Sunday, October 12, 2014 0 comments

King’s Saul’s first attempt to kill David

-->
9 And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.
10 ¶And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit which was not of God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand.
11 And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice.
12 ¶And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, and was departed from Saul. (1 Sam. 18:9-12, JST emphasized)

This is the beginning of Saul’s attempts to kill David.  This is kind of a disturbing story, but you’ll bear with me, we’ll see if we can learn some good things from it besides the obvious “don’t murder people.”

It is easy to think that Saul wasn’t really responsible for his actions here if he was under the influence of an evil spirit, but Saul knew what he was doing.  He was using his past history of disordered thinking as a cover for his attempt on David’s life, both to get David to come within range of his spear and for exoneration once the deed was done.  If any of us ever have troubles with mental illness, I hope we never try to use it as an excuse or cover to hurt someone deliberately. 

If a spirit which was not of God was upon Saul, what are we to think when it says he prophesied in the midst of the house?  What kind of prophesying is the evil spirit going to induce?  Probably not the good kind.  This reminds me of some verses from the D&C:

17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God….
23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. (D&C 50:17-18, 23)

I’ll bet if we could have heard what Saul said, we would be able to tell that he didn’t have the right spirit with him.

David was in a precarious position. Unless he was one of those amazing musicians who could play without looking at his instrument, he would be paying attention to getting his fingers in the right place, which would give him only the briefest of moments to look up and notice Saul aiming a spear at him.

It also says David avoided out of Saul’s presence twice.  It is hard to tell whether this means two separate incidents in which David got spears thrown at him or if there was just one incident and David preferred to avoid Saul at least one other time.  However, you have to give David credit for bravery (staying around) and restraint (not immediately avenging himself).  He had to rely on God. (After all, what human authority could he go to about what happened?  His trouble was with the king himself!)

I have to point out here another way Saul made a big mistake.  In the past, music helped Saul get free of the evil spirit tormenting him.  But this time, in choosing to try to kill David played, Saul resisted the calming influence in the music.  Do you think music is going to help Saul after this?  Probably not because he gave power to the evil spirit instead.  He’d have to repent and then make careful efforts to follow good impulses and resist bad ones.

From that we learn we can’t resist the Spirit of the Lord in any of the number of ways he tries to reach us without consequences.  We can’t resist good without putting ourselves in the power of the devil.  On the positive end, we can’t resist the devil without putting ourselves more in the Lord’s power, which is where we want to be anyway..  The influence we list to obey will have power over us.

I think it is interesting that after this incident the one who is afraid isn’t David.  It’s Saul.  Acting on his suspicions didn’t make Saul feel any more secure, but actually less.

Okay, so let’s tally up what we’ve learned from this:
·      Don’t use mental illness as a cover for deliberately hurting people.
·      Evil spirits don’t bring good prophesying.
·      When in danger from a direct superior, you have to rely on God.
·      There are consequences for resisting the Holy Ghost when it is manifest in good influences.

Friday, October 10, 2014 0 comments

God’s wisdom versus the world’s wisdom


Paul wrote to the Corinthians about the way he spoke to them and it is interesting to see how aware he is of the process.

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.  (1 Cor. 2: 4-5)

Paul’s initial preaching was all of Christ, using testimony so that the Spirit could testify.  This meant that the people’s conversion and faith would be spiritually based rather than based on rhetoric.

Once conversion takes place, whoever, Paul’s preaching gains something more--

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:  (1 Cor. 2:6-7)

Conversion by the Spirit gives us access to hidden wisdom that comes from God, which Paul calls “the wisdom of God in a mystery.”

Paul says this is spoken among them that are “perfect,” but I don’t think he means “flawless,” but instead “whole and complete.”

This kind of wisdom is hard to grasp by a carnal mind and seems foolish, but it makes sense for those prepared for it.

In this context, Paul gives a description of this hidden wisdom--

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.  (1 Cor. 2:9-10)

We usually think of v9 as referring to the glory of the celestial kingdom, but in the context of Paul’s discourse we also see it refers to the wisdom from God that we gain after conversion.  It would be a shame if we were to cease to learn from the Spirit and to cease to search all things.

