EYJackson

Interesting what parts of the lessons encourage deep thought, reflection, and shared insights . . . and which ones don't. Q4. (1 Samuel 28:7-14) Why do you think God condemns occult practices of communi-cating with the dead and channeling spirits of the dead? How might such practices open Christians to victimization and oppression by evil spirits? What should you do if you’ve been involved in such practices in the past? The realm of spirit is Spirit's domain. When spirits reveal themselves to me, I take it only as a sign that their spirits still touch mine, not as an opportunity to initiate conversation and/or purposely seek to channel them through me. I have met and learned of two such people: prophets through whom God speaks and charlatans who seek only spiritual contact, outside of God's real influence. When one engages in the latter, one can never know for sure who may be using that one's spirit, mind, and body -- and in what ways such may be manipulated. It would be in our best interests -- in all peoples' best interests -- to let God be God and not try to do His Work in His Stead. I quit.

Q3. (1 Samuel 25) What do we learn about David’s character in this incident with Nabal and Abigail? What do we learn about Abigail’s character? Nabal’s character? Why do you think this story was included in 1 Samuel? What important knowledge does it add to our understanding? I learned that, of course, as annointed and appointed as he was, David was still wholly human. While that means that Nabal's response aggravated David almost to the point of murder, he also had a soft spot for a woman who could ask for mercy and forgiveness, even though she was not the one who committed the offense. That she could cook for an army, too, could have only been a good thing. Abigail was penitent, but not weak, a woman of action and one who knew the requirements of one in her position, living in David's time. She was protective of her home, family, and property. She knew how to smooth out the rough edges in interactions between Nabal and others, and she knew how to use her belief in God's blessings upon those who obeyed and trusted Him. Above all, she did not fear to show her faith concerning God's anointing of David, using that to remind him that although Nabal was a fool, killing him would be murder and not self-defense. Nabal was living proof of the adage that tells us: that "God watches over babies and fools" (of which, I am one or both of those, on any given day). He insulted those who had only been kind to him, refused to share with those who had protected him, and then, got drunk. I think this story was included in 1 Samuel because it illustrates a turning point in David's life. One moment, he is stopping himself from killing Saul in cold blood, and then in the next moment, he is about to murder Nabal, just because of Nabal's insult. It serves as a foreshadow of David's turn from God's Way. It serves as a guidepost, so that we may know how slippery the slope can easily become when we start negotiating ways to make our desires equate with God's Way, rather than making God's Way our only desire.

Q2. (1 Samuel 24:12) How do we apply the principle of not lifting a hand against the Lord’s anointed in our day? What provisions are there in 1 Timothy 5:19-20 for calling leaders to account. What do you think God will do to those who slander, persecute, and martyr his appointed leaders? Because of the rending of the veil following the Crucifixion, all are anointed and chosen by God. Each of us receives the same invitation from God through Christ Jesus: to be a family in the priesthood of all believers. Therefore, to lift a hand or tongue in violence against one another, especially those who are weak and/or vulnerable, seems quite counterintuitive to the beliefs, faith, and practices held dear by members of a priesthood of all believers. We are human. We will slip. As long as we get back up and keep earnestly trying to still our tongues and hands, and open our ears and hearts, I believe that we will experience more acts of grace and mercy than we would if we continued hurting, slandering, persecuting, and martyring those who help bring about positive, equalizing change to all segments of society. We are all appointed leaders, and we all have the potential to lead efforts for peace, prosperity, and progress -- starting within our own selves and working our ways out into the world around us. I am not sure what God might or might not do to those who slander, persecute, and martyr leaders appointed by Him, anointed by Holy Spirit, and/or voted into office. I do not know or even try to imagine the workings of the mind and hand of God. What I can surmise is that people who do so continually will eventually reap what they sow. Whether we can see that reaping is irrelevant. It will and does happen.

