Born Again

How is it that I’ve been a follower of Christ for 18+ years, but I’m not baptized? Let’s talk about baptism; let’s talk about what it means, what it should mean, and why I take it so seriously. Also, as of recording this, my baptism date might be sooner than you think.

Season 1 Episode 13

And now, why are you delaying? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’Acts 22:16 CSB

00:01:03	Hey guys, welcome back to PSALMS to God podcast! Today's episode is on why I’m not baptized or rather it’s on what I think of baptism—I don’t know, y’all, we're talking about baptism. We're talking about being born again and all of the things that go along with it.
00:01:23	So I started believing in God at a very, very young age; and when I think about the fact that I grew up predominantly in a Baptist Church, it is very surprising that I'm not baptized, because Baptists put a huge emphasis on baptism. The main problem I had growing up with baptism was that I didn't understand it. I knew that Jesus was baptized and I knew that it was something that people did but outside of a tradition, I didn't understand how it fit into things. The main teaching that was prevalent, I guess in my family and the church that I grew up in, was that baptism represented the death and resurrection of Jesus. Now that's not wrong; it's true. It does represent the death and resurrection of Jesus, but as a child what I couldn't get over was the fact that people was getting baptized well before Jesus died. And a lot of these people didn't think Jesus was going to die. The disciples were confused. They did not actually think Jesus was going to die. They thought He was going to establish His kingdom right there in Israel, right then in their lifetime, that He was going to expel the Romans and they were going to live happily ever after. They were not following Him thinking, “oh, we’re going to follow You for a couple of years, and then You're going to get handed over to the Romans and they're going to crucify You.” Like, that's not what they thought was going to happen. So my question was always, like, something else has to be tied to this whole concept of baptism, because all of this was going on—in fact, John the Baptist was baptizing people before Jesus even started His ministry. So what I really wanted to understand as a child was how all of these things tied in.
00:03:31	There is super simple answers to these questions—like, number one: Messianic prophecy. All of these people were awaiting the Messiah; they may not have known it was Jesus, specifically, but they knew that the Messiah was supposed to come. And then, of course, all of this ties into the feasts and the sacrificial system that God laid out from The Exodus onward. These are things that Paul refers to as “the shadow of things to come.”[1] They all pointed to Jesus, and Jesus fulfilled the requirements. This is why Jesus was crucified at Passover: He was the Passover Lamb, and that's why it's important that Passover and the resurrection—well Passover and the crucifixion—happen simultaneously, and then, you know, the resurrection happening a few days later. This is how everything plays out—it's all symbolic. It's all fulfillment a prophecy that’s all playing in to the Baptism. And that would have been a very simple answer for the people at the church to give to me, but they couldn't.
00:04:42	And when they couldn't answer my question, I didn't think they knew what they were talking about. So I wouldn't let them baptize me, because I felt like you should know what you're talking about and what you're doing if you're going to baptize me, and I should fully understand what it is that I'm committing to and what I am staying with this action. I've always been someone who wants to know what it is that I'm saying and what it means. I think think it’s a very deliberate action, and I saw it as something that was very serious, and not something to do just because everyone's doing it, not to do it just because that's what is expected, or that's with traditional, and that is what prevented me from getting baptized at the moment that I decided that Jesus was Who He said He was.
00:05:36	Photocredit: Unsplash.com/Jong Marshes Fast forward into present-day and you know, I did my studying I started to understand more about what Baptism is and how it plays out—and you know, actually, before I continue the story, before I start to get into where I am in the baptism journey, I actually want to stop and talk some more about what baptism is, because we live in a society and a time where we are blessed beyond our wildest imagination. Yeah there's a lot of stuff going on; it's crazy. Things could definitely be better. That’s, you know, the problem with living in a fallen world, there's always something to complain about, but in previous times... So, like, if we go back to the days of Moses, and we go back to the days of Jesus, there were a lot of people who could not read. Bible were not just out for people to consume, or I guess at that time, the Old Testament was not just out for people to consume. It was written on scrolls kept by the scribes and the priests, and you had to go to them to get knowledge and to get the Word of God, unless God blessed you and came and talked to you directly. Moving into, you know, the Dark Ages, there were Bibles and there was texts, but they were only translated into Latin. So if you didn't speak Latin, you couldn't read it. Once again, there were only certain people who were actually afforded the privilege of an education to know how to read. Then of course you know they started translating Bibles into the common vernacular, and so people could read it if they could speak that language, but once again you still had to be able to read, you still had to have access to the book, and that struggle has been going on. You know, it went on for a long time. I mean obviously I am a descendant of slaves. My ancestors were not allowed to read, therefore, they would not have been able to read a Bible, even though it would have been available in English, They couldn't have bought a Bible either. All kinds of problems that would have existed with that…
00:07:54	But in today's society, not only do most people have the ability to read, we have audio books so it can be read to you. We have Google and we have Ctrl+F—! Y'all, you could find anything with Ctrl+F—or Cmd+F, for my fellow Mac users out there. But you can go on Google and you can type in, you know, “verses about baptism,” and just find list of verses about baptism. You don't have to memorize the whole Bible, or you know, search through it on your own to find it, which is a blessing. We can get to information so much quicker that way, and we should definitely be taking advantage of that.
00:08:41	And so with that being said I get deeper into the story about baptism and where I am on my journey, there are actually two verses that I want to read about it. One is expanding on what baptism is and what it symbolizes, and the other one is going to set the tone for what I'm going to talk about in terms of why I've struggled with getting baptized, since I've understood what it means.[2]
00:09:12	The first verse I want to read is in 1 Peter 3:18-22: “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, in which he also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison who in the past were disobedient, when God patiently waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared. In it a few—that is, eight people—were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not as the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.”
00:10:16	Now a second verse I want to read is in Matthew 28:17-20: “When they saw him, they worshiped, but some doubted. Jesus came near and said to them, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.””[3]
00:10:59	So, the reason I wanted to point out these two verses is because they highlight some things that I think are very important in baptism. The first is that baptism is a pledge. It is a pledge of your allegiance to God. It is a declaration that you believe in the Most High, that you accept the gift of salvation that Jesus has given us through His crucifixion and resurrection, and it is a...I guess a sign of surrender to Him—that you are submitting to his kingdom and making Him King over your life. The second verse speaks on the fact that you are baptized in that authority, that you are baptized in the name of the Father. the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that you are following the teachings of Jesus and of Christ.[4] So basically you're following what's written in the word of God, the Bible.
00:12:06	The problem that I've had since I understand what baptism is and have been trying to get baptized is that I don't want to be baptized into a denomination. I don't believe in denominations. Denominations are man-made organizations and are operating off of man-made traditions. Yes, I understand why there are denominations. I understand why the church is fractured, and it has a lot to do with Satan playing with words and confusing interpretations, so we believe things that are different doctrinally. That is why you choose to go to different churches. And I fully understand that, and I'm not saying that that's not valid, but the fact of the matter is, when you profess to believe in God, you're you're pledging—like, I said it's a pledge of allegiance, and I don't want to pledge my allegiance to the Baptist Church or the Methodist Church or the Seventh Day Adventist Church or the Presbyterian Church. I want to pledge my allegiance to Christ. There is only one body of Christ! People say ”the church” a lot of times they mean the church with the little C, but I'm talking about “the Church” with a Capital C, and that is the body of Christ that's following the word of God. They're keeping the law and the testimony of Jesus Christ [5] and that has nothing to do with any man made entity, and I'm not trying to be out here calling myself by these names of these denominations.
00:13:54	It's interesting. I’ve met that people that are like “Yo, I'm a Lutheran.” So you followed the teachings of Martin Luther? I’mma need you to not follow the teachings of Martin Luther, I’mma need you to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Martin Luther may have been trying to follow Jesus Christ, but at the end of the day Martin Luther is just a man, and he could have messed up. He could have gotten an interpretation wrong, or He could have got some right. At the end of the day your standard still needs to be Jesus, not Luther. I've seen this a lot. I attend a Seventh-Day Adventist Church, and a lot of times people get up and are like, “I'm an Adventist. Adventists do this. We’re Adventists. This is how Adventists behave.” And I’m like, “No, you're an Adventist. I am a follower of Christ.” I don't follow Adventism, because Adventism is a man-made institution, and it can be right in some cases, and it can be wrong in some cases. I agree with a majority of what I've know that they teach—I don't know what all they teach, to be honest, because like I said, I’m not an Adventist. The things that I do know, most of them I agree with, that's why I attend your church, but if at any point I think that your beliefs differ from what is taught by the Bible, then I'm going with the Bible. I'm not going with you because I'm a follower of Christ not of Adventism.