One of the things these verses explain is why certain principles of truth can seem so obvious to members of the church and yet the rest of the world seems completely oblivious to it, and if they are informed of it, they think it silly or they are threatened by it.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Cor. 2:13)

How many principles are founded in the wisdom of God!  Chastity.  Fidelity.  Sacrifice.  Obedience to prophets.  Continuing revelation.  Priesthood authority.  Eternal families.  Vicarious ordinance work for the dead.  I could go on and on.  You can’t justify these adequately using only man’s wisdom because man’s wisdom only deals with mortal life and temporal consequences, whereas the full consequences of these principles stretch into the eternities, which fallen man knows nothing about.  (Also, we’ve been told that this life is a time of probation, so consequences are delayed in order for us to practice living by faith.)  In order to grasp them, you have to start with faith in Christ as the Savior. 

Wednesday, October 8, 2014 0 comments

Reflections on Oct 2014 General Conference


This is the post when I share a little something from each talk in conference that affected me.  I will also give some brief thoughts about those things.

Saturday morning session

I loved that Elder Packer talked about the Plan of Salvation so close to the beginning of the Saturday morning session.  Instant perspective fixer right there.  Suddenly I could see the eternal perspective and my little mortal worries didn’t seem so serious any more.  I think it also helped me open my heart further for the rest of the conference messages.

Lynn R. Robbins had an awesome talk about which way you are facing and whether you are trying to please men or God.  This talk had so many gems that I had a hard time typing fast enough, but here are my favorites:
--Courage is the form of every virtue at the testing point. 
--The guilty take the truth to be hard.  The hit bird flutters.  Guilt tries to reassures itself.
--The scornful accuse prophets of being bigoted.  Dumbing down God’s standards is apostasy.
--Avoid flattery from without and conceit from within.

Cheryl Esplin had an excellent talk about the sacrament.   I was happy to discover that I could personally echo a testimony of everything she talked about. 
Remember Christ always.  (I’ve been trying to put this into practice myself and I find that stopping to remember Christ brings the Spirit back into my life when I’m down.)

I loved how Elder Wong talked about the story of Christ healing the man with the palsy and the effort his friends took to get the man there and used it as a metaphor to teach about how wards and leaders can rescue individuals and bring them to Christ.  I had never thought about it in that way before, as a pattern for rescue.

Elder Christofferson talked about some big concepts—agency and justice and law and mercy. 
A God who makes no demands is the functional equivalent of a God that doesn’t exist.
He also touched on personal responsibility.  It is too easy to get into a mode of just going with the flow.   I also liked that he said we have to defend accountability against people or programs that would make us dependent, even against ourselves.  (Yes, it’s true; the natural man would like to give up accountability.)

Elder Uchtdorf had a very nice thought experiment about what it would be like to tell people in the distant past about technology of the future and see their varied reactions based upon their limited knowledge.  He related this to our search for truth and how we can gain more spiritual knowledge.
As a humorous aside, I noticed that he mentioned airplanes, yet we didn’t really bat an eye.  The way he talked about telescopes and how they were the instrument to gain more knowledge of the cosmos and how experimenting on the word can help us gain more truth made me think to myself, “And some people think prayer and scripture study is too hard or bothersome.  Where would we be if Galileo had decided it was too hard to build a telescope?”

Saturday afternoon session

Dallin H. Oaks talked about Christ’s new commandment “love one another as I have loved you” and how it is on a higher level than “love your neighbor as yourself.”  He also talked about different challenges we have in living this out in communities where others don’t share our beliefs.    I like that he emphasized speaking the truth in love and speaking with meekness and humility.   I have found that the way we speak can make a big difference in others’ willingness to listen.  Being accusing rarely works.  But when I’ve spoken gently, assuming that others may have not known there was a problem and explained things carefully, I’ve had more success. 

Neil L. Andersen talked about the problem of evil being spoken of Joseph Smith.  I like that he pointed to witnesses written down of people who personally knew Joseph Smith.  I also like that he called attention to how the media can take things that are innocent and by putting a spin on them, can make them appear bad.  I think this is especially important to remember in the news because while people may not directly say something damaging, they may insinuate in damaging ways.   Writers are always looking for an angle to approach things, and political correctness dictates a limited number of angles from which stories can be told in the news outlets, unless the outlet has a very different agenda.