Q1. (1 Samuel 24:1-15) Why doesn’t David kill Saul when he has the chance? What motive do he and his men have for killing a king who is trying to kill them? What is David’s rationale for sparing Saul? What does this tell us about David’s character? About his faith? What does it say about David’s leadership ability that he is able to dissuade his men from killing Saul? Although he has motive, means, and opportunity to kill Saul, David decides to answer to Higher Power. David views Saul much like Saul and Samuel view him: God's anointed and chosen one. I can understand why killing Saul, especially not during a face-to-face battle, would seem tantamount to killing God. This would be impossible, yet when the thought of killing another person in cold blood -- especially when that person is at a most weak and vulnerable position (relieving himself, no less) -- elicits such a strong reaction, David did what was in his best interests: to obey the Commandment which forbids murder. What this says about David's character is that he was not afraid to follow God's Law, even in the face of possible mutiny. His faith guided his actions, and I think that taking that road further convinced his soldiers that following God's Law was the right thing to do.

Q4. (Psalms 18, 34, 54, 56, 58, 59, 142) In these ascriptions to these psalms, how many celebrate happy occasions? How many arise from struggles? What does this tell you about David’s relationship with God? What does this tell you about his faith during trials? Which is your favorite among these psalms? Why? All of these passages reflect celebration, in that, regardless of the situation, David still finds reasons to rejoice. Whether it's knowing what God can do or seeing what God has done, David's praise and faith were worth celebrating just because he could pray, praise, and be faithful. There is an element of inherent joy in feeling so close to God's Heart. All of these passages arise from struggle. In the midst of struggle, David sings God's praises. In the aftermath of struggle, David sings God's praises. Before the struggle even begins, David sings God's praises. Seems to me that singing God's praises, while singing to God of his (David's) faith in and gratitude for God, was what kept David sane. Even while pretending to be insane. David's relationship with God inspires me to want to be even closer with God in my daily comings and goings and beings. God and David's relationship was warm, comforting, and fluidly-bound -- God was truly David's best friend and closest compainion. Even when David didn't think God could or would hear his cries, he never stopped singing to and praising God. David's faith in God helped him to move mountains. I don't have a single favorite; all are my favorite. If I could write a song, it would go like this: I love you, O Lord, my strength. The Lord is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer, my God, my rock in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. I call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised; Save me, O God, by your name, and vindicate me by your might. Hear my prayer, O God; give ear to the words of my mouth. Be gracious to me, O God, for people trample on me; all day long foes oppress me; my enemies trample on me all day long, for many fight against me. All day long they seek to injure my cause; all their thoughts are against me for evil. They stir up strife, they lurk, they watch my steps. As they hoped to have my life, so repay them for their crime; in wrath cast down the peoples, O God! O God, break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord! Let them vanish like water that runs away; like grass let them be trodden down and wither. Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime; like the untimely birth that never sees the sun. Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns, whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away! For who is God except the Lord? And who is a rock besides our God?— the God who girded me with strength, and made my way safe. He made my feet like the feet of a deer, and set me secure on the heights. He trains my hands for war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You have given me the shield of your salvation, and your right hand has supported me; your help has made me great. My vows to you I must perform, O God; I will render thank-offerings to you. For you have delivered my soul from death, and my feet from falling, so that I may walk before God in the light of life. With a freewill-offering I will sacrifice to you; I will give thanks to your name, O Lord, for it is good. O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together. Amen

Q3. (1 Samuel 23:14-18) Why does Jonathan visit David in the wilderness? What risk is there for David? What risk is there for Jonathan? What do you think it meant to David? Have you ever received a visit from a friend when you needed it most? I believe that Jonathan visits David in the wilderness because they are bound and beloved to one another. He visits to encourage David, to assure David that Saul will not kill him. I think Jonathan also intentionally sought David so that they could renew their covenant. If I were in Jonathan's sandals, I would want David to know that no matter what my father did, I would not let him hurt David and that all of that stuff did not affect a single iota of what I felt for him. I think their meeting was risky for both of them. Jonathan could be tried, convicted, and killed for committing treason. David was already a wanted man, and so Saul's version of the rules of engagement alone guaranteed that Saul would kill David. As Dr. Wilson pointed out, Saul's spies were everywhere. How Saul's son managed to meet with Saul's enemy of the state, without dying in the process, is truly an example of God's Hand at work. I think this visit meant more to David than words can express. Imagine a chance meeting between a Hatfield child and a McCoy child just before the feuding began. You become close, blood-brothers and/or blood-sisters. Then, the feud breaks out. One of you has to leave to protect the other. One of you has to stay behind, so as not to be seen as disloyal, and get murdered because of it. To be a McCoy and have your Hatfield best friend sneak off and visit you, while the woods are crawlilng with Hatfield loyalists -- and you both getting away with -- would be its own reward and a rich joy for you both. It's one of those things that when someone asks you whether it was worth it, you say "yes," regardless of the outcome. I have, in fact, received an unexpected visit from a friend, just when I needed it the most. When that happens, my soul cries, "Yes! God is good!"