00:15:19	You know, it's interesting because to me it's so obvious because you just look at what you're calling yourself, and it's not pointing back to Christ. When I first walked in, and people kept talking about adventism, I'm not going to lie I didn't know what Advent meant. And I grew up in a church! So if I didn't know what advent meant, and I grew up in the church, I grew up a believer, I grew up studying the Word of God... I took a theology classes in college, and I still didn't know what this word meant, you cannot tell me if you go up to the average person on the side of the street who doesn't know anything about God, that they're going to connect the word Advent to Jesus Christ. I'm just not, I'm not buying that, I'm sorry.
00:16:11	And so, the problem I’ve had, is that normally when you go to somebody, they are not really interested in the concept of baptizing you just in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; they're trying to make you a member of their church with a little C, but I'm not trying to be a member of your church with a little C. I’m trying to be a member of the Church with a Capital C. I'm not... I'm not interested in extracurricular activities, OK? This ain’t about building resumes. This is not about all this other stuff. I'm not trying to have citizenship in all these other kingdom and all this stuff; I'm only trying to be in The Kingdom, OK? There's only one Kingdom, and that’s the kingdom I'm trying to get citizenship in.
00:16:55	I've had... I've noticed that... I mean, if you go to these different churches, even how you go about getting baptized is different, and it boggles my mind. So growing up in a Baptist church: at every service they have an altar call. They ask you if you want to be baptized If you go down and say “yes, I want to be baptized. I've been called to be baptized.” You talk to the preacher, they give you a date, you to show up, they dunk you in the water, you've been baptized. You are now a member of the Baptist Church.
00:17:25	Now, that being said, there's a lot lacking, because there is no spiritual mentorship, or guidance and discipleship, or anything. It's kind of just random. Like you just walk up and say “I want to be baptized,” then it's done, which is what happened to a lot of my family members who grew up in a Baptist Church. And so it doesn't necessarily promote spiritual growth. So when I talked to the preacher at the church I attend and now, I fully understood his point of view that you know, baptism; it's about rebirth it's about being born again. And so you know, as he was saying, like an ideal situation is not a baby coming into the world with no family, right? You want them to have a family. That's what the church is for; that's why you're supposed to be baptized into a body of believers, and then you're supposed to be nurtured by those believers. It’s not the intent that you get baptized and then just go off on your own.
00:18:32	Of course that's not what I'm asking, either. It's not that I don't want to be affiliated with other Christians, it's being affiliated with a man-made religion. But even then, the way they do baptism is that when you express an interest in being baptized, they have a baptismal class and you have to attend this class. And in this class, they go over these fundamental beliefs of their denomination, which then, when you agree to be baptized you're basically affirming that you agree with those fundamental beliefs, and at that point, I feel like you're not being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, you're being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and all of these fundamental beliefs that belong to this man-made entity. You're pledging your allegiance to this doctrine.
00:19:28	And to be honest, I don't agree with all of the fundamental beliefs that they put before me. I didn't attend the class, either. I read the verses, and I read the pamphlet, and I read the booklet. And you know, there are parts of it that I'm like, “Yeah, I totally fully agree with that.” I didn't need to read the book to understand that or to believe that, but then there were parts that I was like, “Yeah, nope. I don't agree with that.” And then there were parts that I was like, “I don't know.” If you know anything about Seventh-day Adventists, you know that they think that Ellen White was a prophet, I've never read any of her writings. I don't know. I’ve heard some interesting things about her; there are some people who would definitely contest the fact that she's a prophet. I can't tell you one way or the other, but I'm really trying to study the Word of God. I'm trying to be solid on what The Word says, so I don't really have time to go off and be reading her writings, because at this point, I just want to be more solid, like I said, in The Word. And anything that brought up outside of that has to be measured against The Word, and if I'm not solid in The Word, I can't tell you if she's a prophet or not, because I got to be solid with the Bible first. So I don't really have time to read about her to determine whether I agree or disagree. So I'm not about to commit to that to be baptized, obviously, and I don't think I should have to.
00:21:09	Even here, when they're baptizing people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they're not asking to affirm that Moses was who Moses was, that Moses was a prophet or that he was a prolific person in the grand scheme of things. They're asking “Do you believe that Jesus is the son of God, that he died on the cross to save you from your sins?” Now that being said, in order for these people to have affirm that, you have to come to the agreement that you know, what Moses wrote was from God, and that the prophecies that Isaiah outlined, and that these other people outlined were true, because they point to the Messiah. So all of that goes hand-in-hand, however, all of that is contained within the Bible, so in order to get baptized you really don't need to affirm anyone that comes after the Bible. In fact you shouldn't be affirming anyone that comes after the Bible, because what you should be affirming is that the Bible is the core of your belief, and anything that contradicts it is not of God. If you’re going with what's here. then sure maybe you are a prophet. You know, but that's not contingent upon me being baptized, if that makes any sense.
00:22:33	And so really the way I felt about it is that this is not the biblical way of baptism. I just want somebody to dunk me in the water and say “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” and I want it to be a profession of my allegiance to Christ and to God, the kingdom of God, and that I am committing to studying the Word of God, and allowing the Holy Spirit to teach me what I'm supposed to know. And that I'm committing to following whatever the Holy Spirit leads me to. So like I said, “the Church.” I don't really care about all of this man made extraness, and all of this stuff that's tradition and whatever the case may be. So that's really been the holdup of why I have not been baptized since I've come to the understanding of what it means to be baptized, and since I've accepted that explanation. But I do feel like I've been baptized of the Holy Spirit, because I have already committed to God and I have already surrendered to God.
00:23:57	It’s not like I'm over here thinking like, “Well, I don’t know what I believe or if I believer.” Like that's not the case. And I do believe in baptism, and I do believe that we should be baptized, that we should be following the example that Christ set forth for us. For me it's just a matter of when and where, and finding somebody that understands what I'm saying when I say I want to be baptized into thee Church, and not some random church or a church. And that's basically where I am.
00:24:32	So for my prayer warriors out there that listen in, please pray for me and for the people surrounding me, you know, that the Holy Spirit will make a way, and that me and the pastor that I’ve been talking to come to some sort of agreement, and that you know I can finally take that step. Because I do think that once the Holy Spirit convicts you of something then you are obligated to carry it out in the manner that the Holy Spirit asks of you. And I feel like the conviction that the Holy Spirit has put on my heart is there for a reason. If it didn't matter then you know, I probably would have been baptized a year ago. It would have happened and I wouldn't have thought twice about it, but there is a conviction there, that it should be done the right way, and that conviction has been there for a while, and so I want to carry it out the way the Spirit has it planned to be carried out. And you know, for a while I felt some type of way about it. I felt like “Oh, maybe something's wrong with me. Maybe I'm confused. Maybe the devil is at work here,” but when I actually looked back at my own story, and I looked at Jesus' story. I realized that I think—no I know, that it's going exactly the way God planned it to. It parallels! I mean Jesus went to the Temple to learn when he was 12; I was about 12 when I came into the understanding of what I believed. But Jesus didn’t get baptized until he was 30; and I'm 30. So, we'll see. I'm just going to follow where the Holy Spirit leads, so stay tuned in. Like I said keep praying for me!
00:26:48	Thank you guys for tuning in. I hope this episode was a blessing. If you are also thinking about being baptized or you're not sure what you believe, I definitely encourage you to reach out to other believers, to read the word for yourself— like I said we live in a blessed generation where knowledge is at the tip of our fingertips, so I definitely encourage you to make the time to spend with God in the Word to try to get closer and to try to understand what it is you believe in. I will be praying for you, and you should pray for yourself that God would show you what direction he has for you, and I hope that you will also pursue citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven. So not only will I see you in the afterlife, but I will hopefully see you in the next episode. Thank you guys once again for tuning in. Don't forget to subscribe, like, follow on Instagram, whatever makes you happiest. You can find a transcript of this specific episode at www.psalmstogod.com/bornagain. See you next time.