Tad R. Callister had some very good things to say about how parents can teach children to pray.  He told about how his mother instructed him to pray that the Lord would help him find a good wife. 
Often children learn what to value from what their parents talk about praying for.  I think explanations for why we pray for what we do can help children appreciate prayers.  When I pray before going to bed, I never fail to ask that I can wake up happy in the morning because I find it has helped me start my days out with an optimistic viewpoint.  I remember my little brother Nelson, who was somewhat afflicted with nightmares, would pray to have good dreams.  I also think it helps us to hear others pray because we can learn new things to pray about.  Sometimes others' prayers have jolted me because I didn't know it was possible to pray for what they asked for. 

Jorg Klebingat had talked about how to increase our confidence before God.  This felt like something I needed, so I look forward to studying this talk further.    One of the things he said that struck me was about doing the right things for the right reasons.   Yes, God knows why I am doing what I am doing.  It occurred to me that when my worship is casual, I am cheating myself out of a more powerful and meaningful spiritual experience.   I can sit in sacrament meeting and daydream about something different, but then I don’t get the full benefit of being at church.  Likewise, if I sit through temple ordinances and daydream about something completely different, I'm not getting the full benefit of being in the temple.  However, I've found that participating in temple ordinances with an eye toward how they apply to my problems helps me learn new things and feel the Spirit powerfully.

Eduardo Gavarret talked about a missionary activity he participated in a zone conference when he had to try to follow a voice while blindfolded and he discovered later that he had followed the wrong voice.   This really illustrated to me how hard Satan may try to deceive the Saints, making his voice sound as close to the Spirit so he can lead us astray.   We’ve recently seen some people following the wrong voice while insisting strenuously it was the right one. 

Jeffrey R. Holland.  I thought the best part of his talk was drawing meaning out of “She hath done what she could” in the context of relieving the poor.   This reminds me that I can make a difference, even if my reach is limited.   It also makes me grateful that I’m part of the Relief Society because that increases my opportunities for doing good.  I’ve chances to help in ways I never would have had otherwise.

L. Tom Perry talked about the parable of the wheat and the tares in the context of parenthood, and although I am not a parent, I really appreciated what he said about how we must nourish wheat so carefully the tares will have no appeal.   I am trying so hard to do that in my own life, and sometimes I get really tired, but I can’t give up.  I have to rely on Christ for strength.

Sunday morning session

Henry B. Eyring talked about revelation and confirming revelation.  I really liked the guide that he gave for receiving revelation, straight from D&C 121--Let thy bowels be filled with charity and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly.   I think I need to work a little harder to let virtue garnish my thoughts.   And humility too.

Russell M. Nelson talked about sustaining the prophet and apostles.  I love what he shared about how decisions among the apostles and first presidency have to be unanimous.  For so many varied backgrounds to come to complete agreement on things, all the concerns have to come out, all the ideas have to be shared, but not only that, ego can’t have any place in the discussion.  These men have to keep their focus firmly on what is best for the church and doing what the Lord would do.   I appreciate the glimpses we get about how the twelve and the first presidency do things.   You can get more of it from biographies of the presidents of the church.  I’ve loved reading biographies of Presidents Kimball, Benson, and Monson.

I liked how Carol F. McConkie shared how following the words of the prophet gave her the faith to find a husband, establish a family, to bear and raise a family.   She’s lived her life by prophecy.  Just think, we’re trying to do the same!

Robert D. Hales talked about scriptures that witnessed of Christ.  I love that he mentioned that he wanted to learn more about baptism before he got baptized.  (That’s spiritual maturity at a young age for you.)   As he was going through the different scriptures about Christ’s relationship with Heavenly Father, I couldn’t help but notice how often Jesus prayed.  I really have to work harder to improve my prayers.

James J. Hamela talked about the sacrament symbolism.  I really liked how he pointed to the sacrament as not only symbols of Christ’s sufferings, but also as instructive tokens.  He said the bread is a promise of our resurrection and the water as representative of Christ’s blood reminds us of our responsibility to repent.   This also reminds me of the warning that if we don’t repent, we will suffer for our own sins as Christ suffered.