Q2. (1 Samuel 22:20-23:12) What did Abiathar and the ephod have to do with “inquiring of the Lord?” Why did David inquire of the Lord? What huge advantage does the person have who seeks God’s will before acting? How can you find God’s will at key points in your life? The ephod was the veil through which the seeker sees the sought, even though the answers are rarely clear. God, Who allows wiggle room, grants a little wiggle room to Himself. As the ephod was only worn by those allowed to seek God's Guidance and impart It to others, it was worn as an outward symbol of the dance between Seen and Unseen. For David, having the ephod was the next best thing to having God in his pocket. David, who was using his power for good at the time, used the ephod to determine where he should say, and which way the Lord was leading, when the Lord said, "Go." To some, seeking God's Will before making a move seems a little awkward and likely to produce anything from cynicsm to outright attack, whenever someone else speaks of doing so. We who walk this walk are often accused of at best, believing in something that doesn't exist, and at worst, using "seeking God" as a euphemism for imposing tyranny, enslavement, and oppression. Truly seeking God's Will involves neither of, nor any of the states-of-being between, the two extremes. Seeking God's will, for me, engages me in a way that a veil -- even a sacred one -- could never capture. I am believing in what I know exists because . . . well because I know He does. When I seek God's will first, I want to empower, free, and emancipate those who are bound by things that only hurt, defeat, and kill, each and all of us. That, for me, is the biggest advantage -- no longer being bound by driving needs for inner and outer destruction. One of the ways that I seek God's Will before acting is to ask myself, "Where do I think God is, in the midst of this situation?" I wish I remembered to do it all the time. Not even one tenth or one one-hundreth of the time. Another way, which I know I need to practice way more than I do, is to just say "Okay, God. It's yours. Tell me what you want me to do." When I don't practice these two spiritual exercises, and I wake up and realize that things may have a lot less rough, if I had. I'm just glad that I remember to pray most every night. Whatever is hard would be (and has been) made harder when I forget to, or decide to not, do at least that much. Life was a bit insane before I prayed the way I do now. Two other spiritual practices that I have fallen in love with are Lectio Divina (which I'm hoping to start gatherings of, very soon) and Compline. Compline forms the base for my prayers. Lectio is my favorite way to contemplate all of the texts written by our forefathers. In each, I am seeking God's Will. All I have to do to seek God's Will is remember to seek God's Will. I already have what I need to do so: spiritual practices are marvelous. So simple . . . I had never looked at my spiritual practices in quite that way, Dr. Wilson. Thank you for this question.

Wow! Thank you, Dr. Wilson, for your insightful musing that - in the retelling of David's deceit while fleeing from Saul - Jesus may have been telling the Pharisees that, "[t]he Bible itself gives examples of flexibility in interpreting the rules." Sometimes, I struggle with stricture in adhereing to all parts of Torah. I had never considered that in my own musings of Scripture. Knowing that God allows a little wiggle room - makes me laugh and helps me relax a little. Q1. (1 Samuel 22:2) Why were David's men attracted to him? What did they have in common? Why kind of men were these? What difficulties do you think David probably had in leading them? Jesus is so like David, isn't he? I think that David's men were attracted to him because David did what seemed impossible: Killed a giant, helped alleviate Saul's night terrors, led his men to victory even more than Saul had asked for, and escaped Saul's wrath. All in a day's work! They were attracted, at first, probably because of his pluckiness and his refusal to fight with what would be cumbersome to him. I would guess that he gained some measure of real respect from the lesser and less physically strong men in the trenches. Surely, God was with him. When David defeated Goliath, even more respect gained David. With each successive victory, more soldiers flocked, and probably fought tooth and nail, for a place in David's army. You can't buy respect like that. Their faith in God, their respect for David, and surely knowing that God had Chosen David and was with him in the battles, were a few of the things held in common by the soldiers. David represented to them, even if the words weren't with them yet, "If God be with us, who can stand against us?" Not to say that things were easy-peasy for David in leading his "motley crew." He had family, he had friends, he probably had people - whom he'd never met, but who had only heard about him -- in his band of merry men. There may have been a Judas Iscariot (whose role in Christ's life simply fascinates me) or two. Jealousy, in-fighting, trying to keep down the inevitable "who's gonna sit at your right hand" arguments. And what if there were thieves among them? Who decided who got how far up in David's army? Who did David trust -- if anybody -- to impart wisdom, mediate disputes, and settle skirmishes? I'm sure David had his hands full, discovering a day or two, in the life of a father and a king.