Footnotes and References

1. Hebrews 8:5; 10:1
2. Clearly I was having trouble spiting my words out here.
3. You’re right, I didn’t need as much as I read for context, but that’s what I saw first as I was recording, so I just went with it
4. I don’t know why I worded this like this
5. Revelation 12:17

Is Wearing Jewelry a Sin?

A common view point of some churches is that we are not supposed to wear jewelry. Some members are extremely conservative, casting off all jewelry; some members are extremely liberal, wearing any jewelry they choose; and other are moderate, deeming certain jewelry functional and therefore acceptable (i.e., wedding rings, watches, etc.). I ended up discussing this with a pastor who believes we should not wear jewelry. Since I already have posts that touch on this question, I wanted to share my thoughts from that conversation.

The Condemnation of Jewelry

Photocredit: Unsplash.com/Artem Bali

The verses most commonly cited to condemn the wearing of jewelry are 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:3. We could spend days talking about these verses, but I'll try to keep it brief.

1 Timothy 2:9-10

For context, this letter in 1 Timothy is written by Paul to Timothy, who is at the church of Ephesus. Ephesus was located in western Turkey, near the modern city of Selƈuk. The city of Ephesus was home to the Temple of Artemis/Diana,[3] the Greek/Roman goddess of wild animals and hunting. They were also associated with chastity and childbirth.[1][2] In both Greek and Roman mythology, these goddesses were looked to by women for issues surrounding fertility. This background is important in knowing the culture of the people there, whom Timothy was converting to Christianity. Their previous religious practices would have been heavily geared toward worshipping this pagan goddess. Many of the issues in the New Testament letters speak to specific issues converts had in adjusting to their new life in Christ, and while similar issues arise with us today, it's also important to keep in mind the original problem so as not to distort the Word.

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 1 Timothy 2:9-10 KJV

Now, let's get into what Paul is telling Timothy. Paul's instructions to the women at Ephesus follow his message to men—"in like manner," tells us that whatever he instructs parallels what he instructed for men just before these verses. In 1 Timothy 2:8, Paul says men are to pray everywhere and lift up holy hands; both of these things are to be done without anger or doubt. So the heart of this matter is about worshipping and praising God. Essentially, everywhere men of God go, they should be in connection (praying) with God and worshipping Him. So the like manner for women refers to how we should be in connection with and worship God, as well. This is when Paul gets into the adornment of women... Paul says we are to "adorn [our]selves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."

We'll talk about all the points in the verse when we get to 1 Timothy in the Bible Study section, but for now, we're going to focus on gold and pearls. Because we're talking a out modest apparel, the assumption is that gold and pearls refers to jewelry, though one might be able to argue this applies to broaches and embroidery on garments (yes, I've seen gold and pearls embedded in shoes, purses, etc.). The pastor highlighted that when looking at the structure of the sentence, it's clear that Paul is saying these things are not included in modest apparel.