President Monson talked about the paths Jesus walked—paths of disappointment, temptation, and pain, but also those of prayer and obedience.  Monson said that physically walking where Jesus walked is less important than walking as he walked spiritually.   I don’t think this is meant to say that there is nothing to be gained from going to Israel to see the holy land; I’ve heard people talk about how their testimony has grown from seeing those things and it has helped them grasp the reality of Christ and His ministry.   But in terms of priority, following Christ’s example is to be preferred.   I also liked President Monson’s story of the German refugees living in Canada who were poor in goods, but rich in faith, such that the faithful beat a path to their door.   I want to be the kind of person who beats a path to the door of the exemplary faithful.  I also want to be the kind of person who is sought out like that couple.

Sunday afternoon session

M. Russell Ballard related life to a trip through rapids on the Colorado river.  I appreciated his guidelines of 1) stay in the boat, 2) always wear a life jacket, and 3) always hold on with both hands.  Concerning his likening daily scripture study to always wearing a life jacket, I know that my daily scripture study has kept me in the good ship Zion.  It has showed me my errors so I could repent more quickly so that I didn’t get into deeper trouble.    I also liked that he pointed out that prayer and fasting, though not easily measured, is of great importance.   This makes me think that even if they can’t be measured, their effects can be recorded.   When I read through my journal and come across times that I recorded my prayers and the way the Lord answered me, the reminder strengthens my faith. 

Richard G. Scott talked about four life habits that can help us 1) Prayer 2) Daily scripture study 3) Family Home Evening and 4) going to the temple.  He gave a great promise: The more we develop these habits, the less ability Satan will have to harm us.   I’m sure you, like me, are familiar with these habits, but it seems to me I could do with some improvement in two of them.   I think it is not enough to sometimes do them in order to get the protection; we need to be more consistent.  And we can’t just do some of them, we need to do all of them.

Carlos A. Godoy shared his experience of  deciding to further his education, even though it required difficult decisions and sacrifices.  He asked some penetrating questions:
--If you continue to live as you have been, will the blessings of your patriarchal blessing be fulfilled? 
--What does the Lord expect from us?  
--Are we willing to pay the price for our decisions? 
--Can we leave our comfort zones to come to a better place?
This teaches me that to fulfill my patriarchal blessings I have to meet the Lord halfway on it.   And I don’t know about you, but I want to know ahead of time what I’m getting into so that the price and opposition doesn’t scare me away.   But maybe I just need more faith and determination.  Maybe I need more faith that there is a better place than my comfort zone.

Allan F. Packer talked a lot about family history work and how the church has tried to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of doing family history research.  He said it is different now.   I’ve found this to be true, and I blogged about it earlier this year how it is so much easier to find records now.  This doesn’t mean that there won’t be research problems to overcome, but the church is making it easier to get to the records quickly and easily.    Elder Packer said one obstacle remains—the individual’s hesitation to be involved.   I’ve noticed this hesitation arises out of having tried and failed multiple times in the past to make progress.  It can also arise out of misunderstanding the research process.  I think a good way to get involved is to think of it as exploratory play, and wander around your family tree to find people who need more records and practice trying to find them.  This isn't wasted time; this can help build skills needed for the work of extending branches further. 

Hugo E. Martinez talked about service and how his family was blessed after an earthquake by people who brought more badly needed water.  He said knowing people are interested and are watching out for us is precious.   I think this is all the more precious as our society becomes more and more isolating with technology.    He said that our service is not limited to those who live now.  We can also serve the dead.   It is so cool to me that we can serve not just the living, but also the dead, whom the rest of the world think of as beyond help.

Larry S. Kacher talked about the powerful forces in our lives, of deadly currents and divine currents and how our choices may contribute to creating either of those currents for other people.   I never want to be someone creating a deadly current.  I only want to be part of a divine current.

David A. Bednar talked to nonmembers about why members try so hard and are so eager to share the gospel.  He is totally right about it being so important to us and our anxiousness to share with others the beneficial experiences that helped us.   The thing is, unlike a sales person who can demonstrate a special slicer, the full spiritual benefits of being part of the restored church of Christ –the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—are not fully visible to those who examine it from the outside.  There are special feelings that come with the holy ghost, but you don’t know what it is like to have that all the time until you get baptized into the church and confirmed.  There is so much more than what can be told.
I also loved Elder Bednar’s story of how his older son cared for his younger brother.  (I have a memory as a child of doing something similar for one of my younger brothers.)  I loved how it showed not just the lessons of love they had been trying to teach in their family, but also the children’s whole-hearted efforts to do as they had been taught.  I suppose that Heavenly Father must sometimes see our efforts to share as clumsy, but He sends the Spirit to witness of truths anyway.

