1 and 2 Samuel
Synopsis:
While it seems probable that the author of 1 and 2 Samuel did compile their work from various sources, the simple fact is the author compiled the book of Samuel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order to convey certain truths in fulfilment of their own concerns. As interesting as it may be to know where contributions to the book came from, such studies will not assist in understanding the purpose of the author’s presentation of the rise of David, and his relationship with Yahweh. Therefore, this essay will concern itself with the book of Samuel as a coherent work as the author intended it to be read. As such, this essay will consider the relationships between the narratives, and how they communicate that David was Yahweh’s sovereign choice. The narratives concerning David’s anointing, ascension, and the preservation of his kingdom will be considered in detail as motifs for the author’s thesis.
——
The purpose of the author’s presentation of David was to demonstrate how David was a man after Yahweh’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). Before attention is given as to how the rise of David and the following succession narrative fulfils this verse, the verse itself must be taken into consideration.
The way the NIV renders the verse – “the Lord [Yahweh] has sought out a man after his own heart” – gives the impression that there is something intrinsically appealing about Yahweh’s selection. Baldwin understands this verse as reflecting positively on David as one who is “… prepared to let the Lord’s will … be a guide for his life.”[1] While this can be said of David’s military campaigns, it barely applies to the rest of his life. Gordon understands this verse as Yahweh choosing a man according to his desires and as opposed to the people’s desires (1 Samuel 8:22).[2] The New Century Version perhaps offers a better rendering – “The Lord has looked for the kind of man he wants.” The lack of intrinsic appeal in David is certainly recognised by himself in response to the promise given him – “Who am I, O Sovereign Lord, and what is my family, that you have brought me this far?” (2 Samuel 7:18). It is to this end that the author presents David as having ascended the throne on the basis of Yahweh’s sovereign choice, and not on his astuteness.
Through the presentation of David’s career, the author intends to demonstrate that: 1) David was not an expected, and thereby popular, choice; 2) David’s accession to the throne was not at the expense of Saul’s life, character, or rule; 3) the preservation of David’s kingdom was due to Yahweh’s provision, and not David’s astuteness.
•1. David’s unexpected choice
David is first introduced into the narrative of Samuel as Yahweh’s chosen during a secret anointing (1 Samuel 16). David’s selection is not expected by all present. Even Samuel, who expected Eliab to be the succeeding king, had to be instructed otherwise by Yahweh (vv6-7). So unexpected was the choosing of David that he was not even presented before Samuel (v10). Instead he was out tending sheep (v11). Upon his presentation before Samuel, David is described as “… the youngest … with a fine appearance and handsome features.” (1 Samuel 16:11-12). This is a contrast to the tall, warrior figure that was personified in Saul that Samuel was originally looking for. The mention of his position in the family, Klein observes, is a continuation of Yahweh choosing the younger over the older in the Old Testament (cf. Jacob over Esau, Genesis 25:23; Ephraim over Manasseh, Genesis 48:8-22).[3] Therefore, by human standards, David would have hardly passed as a king thereby asserting Yahweh’s selection of him. Yahweh’s appointment of David is emphasised by the events and circumstances surrounding his anointing. David is said to have the Spirit of Yahweh upon him (1 Samuel 16:14), and his victory over Goliath is a further indication of Yahweh’s selection of David. [4]
•2. David’s ascension to the throne
The author goes to great lengths to demonstrate that David’s rise to power was due to Yahweh’s sovereignty. David was liable to the charge of ending the Saulide dynasty (Samuel 16:5-9) Interwoven throughout the narratives of David’s ascension s the testimony from others that David would be King. This again emphasises Yahweh’s sovereign choice (1 Samuel 23:17; 25:31; 28:17), and even that of Saul (24:40).
The author demonstrates that the relationship between David and Saul did not begin as one of enmity. David is portrayed as a servant of Saul, called to be in Saul’s court to soothe Saul’s anxiety caused by the evil spirit sent from Yahweh (1 Samuel 16:14-23). This relationship was changed at the initiative of Saul. David proved himself to be a mighty warrior, and the singing of David’s praises by the women stirred envy in Saul (1 Samuel 18:5-9). This marked a change in the relationship. The author remarks that, “Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with David but had left Saul.” (1 Samuel 18:12). From this time on, Saul sought to eliminate the threat that David posed. Not the other way around as Shimei had supposed. The author records on two occasions Saul attempted to run a spear through David (1 Samuel 18:11; 19:10), and sent him on dangerous military missions hoping that he would be killed in battle, only to have David succeed in his mission (1 Samuel 18:24-27).
Having failed to eliminate David discretely, Saul begins a murderous pursuit of David on the basis that David is his enemy (1 Samuel 19:17) which is recorded in chapters 22 – 26. In what shall be called the pursuit narratives, the author does record that on two occasions, David had an opportunity to kill Saul, yet does not (24, 26). Instead, David earnestly seeks reconciliation with Saul (24:22; 26:25).
Interestingly, the two accounts of David seeking reconciliation with Saul are divided by the account of Nabal and Abigail (1 Samuel 25). In this account it becomes evident that vengeful murder is within David’s capability. The main concern in the passage is one of bloodshed which needed to be explained to David by Abigail (v26). Even though Nabal has wronged David, it would be wrong of David to spill blood in revenge, since it is for Yahweh to remove David’s enemies (v33), and this is to characterize David’s rule (v28). It is this insight of Abigail which shapes David’s theology in his next encounter with Saul. Not only does David refuse to take Saul’s life because he is Yahweh’s anointed (v9), he also anticipates Yahweh’s action in his death (v10). Therefore within David’s rise to power, the author acknowledges David’s murderous traits, which reappear in the succession narrative. However, he demonstrates that these have not been employed against the person of Saul thereby vindicating David from being implicated in Saul’s death or the breakdown of the Saulide dynasty.
When Saul is killed, the author again demonstrates that David is not to be implicated in 1 Samuel 31. It is recorded that Saul died in battle taking his own life after being critically wounded (vv3-4). At the time, David had taken refuge among the Philistines. The author again stresses that David had not abandoned his King, nor his homeland. Rather, it was for self preservation that David sought refuge among the Philistines (1 Samuel 27:1). While among the Philistines, David, furthered Israel’s security in the Promise Land under the guise of fighting for the Philistines (1 Samuel 27:8-12), and enriched the towns of Judah with the plunder from war (1 Samuel 30:26-31). Therefore, David could not be charged with conspiring against Israel, or his king, Saul.
Upon hearing of the death of Saul, David is recorded as being struck with grief along with his men (2 Samuel 1:11-13). Nor does David decorate the Amalekite who brought David the news. The Amalekite gives a different version to the events recorded in (1 Samuel 31:2-6). The Amalekite tells of how he killed Saul and had taken the crown from his head to present to David. The Amalekite’s motive in providing an alternate version would appear so he could earn David’s favour and be rewarded.[5] However, David perceives a greater issue at stake which is expressed in v14 – that the Amalekite had raised his hand against Yahweh’s anointed. Just as David had refused to lift his hand against Saul (1 Samuel 24:6; 26:11), and been kept from bloodshed (25:26, 33), so too he maintains his court with the same dignity. David, after further interrogation of the Amalekite, orders him to be executed (v15). David takes the same action upon hearing the death of Ish-Bosheth from Recab and Baanah (2 Samuel 4:7-12).
The author now vindicates David against the charge of eradicating the other members of the house of Saul. While a war does occur between the houses of Saul and David (2 Samuel 2:8 – 3:1), this was not instigated by David. Rather, they were instigated by Abner, the commander of Saul’s army, and was answered to by Joab, who was acting as David’s army commander. This is in contrast to David whom, in the meantime, was concerned that Saul had received a proper burial (2 Samuel 2:5-6). In the course of the war, Abner had killed Asahel, Joab’s brother (vv 18, 23) which provoked bitter rivalry between Joab and Abner. While David had managed to form reconciliation with Abner after Abner defected from Ish-Bosheth (3:9-10, 21), Joab had no knowledge of this, and sought vengeance against Abner by murdering him (3:27). Again, the author is concerned to distance David from the death of a member of the Saulide dynasty by including David’s speech in the narrative declaring his innocence, and cursing Abner and his family for his actions (3:28-29). Again the author is concerned to draw attention to David’s grief over the death of a member of the Saulide dynasty (3:31-35; cf. 1:11-12, 17-27). Such actions distant David from the demise of the Saulide dynasty, and demonstrate that David’s ascension to the throne was due to Yahweh’s election of David and not political manoeuvring. As the author records, “All the people took note and were pleased; indeed, everything the king did pleased them. So on that day all the people and all Israel knew that the king had no part in the murder of Abner son of Ner.” (2 Samuel 3:36-37). So David was able to assume Kingship over Israel in place of the Saulide dynasty (5:1-5)
•3. The preservation of David’s kingdom.