1 Peter 3:3

The letter in 1 Peter echoes Paul's sentiment that beauty should come from within, not from fancy hair or gold jewelry. The context of 1 Peter is that Peter wrote to the believers who were living as exiles in various cities. These people were those who stood for Christ and were now banished from society for their courage and faith.

Is It Really a Condemnation, Though?

When it comes to earrings, Paul's got me. If you've read my previous posts on jewelry, you know that I have an allergy to "fake" jewelry (so probably to nickel) that presents itself only when I wear earrings. So, while all of my earrings have fake pearls and cubic zirconia instead of diamonds, the post that goes into the ear are always either real gold or sterling silver—but Paul didn't say anything about silver, or nickel, or steel. Come to think of it he didn't mention diamonds, rubies, emeralds, sapphires, or any other precious stones.

I've heard many sermons that caution against "walking the line." What they're referring to is trying to figure out where the boundary is and getting as close to the edge as you can without crossing that line. They often summarize this point to the fact that we should not want anything to do with something that displeases God. So many of them would ignore the fact that Paul doesn't mention all of these other common metals and gems used for jewelry and the fact that today most of us wear inexpensive fake jewelry, not real gold or pearls. They would hold fast to God doesn't like jewelry, so it doesn't matter if it's real gold or fake gold.

Verses I Brought Up in the Discussion

That stance would be perfectly acceptable to me, except, going into the meeting, I felt like there were many verses that suggested God was OK with jewelry. Many of the verses I had prepared when I went to talk to the pastor were written off as neither endorsing nor condemning (Genesis 24:22,30,53 and Exodus 3:22) or not about wearing jewelry (Exodus 25-26).

Abraham

I brought up the fact that Abraham gave his servant jewelry to give the woman who would become Isaac's wife, Rebekah (Genesis 24). The pastor countered that just because it wasn't condemned, it doesn't mean it was OK. He went on to reason that Abraham was sent out, away from his family to be righteous—suggesting that this was a holdover from lingering traditions or an attempt to avoid offense. However, the pastor also reasoned that the reason Abraham had to send his servant back to his family to find a wife for Isaac is because the Canaanites he was living amongst were pagan.

That seems like circular reasoning to me. If both Abraham's family and the Canaanites were doing things God didn't like, what difference did it make? If Abraham's family is simply the lesser of two evils, then why God did send him away from his family into more—or worse—unrighteousness?

Judah and Joseph

I didn't bring up Genesis 38:18 or Genesis 41:42, but it falls in a similar vein as Genesis 24. Both see two sons of Jacob (re: two patriarchs of the 12 Tribes of Israel), Judah and Joseph, wearing some type of ring. In these cases I could see a better arguement for them not being a standard to measure ourselves after. Judah is giving up his ring after soliciting sex from a woman he perceives to be a prostitute (it's actually his daughter-in-law), which says a lot about him. Joseph receives his ring in Egypt from pharaoh, both of whom are known enemies of God.

Building the Tabernacle

I mentioned building the tabernacle because it's the jewelry the Israelites take from the Egyptians in Exodus 3:22 that they use to melt into gold and silver for the tabernacle. Those who condemn jewelry are quick to point out that the Israelites used jewelry to create the golden calf, but never get to the part where they create the tabernacle with jewelry, too (Exodus 35:22). The jewelry comes from the same place. If God despised the jewelry, why would he allow it to be used for the tabernacle? For building the ark of the covenant (Exodus 36-37)?

The pastor is convinced that it is that God doesn't have a problem with jewels and jewelry, but with the wearing of jewelry. It seemed plausible, but the more I dig, the more I question that. I'll talk about that in the next section about the verses I found later.

More Questions

Photocredit: Unsplash.com/Charisse Kenion

Solely off of the discussion with the pastor, I basically had the question: why didn't God condemn rings if they were such a big deal? If we look back at Joseph, comparing him to say Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. They stood for God in a foreign land and were still raised to high places. Their story clearly shows the importance of resisting the urge to pollute our bodies with unclean foods (Daniel 1) or worship (even appear to worship) idols (Daniel 3). Nothing about Joseph's story suggests we should refuse jewelry given to us as gifts. When God commands the Israelites to take the jewelry from Egypt, He doesn't give any instruction about not wearing it.

Now, clearly there are times when a law isn't explicitly told to us at the time of event. "Thou shalt not kill" comes significantly later in chronological time than when Cain kills Abel. However, God makes it very clear that killing is wrong right in that example and we can assume this law was known by everyone if not solely by the example made of Cain. God took a stance and said "this is not ok, do not do this." The only place jewelry seems to be condemned is out of the mouth of Paul and Peter, neither of whom can make a law...

Verses That Support The Condemnation of Jewelry

Genesis 35

In Genesis 35:4, Jacob buries earrings that belong to his family before approaching God. This is of course, one of the passages many pastors bring up to say jewelry is bad. However, I noticed a few interesting things about this that make me question that interpretation.

First, the command is given to purify themselves because they have been worshipping foreign gods. When the earrings are surrendered, they are surrendered with the foreign gods. I was not alive during Jacob's time, and I do not know what these earrings looked like, but today there are earrings bearing the resemblance of the eye of horus, an ankh, occult symbolism, animals, words, etc. Is it possible that these earrings were part of the idol worship not because they were earrings but because of their symbolism?

Second, I ask this question because it doesn't say they handed over bracelets or necklaces. Did they not have any of these items? We know that Jacob's mother (Rebekah) was given bracelets by Abraham's servant, so it wasn't a foreign concept to them. I don't know any women today who have earrings but don't have bracelets or necklaces, as well. I speak as someone who doesn't wear jewelry often, yet in my possession are necklaces, earrings, bracelets/watches, and rings; I may have more necklaces than rings or bracelets, but I have at least one. So if I was called to cast out my earrings because God didn't like jewelry, wouldn't He ask me to surrender the bracelets, necklaces, and rings too? I digress, though, maybe they really only had earrings...

My third concern is that this takes place right after 2 of Jacob's sons slaughter a whole town of men and take people from the town as hostage. They have taken possessions (possibly jewelry) from the people of Shechem (Genesis 34:24-29). I suspect part of the purification was to atone for the blood they had spilt. As is a theme in many of the verses that seem to support not wearing jewelry, the people being stripped of their jewelry are doing something God doesn't approve of that has seemingly nothing to do with their jewelry.