So how about you?  Will you share with me a few things from conference that moved you? 

Final Note:  The day after conference I could feel that Satan was trying to ruin things for me because I was attacked by rebellious attitudes.   One thing that really helped me was singing hymns to myself as I worked on preparing a new hymnbook for my use as organist.  (I have a lot of extra things written in that I had to transfer to my new hymnbook.)   Go away, Satan!!

Monday, October 6, 2014 0 comments

KJV versus JST on private interpretation of the scriptures


KJV:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

JST:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scriptures is given of any private will of man.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (JST 2 Peter 1:20-21, JST emphasized)

The KJV phrase about private interpretation makes it seem like people are not allowed to have their own ideas of what scriptures mean.

The JST, on the other hand, takes this completely out and reemphasizes that scripture comes by God’s will by the movement of the Spirit and not according to what man wants.  (This gives God the freedom to give more revelation than men expect or think is needed and on topics seemingly unconnected which may address future needs unanticipated by men with their limited vision.)

With the phrase about private interpretation taken out, the Saints are given the freedom to apply the scriptures to themselves in addition to the ways that are generally accepted and taught in the church.  The Saints don’t have to wait for the church to tell them what to think about a scripture; they can study things out themselves and come to their own conclusions.  It essentially gives freedom of thought.

It also reemphasizes the importance of capturing all the inspiration and revelation give to us that we can and being ready to listen, even if it isn’t convenient, even if it isn’t expected, even if it is more or different than what we hoped for.

Who knows where or what the general authorities were doing as they were given inspiration about what to speak on in general conference.  We get the benefit of preparing ourselves to receive their words, but other times in life, revelation comes when and where we don't expect.  Who doesn't feel they could improve their spiritual listening skills?  I know I could.
Saturday, October 4, 2014 0 comments

Saul promotes, then hates David

5 ¶And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.
6 And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick.
7 And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.
8 And Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom?
9 And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.
(1 Samuel 18:5-9)

These verses tell how King Saul promoted David and then nearly as soon after began to hate him and throw javelins at him.

You’ve probably already talked about this story in Sunday school, but I want to bring up a few more points.

The impetus for this was the women of Israel singing that fateful line—“Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.”  Saul is offended that more is ascribed to David than to him when David has only fought one battle and Saul had a whole career of fighting behind him. 

Strictly speaking, Saul does have a point.  He has done more over his life than David.  But then public acclaim is a fitful thing and doesn’t distribute itself fairly, so it can’t be depended upon, and it seems Saul had come to depend upon it. 

But then looking at it another way, often acclaim has to do with expectations and whether someone has exceeded expectations or not.  Saul, having been king for quite some time and having a spotty record of exhibiting bravery and courage, will have a hard time meeting expectations.  But David—a nobody at this stage—went FAR above expectations, so there is going to be a lot more excitement over his achievement.  (Question: Do people only deserve praise when they exceed expectations?)

Now, looking at it from yet another angle, we often assume that the women singing this line were singing out of simple joy for what David had done.  But what if the song was meant to wound Saul, like a political cartoon?  What if it was an indirect expression of discontent with Saul’s leadership record? 

Whatever it was, it hurt.  We have to understand what Saul felt in order to really grasp what kind of choices Saul had.  It would be like discovering someone had made a music video making fun of you and saying someone else is better than you and then video goes viral on the internet. It is one thing to feel one has been eclipsed by another, but it is another thing entirely to feel that everyone else might be thinking the same thing and thinking less of you because of it.  The question is, what do you do when something like that happens?    Who do you turn to?  

You have to turn to the Lord and rely on Him.  But Saul had rejected the Lord a long time ago, so he was bereft of any support. 

Saul also remembered the huge acclaim that came after his own first battle success and he saw this as the same sort of thing coming to David and he begins to think of David as a rival for the throne.  (To give him credit, he was right that David would replace him on the throne, but he was wrong about David being a direct threat to him.)  This must have been when Samuel’s words came back to him about how the Lord would rend the kingdom from him and give it to a neighbor who was better than him.  Saul had been collecting valiant men for his army for a while, but this is the first time he begins to connect that prophetic pronouncement with anyone he has gathered and promoted.