The so called “Succession Narrative” covers 2 Samuel 9 – 1 Kings 2. These chapters contain David’s management of his kingdom after ascending the throne. These are set against Yahweh’s covenant with David which contain the promise of an everlasting throne, and a son who would succeed David and build the temple (7:12, 13, 16). Throughout the Succession Narrative, David and his family are portrayed as having little or no astuteness, capable of deception and being deceived, immoral, and barely able to keep a grasp of his throne or kingdom. While there are many narratives that illustrate this throughout his 2 Samuel, the narratives of the war against the Ammonites, David and Bathsheba, Amnon and Tamar, Absalom’s revolt, and David’s return have all been selected for their interrelatedness, and crucial contribution in their portrayal of David as King.
David lacks the astuteness that may normally be associated with a king which affects his administration of the kingdom. Upon the death of Nahash, King of Ammon, David sent his condolences to Hanun on the basis of an existing friendship (2 Samuel 10:1-2). While his intentions may have been sincere, his inability to discern the political environment and make effective communications to the Ammonites led to a breakdown in diplomatic relationships (vv3-4). The Ammonites had reason to be suspicious of David. His imperial activities in Moab and Aram (2 Samuel 8:1-9), along with the events of Saul (1 Samuel 11:1-11), provided evidence for the Ammonites to suspect David of ulterior motives. The author records that David also dedicated articles to Yahweh that had been taken from the Ammonites (2 Samuel 8:12). However, Gordon suggests that this was anticipatory of chapters 10-12 as there is no mention of actions being taken against the Amonites in vv1-8.[6] While this oversight led to the continuation of David’s imperial activities in the region against the Ammonites, securing Israel in the Promised Land (2 Samuel 10:7-19), future oversights would result in David’s downfall.
The account of David and Bathsheba marks the low point in David’s moral life (2 Samuel 11). The author informs his readers that the time was spring when it was customary for kings to go to war, though this time, David himself had remained in Jerusalem (v1). This is a variation on David’s activities during war. Previously, David had to “talk his way” into a battle (1 Samuel 17:32-37). The text also gives the impression that he was present on the battle field during his rise to power, the taking of Jerusalem, and expansion of his empire (1 Samuel 27:8; 30; 2 Samuel 5:17-25; 8:1-14). Later in David’s reign, the text makes it explicit that David was present on the battle field only to have his men refuse to have his company on future campaigns (2 Samuel 21:15, 17). On this occasion, David had been fighting against the Ammonites with Joab as his proxy while he remained in Jerusalem (10:7). Only when the situation deteriorated for Israel did David join the battle (v17).
The author records David’s abuse of power to sleep with Bethsheba. Clearly she was not pregnant at the time since she is bathing to become ritualistically clean (v4).[7] It was as a result of sleeping with David that Bathsheba fell pregnant (v5). David realises he is in the wrong and seeks to cover up the scandal by encouraging Uriah to sleep with his wife (vv6-8). Uriah’s character in the narrative is interesting as he seems to personify what David’s conscience should have been. David’s initial cover up failed since Uriah had refused to sleep with his wife because as he explained, “The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my master Joab and my lord’s men are camped in the open fields.” (2 Samuel 11:11). Noble concerns that David had previously maintained and acted upon (2 Samuel 7:2; 8) had now been abandoned by David for lust and the taking of what is not his, while Uriah, a Hittite (vv3, 6, 17, 24), maintains those noble concerns by refusing to take what is rightfully his.
Having his initial cover up fail, David plots to have Uriah killed in battle by giving instructions to Joab, who does not hesitate to partake in David’s murderous scheme. David’s intention in the death of Uriah was to make it look like he died in battle, while David in his alleged mercy marries the now widowed Bathsheba who was carrying his child to avoid the appearance of an adulterous relationship. Notably, there is no expression of remorse on David’s part as recorded in relation to other deaths, nor any attempt by the author to distance David from the events or justify his actions. It is these adulterous and murderous tendencies that David passed on to his sons who would later threaten David’s Kingdom (2 Samuel 13). Therefore, David’s kingdom did not prevail on account of his morality.
The account of David and Bathsheba is immediately followed up by Nathan, the prophet (2 Samuel 12). When confronted with Nathan’s parable he is unable to perceive that Nathan is about to confront him with his actions concerning Bathsheba and Uriah. This inability will later serve to jeopardise his kingdom with the uprising of Absalom (2 Samuel 14).
Absalom’s sister, Tamar, had been raped by Amnon (2 Samuel 13:1-22), Absalom’s half brother by Ahinoam (2 Samuel 3:2). Absalom was born of Maacah (v3). In revenge, Absalom murdered Amnon (2 Samuel 13:28-20), then fled to Geshur to escape justice (v37). However, in escaping justice, Baldwin comments that Absalom also forfeits his succession to the throne.[8] That Absalom is next in line for the throne is slightly puzzling given that Kileab is David’s second born (2 Samuel 3:3). However, there is no other mention of Kileab in Scripture except for 1 Chronicles 3:1 where he goes under the name Daniel. Nonetheless, Absalom would express his kingly aspirations later on in the narrative.
What began as a friendly gesture by Joab to unite an estranged son back to his father developed into a political uprising which saw David flee Jerusalem. Despite the grievous act committed by Absalom, David still long after him, and Joab sought to reconcile the two men (2 Samuel 14:1ff). Gordon comments that Joab was concerned with more than the reconciliation of father and son.[9] Absalom was now David’s heir-apparent, and needed to be in a position to succeed David. Joab used the woman from Tekoa to exploit David’s weakness in having a lack of astuteness. It is possible that David recognised Absalom’s rite of succession and realised he needed to be located in Jerusalem rather than left in exile. Though Solomon was the one sworn to succeed David (1 Kings 1:13), there is no account of such a promise in 1 or 2 Samuel. Only the general promise that Yahweh would raise up David’s offspring to succeed him (2 Samuel 7:12). However, Absalom had murdered, and thus David may not have considered him to be an appropriate identity for his royal court (2 Samuel 14:24).
Upon Absalom’s return to Jerusalem, the author informs the reader that Absalom was highly praised for his handsome features which brought him attention and popularity (v25). It is of interest to the author’s presentation that he should make comment concerning Absalom’s appearance now rather than earlier in the narrative. The only other person to be distinguished from all of Israel because of their appearance in the presentation was Saul (1 Samuel 10:23). Therefore the comment anticipates the upcoming actions of Absalom.
After five years of dwelling in Jerusalem outside the royal court, he forces his way back into the court by providing David with an ultimatum via Joab – “Why have I come from Geshur? It would be better for me if I were still there!”‘ Now then, I want to see the king’s face, and if I am guilty of anything, let him put me to death.” (2 Samuel 14:32). While there is no recorded conversation between David and Absalom, it is apparent that David restores him fully with a kiss (v33). This placed Absalom in a position where he was able to openly pursue his kingly aspirations indicated by his acquisitions of a chariot, horses and men (1 Samuel 15:1). He then set about a propaganda campaign exploiting David’s poor administration of justice, whether alleged or actual, for the next four years (vv2-6).[10] The fact there was tension between Judah and the other tribes of Israel upon David’s return from exile may suggest there was some truth in what Absalom was claiming (2 Samuel 19:41-43). With the support of the people, he was able to claim Kingship in Hebron, including support from key personalities from David’s court (vv10-12). Such a political move forced David to flee Jerusalem for the sake of his court (v14). Such a disaster needs to be seen as a result of poor management, and unwillingness to administer justice on David’s part.
This not only had implications for David’s court. It also had implications for the covenant that Yahweh had formed with David. David’s “everlasting throne” had apparently come to an end (2 Samuel 7:16). David rightly recognised that the covenant would benefit all of humanity. Had this cosmic promise been abandoned because of David’s mismanagement? The answer is a resounding “no” as the author demonstrates Yahweh’s preservation of David.
Though David has lost power, there are three elements in these narratives that work together to restore David to the throne. Firstly, the actions of Hushai served to give David more time to make preparations for war (2 Samuel 17:7-13). Hushai was effectively planted by David as a spy in Absalom’s court to frustrate the plans of Ahithophel (2 Samuel 15:33). Hushai did this by appealing to David’s experience and reputation as a warrior making Ahithophel’s plan appear not as well considered, and best not followed (2 Samuel 17:14).