Q4. (1 Samuel 20:35-42) 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? The nature of the covenant between David and Jonathan is the same as it would be between any two who promised what they had promised one another, with God as their only Witness. Different from marriage vows, which pale in comparison, their vows were sacred and secret. The Hebrew word בֵּין (bayin) has a few translational options, among them "among" and "between." In making their covenant, no-one knew what words they spoke to one another except of them and God, for only God was among them. With only God among them, God as Only Witness, it meant that it was a covenant that they could not and would not break or allow to be broken, regardless of how long their houses stood. Everyone benefitted from this covenant: David and Jonathan in those stolen moments, for the rest of their lives, and for the lives of generations yet-borne. Stolen moments leave indelible etchings on one's spirit, mind, and heart. There will be either great love or great hate -- rarely, if anything, between the extremes. When those moments are of great love, you never forget them. The same would be so, for Jonathan and David. Those kisses and tears healed their hearts, right there, in those moments. They bore each other no ill will, neither in binding nor parting. There would never be war between them, for only God was among the two of them. Each of them received a sacred promise to never to fight against the other. There would be no bloodshed, no taking of slaves and wives, absolutely no quarrelling for at least as long as one of them was alive to pass the covenant to future generations. There would be peace on (their pieces of) earth, forever. Peace benefits everyone.

God is the only True and Real Voice of Prophecy. Joel's prophecy revealing itself, of the day which we now as the Day of Pentecost, is a vivid example of one embodying God prophesying, for Joel's enduring prophecy took centuries to reach its fruition. I wonder whether speaking God's prophecies, like Joel, is the same as speaking God's Words in every language, like the apostles. Maybe they're woven together. People do many things when YHVH Spirit comes upon them. Effecting and affecting one's environment in mystery are common denominators in all ways of Spirit Manifest. Saul seems to be forgetting a lot here. I'm going to go out on a limb and call it lost-his-mind. That helps me to believe that Saul can't really be stupid enough to think that chasing David into Samuel's house would have no affect on him and his armies. I would have stopped when my first soldiers started speaking in tongues. Saul had tremendous faith in himself. He forgot to place a tremendouser faith in God. I'll bet that right there at the end, Saul remembered just how effective and affective God can really be sometimes.

Q2. (1 Samuel 18:18-22) Which of the following is David’s chief motive for marrying Michal, in your opinion? Argue for the motivation that makes the most sense to you: (1) pride in his military prowess, (2) obedience to Saul’s desires, (3) love or desire for Michal, or (4) enjoyment in killing Philistines. None of those answers make sense to me. David's pride in his military prowess comes in the number of foreskins (ew.) that he brought back to Saul. I personally don't know of anyone who would want so badly to prove his military prowess that he would help his army cut off 200 mens' foreskins. David's pride in his military prowess grew with each victory on the battlefield. That wouldn't be a reason to marry Michal. David was following God's dictates, much more than Saul's. Obedience to Saul's desires doesn't fit. If he were going to be obdient to Saul's desires, he would have married Merab. And since overwhelmingly most marriages were not based on love or desire, it is safe to say that his marriage to Michal -- was financially-based, at least in large part. A son-in-law fought for his wife's family, but still retained control of his own armies. That's guaranteed income. The son-in-law's armies became larger, and a good son-in-law commander like David would not find it difficult to earn a commission -- his own command -- within his father-in-law's ranks. It was like having two armies for the price of one. David's armies grew. Larger armies for David = more victories. More victories = more spoils. More spoils = more money and stuff to bargain with. More bargaining power = greater self-sufficiency. Greater self-sufficiency = fewer alms-beggars. Fewer alms beggars = more money for taxes and buying stuff. Ultimately, David -- and to a smaller extent, society -- benefitted from David's marriage to Michal. Plus, he didn't have to come up with a dowry. No dowry = money saved. More money = . . . David may have loved Michal, but I am having difficulty finding David speaking of it. David sang for Saul and to God. David taught Solomon to sing. Solomon was so good that the songs he wrote and sang to and of his first wife are the stuff of legend. David's soul and Saul songs are the stuff of legend. Why does there seem to be so few, if any, accounts of David writing or singing any songs about his wife? I am also not persuaded that David just loved killing Philistines. David doesn't seem to be that bloodthirsty. I think it would be more accurate to say that David loved protecting his family and tribe. That was his initial intent in smiting Goliath. If that meant killing other Philistines who threatened David and his tribe, all the better or a necessary evil. Just killing them because he loved doing it? To love killing seems to go against God's admonishments about loving your neighbors, and not murdering them. That doesn't sound like something that would have been in David's heart, for David's heart was filled with love for God. It makes most sense to say that David's reasons for marrying Michal were to get rich while protecting his tribe and continuing his lineage.