Hosea 2:13 and Jeremiah 2:32

In both of these verses, God complains that the people have put on their jewelry but forgotten Him. The issue is not that they are wearing jewelry. It takes time to put on make up and jewelry, to pick out a stylish outfit, and to adorn yourself such that society deems you "beautiful." However, in the grand scheme of things its of no importance. I don't need earrings in my ears to be considered fully dressed in the world. Thus, if I wake up and spend my whole morning preparing my outward dress but never stop to pray, speak to God, thank Him for waking me up, read His Word, etc., I've proiritized something trivial over someone very important. God is upset that His people a committed to little trinkets like jewelry over their covenant with Him.

Isaiah 3:16-26

In Isaiah 3, God is punishing "the daughters of Jerusalem," which is basically a way of saying His people. As part of the punishment, He will take away all their jewelry. As I spoke to the pastor about the verses used to support the argument of not wearing jewelry, this verse didn't come up but it's in the vein of what people usually bring up. Like the verses above, the people are in a state in which they need to be humbled and repent. They are boastful and proud; they have turned against God. God is taking back the things they love (not just jewelry) because they are unworthy. God is also going to shave their head, does that make hair bad? Clearly the point of this passage is that these are the things that make them feel great about themselves, they are all outward, physical things that establish wealth and beauty. Again this passage is about punishment for sin, not sins themselves.

More Verses I Found

The High Priest's Garments

in Exodus 28, when God tells them to make the breastplate for the high priest, not only is gold used, but many other precious stones...

¹⁷And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row. ¹⁸And the second row shall be an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond. ¹⁹And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. ²⁰And the fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and a jasper: they shall be set in gold in their inclosings. ²¹And the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes. ²²And thou shalt make upon the breastplate chains at the ends of wreathen work of pure gold. ²³And thou shalt make upon the breastplate two rings of gold, and shalt put the two rings on the two ends of the breastplate. Exodus 28:17-23 KJV

So many questions come to mind about this passage when trying to reconcile it with 1 Timothy and 2 Peter. Is it that men are allowed to wear jewels/jewelry but women are not? Is is that only the high priest can wear jewels? Or is it that Paul was referencing a specific issue at Ephesus?

Exodus 33:3-5

When the Israelites fail to stand for God, and He becomes angry at them, they take off their jewelry as a sign of mourning. God also strips them of the jewelry. Why is it that before they committed evil, God did not strip them of the jewelry if the jewelry was the problem? If you look at some of the verses in the Bible and research history, one form of jewelry that appears often is a signet ring. This ring was used as a seal or stamp. This was how signatures were verified, because only a person possessing the ring could make the seal. Such rings were given to heirs who were to inherit the authority of that signature. Similarly, the jewelry Israel had (and the jewelry we have) is something God gave us because we are His. When the Israelites turned against Him, they gave up the right to wear His signet.

Luke 15:22

In the parable of the prodigal son, the father welcomes his son back with a robe and a ring. Yes, Jesus could have been speaking in terms his listeners would understand, just as I might refer to the weeks in December that contain Hannukah, Christmas, and Kwanzaa, as "the holidays" without meaning to imply an endorsement of those holidays. Except, Jesus spent much of His time correcting man made traditions and getting people to truly follow God. No where else does He clarify this message to show us that He doesn't want us to wear rings. In fact, the father who is giving the ring is symbolic of God giving us a proper welcome when we return to Him.

James 2:1-4

In this passage once again we see a person wearing jewelry and the condemnation is not about his apparel but about favoritism. The message is, just because someone does not have nice clothes or jewelry does not give you the right to treat them differently. That's very different from saying the man who was not poor should not be dressed the way he is...

Ezekiel 16:11-13

Once again, straight from the mouth of God (per Ezekiel 16:1), in a parable about God's people, God says He adorns us with bracelets and jewels. Why is this the metaphor if God doesn't like or want us to wear jewelry?

Proverbs 25:12

Proverbs 25:12 compares a gold ring to receiving correction. Essentially the verse is saying that being able to give wisdom and correct people when they're wrong, in conjunction with the person who is wrong being able to receive that criticism, is valuable. You could argue that it is beautiful, necessary, even. So why is it compared to a gold ring if they are things we shouldn't have? That would be like saying "A wise correction to a receptive ear is like the satisfying crunch of bacon in the morning"...oh that's right, bacon isn't supposed to be satisfying even if we live in a society that loves bacon. That's why God nor His messengers ever create metaphors in which something they are proclaiming to be good or holy is placed on the same level as something He declared unclean or unholy.

More Verses to Read

• Esther 8:2
• Isaiah 6:10

If You Don't Stand Against It, You're For It

If you ever dip your feet into the conversation about racism, you'll quickly run into the concept of "if you don't stand against it, you're for it." By not taking a stance against racism, you tolerate it, which means it doesn't bother you. This allows it to flourish and grow. Similarly, weeds keep popping up in my flower bed. If I do not pluck them out, they will grow. I have to do something, say something in these situations if I'm truly against what is happening.

In all other cases, we see God take a stance. It is very clear where God stands on adultery, murder, stealing, idolatry, witchcraft, coveting, homosexuality, etc. The pastor brought up the issue of polygamy, but when you include the fact that God instructed the nation to have a king with not too many wives (Deuteronomy 17:17) and Jesus said that a man marrying a woman without a proper divorce commits adultery (Matthew 19:9). If a divorce is not proper, they are still married, therefore by taking another wife he is both engaged in polygamy and adultery. It sounds like a stance, straight from the mouth of God.

If God thought it an issue whether or not we wore jewelry, wouldn't He speak on it?