Secondly, David had the support of key people who were able to ensure David’s success. An unnamed owner of a well was prepared to conceal David’s two informers after they had been discovered by a young man who informed Absalom (vv17-19). Support was also given to David from those outside of Israel (vv27-29). This allowed David to prepare for war against Absalom.
Thirdly, just as David did not take the removal of Saul into his own hands (1 Samuel 26:10), David now refuses to end his son’s life (2 Samuel 18:5, 12), though probably more out of fatherly compassion than reverence. Notably, when David does hear of Absalom’s death, he mourns to the point of demoralising his troops (2 Samuel 18:33 – 19:4). David only stops mourning when confronted by Joab (19:5-8). Absalom is removed from power not by the direct intervention of David, rather by the freak accident of getting caught by his head in a tree while ridding his mule, and Joab and his men disregarding David’s command by ending Absalom’s life (2 Samuel 18:9-10). Again, the author distances David from the death of his rivals, and demonstrates that David’s enthronement was due to divine election and not human initiative.
The notion that David’s return to power, and the continuation was based on Yahweh’s intervention is further emphasised by his handling of affairs of Mephibosheth and Joab. In the affair of Mephibosheth, David is unable to distinguish the truth concerning Mephibosheth’s absence from his company when fleeing Jerusalem (2 Samuel 19:24-30; cf. 16:104). David’s resolve was to issue a compromised verdict ordering both parties (Mephibosheth and Ziba) to divide Saul’s estate. Again, the promotion of Amasa into Joab’s position (19:13) may have been an attempt by David to reunify the kingdom as Amasa had led the rebel army (17:25). However, this decision would result in another tragedy with the murder of Amasa by Joab (20:10).
Despite David’s faults, one thing may be said for David – he recognised Yahweh’s sovereignty. David knew it was for Yahweh to remove Saul (1 Samuel 26:10). David “inquired of the Lord” before embarking on military campaigns (1 Samuel 23:2, 4; 30:8; 2 Samuel 2:1; 5:19, 23), and in times of national disaster (2 Samuel 21:10). David was also repented when confronted with his sin as opposed to Saul, who while confessing attempted to justify his actions (2 Samuel 12:13; cf 1 Samuel 15:13-25). However, this seems to emphasise Yahweh’s sovereign choice of David rather than any positive reflection of his character. Before forming the covenant with David, Yahweh had to inform David just how sovereign he was (2 Samuel 7:8-11).
David fulfils the author’s purposes by providing an ideal model for kingship. While David himself is far from being pure and sinless, the most important aspect of David’s reign was that he was Yahweh’s sovereign choice. It is this aspect that makes the office of kingship compatible with the identity of Israel as Yahweh’s covenant people, and provides a theology of messiahship in anticipation of the fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant which came in Christ.
Bibliography:
Ackroyd, Peter R., ‘The succession narrative (so-called)’. Interpretation 35 (1981): 383-398
Anderson, A. A. Word Biblical Commentary: 2 Samuel, United States of America: Word, Inc. 1989.
Dillard, Raymond B. and Tremper Longman. An introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995
Dumbrell, W. J. Covenant and creation, Grand Rapid, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984.
Gordon, Robert P. I & II Samuel: a commentary Great Britain: Paternoster Press, 1986 Joyce Baldwin, Tyndale Old Testament commentaries, 1 and 2 Samuel. Great Britain: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988.
Klein, Ralph W. Word Biblical Commentary: 1 Samuel. United States of America: Word, Inc. 1983
Seaton, John. ‘The rise and fall of King David in the purposes of 1 & 2 Samuel’. Dissertation Exit Thesis. Presbyterian Theological Centre, 1990.
© The Student’s Desk, 2007
[1] Joyce Baldwin, Tyndale Old Testament commentaries, 1 and 2 Samuel (Great Britain: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 105 [2] Robert P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: a commentary (Great Britain: Paternoster Press, 1986), 134[3] Ralph W. Klein, Word Biblical Commentary: 1 Samuel, (United States of America: Word, Inc. 1983), 161[4] W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and creation, (Grand Rapid, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), 140[5] Robert P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: a commentary, 208
[6] Robert P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: a commentary, 244
[7] Robert P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: a commentary, 253
[8] Joyce Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 252
[9] Robert P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: a commentary, 266
[10] Robert P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: a commentary, 270
The Problems of Israel having a King
The Problems of Israel having a King
There was nothing wrong with the idea of Israel having a king. A monarch was to be an extension of Israel’s covenant experience. Kings were promised to Abram by God (Genesis 17:6), prophesied by Jacob (Genesis 49:10) and Balaam (Numbers 24:7), given provision in the law (Deuteronomy 17:14-20), and the book of Judges ends with expectation of a king (Judges 21:25, compare Deuteronomy 12:8). However, problems with kingship arose when the elders requested a king on ill-founded reasons and motives which opposed the purposes of God for Israel.
There were two reasons behind the request. Firstly, the priesthood and justice systems had become corrupt (1 Samuel 2:12-17; 8:3, 5), and secondly, the Philistine threat of Israel’s occupancy of the promised land (1 Samuel 4:1-11, 6:1-12). Israel knew Yahweh had fought wars for her based on his promise of land (Exodus 14:13-24; Deuteronomy 1:30; 3:21-22; 7:17-24; 31:6-8; 31:23; 32:29-30; Joshua 1:5-7, 9; Judges 1:2; 6:16; 7:9; 11:29). Israel should have known from her own experience to examine herself as a covenant nation and depend on God for a solution. Instead, the elders of the people decided the best solution to their domestic corruption and the Philistine threat would be to “…be like all the other nations, with a [human] king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles” (1 Samuel 8:20).
However, the request opposed God’s purposes for Israel (Exodus 19:5-6), and the statutes for the king prescribed by the law (Deuteronomy (17:14-20). Like the nation of Israel, the conduct of her king was to be different from the other nations. Israel’s king was to ensure her integrity as a covenant nation.
The request to have a king like the other nations was a rejection of theocratic rule, and would hinder Israel’s capacity to worship Yahweh. This is why Samuel gives a bleak warning of the influence their desired king will have. The appointment of a king, outside the covenant relationship, would see a man usurp the position of God, and provided an oppressive alternative to theocratic rule. Such a king would not satisfy the criteria set by the Law. Acts of worship and gifts prescribed by the law that were offered to Yahweh would now be offered to the king. People, land and tithes that would otherwise be offered to the Yahweh (Leviticus 17:2-8, 27:14-25, 27:30,32) would be taken by the king (1 Samuel 8:11-13, 15-17; 18:2). This king would accumulate wealth and resources for his own use and war campaigns (1 Samuel 8:12), and consider himself above his brothers (1 Samuel 8:17).
Despite Israel’s rejection of Yahweh as king, Yahweh in his grace gave them a king as the elders desired (1 Samuel 8:7). Within the reign of the first king, Saul took brave men into his service (1 Samue1 15:18-21; 18:2), introduced taxes (1 Samuel 17:25), and usurped the position of God by disobeying Yahweh’s instruction and declaring what was ‘good’ (1 Samuel 15:7-9). People credited their national security to Saul and David (1 Samuel 18:7), not Yahweh. Further to this, Saul thought he deserved more credit than what was given him (1 Samuel 18:8). Later in his career, Saul’s own power drove him on a murderous pursuit of David and his associates (1 Samuel 18:10-11, 20:33, 22:16-19, 23:7-29, 26:1-4,18) illustrating the inequality that had developed between the king and the people and the king’s. All of this illustrated contempt for Yahweh and his law.
Israel’s second monarch, David, was more of a model king than the first, recognising Yahweh’s rule through the monarch. David regarded Saul as Yahweh’s anointed (1 Samuel 24:6,10, 26:9,11,16,23), though he was anointed as king long before Saul’s death (1 Samuel 16:1,13). David’s reverence of Yahweh and his purposes lead peace and security of Israel (2 Samuel 7:1). However, even this great king did not meet the statutes prescribed by the law. David took eight wives (1 Samuel 18:27, 2 Samuel 3:2-5, 11:27) and concubines (2 Samuel 15:16), and committed adultery and murder (2 Samuel 11). Though Israel’s international crisis had been resolved, corruption was still rife in her administration. King David’s misconduct served to set bad precedents for his subordinates (2 Samuel 13:1-29) which finally lead to domestic turmoil (2 Samuel 13-15).
