David even after promising not to do so shows how his control over his own mind and emotions was quite limited. This could be due to a demonic influence or it could be an out-of-control character flaw. When a leader has unlimited power as did Saul, the expression of all character traits, good or bad, is unrestricted. When "normal" people have negative character traits, those traits have to be repressed in order to survive or thrive -- when powerful people have negative character traits, however, there are no direct and immediate consequences for letting those traits be actualized. Thus, Saul's obsessive hatred of David wasn't tempered by others 2. Why do people prophesy when the Holy Spirit comes upon them? Sometimes they do, most of the time they do not. In Christian history, prophesy seems quite rare. The Holy Spirit, when it comes on a person, is manifested in a myriad of different ways, prophesy only being one of them. 3. What is the relationship between this incident and the Day of Pentecost? This is another example of the Spirit coming upon a people (group) and, in this case, manifesting Himself as tongues, mostly. As it is a post-Christ, New Testament example, clearly the Spirit still comes on people as it did in the day of David and Sul.

None of the above. He married Michael to one-up Saul -- to publicly best, goad and humiliate the man who repeatedly tried to kill him, cancelled his marriage to his daughter Merab at the last minute, and both schemed and plotted against him constantly. It is true that the Lord was with David but marrying Michal was a purely political calculation. David probably didn’t even know her. He had been slated to marry her sister, after all, and had been willing to do so. Michal may have learned to love David later, but her infatuation of him was based on public approval and reputation, not his character. As an aside, I find it utterly repulsive that Saul would ask David to murder Philistines and then mutilate their dead bodies by cutting off a piece of their private parts as a dowry for receiving Michal. I'm certain that David could not enjoy this.

Why does Saul send David into battle? What is the result? To what does the narrator attribute David success? This entire story is so sad. Saul is rejected by God when He chooses to anoint David instead, and then because of God's choice, a series of events cascade. Everything David does turns to gold. He's a great musician. He kills the giant. He's loved by the king's own son. He's wildly popular among the people, particularly the women. And Saul? He's forgotten, pushed to the margins and made to live out the end of his kingship, increasingly disliked and disrespected. Saul sends David into battle to kill him but like everything else this turns to David's favor. He's not only protected by God but is a great general, earning the loyalty of the men who fight under him. I'm not sure why this story bothers me so much. I suppose it's the rejection of Saul who was once chosen and ordained by God but then rejected. This is a fear of mine, not so much to be rejected by God, but to be ipassed over and left behind to live out my years God-forsaken. If it happened to Saul, who was a great man at one point, it could happen to the rest of us who are mere struggling Christians. Again, it's not a question of salvation -- eternal security means just that. It's a question of the quality of our lives on earth, God's willingness to bless us and help us weave our way to a good, love-filled and prosperous life. I struggle with the idea that God chooses some and not others, David and not Saul, Jacob and not Esau, etc. In the NT, Peter is sprung from prison as James is murdered. My other concern has to do with reading backward from our current circumstances. If we are in horrible circumstances, suffering and in spiritual pain ... watching life around us crumble ... is it our fault? It could be, of course, but maybe God just didn't choose us. Maybe we were born to be Esau or Saul, or James not Peter? I ask, Lord, for you the wisdom to sort through this, to believe that you are a loving God when the evidence, in my eyes, suggests otherwise. --- I'm back -- I answered the question, finished my devotions and couldn't stop thinking about what was written by Pastor Ralph. Anyway, Saul reminds me of a television program I watched many years ago about men on death row who were condemned to die because of their crimes yet had accepted Christ. Their sentences were not changed -- they were murdered by the government -- but their eternal condition was determined by God. I wonder if we can do/think things so "bad" that we're condemned on earth though accepted in heaven. In my own eyes, I've committed only wee sins, as if some sins are worse than others. But God may see my sin differently and though Christ's blood covers my sins in an salvific sense, he may or MAY NOT manipulate circumstances to keep me from suffering the consequences of my sins. Are we all on death row, knowing our ultimate fate has been determined in our favor, yet, like Saul, living out our lives as condemned human beings? I'd like to think God cares and loves me enough to work around the consequences of my sins, but passages like this frighten me. I want to believe that God is a caring, loving and protective father ... but, then again, what about Saul? We tend to concentrate on the passage in which God delivers, heals and miraculously provides. Saul is a corrective to what may be an one-sided, overly rosy view of God. David: "In everything he did he had great success, because the Lord was with him." (Message version.) Saul: Everything he did turned to dust, eventually driving him mad, because the Lord rejected him.

Why do we so often forget that “the battle is the Lord’s”? What does that phrase actually mean? How can we avoid the arrogance of pulling God into our battles (“God is on my side”), rather than engaging in His battles (“I am on God’s side”)? This is a good question that II cannot answer adequately. I'll try, but this is going to fall wayyyy short. Here's the issue as I see it: Are all of our battles really the Lord's? Lets say that I am in the midst of a battle, something like an inner battle of self-discipline or anger, or an outer battle of being unjustly demoted in the workplace. Are these God's battles or are they my battles? Does God expect me to fight battles I have the strength to win by myself, or to turn all battles over to Him and His legions of angel armies for Him to fight for me? What's my role ... what's His? There are battles I cannot win by myself, battles so large and overwhelming that I drop on my knees in prayer and beg God to battle for me. These are the biggies, the existential battles, the battles for life and death, for victory in circumstances that require beating impossible odds. I have no doubt that God is with me in these sorts of battles. But what about the battles that I could win if I concentrated and was organized or whatever? Do I ask God to fight for me when I'm capable of fighting for myself? Are these battles of the Lord? I'm not so sure. I'm not even sure they rise to the level of "battles." The idea that doing what I can do in the battles of life is somehow a sign of arrogance is breathtaking to me -- perhaps it's being responsible, doing the task in front of me, stretching my abilities to the max and then asking God to carry on when I cannot go any further. Perhaps expecting God to fight our battles is a sign of spiritual, emotional and moral weakness. If God gives us the strength to fight, it may be the case that He's expecting us to use it! I pull God into my battles when I cannot win without Him. If I pull God into my battle with cancer, for example, it's not that I'm trying to corral God into solving this problem, but that I simply can't solve it without Him. And even then, I'm not sure He is concerned with solving the problem as I would think it to be solved. After all, plenty of Christians have died of cancer and my hunch is they all prayed to be healed. There are a few times when we stand and let God fight our battles, but in my life experience, these are the exception, not the rule. Usually, God expects us to fight our own battles. How we do this while being humble and willing to turn on His dime ... that's the life quest. We are to fight battles prayerfully, both before fighting and during the fight. We are to thank Him for victory even though we-ourselves fought with everything in our power. In a real sense, everything that happens is pre-choreographed by God and we only think we're fighting battles, because the outcome has been determined. But, again, we have only our own perspective. We fight because we can and must. We ask Him for help when our strength falters. We ask Him for guidance. We ask for wisdom. And then, we plunge ahead because we have no choice; the battle must be fought. We have no idea what are His battles. His ways are inscrutable. So we fight our battles hoping that He smiles on our effort. We fight knowing that at some point our own abilities will be tapped out and we'll have to rely on Him to win. We fight knowing that what we think is an existential battle may be a defeat (to us) that is part of His will. Transcendent and unknowable ... that's our God. By fighting our own battles, we hope to fight His battles as well. The two conflate, not because our battles are such a big deal to God, but because that's all we have in life. We have battles. That's what we give to Him.