Saul says David has the praise of the people “and what can he have more but the kingdom?”  Somehow you get the idea that he thinks the kingdom is easily transferred or easily acquired.  Perhaps that’s because for him it was.  But it never seems as easily transferred between dynasties again.  You also get the sense that Saul things the praise and credit is the best and most important part of being king.  And I imagine it isn’t necessarily that way.

Another problem was that the praise to David was exaggerated.  Sure David had killed Goliath, but it isn’t known how many others he killed in the same battle.  Would it be smart for David to believe his own press (if we can call it that)? No.  Opinion can change quickly. 

This makes me think about basis on which I admire or praise people.  Is it because they follow good principles?  Is it because they are effective?  Do I only praise people when they exceed my expectations, or do they merit appreciation for meeting them?  Am I noticing the best things or am I caught up by less important factors?  It also makes me think about the praise I receive.  Is it merited or is it exaggerated?  Can I depend on it?  Not really.  I have to depend on the Lord.

Think what it was like for David, to be promoted so quickly and then suddenly have his own king throwing javelins at him.  I think David is a good example of acting consistently no matter what people thought of him.  He endured the hazards of both good and bad pubic opinion.  He endured through both public acclaim and being the subject of a national manhunt led by the king himself.

Also compare Saul’s reaction about the rise of David to the prophet Samuel’s reaction about the rise of Saul.  In a way, both Samuel and Saul were in similar positions.  They both were rejected, though Samuel was rejected by the people as judge in their desire for a king, and Saul was rejected by God.  Saul was jealous of David, but we do not detect any jealousy from Samuel.  Samuel’s only concern was that Saul keep the commandments of God. 

From here on, we begin to see that Samuel’s prophesy to Saul that the Lord would rend the kingdom from him was perfectly true (1 Sam 15:26-28).  If you recall, Samuel told Saul the Lord had rejected him from being king and as Samuel turned to leave, Saul grabbed Samuel’s robe and held on so hard it tore, which became the impetus for Samuel saying the Lord would rend the kingdom away from Saul.

Samuel perceived that if Saul was going to be so grasping and desperate over Samuel simply leaving, that would surely manifest itself again when it became clear the Lord was taking the kingdom away.  Saul would grasp at anything and try anything to keep the kingdom, and it would tear the kingdom apart just as Saul had torn Samuel’s robe.  (You have to marvel at the depth of Samuel’s discernment and how he was able to perceive the final fruits of relatively simple acts sown.)

So because Saul suddenly suspects David will take the kingdom away from him, he begins to hold the kingdom tighter and tighter, employing desperate measures to try to eliminate the imagined threat, even though David never actually challenges him for power.  Instead, Saul alienates more and more people and may have even been the means of bringing his own demise. 

How can Saul’s story help us today? 

Because of the internet and the longevity of things that are posted, any of us at one time or another might find ourselves in Saul’s position, faced with a recitation of our inadequacies in comparison to someone else’s excellence seemingly announced everywhere under heaven.    We have a choice.  We can become angry, suspicious, and jealous people, or we can turn to God for support and strength.

Further, Christ has said that wo is unto us when all men speak well of us, because they spoke similarly well of the false prophets, so we must expect to endure being bad-mouthed. 

We also learn about how exaggeration causes problems and how indulging in jealousy ruins our peace.

Do you get anything more from this story?
Thursday, October 2, 2014 2 comments

Analyzing David and Jonathan’s Tight Friendship

-->
1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. (1 Sam. 18:1-4)
In the church we have a whole lesson on the friendship between David and Jonathan, and I think there is a lot to look at, so I want to spend some time on it.

The suddenness of this friendship is startling, as is the strength of it, which is one of the reasons why a certain segment of people think it was a homosexual relationship.  However, we can understand it better if we consider what we know of both David and Jonathan.
  • They both had done acts of military valor.  Jonathan had assaulted a Philistinegarrison with only one other person as backup.  David had faced and slain Goliath the giant.  They had both faced steep odds.
  • Their valor was on their own initiative.
  • They had both gone into those battles speaking the faith they had in God to deliver them and Israel.
  • They both had experienced miracles in the Lord’s help.
  • Their acts ultimately resulted in the Israelite army taking courage and fighting manfully, with a victorious outcome.
For both these men, their valor had arisen out of their character and their steadfast faith in God.  They were both men who would engage themselves in a good cause, even if it was personally dangerous to them, even if they hadn’t been commanded.