The solution to Israel’s domestic problems was clearly not to be found in a human monarch. David was not the one to establish Yahweh’s house. Rather, Yahweh would establish his house (2 Samuel 7:11b). Yahweh gives David a history lesson in that it was him who established the nation of Israel and made her prosper, and it was him that made David king over Israel (2 Samuel 7:6-9). As part of the history lesson, Yahweh enters into a covenant with David reciting the historic themes of a name, a place and a people, applying them to the present problem with David. This implies Yahweh was Israel’s true king, and he is the one who will resolve Israel’s domestic and international problems.
The fundamental problem was Israel repeatedly broke Yahweh’s covenant, and moved out of relationship with him. The request for a king was only a symptom of this cause. The solution Yahweh would provide was to fix (nata’ òèÇð) his people into covenant relationship with himself so they could no longer break his covenant and move out of relationship (2 Samuel 7:10).
Yahweh would do this through David’s offspring, or ‘seed’ (2 Samuel 7:12). This ‘seed’ cannot have its reference restricted to any one person or entity. Rather, ‘seed’ needs to be understood in a typological sense, inclusive of Solomon, Israel represented by David’s kingly line, and Christ[1]. David’s line will continue to have a relationship with Yahweh as a son (2 Samuel 7:14, compare Exodus 4:22). This relationship is intimate as it involves the punishment of wrong doing (compare Proverbs 13:24), perhaps alluding to the exile brought on by Israel’s unfaithfulness. Even still, David’s line is assured Yahweh will not withdraw his love from them (v15).
Even though a temple, or house is built by David’s son Solomon, this is only in anticipation of Christ who would build a bigger temple, manifesting as Yahweh’s kingdom. Christ would be worthy of building Yahweh’s kingdom because of his divine origin, and have an everlasting rule as the divine king, and resolving the broken relationship between Yahweh and humanity.
© The Student’s Desk, 2007
[1] Delitzsch, F. Keil, C. F. “Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes”, Vol. 2. William B. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids, Michigan – p347
How much is too much?
The Student’s Desk fortnightly devotion.
Preparation for Prayer
Psalm 37:1-7, 16-17
Do not fret because of evil men
or be envious of those who do wrong;
for like the grass they will soon wither,
like green plants they will soon die away.
Trust in the Lord and do good;
dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.
Delight yourself in the Lord
and he will give you the desires of your heart.
Commit your way to the Lord;
trust in him and he will do this:
He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn,
the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.
Be still before the Lord and wait patiently for him;
do not fret when men succeed in their ways,
when they carry out their wicked schemes.
Better the little that the righteous have
than the wealth of many wicked;
for the power of the wicked will be broken,
but the Lord upholds the righteous.
Prayer
Lord, again we thank you that we can gather in your name and meet as your people. As we meet as your people, it is our desire to thank you for all you’ve done for us, to pray to and to learn from you. Lord, we want to confess to you this morning that it’s easy to get swept up in getting more and more stuff. That we see the things that other people have got, and be jealous and want what they’ve got. Help us to see the bigger picture, Lord. Help us to put our trust in you, and seek out your purposes.
In Jesus name we pray.
Luke 12:13-21
Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”
Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”
And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”‘
“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
“This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.”
When too much is too much!
Who would like more stuff? More music, more clothes, more jewelry, more money? If you could have more of any one thing, what would it be? I certainly would like more stuff, and I’ll put my hand up for more money any day! But is this what we should be on about as Christians?
Now, I want to get one thing right from the outset. There’s nothing wrong with having stuff. There’s nothing wrong with having money and being rich. The Bible says that God can and does bless people with riches. There are plenty of rich people in the Bible. There are also plenty of poor people in the Bible, so God doesn’t bless everyone with riches. But the point is there’s nothing wrong with having stuff. What counts is our attitude to our stuff – whether we’ve got a whole lot or just the shirt on our back.
Jesus tells a story in response to some people squabbling over wealth. The story involves a farmer who’s just had a bumper crop season. He’s got more grain then he knows what to do with! “Praise God!!!” we might say. Not this guy. He sees his bumper crop and thinks “Early retirement! YIPPEE!!!” and starts making measures where he can put his feet up, and party every night.
Again, I want to say there’s nothing wrong with putting money aside for the future. It’s a good idea! But it’s a serious problem when we put our faith, our confidence in the stuff we have and not God. You see, all that stuff is temporary. It’ll all disappear one day. And we certainly can’t take it to heaven! It’s just foolish to think having stuff will solve all our problems, and God just thinks it’s a bad joke.
This is why Jesus says we’re to be rich toward God. We’re to put our faith and confidence in him. When life gets tough, which it will from time to time, we’re to turn to God, and ask him for help. We’re to seek God’s purpose in our lives by serving people and telling them about Jesus, and not our own desires.
What, or who, are you trusting in? Do you trust in your stuff? Are you hoping to get one more thing, and then everything will be ok? I hope not, because all that stuff will disappear and not be of any use to us at all. Or do you trust in God, and in what Jesus has done for you. I hope you trust in God and are seeking out his purposes, because it’s that relationship that will last, and go on forever.
© The Student’s Desk, 2007.
Publication of Devotions
For the past 5 years, I’ve been doing church services from the Spastic Centre (Allambie Heights, Sydney) on a fortnightly basis. Each time I distrbute the a print out of the passage we use and my talk. As you might imagine I have dozens of these little talks by now. They’re exactly what I hand out at the Spastic Centre, so as devotions they’re a bit rough around the edges, but I think they still have value.
Feel free to use or distribute these any way you see fit. I expect to be publishing these once a fortnight. Continue reading
The Joy of the Gospel
(Romans 5:1-11)
From chapter 3 of Romans we read how God has revealed a righteousness through faith in Christ Jesus. That those who have faith in Jesus will be justified. But how do we know? Where’s the evidence as to whether or not we’re justified? It’s not like we’re given some certification to show we’ve been justified. How do we know we have peace with God? How do we know we’ve been accepted by him? Particularly when life becomes hard and outright unbearable. Does God really care? Does being a Christian count for anything? Is the gospel what it’s cracked up to be?
Romans 5:1-11 forms the introduction of chapters 5-8 on the question of assurance. Paul’s introduction addresses three issues that appear to be a threat to our justification, before moving on to other aspects of assurance. Three issues that would appear as though we haven’t been accepted by God, and says that these things actually confirm we have been justified, we have been accepted by God. Rather than being the source of doubt and despair, we are to rejoice in them.
The kind of rejoicing Paul is talking about carries with it connotations of boasting. It’s the same kind of boasting that the Jews did in the law – “You who brag about the law…” (Romans 2:23). It is the same expression used by Paul when he tells the Corinthians to boast in the Lord – “Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”” (1 Corinthians 1:31). To rejoice means to tell your friends and to base your hopes on what you’re rejoicing about
So what are the three things which we are to rejoice about? 1) the hope of the glory of God, 2) our suffering, 3) God himself.
the hope of the glory of God
What is this glory of God? Generally it means the intentions God has for humanity. To live in proper relationship with God and in each other. In New Testament terms, the glory of God refers to the image of Christ – “And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” (2 Corinthians 3:18). The glory of God is also synonymous with salvation. Most of us would know the famous benediction “To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy” (Jude 24). So Paul is talking about the image of Christ that we are gradually being transformed into, and will be completed in the new creation.
Paul mentions that the glory of God is something we fall short of – “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (Romans 3:23). Previously, the glory of God has been a source of grief. We can’t live up to those glorious expectations that God has intended for us. But now that we have been justified through faith in Christ, that has been reversed. We now rejoice in, and anticipate the day when we will share in the glory of God. How can we do that? Because we have been justified. So rejoice in the glory of God.
•1. our sufferings
We are to rejoice in our sufferings. By “suffering” I think Paul is talking about those inconveniences we experience every day in a fallen world. It could include persecution for being Christian, but I think we need to understand suffering in the broadest sense. It could mean taking the second best job, general rejection from friends, or not indulging in much desired activities. Paul says we are to rejoice in these sufferings.
Why are we to rejoice in our sufferings? It’s not a popular message today. According to the world, if we find ourselves suffering we go and find someone to sue, or spend a lot of money on things that will distract us from our suffering. Why are we to be different? Paul gives us 3 reasons to rejoice in our sufferings: 1) God uses suffering to make us more like Christ, 2) we enjoy the benefits of a relationship with God now, 3) we have been saved from God’s wrath.
- I. God uses suffering to make us more like Christ
The fact of the matter is, if you’re breathing it’s a pretty good indication that you will experience suffering. For us as Christians, the question isn’t “how do we avoid suffering?” rather, the question is, how are you, who have been justified through faith, who enjoy peace with God and are rejoicing in his glory, how are you going to respond to suffering?