Back to Peter and Paul

Remember how I stopped to give you some context for the letters written in 1 Timothy and 1 Peter, but they didn't seem to have anything to do with anything. Let's go back to context, and pull in the concept of not braiding hair. In that time, it was common for wealthy women to braid their hair into elaborate styles. This was a status symbol. In addition to the elaborate styles, women would have gold, pearls (imagine that!), and other jewels braided into their hair. Not only was this a time consuming effort just to exert status, but the way the hair was braided is said to have marked the women as priestesses of pagan deities or even prostitutes. Perhaps Paul and Peter were actually referring to hair jewelry and this tendency to braid such things into the hair?[4][5][6]

My Answer to the Question

I already talked about my struggle with earrings in "Plain Jane." I don't think you'll ever see me with fanciful or ornate earrings, but that's a me problem. I definitely think that discernment should be used, and I agree that jewelry can have negative affects on us. I fully agree with Paul that I want people to think I'm beautiful because of the character of God being reflected in my actions and thoughts. I do not want people to know me because everyone is talking about how great my jewelry game is; that's not what I want to be known for. However, despite praying over this matter and researching it for many years (I wrote a post about it in June of 2016), the Holy Spirit has never convicted me that jewelry is a sin. That means one of two things: 1) I don't have communication with the Holy Spirit/I can't hear His voice or 2) He's not convicting me because it's not a concern He has. Considering the fact that during this time I have been convicted to reassess what I listen to, what I watch on TV, how I communicate with people, what I let my mind dwell on, on often I read the Bible, etc. during that time, I'd say it's probably the latter of the two possibilities—but I'll be sure to let you guys know if He ever does convict me that jewelry is flat out wrong.

References

1. "Diana". Encylopædia Britannica. January 17, 2019
2. "Artemis". Encylopædia Britannica. January 11, 2019
3. "Ephesus". Encylopædia Britannica. March 30, 2017
4. Aída Besançon Spencer. "1 Timothy: A New Covenant Commentary, pg. 57. 2013
5. "Why does the Bible speak against braided hair?". GotQuestions.org; visited January 2019
6. Kyle Butt, M.Div. "Wearing Gold and Braided Hair?". Apologetics Press; visited January 2019

1 Samuel 18-27: Saul Tries to Kill David

Saul becomes jealous of David and attempts to kill him. This post covers those attempts, the help of David's supporters, and David's reaction.

Introduction

Jealousy is a dangerous thing, that's probably one reason why God told us not to covet. When women in the kingdom begin to praise David's military accomplishments, specifically attributing a higher number of kills to David than to Saul, Saul becomes discontent with David. Eventually, Saul decides to kill David.
Top

Motive to Kill

Photocredit: FreeImages.com/dlritter

Generally speaking, men tend to be more competitive, so it's no surprise that Saul would feel animosity about the kingdom boasting of David's accomplishments over his own. However, it seems extreme that he would suddenly want to kill David. Most people would have simply strove to prove they were better... After all, this boasting could also have been the kingdom's way of saying Saul was a great king because he chose a great military captain.^[11] It seems quite rash that Saul would want to kill the man who was leading his army to victory.

The issue stemmed much deeper than simple jealousy over praise or lack thereof from Israel. Saul knew he was in hot water with God—if you've ever walked with God at all, you definitely know when you've messed up. With Samuel no longer visiting him, an evil spirit visiting him, and the community placing David on a higher pedestal, Saul knew that God was bringing his reign to an end. Not only was Saul not ready to give up power, he wanted to pass the kingship on to his own lineage. With David gaining such notoriety, it was becoming obvious to Saul that the people would want David as the next king. Saul didn't want that, and the easiest way to solve the problem, at least in his mind, was to kill David.
Top

Saul's Attempts on David's Life

Attempts By Saul to Kill David
	Location	Method	Verses
	Saul's home	javelin thrown at Saul (twice)	1 Samuel 18:11
	-	David made captain of an army in hopes he was be killed in battle	1 Samuel 18:12-15
	Saul's home	marriage arrangement to Merab (sending David to battle)	1 Samuel 18:17
	Saul's home	marriage arrangement to Michal (sending David to battle)	1 Samuel 18:20-21
	Saul's home	servants ordered to kill David	1 Samuel 19:1
	Saul's home	javelin	1 Samuel 19:10
	David's home	messengers sent to kill David	1 Samuel 19:11
	David's home	messengers sent to fetch David for Saul to kill	1 Samuel 19:15
	Naioth in Ramah	messengers sent to fetch David for Saul to kill, again	1 Samuel 19:20
	Naioth in Ramah	messengers sent to fetch David for Saul to kill, again	1 Samuel 19:21
	Naioth in Ramah	Saul attempts the murder himself when his messengers fail	1 Samuel 19:22-24
	Ziph and Horesh	Saul seeks for David in the wilderness	1 Samuel 23:15
	Ziph	Saul seeks for David in the wilderness, again	1 Samuel 26:2

Saul attempted to kill David not once, not twice, but on multiple occasions. The first few attempts on David's life by Saul occur while David is soothing Saul's spirit. Saul takes the javelin he holds while sitting on the throne and lunges it at David. Saul also plots to kill David by enticing him to take on more battles with the promise of giving him one of Saul's daughters to wed. He hopes David will die in battle trying to prove himself worthy to marry Saul's daughter. When that fails, Saul sends messengers to kill David multiple times. When these attempts fail, Saul tries to kill David himself again. In the commotions of all these things, Saul ends up killing a priest who helps David unknowingly. David has to flee Saul's house, taking refuge with Samuel, with Ahimelech (the priest who ends up getting killed), Achish (the king of the Philistines), and in the wilderness. The table to the right details the attempts on David's life by Saul and lists the associated Bible verses.
Top

Saul's Children Choose David

Saul's desire to kill David was rooted in jealousy, as discussed earlier, which is an issue that arises from insecurity. Generally, people who are secure and confident are less likely to be jealous of those around them. Saul felt his kingdom was slipping away from him (and rightfully so, because it was). The people saw David as a better soldier and David had found favor in God's eyes. This was enough to drive Saul to the point of madness, in which he desired David dead. It is no wonder that he becomes more obsessed with killing David when he learns two of his children choose to help David over their own father.
Top

Jonathan, David's Best Friend

Saul's son Jonathan took an instant liking to David. The Bible is clear that Jonathan loved David deeply; 1 Samuel 18:1,3 says Jonathan loved David the way he loved himself. When Jonathan hears that his father is planning to kill David, he is quick to tell David. Recognizing David as the true heir to the throne, Jonathan remains on David's side throughout this ordeal. The two even make a covenant to remain friends and to have peace between their houses after death.

When Jonathan tests the waters with Saul to see if he is still intent on killing David, his words in support of David cause Saul to throw a javelin at his own son. Saul curses Jonathan's mother (possibily the world's first iteration of son of a *****) in anger and is furious that his eldest son would take David's side. Saul reminds Jonathan that David is a threat to his own inheritance of the throne, but Jonathan knows that God has chosen David.
Top

A Covenant Among Friends

When David finally flees Saul's presence to seek safety for himself, the two friends make a covenant with each other. Both men knew that eventually David would become king; tradition held (and still holds) that new kings would kill competing lineages to seal their claim to the throne. A more modern example was that of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. When the Bolsheviks seized power from the Tsar Nicholas II, they killed all of his children. Many believed the assassinated king's youngest daughter had survived and several women impersonated her, hoping to claim her status.^[9] When David took the throne, it was likely expected that he would kill Saul's lineage to keep any of them from trying to steal the throne back.