Now, something tells me that when a person has these character traits, they immediately recognize others who have these same traits….and they LOVE them.  Because here’s a person you don’t have to persuade into faith or push them to get involved or pep-talk them.  They are all ready and rarin’ to go.

Jonathan instantly recognizes this in David.  And because they both have strong faith and devotion to God, neither of them are going to want to do anything wrong, so they can have profound confidence in one another.  They can be a huge help to each other, and Jonathan really wants that.  So he and David enter into a covenant with each other. 

We don’t quite know the exact terms of the covenant they made, but we can see through the rest of 1 Samuel there was a protective element to it, that they would protect each other and warn each other of danger.  David even appeals to Jonathan at one point that Jonathan would be the one to kill him if David sinned in any way rather than taking him to King Saul for justice (see 1 Samuel 20:8), so there is an element of policing each other.  They also renew their covenant together on several occasions.

This is no idle thing to make this covenant.  It is tested in painful ways when Jonathan finds his father turning against David.  Jonathan has to find ways of honoring his father while still keeping his covenant to David.  At one point King Saul reproaches Jonathan, “do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion…?” (1 Samuel 20:30)  It would certainly cause some confusion and difficulty to Jonathan, but I think his covenant with David helps him escape being affected by his father’s jealousy and suspicion.  I think fulfilling his obligations to that covenant allowed him to do good at a dark time when his father was sinking further and further into sin and violence and murderousness.  Jonathan stood up for David to his father at least two separate times, warned David of danger at least once (and possibly maintained a network of messengers to continue to warn him), and visited him at least once to encourage him in the Lord.

What does Jonathan want from David in this covenant?  At the beginning it is hard to tell, but further into their story we see that Jonathan wants David to show him “the kindness of the Lord, that I die not” and also to spare Jonathan’s family when the Lord finally helps him triumph over his enemies.  The tradition of that time and the cultures around them was that the king of the new dynasty would kill all the family of the old dynasty to ensure there was no one left as a focus of rebellion, and Jonathan hoped to avoid that fate for his family.  And David does honor this covenant.

Do you have a friend that is close to you that you could imagine making this kind of covenant with?  I have a few that I could have trusted them so far.

I must point out that this kind of covenant is twisted for evil among secret combinations.  Only among those who are determined to serve the Lord at all hazards is it a good thing for society.  And even with David and Jonathan as good as they were, their road wasn’t smooth.

Much is made in commentaries of Jonathan stripping off his robe and garments to give to David along with his weapons.  People think that Jonathan and David both knew already that David was someday to be king.  However, I’m not so sure about this. Yes, Samuel the prophet knew he was anointing David to be king, but did it follow that he had to tell David?  Did David have to know in order to do all those brave things he did?   Maybe not.  In fact, if he was a man after the Lord’s heart, he was going to do what he did because that’s the kind of man he was, and the anointing would give him more of the Lord’s spirit.  The Lord could bring him to the throne without him knowing that was the plan.   Jonathan’s giving David his clothes and weapons could just as well have been blindly anticipatory.

At the moment, however, Jonathan probably gave up his robe and weapons to David as the first major act he could do to fulfill the covenant he had just made with David.  To protect David better, he gave him the clothes of authority and better weapons to defend himself.  This communicated to everyone that no one could mess with David without royalty getting involved… which of course would get the rest of Israel involved.  He was to be treated as if he were royalty himself. 

Yet another thing about this act of clothing David is that it demonstrates Jonathan’s humility.  He’s not so in love with his status as crown prince that he minds someone else wearing the tokens of authority and power, nor does he mind a friend wearing them.  It is like he wants to bring David up to his level, which is an awesome characteristic of a friend. 