Suffering will affect us one of two ways. Firstly, suffering can corrupt you. That is, you can respond in such a way that you actually become further removed from what God intends for you. We’re tempted to kick and scream demanding our rights not giving a thought to our own responsibility or consequences, not unlike those in Romans 1:28-32. “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” Not to mention how easily we forget the hope of the glory of God.
Or secondly, suffering can refine us to be more like Christ. I read in one book that suffering “…becomes the divinely orchestrated means by which God strengthens … faithful endurance and hope by pouring out his own love and Spirit to sustain or deliver them in their distress”. If we remain mindful of the glorious knowledge that you have “…been justified through faith… have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ… have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And … rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.” (Romans 5:1-2) then the end result can only mean one thing – that you become more and more like the person of Christ, and so strengthens the hope you have of the glory of God.
This is not easy. We want respect, we want recognition, we want acceptance, and when we don’t get it the natural thing to do is demand it. Personally, I find this very challenging. There’s a few people about the place who can testify how much I can kick and scream. But Paul says no. We rejoice in our sufferings. Now this doesn’t mean you become a door mat, and let people walk over you. But it does mean you are to remember that you are justified. You have peace with God. You rejoice in the glory of God. When my bike was stolen nearly 4 years ago, friends of mine, who aren’t Christians, wanted to engage in vigilante activity in revenge. As much as I would’ve liked that, I said no. Praise be to God, they did what I asked. Did I pursue my legal rights? Yes. Bearing in mind who I was in Christ. Therefore, when you suffer, you are to respond differently.
You are to rejoice, knowing that God has complemented you with another opportunity to grow in the image of Christ, and display his likeness as a witness, as a shameless boasting, of what Christ has done for you.
- II. We enjoy the benefits a relationship with God now.
This growing in the image of Christ leads to a greater conviction of the hope that we have of the glory of God. However, this hope isn’t a vague distant hope. It is a hope that we experience now as Christians, and it is a hope that will not fail us. Why? Because God is the one who has initiated this hope. It is God who pours out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. How do we know that? Because it was the same love that prompted God to send his son to the cross. Ultimately our hope isn’t founded on that moment of jubilation when we first understood the gospel. Our hope isn’t founded on the number of “Christian” things we did this week. Our hope isn’t founded on how vibrant our church is. Our hope is founded on the fact that Christ died for the ungodly. Christ died for the unworthy. Christ died for you. That is why we have a hope that will not disappoint. Because it’s got nothing to do with us. It’s got everything to do with God. God’s love came to us through Christ in our present condition – while we were warring against God. Therefore we ought to have every confidence in the hope of the glory of God on the basis of what God has done in Christ, and not only persevere with our sufferings, but to rejoice in them.
- III. We have been saved from God’s wrath
Now, when we talk about being saved, we generally mean by that we have been saved from God’s impending judgement. But Paul has another perspective of God’s judgement in mind. Paul also speaks of God’s wrath being revealed from heaven NOW (Romans 1:18). This really struck me. I don’t know about you, but, I tend to think of the wrath of God in terms of fire and brimstone in the end times. And Paul does talk about God’s wrath in the sense of final judgment – “But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.” (Romans 2:5). But there’s also this second sense that God is revealing his wrath now. This is a world under God’s judgment. This is a world that has been condemned by God. This is the reason behind the rampant depravity that Paul lists. God has simply given men over to their desires (Romans 1:24, 26, 28). Wicked men do what they do simply because they do not have that basis of a proper relationship with God.
To give an example of how a world under God’s wrath operates, I was reading “A Beautiful Mind” the biography of John Forbes Nash, a mathematician who studied around 1930s – 1940s. In that book, the author talks about how mathematicians tried to reduce human behaviour down to a mathematical equation. Imagine that. You’re behaviour could be determined by adding up some numbers! This is study without God. This is study without the basis of who God is, or who we are.
But we, as Christians have been saved from this. It is part of being justified. We have the revelation of God, and we have a solid basis of how we’re to relate to the world. We know human behaviour can never be reduced to maths because we are made in God’s image, and all the complexities that go with it. For us who are studying, perhaps this is something to bear in mind. It doesn’t mean you can’t trust what non-Christians say. But it does mean you always ask “Does this fit in with what I know about God?” Again, this depravity finds its way into our entertainment. I must confess I’m feeling proud of my self because I have managed to watch 2 episodes of “Swapping Spouses”. For those who don’t know, it’s a TV show involving 2 families, and the two wives of the two families live with the other family for a week.
Now, at one level, this is an interesting social experiment – to see how someone would cope in a different demographic that they’ve haven’t had exposure to. At another level, it’s outright disturbing. Someone has actually thought that meddling with people’s family life would make a good entertainment. Someone actually thought that this would be a good program to promote and make money.
And it’s not just “Swapping Spouses”, but all these reality TV programs where, from what I can see, relationships come a distant second. Where people are perceived as objects to be manipulated to win the game. How can relationships, the very thing we were made for, be reduced to this? How can such behaviour ever be commended, or even tolerated? Because God has handed humanity over to their own desires as part of his wrath. But God has grabbed us with his might, and brought us back in relationship with himself. We now have a basis for right living, and right relationships.
Therefore, when you suffer, rejoice, because you know you have been saved from God’s wrath.
we are to rejoice in God
Finally we rejoice in God. Rather then coming to us with judgement, God comes to us with reconciliation. We no longer dread God, but we rejoice in him. It’s because of God that we can have this different perspective on suffering. It’s because of God that we have been saved from his wrath. It’s because of God we have been reconciled back to himself through Jesus. If it weren’t for God, we wouldn’t be able to rejoice in our sufferings or our salvation.
How’s your Christian walk going? Is it bubbling over with thanksgiving and joy? Or is it dry and stagnant? Do you doubt your salvation because you suffer? Do you doubt that the gospel has the power to deliver you from God’s impending judgment? REJOICE! Know for certain that if you have faith in Christ, you have been accepted and justified by God. Take pride in the gospel, and boast about it. It is sufficient to deliver you from God’s impending judgment. We have been given a wonderful gospel, a radical gospel that demands a response of joy. Let’s look at the gospel afresh. Let’s examine our lives and the way we interact with the world, and respond to the gospel rejoicing.
Stewardship – the property manager in us all!
(Acts 4:32 – 5:11)
Stewardship is one of those issues we, as Christians, don’t really discuss. So when we use the word stewardship, what do we actually mean? I looked up steward in my English dictionary, and this was one of the definitions it gave: property manager: somebody who manages the property, finances, or household of another.
That’s an interesting definition isn’t it? Have you ever consider yourself to be property manager? Someone who doesn’t own the property themselves, but they are responsible for the property as if they do own it.
Well, if we are property managers, whose property are we talking about? God’s property! And our basis for us being Genesis 2:15 “The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.”
Now whenever I read this verse, I end up with an image in my head of Adam with a garden hoe doing the weeding. I think what is being presented here is much bigger then that. Man is being put in charge of everything God has just made. Not just a little English style garden bed, but the whole creation. In 1:28, we’re given a much broader presentation of the same command, “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
This presupposes that God created humanity as responsible creatures with abilities to make decisions. It concerns me when I here people talking as though God, or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit does everything for them, and they expect they will do everything for them. Now, I don’t want to take from God’s sovereignty. God is all knowing, all doing, ever present. God alone is to be glorified for whatever happens. And there is a time to be patient, and wait on God. But within God’s provision, we also exercise responsibility and choice. And I believe that is one of the ways God is glorified. Through us, as humanity, being the creature he made us to be by using the responsibility he created us with, God is glorified in that.
This is why we have this command to fill the earth, and subdue it. Implicit in this command is the idea to expand Eden so it covers the whole earth. Who’s going to do that? God? No. Humanity? Yes, as property managers. Who’s going to get the glory? Humanity? No. God? Yes, because creation belongs to him, not humanity. We see an instance of humanity exercising its authority in 2:19-20 “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.”
In this, we see humanity making decisions in the naming animals. But what is more striking is God’s actions in this. God is getting humanity to be part of his own creation process. Of all the creatures God had made, humanity was the only creature to be let in on God’s affairs, and have mastery over creation as property managers. Further, this responsibility and ability to make decisions is why God is able to give us commandments and prohibitions – “And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17). This commandment again implies humanity is able to make decisions and take initiative. Humanity is able to even make decisions contrary to God’s will. Otherwise, why would we need commandments?