Before I get into today's first question, I take issue with Dr. Wilson's portrayal of the "modern homosexual movement" portraying "David and Jonathan as homosexual lovers." I find that to be a rather large and offensive generalization. I am gay. I neither portray David and Jonathan as lovers, nor deny that the possibility exists. The same Hebrew word used for Jonathan and David's binding love is used to describe Saul's youngest daughter's feeling of being "in love" with David. Rather than having all forms of love grouped under the same semantical umbrella (love), speakers and writers of both Biblican Hebrew and Biblical Greek use very specific words to describe very specific forms of love. So, to say that the Hebrew word for Jonathan's love does not mean the same as Michal's love -- even though the same (very specific) word is used -- is disingenious to each of them. Do I know of Moses' commands to those in the Levitical priesthood, whose most holy duties included propegation of the Hebrew peoples and culture? Most certainly. And yet, there are many of those laws that, if taken up by everyone as seriously as the one about which we most hear, would find many of us targets of a few well-thrown stones. Do I know of Paul's admonishment? Of course. If I were Paul, encountering older men taking sexual advantage of young boys (remember, men were men at 13), abusing them and throwing them away when they became too old or too much of a nuisance, I might say the same things as Paul did. At that time, Paul had never seen a covenantal, consensual, and loving relationship between two equal, same-gendered people. It was and is an open facet of Greek culture. In Hebrew and Roman culture, covenantal love between two people of the same gender was more hidden and subtle; the abusiveness that Paul saw was what Paul was speaking out against. Anthropology of a people is a very good thing to know. (By the way, Paul also advised singlehood for apostles. What in the world would happen if every apostle alive today decided to be as single as a monk or nun? Just sayin' . . . ) I take Canon very seriously and I understand that there are parts that I may never understand. This is why I took and excelled in master's level Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek. People like me, who are Christian gay human beings, are not trying use the Bible to justify what the Bible clearly condemns." Perhaps our minds are just a bit more open to the rest of the story -- translations, archaeologies, and anthropologies that add more depth than the Pontiff declared important over 450 years ago. A lot has changed since then. Thank God that our ability to wonder and read and understand the very special mechanics of ancient languages remains, for there is much that gets lost in translation. In translating Biblical Hebrew's exacting and specific language mechanics, I do not have to try to use the Bible to justify anything. The bible stands on its own merit. To deny that there are parts that conflict, parts that have incomplete stories, words that have many meanings -- and even words that have the same meanings each time they're used -- to deny these things denies each person the opportunity to read and understand what God's Words say to each of us. God is still speaking. He did not give us the ability to study and translate text just so that we can let these gifts lie dormant and unused. Onto the questions: Saul sent David into battle so that David could lose. The harder the battle, theoretically, the closer David came to death. Saul wasn't counting on both his son and his youngest daughter to love David at all, much less, with the same ʾāhab . What I find interesting is that Saul didn't seem to have nearly as much trouble dealing with Jonathan's ʾāhab as he did with Michal's. As a result of his trying to put David in harm's -- and death's -- way, his jealousy and inabilty to just be grateful that David was on his side, David prevailed in battle. Saul was concentrating so hard on getting David away from Michal, putting David into (previously-thought) impossible situations, that he refused to see that David was an asset, not a liability. The writer seems to believe that David's success comes from the Lord being on David's side. I, too, believe that. I believe that God was on Saul's side, also. He sent David, after all. Saul was just too blind to see God's blessing, in the form of David.