In David's case this would have been difficult considering he was married to Michal, Saul's daughter. At the time David made this covenant with Jonathan, Michal was Saul's only wife, so presumably David's heir to the throne would still be of Saul's lineage, as well. However, inheritance passed through sons, not daughters. It would have been Jonathan, Ishui, and Melchishua that could lay claim to the throne. Jonathan made David promise that he wouldn't kill Jonathan's family; their houses were to remain friends.
Top

Were Jonathan and David Gay?

Some people try to twist their relationship into romantic love and suggest there was a homosexual overtone in the description of their friendship.^[6][7] People often forget it is possible to love someone without being "in love" with someone. The first obvious point is that self-love, the love Jonathan would have had for himself that is described as the love he has for David, is not sexual. In addition, mother's usually love their children more than themselves, another example of non-sexual love.
Top

More Than The Love of Women?

Something that comes up is often a quote from 2 Samuel 1:26 in which David remarks that Jonathan's love surpassed the love of women. People who want to imbue this friendship with homosexuality interpret this to mean the two loved each other more than they loved the women in their lives and thus were in love with each other. However, this a forced interpretation, especially given what we know of God's (and their society's) view of homosexuality. If they were romantically involved, the last thing David would do is infer such a thing by admitting he loved a man more than his wives! The Israelites would have had him stoned on the spot. It has only been in the past 10 years or so that people have not been completely ostracized for being openly gay; again, I highly doubt David would have armed the rumor mill with such a statement. Furthermore, this is a common saying among friends! How many friends don't make a pack not to let relationships severe their bond? This is the basis of phrases such as "chicks before dicks" and "bros before hoes" (pardon the crudeness). These statement are meant to illustrate that the friendship, which usually begins well before either friend is involved in a romantic relationship, is too important to lose because of spouses.

Bromances such as that of Corey and Shawn from Boy Meets World depict this perfectly; Corey was in love with Topanga but his friendship with Shawn was forever. When Shawn dates a girl who forbids him to see Corey, they begin sneaking away to meet each other. Topanga reveals the fact that she understood their friendship and would never come between them, however Shawn's girlfriend ends up getting dumped. The two were determined to be friends even after girlfriends (and marriage). This is how David and Jonathan were, as well.
Top

Love at First Sight?

Another point pro-homosexual interpreters have is the fact that Jonathan gives David all of his stuff after they meet in 1 Samuel 18:4. The passage does not confirm or deny David's presence when Jonathan strips himself. Whether he was or wasn't, you have to read the passage in the context of the time period, not in the context of today. Back then, to strip yourself of your clothes was a sign of humility. Clothes were (and still are) a symbol of status. By removing these clothes and giving them to David, Jonathan was transferring his status as "prince" or "future king" to David. Like David, Jonathan was a man of God; he realized that God had selected David to inherit the throne and this was Jonathan giving up his claim to the throne.
Top

The Dinner Conversation

As I mentioned earlier, Jonathan defends David at the dinner table and brings about Saul's wrath. This conversation occurs in 1 Samuel 20. Some try to turn this into a "coming out" scene.^[6] Supporters of this theory suggest that "many gay men have experienced dinner conversations that sounded very similar to this one. They made the mistake of talking about their lover at the table, and their father became furious. More often than not, the blame goes first to the mother, who was “too soft,” or “too harsh,” or who “perverted” her son somehow. Then the father turns his anger toward the son: “Can’t you see how you’re shaming the whole family? Do you even care what this will do to your career? You’ll never amount to anything until you give up this foolishness!”"

If that's what you want to see, I can see how they get that interpretation, but that requires you to step away from the literal text. It is Saul who mentions David's absence first. Knowing that David and Jonathan are friends, Saul inquires of Jonathan where David is. Jonathan says David wanted to go to his family to offer a yearly sacrifice so Jonathan let him go. It is then that Saul gets angry. Saul says that he knows Jonathan has chosen David "to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness." This is where things get interesting. According to pro-homosexual interpreters, the mentioning of "thy mother's nakedness" makes this a homosexual reference. They believe Saul is accusing Jonathan of being David's lover. That, however, would be the "confusion of Jonathan's nakedness." What does his mother have to do with it? How is a homosexual relationship the confusion of a mother's nakedness?

From the books of law, we know that uncovering nakedness is a sexual reference, but "thy mother's nakedness" would be a reference to his mother's sexual encounters not Jonathan or David's. The very next verse explains exactly why Saul referenced Jonathan's mother's nakedness. Jonathan was the eldest son of his mother and should have succeeded Saul to the throne, however, David was desired by the people. With David in the picture, Jonathan could not claim the throne. Saul knew that Jonathan was relinquishing his claim to the throne in favor of David ("thine own confusion") and thus abandoning his inheritance, which was his right through the union of Saul and his mother ("thy mother's nakedness"). Scholars suggest that by giving up the throne, Jonathan was painting his mother as a whore (again, "thy mother's nakedness") and proclaiming himself unworthy to lead.^[8]

Even if Saul did accuse Jonathan of loving David in a homosexual manner, that doesn't mean it was a true statement. Here we have a man who is half mad, pained with an evil spirit, paranoid, and trying to kill a faithful servant in a jealous rage, how can you trust any of his judgements? People who are devoid of God are often bewildered at the behavior of those who follow God. My male friends who are waiting or who have waited until marriage to have sex have all been accused of lying or being gay. Only those who don't know God make these types of accusations, however. These accusations normalize their own behavior, which soothes any guilt they may have about how many partners they've had before marriage. It is far easier to accuse those who followed God's word of being gay or lying than to admit we were too weak to do the same. Similarly, it would have been easier for Saul to claim Jonathan was gay and take out his anger on Jonathan who was present, than admit he was in the wrong and had lost the throne for his lineage.
Top

Michal, David's Wife

After Saul fails to marry off his eldest daughter to David, he is thrilled to learn that his other daughter, Michal, is in love with David. David wasn't in the social class to marry the king's daughter, though; he didn't have the means to pay a dowry or brideprice for such a match. David knew this, and so did Saul. Saul tells David not to worry about the dowry (1 Samuel 20:25), instead he wants 100 foreskins of Philistine soldiers.