This brings me to my next point – the current state of our stewardship. Humanity did do what is contrary to God’s will, and as a consequence, humanity suffered. Let’s have a quick look at what happened 3:1-7:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'”
“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
Did you hear the sequence of deception? Allow me to paraphrase: Did God REALLY say that? He can’t have meant that! If God is all good, he must’ve meant something else. In fact, God wasn’t really serious about the consequences. God is just trying to stop me having fun and doing what I want to do. In fact, God is one big party pooper!
And so we get a fundamental shift in thinking (verse 7). We’ve moved away from thinking of how we can honour God and promote his purposes, to what’s in it for me, how can I get something out of it? This way of thinking impacts every facet of life. It impacts the way we think about family, money, work, education, sex, charity, even church. You name it!
This kind of thinking is known as sin. We are sinful, and we live in a sinful world. If you don’t believe me, watch the news. In Galatians 5:19-21, Paul gives a list of acts that come from sin: “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.” Jesus lists a few actions himself: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” (Matthew 15:19).
As you watch the news, see how many of these acts you can find in the bulletin. It wont be hard. This activity of sin in the world impacts our stewardship. It impacts the way we manage God’s property.
This is why we have the extremely rich, and extremely poor. Why North Koreans starve, while their government makes nuclear warheads. Why we hear of sexual assaults, rape, and murder. Why politicians squabble over votes, and outrages superannuation payouts. Why we would step over a homeless person to close a business deal. If we were to think about them, we’d probably throw out some spare change on the way, and call it ‘charity’. All because there has been this fundamental shift in thinking from how can I glorify God, to what’s in it for me?
However, in Acts 4:32-37, we find something completely different. We find a community of people who turn the effects of sin on stewardship on its head. We find people who are prepared to share their possessions, and not regard them as their own.
What could possibly have such an impact on people that they’re more concerned for the community then themselves? The gospel. The gospel had a profound impact on their stewardship.
In verse 33, we read how the apostles testified to the resurrection of Christ. But they also testified with great power. This meant they didn’t go around with a watered down version of the gospel. They didn’t hold back on the details. They spoke the gospel with all its fullness, and it impacted they hearts and minds of believers.
How is it that the gospel had such an impact? The death and resurrection of Christ has changed the way we approach God and each other. We can now approach God as forgiven people, with total confidence in the sacrifice that Jesus made on our behalf. And the resurrection of Jesus assures us that there is much more to live and hope for. For in the resurrection of Jesus we anticipate our own resurrection and inheritance of eternal life. A life of everlasting fellowship with God. We no longer live for this life alone, but we live for the life to come. Therefore, we now live as the people of God now.
This impacted the way they regarded they’re own property. They no longer saw their own property as something that belonged to them, but they saw their property as a tool for helping the needy: “There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.” (Acts 4:34-35).
Now, I want to pause here and ask, to what extent this passage is an example for us to follow? Are we to sell all our belongings and take a vowel of poverty? No I don’t think so. note the clause in the verse. “from time to time.” This wasn’t the norm. Rather, it was the exception. The selling of property only occurred in response to need.
However it is an example to us in terms of attitude to possessions. Luke goes on to give two case studies to illustrate that property management is an issue of attitude, not action. There is no “get holy quick scheme” to be had in charity. Case study no.1: Barnabas. He sells a field and places the money at the disciples feet, presumably for distribution. No problem. Case study No.2: Ananias and Sapphira. They did the same. But the outcome is somewhat different. They both end up dead.
What’s the difference? The difference was one of attitude. Barnabas gave out of concern for the poor. Ananias and Sapphira did it for a show. They did it for applause. The problem wasn’t that Ananias and Sapphira held some back. I’m sure if Ananias and Sapphira went to the apostles and said, “look, we want to help out, but, we need a little something for ourselves”, their wouldn’t have been a problem. But Peter’s questioning reveals the deception. Peter’s question in v4 indicates that there was nothing compelling them to sell their land and give to the apostles. They could’ve done what ever they wanted with the land for all Peter cared! In fact, we have seen from 4:34 that this was not the norm. This was the exception in response to need that aroused. If Ananias and Sapphira wanted the money, they were welcomed to it!
So for what possible reason did they sell their property and give to the apostles? It was to gain the praise of men. Their conspiracy was uncover when Peter plainly asked the now widowed Sapphira, “is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” and she answered, “Yes, that is the price.” And they buried her next to her husband.
Stewardship under the gospel is primarily not about action. It’s not about ticking boxes. I also want to add a pastoral note that self sacrifice does not necessarily equate to good stewardship either. On my way back from holidays, I stopped by a friend’s place. She is severely disabled with rheumatoid arthritis, and though she is a fully grown adult, her body is the size of a five year old. As a consequence, her body can only handle small quantities of food. She cannot sit down to a full size meal like most people. So allot of her time is taken by eating lots of small meals. She also loves the Lord dearly, and longs to serve him. However, she feels that her dietary requirements are taking up to much time that she could be spending with the Lord and other people. Her resolve has been to skip meals. This may have an adverse effect on her health and she may even die. I spoke with her about this, and encouraged her, very strongly, not to skip meals as this would be counter-productive in her service to God.
Stewardship can be a very complex matter, and prayerful consideration must come before self-sacrifice. Stewardship is about a heart felt attitude in response to eternal life that Christ has won for us. Stewardship under the gospel is a concern to honour God and promote his purposes, specifically, to promote the gospel.
As Christians we should not be preoccupied with the Genesis 3 question – “what’s in it for me, how can I get something out it?” Rather we should be asking the gospel question – “How can I honour God, and promote his gospel?” I want to close with two challenging questions:
Question 1: Do you perceive all of your possessions – material, financial, physical, intellectual – as belonging to God, and you’re just the property manager?
Question 2: Are you concerned to see the gospel being promoted? Again, I’m not suggesting that we should take a vowel of poverty, or give huge sums of money to the church; but are you prepared to use what you have, with prayerful consideration, to promote God’s gospel?
© The Student’s Desk, 2007.
Questioning Times
(Psalm 44)
As Christians we are aware of God’s many provisions. And because of Jesus we can especially testify to God’s goodness towards us. So when hardship comes our way we are at times perplexed as to why bad things happen to God’s people.
Most Christians have been there. We’ve been cruising along in our Christian lives, and without warning, disaster strikes. A debilitating illness, financial difficulties, a relationship breakdown, a major accident, they all seem to strike randomly when we are least expecting it. We all struggle to understand the reasons behind disasters. We all struggle to incorporate it into our theology, and what we understand of the Bible.
But one thing is sure, we are not alone. In they heyday of the Kingdom of Israel, the Psalmist in Psalm 44 grapples with the same question. We don’t know what the disaster was, or when it occurred, but it was a disaster of exilic proportions (v13). The greatest blessing Israel had ever received was occupancy of the Promised Land, and there was no greater disaster that could have happened to Israel then to be driven from it. Whether or not the Psalm refers to the exile is debated. Nonetheless, we’re meant to understand that this disaster posed a major problem to Israel.
The problems of understanding how the disaster could have come about begin with the identity of Israel. You see, Israel was no ordinary people! These were people that God himself had brought out of slavery. He took this people from the Egyptians which treated them like dirt, to be his treasured possession. God took this people who, in human terms, had no special purpose in life, and set them aside for his eternal purposes (Exodus 19:5-6). This involved living under God’s rule as their King. To this end, God gave them a land where this could be done (verses 1-2).
So why on earth has a disaster come on Israel if they were set aside for God’s purposes? Well, maybe because the King made cuts in the defence budget. Maybe the technology wasn’t up to date. Maybe there wasn’t enough new recruits in the reserves. But this can’t be right! The Psalmist openly recognises that though they were out there on the battle fields of Canaan, their efforts would have been futile if it weren’t for the sovereign provision of God (verses 3-8). The most formidable weapons of the day in the way of the sword, bow and arrow, don’t rate a mention in what contributed to Israel’s victories in battle (v6). It was all God! All the praise and glory arising from and victories could only be given to God.
So why the sudden role reversal? Before, it was Israel’s enemies that were on the retreat and being humiliated (verse 5, 7). Now it’s Israel’s turn. They’re the ones on the retreat. They’re the ones being humiliated (verse 10). What about their relationship with God and being a treasured possession set aside for God’s purposes? It’s as if they’ve been sold out, and God’s getting the raw end of a bad deal (verse 12). An Israelite couldn’t even walk down the street without attracting criticism, or being the butt of a joke by other people (verse 13-16). What’s happened? They might as well have been thrown into exile (verse 11).