I think in Jonathan’s friendship to David we can see a type of Christ’s friendship to us.  Christ wants to bring us up to His level.  When we follow Him and do the same things He does, He calls us His friends, rather than his servants.   He shares His power with His friends and He binds us to Him by covenants.  He clothes us in the temple with power and authority.   He hopes that someday in eternity we will get to sit with him on the throne with the Father.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2 comments

KJV versus JST about the anger of God


KJV:
For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life:
weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.
(Psalms 30:5)
JST:
For his anger kindleth against the wicked;
 they repent, and in a moment it is turned away,
and they are in his favor,
and he giveth them life;
therefore, weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.
(JST Psalms 30:5)
The KJV makes it seem like God’s anger is a flash in the pan and without any change it is gone.  It also doesn’t say what He is angry about, making it seem like God is fickle and erratic and capricious.  (Of course, believers know this is not so, but it is good to mention that it is sin He’s angry about.)

The JST clarifies that God’s anger is directed at the wicked, but the moment they repent His anger is turned away.  It also expands upon the mercy of God, how not only does He immediately turn away His anger, but repentance brings people into His favor (a 180 degree change), and He gives them life, or spiritual blessings.

This also causes the second line about weeping in the night to make more sense.  While the KJV makes it seem like the weeping is generalized grief, with the previous clarifications in the JST it becomes clear that the weeping in the night is someone who is mourning over their sins with intent to repent and change.  This kind of grief over sins may endure for a night, but joy (given from God along with forgiveness) comes in the morning after.

I appreciate the JST because it better expresses the holy character of God, both His anger at sin and His approval of repentance.  It helps me want to repent quickly because it builds my trust that God will respond quickly and with great mercy. 

Do you get anything else from the JST?


Sunday, September 28, 2014 2 comments

Eliab versus David as choices for king


When Samuel went to anoint the person who was to be king after Saul, he first saw Jesse’s son Eliab and thought that surely the Lord had chosen Eliab.  But the Lord told Samuel to not judge by the countenance or height and that the Lord had refused Eliab.

I think it is interesting to see how Eliab treats David later when David comes to take supplies to his brothers in Saul’s army.  While David is offended for Israel’s sake that a Philistine has defied Israel and God for so long, Eliab seems to think David is an obnoxious pipsqueak.  Theirs is this interesting exchange between Eliab and David that reveals their character so well.

28 ¶And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab’s anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle.
29 And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause?
30 ¶And he turned from him toward another, and spake after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner. (1 Samuel 17:28-30)

Based upon what Eliab says, you can see he doesn’t take very kindly to criticism, even indirectly.  David’s questioning why this Goliath thing has gone on for so long is taken by Eliab as a rebuke that he should at least have done something, since he was with the army.  (Not that David really meant that, but Eliab may have felt it that way.)

So Eliab tries to defend himself by attacking David and basically smearing him in front of the other men with this family dialogue that makes it seem like David is 1) irresponsible for leaving the sheep, 2) of no account (because he says there are only a few sheep), 3) proud 4) naughty (or disobedient) 5) nosy and 6) a risk-taker for coming down to see a battle that is none of his business and which could be dangerous to him.

What a list of false accusations!  And Eliab knows they are false too because we can read earlier in the chapter that David had time to talk to his brothers before the Goliath thing came up, so Eliab would have known that David came at the request of his father (and no doubt would have provided a substitute to take care of the sheep while he was gone), that he brought supplies (so there was a purpose for his coming), that he took care of getting the supplies to the right place before he found his brothers to talk (so he was responsible).  Eliab just said those things to try to make David look bad in front of everyone.

That’s mean old brother behavior, even when grown up!  Just from that, you can tell Eliab wouldn’t be a very nice king.  1) He made false accusations when he knows the real facts 2) he tried to discredit a younger brother, a family member 3) he tried to stamp out David’s faithful and intrepid perspective just because Eliab didn’t have it in him and 4) he got defensive from the most indirect of unintended criticisms.

On the other hand, David’s behavior is excellent.  Even when he’s made to look bad, all he says is, “What have I now done?  Is there not a cause?” (v29).  He pleads innocence, but doesn’t attack back.  He also doesn’t allow himself to be deterred from asking his questions.  He doesn’t let himself get shut up by his older brother.

As an oldest child, I learn from this that it is important to not shut down good and faithful suggestions from my younger siblings.   I also learn from David appropriate ways to respond if others are trying to shut me down.

Is there anything else in addition that you learn from this?