I forget that the battle is the Lord's because rebellion is still part of my spirit, my solace in the midst of a storm. I will win the battle, regardless of what God thinks, boasts my ego. Some traits take baby-toe- step journeys, with a lot of Saul wrangling in the process. I am in formation. What that means is that I shall practice praying "into Your hands, I commend my spirit," not just in Compline, but all throughout the day and night. Another great use for my phone's calendar reminder. That way, I won't be tempted to arrogantly proclaim God as mine. I will more deeply know that I am His.

Saul most definitely did have faith. Saul's faith rested iin David being able to sing and play for him and put his mind to rest. His mind and heart and spirit were in constant tumult: one night it would be the heart and mind, another the mind and spirit, the next, the spirit and mind. I imagine he felt as if he had three wives, each pregnant with his baby, at the same time, all due around the same time. Instead of *that* being the most torturous thought haunting him, there was worse even than that: wrestling with YHVH all day and every night. David's voice, his lyrics and his music, lulled Saul, and he fell asleep. Surely, this was one chosen by YHVH. Thank YHVH, for YHVH heard my cry and delivered me from my arrogant rebellion against HeWhoIs. Saul gave in to David because he had to let David go when David knew that it was time to be let go. David was right: a day in his life as a shepherd rarely consisted only of sitting on a hill and chewing wheat. The boy spoke truth, neither a braggard nor embellisher was David. I wonder whether Saul had seen David protecting his father's flock. As he listened, Saul was moved into start calculating the odds, as Dr. Wilson pointed out. If the boy king died, it will rally the troups; they'd want to fight in David's honor, even and maybe especially Eliab. If the boy king won, the troups would feel more determined to defeat this enemy, for if such a boy could defeat the largest Philistine, their army could handle the rest. Either way, it was a win-win. David was, after all, a small and young slayer of giants. David's faith sprang from having done things that no-one else knew, realized, or would have thought him able to do, knowing all the while that t YHVH had strenghthened him to do those things. Saul had no choice but to acknowledge or admit that, too. David's faith was contagious.

I think that David was offended, first becase he was human. In his fire, I see someone who hears this much taller man taunting, teasing, and bullying his family and his people. David is EveryProudPerson standing up and saying "No more!" I have met, learned, and/or read much about many Davids -- Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King Jr, the people leading the Stonewall Rebellion, and the founder of my own denomination, the Reverend Troy D. Perry. When any person, whether of meager or greater means, stands against the ridicule, oppression, and persecution of those who are cast away and taken advantage of, that person is David. David rebelled, but it was a Holy Rebellion, standing up for what he knew to be true: that no-one had the right to grind his people - his family and his tribe - under the boot of an oppressor. The second reason that I believe made David angry was being the youngest - and, presumably, the smallest - in his family (if not, the entire tribe) meant that he was likely a victim of bullying. Just natural, underdevloped human behavior in familial and/or social circles . . . this cannot be a new thing. It receives wider coverage now, as we journey ever-forward in our instant information world. But, it is not new. The reactions of David's elder brother seem to bear this out: Eliab's "sit down, shut up, and go watch the sheep" attitude belies much looking down - as if watching their father's "few sheep" were somehow less noble that cowering at a coward's bullying bootheel. David spoke up, naming the spade for what it is, loud enough for all who would, to listen. I would venture that Eliab was upset for a few reasons: he might (again?) save his little brother's cookies for his mouth writing checks that his behind couldn't cash; Eliab knew that if David showed more courage than he, he (Eliab) would look weaker in the eyes of the elders and their father; Eliab could have been genuinely concerned about David losing his youth too soon; if David got hurt or killed, he'd be the one that their father would hold responsible; and/or just general contempt for somebody so small getting underfoot and causing trouble for which the Hebrew warriors were woefully unprepared. Eliab's behavior reminds me that when a bully tries to invoke fear, stepping back allows me to realize that it is the fear that drives the bully, not the bully that drives the fear. I find that easy enough to recognize it in the behaviors of others. Like Eliab, I must take the next and hardest step: seeing it in my own.