Well, maybe exile has got something to do with it! God did decree if Israel was not careful to observe all the regulations set out in the law, God would scatter them among the nations and into exile (Deuteronomy 28:25, 64; 30:17-18). But things don’t add up on this account either. According to the Psalmist, they had been faithful to the covenant (verse 17); they hadn’t gone off exploring alternate lifestyles (verse 18); they hadn’t forgotten God, or what he had done for them by worshipping other gods (v20). In sum, they had been faithful just as God requested them to be! There was no obvious reason as to why Israel should be suffering.
Failing to come up with a logical explanation for what has occurred, the Psalmist comes to an amazing position of faith and realises two important facts.
Firstly, the Psalmist realises that for all the confusion and suffering, in some way God will be glorified, and his purposes will be achieved (verse 22). The Apostle Paul picks up the same verse and uses it in his letter to the Romans (Romans 8:36). In this part of the letter, Paul is saying despite the most trying sufferings, we will never be cut off from fellowship with God, which is God’s ultimate purpose for each of us. God’s ultimate purpose was perhaps not known to the Psalmist. But what he did know was that the disaster was not outside of God’s control, and nothing was going to thwart God’s purposes.
Secondly, because God was in control of the situation, there was nothing they could do to remedy the disaster (verse 25). But this also meant there was every reason to petition God to reverse the situation. In verses 9-14, the personal pronoun “you” is used six times in reference to God. The Psalmist is fully aware that this was God’s doing. And if God can get them into this mess, God can get them back out of it. It’s to God alone that the Psalms looks for a resolution to the disaster. But on what basis? Because of whom they are as God’s people? No! Because the Psalmist has just offered a lavish sacrifice in the temple? No! Because it would be really neat to walk down the street without hearing someone say, “Did you hear the one about the Israelite who…”? No! God is petitioned on the basis of his great love. On the basis of his character and who he is (verse 26).
No amount of theological reflection can ease the pain and struggles that often accompany disaster. Just ask anyone caught up in the recent bombings in London. To justify suffering would seem to go beyond human wisdom. Particularly when the reasons behind a disaster elude us. However, as Christians, we have fellowship with God whose purpose it is to reconcile people to himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus. As the Apostle Paul says, “God did not keep back his own Son, but he gave him for us. If God did this, won’t he freely give us everything else?” (Romans 8:32).
© The Student’s Desk, 2007.
How Extensive is God’s Love?
(Luke 15)
How extensive is God’s love? What is it like? Who does it extend to? And, how does it affect our attitude towards others as Christians?
These are all interesting questions. They are questions that were raised by the Pharisees and teachers of the law – the religious officials. Not in the polite “Dear Jesus” kind of way, but by their actions. We are told in that they were muttering against Jesus because he was socialising with tax collectors and sinners, and openly welcomed welcoming them (v2 ). These two groups of people were considered to be the scum of Jewish society – human garbage.
So if Jesus was who he was claiming to be – God’s Messiah – what was he doing hanging out with tax collectors in sinners? To draw a modern parallel, I guess it would be something like Jesus going to Kings Cross, and spend the night wining and dining with drug dealers and prostitutes. What would we think of our King Jesus then? What would the response be in the Christian community? Would we question Jesus’ Messiahship? Would we doubt that Jesus is God’s son? Would we be any different from the Pharisees and teachers of the law? Would we?
In response to this self-righteous attitude, Jesus tells three parables in Luke 15 that communicate that God is a God who searches, finds, and cares for sinners. We would profit greatly from reflecting on these parables, since in these parables we find answers to the questions I’ve just raised. Though we may know the answers, we may seldom think of their implications. So let’s raise those questions again, one at a time, and have a good solid reminder.
Firstly, What is God’s love like?
The first two parables indicate that God’s love is a searching love. Looking for that which has been lost.
The first two parables are about two people of humble means. The first is about a shepherd (vv4-7) who has a mob of 100 sheep. From the commentary I read, most shepherds had a mob of sheep up to 200, and 300 was considered a large mob. So 100 sheep was quite a small mob. We are told that 1 of the 100 goes missing, so he leaves the remaining 99 sheep and searches for the missing sheep.
Similarly, in the second parable (vv8-9), we are told of a woman who has 10 coins, taken to be 10 days wages. One coin goes missing, so she turns the house up side down, cleaning and sweeping, looking for this one lost coin. The fact that the woman needs to light a lamp would suggest she has no windows in her house, indicating her humble means.
So it’s to be quite expected that the shepherd will run off and find his lost sheep, and the woman will turn the house upside down looking for a days wage. When they find what they have lost they rejoice, and savour the moment with friends.
Both these parables serve to remind us that God’s love is a searching love. This love will spare no expense for those who a lost. Just like the shepherd who left 99 sheep in the open to find the one sheep and the woman who did not stop looking, until she found her lost coin. God’s love is searching out his people.
Occasionally, I hear someone say that they’ve found God. I think to myself, “That’s interesting. I didn’t know God was lost. Where was he?”
Again, in this post-modern society, it tends to be popular just to let people find their own way to God. Yet from this passage, and others, it’s clearly not the person who looks for God. In Roman’s 3:11 we are told “there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.”
Rather, it is God who puts in the hard yards, searching, calling, and bringing people, you and me, into his kingdom. When a sinner does come into God’s kingdom, heaven throws a party (v10), just as the shepherd and the woman in the parable celebrated when they found what they were searching for.
Don’t you think that’s amazing? The day you came into a personal relationship with Jesus, the day you were saved, God and all his angels threw a party. I can’t get over that! So God’s love is a searching love.
Secondly, who is this love for? How far does it extend?
I think we’re use to the idea that God loves sinners. We can handle the idea that people aren’t perfect. It’s quite normal to end up with a speeding ticket, or a copy of a friend’s CD, not that I’m advocating that behaviour. But, we can handle God’s love extending to those sorts of people.
But what about someone who’s really fouled up? What about some who’s made a total mess of things, and their life is barely worth salvaging. The kind of people I’ve heard being referred to as a “waste of space”. Does God’s love extend to those sorts of people?
In the third parable, we meet such a person. The younger son of two (vv11-19). The parable involves a common Jewish family with uncommon circumstances. Two sons, a father, and an estate. We are told of a younger son that does everything a Jewish boy would never do. It is a parable designed to be shocking to those who heard it.
So what does this younger son do? Firstly, he demands his inheritance from his father. This is not the polite request for a loan to see out the week like young people might request today. Like today, the recipients of the inheritance didn’t get it until the person had died. So this is much more then a request for money. Loaded in this demand is the desire to terminate the relationship he has with his father, and cut himself off from the family unit. He wants for himself a life of independence. Michael Frost, an Australian preacher, interprets the words of the young son as “Dad, I wish you were dead!” While some commentators reject this interpretation, it nonetheless captures the blatant disregard for his father, and the duty owed to his family.
Just imagine, tomorrow morning while sipping your coffee, your teenage child comes in and says, “hurry up and die so I can get my inheritance!” How would you respond? Would your first response be to reach for your cheque book? Hand them the cheque saying, “There you go, have yourself a good time!” Somehow I very much doubt it.
Remarkably, this is what the father did. OK maybe they didn’t have cheque books in those days, but we are told in the same verse that he divides the property. No sooner does the son receive his inheritance than he takes off to a distant country. This moving away, I think, demonstrates two things:
1) It is a further expression of cutting ties with his family. There was no Telstra in 1stcentury Rome. No mobile phones! (Just how did a young person cope?) So being away from home, he had no means to communicate with his family. No “Hi dad, how’s it going? I saw the Colosseum today!” His family was as good as dead to him, and visa versa.
2) I think it demonstrates how he removed himself from God. Even though the text doesn’t say, I’m presuming the people who heard this parable would have imagined that this family lived in or near Jerusalem since that is where Jesus is heading when he tells this parable. And Jerusalem was where the temple was, which represented God’s presence, and Israel was God’s nation. So to remove yourself from Jerusalem, to move out of Israel, would be to remove yourself from God, to deny your religion.
Are you starting to feel the gravity of this son’s sin? But wait there’s more! As a special addition, he squanders his wealth in wild living. He indulges in what would be the 1st century equivalent of ‘sex, drugs and rock and roll’, and has himself a good time. This is a young Jew behaving anything like a Jew!
So what’s he done?
He’s shown disregard for his family.
He’s shown disregard for God, and his religion.
He has indulged in sensuous living.
See, this younger son is a bit more than the sheep who got left behind isn’t he? Or the coin that slipped through the hole in the purse. He’s done his level best to offend his family and God. Anyone would be offended by this son’s behaviour. He’s really not the type you’d invite for afternoon tea. The severity of his sin is illustrated by the severity of the circumstances measured out to him:
1) He’s out of money. I can just imagine this son, going to his favourite night club, and I’m being metaphoric, and at the end of the night, he whips out his trusty credit card to pay his tab, puts it through the machine, and the message comes back “TRANSACTION DENIED. INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.” So he begs the bar tender to try again, and the same thing happens. Ever had that happen to you? It’s a horrible feeling. As a result, this son is promptly ousted by the bouncers giving him the kind advice not to come back on account of his physical well being.
2) The country he’s living in experienced a severe famine. From that we can assume food prices are going up, inflation is out of control, poverty is around every corner, and to use another metaphor, the country is going into recession.
3) From riches to rags, he’s impoverished! His independent life has become a life of dependence. The only job he could get was feeding pigs, another aspect of the parable that is meant to shock us. Pigs were regard as unclean by the Jews. If you came in contact with something that was unclean, you were made ceremoniously unclean, and had to purify yourself before God. Therefore, under no circumstances were Jews to go anywhere near pigs. So what was a young Jewish man doing feeding pigs? Further this job couldn’t even put bread on the table, as we are told “He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating,…” (v16)
This is a strong indication of how desperate his situation is. No family, no money, no property, and the only job he can get, doesn’t even provide for his own needs. He’s a young man, in an impoverished situation, in an impoverished country. Once more, he deserved it. As a Jew he couldn’t have sunk any lower.
After a while, he does a reality check, and works out he’d be better off at home than living off pig pods. I’ve never tasted one, but I can’t imagine they’d be all that satisfying. But notice how he doesn’t presume upon the grace of his father? He doesn’t think to himself, “I’ll just rock up on the front door step with a plastic bag of dirty clothes, say ‘sorry dad’ and everything will be cool”. No! He knows he’s messed up. He knows he’s burnt his bridges. He knows he can’t assume the relationship he had before with his father, at least he not on his part. He knows he has no claim on his father’s mercy. This then is a true image of repentance.
So, he resolves to hire himself out to his father as a slave, the lowest category of employment. It would be similar to putting your name down for casual work today, and hoping the phone will ring. The work and income aren’t guaranteed. Maybe they’ll call you, maybe they won’t. Such is his desperation. I can just imagine this son on his way home practicing his speech over and over and over again in his head, getting the delivery just right. Will his dad give him the job, despite everything he’s done?
As this son gets nearer to home, we are told the father saw him while he was still off in the distance, and runs to him (v20). I don’t know if this is right or wrong, but I often picture a fat man in long robs hurtling down the street unable to control his emotions – a most undignified scene indeed. But such is the love and compassion he has for his son! I can imagine the son trying to commence his well-rehearsed speech, and every time he tries to commence his speech he just gets smothered in more and more hugs and kisses.
Refusing to hear the speech, the father calls to his servants, “Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate.” (vv22-23). The son didn’t get the job he was hoping for. Rather he received complete and full restoration. He was given full rights as a son. Further, the father puts on one big party. The fattened calf we read about was reserved for religious festivals such as Passover. So this is not your usual BBQ that we enjoy as Australians when friends and relatives come ‘round. It’s not as if they ran out of meat and they just happened to have a spare cow around the back. This is a big deal.
This action on the part of his father illustrates the love God has for sinners. God isn’t leaning on the front gate wondering whether or not people will come in. He is out there, working in the world pursuing sinners and bringing them into his kingdom, and every time a sinner comes into his kingdom a party erupts in heaven.
Amongst the many pages of reading I do for my studies, I found a story of a modern day lost son. After a number of years he writes to his parents saying, “I’ve messed up, I’m sorry. I’ll be passing by on such a day, if your prepared to forgive me, please hang a white handkerchief in my bedroom window. If I don’t see it, I’ll just keep going.”
So he comes around the corner, with his heart in his mouth, hoping, just hoping to see this white handkerchief. When he spots the house he finds it draped in white sheets, white towels, white pillow cases, white tea towels, any white material his parents could get their hands on! Do you think he got the idea that his parents wanted him back? Of course he did!
Again this story illustrates just how much God welcomes sinners. But God didn’t demonstrate his forgiveness by hanging out white tea towels. He demonstrated it by hanging his only Son on a Roman cross, cancelling the debt that you owe him. Do you think God wants you back in a relationship with him? You better believe it!
If you are reading this, and you haven’t experienced the love of God, and know what it is to be in relationship with him, can I say to you that God desires very much to have you back, despite anything you may have or haven’t done. I’d encourage you to find a Christian whom you can speak to, and learn what it is to live in a proper relationship with God.
So God’s love is a searching love, and it is an extensive love.
Thirdly, for us who claim to be Christians, how should God’s love affect our lives? How should it affect our attitude toward others?
The parable continues with the focus on the older son. While the home welcoming party for the younger son continues on into the evening, the older son comes home from the days work. As he nears the house, he hears the commotion of the party. So he inquires as for the reason for the party, and is promptly told, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ (v27). The older son, far from impressed, is enraged with fury, and has it out with his father. Why? There are a few clues in the heated argument he has with his father (vv28-30). He exclaims that he’s been slaving away, and working his guts out for his father, and has never disobeyed his orders. In other words, he had a works based mentality. His relationship with his father was all about ticking boxes. It wasn’t based on love. He’s complaint is that a huge injustice has taken place, and he draws up a ledger of what the other son has done. “It’s not fair!” he’s saying. Ever heard that from your kids?
Because of his works based mentality, he’s missed the point of what it is to be in relationship with his father. Being in relationship with his father was never about ticking boxes so he could get this, that, and the other thing. Being in a relationship with his father meant being in constant relationship with him, and sharing in everything he owns and does. The father reminds him that he need not have worked for anything because everything that belonged to the father was there for his enjoyment. But because he is so pre-occupied with his own concerns and his works based mentality, we find the father having to coerce his son to be involved in what he is doing, and to celebrate the return of his brother.
Our relationship with God is simular. We are not to slip into a works based mentality – “if I’ll do this, then God will do that.” We are in constant fellowship with God, not just for an hour on Sunday. We have been given his creation to enjoy. Most importantly, we are to take part in God’s activity in the world.
Similar to the older son, we too can be so pre-occupied with our own concerns, we can miss the point of what it means to be a Christian. God longs for us to be involved in what he is doing. He’s already at work in the world, and he’s calling us to the party!
For as long as I can remember, I have been trying to prove to myself, and the rest of the world, that I am not disabled. Yet somehow reality keeps dictating otherwise. In the 10 years or so since high school, I really had very little to do with disabled people. So you might well imagine the last thing I wanted to do was walk into a room full of disabled people. Yet I knew God was at work amongst disabled people. And I believed, and still believe that God is inviting me to the party. Before I could answer the invitation, I had a real mountain of pride and apprehension to climb over.
God longs for each of us to be involved in what he is doing. This doesn’t necessarily mean uprooting your life and going to Bible College, though for some, it may mean this. It might mean simply sharing a cup of coffee with a non-Christian, or offering a listening ear to a struggling Christian. While for others, it may mean going to Kings Cross, and witnessing to drug dealers and prostitutes. Our Church is involved in many different ministries, and it may be worthwhile for you to pray about them, and discuss your involvement with an elder. A list of just some of the ministries can be found on the inside cover of The Sentinel under Elders Ministry Oversights.
Finally, we’re not told what the son does. We’re left in standing in the older son’s shoes. What we he do? Will he stand hard and fast to his legalistic ways, or will he rejoice with his father?
What will you do? Will you remain pre-occupied with your own concerns? Or will you join in God’s party?
© The Student’s Desk, 2007.
Publication of Christian writings
G’day,
I’m getting sick of my articles, sermons and essays sitting on my hard drive doing absolutely NOTHING when they could be out there teaching, rebuking and encouraging YOU. Yes you, sitting behind the screen there – hello! I’m also frustrated at my SLACKNESS for not authoring a website where you can download all this stuff!
So! I’ll be uploading my writings in here. Hey! If someone is going to do half the work for me and not charge me, I’ll be in that. Some of this stuff I haven’t looked at in years, and I haven’t edited them before uploading. So there might be all manner of typos and stray thoughts. If you happen to find any, please let me know.
I also believe you can leave comments on here which is the best part! That means you can write something encourage, write a rebuttal of doctrinal proportions, or say I’m a complete an utter goose for believing this stuff! Either way, I hope you find these writings thought provoking, and would like to hear from you.
Be sure to check here regularly, or I think you can subscribe (??). I’ll be uploading more stuff in time to come.
Book Mark
Central Coast Weather
- ABC News
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
The Student's Desk 