Saul is sure this task will get David killed, despite the fact that David has already won many battles and defeated Goliath. David probably thought the request was symbolic of not only defeating God's enemies, but forcefully cleansing them via circumcision, thus the request would not have set off any red flags in his mind. David goes above and beyond, bringing Saul 200 foreskins to "buy" Michal as a wife. Saul could have refused, but we see a glimpse of honesty in Saul, and he gives Michal to be married to David.

When Saul decides to send messengers to David and Michal's home to kill David, Michal helps David escape. Once David has safely fled the home from a window, she tucks a life-size idol in his bed to fool the messengers. The text does not tell us why an idol is in David's home; it may have belonged to Michal, since it is unlikely David took anything to do with idols. After Michal helps David sneak out, she lies to her father's messengers and claims that David is sick in bed. When Saul sends more messengers to fetch David and it is revealed that David is gone, Saul questions his daughter about why she lied to him. Saul felt betrayed that his daughter would just allow his "enemy" to escape so easily.
Top

Michal's Love

The Bible is very clear that Michal loves David; not only is it explicitly stated in 1 Samuel 18:20,28, but Michal's actions prove that she loved David. Michal could have been killed for assisting David—in 1 Samuel 22 Saul kills an entire city of priests because one priest aids David unaware that he and Saul are at odds. Considering Saul's violent outbursts and evil spirit, I don't think it's far-fetched to think Michal may have been worried her father would kill her for helping David. Michal chose David over family, this is an explict declaration of love.

Interestingly, it is never stated that David loves Michal. Wikipedia contributors point out that David doesn't try to contact Michal while he is on the run and that he takes other wives.^[1] When David takes off to save his life, we haven't seen anything that suggests he loves her as much as she loves him. This, plus the fact that David took additional wives while he was separated from Michal paints David as a womanizer.

I think a case can be made for David's love of Michal, too, however. One thing that stands out is David's 180 on his decision about marrying a daughter of Saul. When Saul is trying to get David to marry his eldest daughter, David isn't interested. The offer isn't drastically different, so why was David more receptive to marrying Michal? Obviously, this isn't an explicit declaration of undying love, but it does suggest that there was something there that was reciprocated. However, we aren't told a lot of this story. If this was set in modern day America, David would have texted Michal, or left her a private message on Facebook, to i. let her know he was alright and ii find out if she was ok. However, during David's era, there were no cellphones or computers and all of his supporters (i.e., the people who would have been safe to transport a message to Michal) were with him. Contacting Michal would have been quite difficult. Also, in contacting her, he would have risked angering Saul to the point of killing his own daughter. Just because he did not contact her does not mean he didn't miss her or desire to contact her.
Top

A Marriage Under Siege

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.Genesis 2:24

While David is gone, Saul gives Michal to another man. By God's law, Michal's second marriage was probably not lawful. There are several examples of polygamy in the Bible, though there are passages that suggest monogamy is preferred.^[2][3][4] However there are no examples of polyandry and the Bible explicitly states that a woman who leaves her husband for a reason other than adultery and marries another man, commits adultery.^[5] In the books of law, the word "wife," not "wives" is used to define marriage, and Deuteronomy 17:17 forbids a king from taking multiple wives, so David was probably not supposed to take on two more wives, either.

We aren't told whether Michal hears of this then asks to be remarried to someone else—how betrayed would you feel if you risked your life and turned against your father to save a man, then he went and found him 2 more wives?—or if Saul forced Michal into a new marriage. In 2 Samuel, we will see Michal returned to David, but we also will see a change in how she feels about him (2 Samuel 6:16).

David had strong faith in God, but women were definitely a weakness of his.
Top

David Seeks Asylum

David hides out in several different locations while Saul is hunting him down. Many people are on David's side and eventually he is accompanied by an army of 400 men.
Top

Nob

At one point, in 1 Samuel 21, David requests food from Ahimelech, a priest in Nob. Ahimelech does not have any bread but the shewbread meant for the priests. David lies to Ahimelech, suggesting Saul had sent him on mission rather than admitting he was running for his life. Seeking to help David, Ahimelech offers him and his men the shewbread provided they are not unclean from sleeping with their wives. Jesus refers to this in Matthew 12:2-4. People debate whether Jesus was condoning David's deceit and subsequent breaking of the law or if Jesus was making a point about the Pharisees hypocrisy.^[10] I believe Jesus was pointing out that people praised David's unlawful act but condemned Jesus' lawful act. David was clearly forgiven by God and made peace with Him concerning this action, though the details of this process are not recorded in the text.

When Saul discovers Ahimelech's role in aiding David, he is furious. Saul orders not just Ahimelech killed, but all the priests in Nob. Saul has 45 priests killed, along with women, and children. Clearly, Saul was possessed with an ungodly anger. Ahimelech's son Abiathar escapes the mayhem and joins David.
Top

Gath

David hides in Gath, a Philistine city, twice. The first time David flees to Gath, he worries that people will recognize him. David feigns like he is mad and is taken before Achish, the king of Gath. Seeing his insanity, Achish sends him away, saying he has no use for a madman. The second time, David is more sure of himself and is able to convince Achish to give him a place to dwell in the country, specifically the city of Ziklag.

By the time David comes to Gath the second time, Achish has likely heard that Saul is trying to kill David. This makes David the enemy of Achish's enemy. Using the principle "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," Achish makes peace with David. David furthers this assumption by deceiving Achish into believing an attack he carried out on the Geshurites was actually against his own people.

As I read this passage, I couldn't help think sometimes the enemy of my enemy should make my enemy my friend. In Achish's case, David was actually the bigger enemy; David was a man of God and would not hesitate to carry out battles to defeat the Philistines at God's command, but Saul was not so keen on listening to God. Under Saul's reign, the Israelites were destined to lose battles (previously witnessed), but under David's reign, they would thrive. It would have been in Achish's best interest to kill David and use it as a peace broker with Saul. This is one of the many examples that show when you are against God, you are against yourself. God will always lead us in a direction that benefits our best interest.
Top

David Lets Saul Live

On a few occasions, God places David in the position to kill Saul. God is showing both David and Saul that He has chosen David; where Saul has been unsuccessful at killing David over several attempts, David walks into situations where he could easily kill Saul without even trying. In both cases, the person with him advises him to take advantage of the position God has placed him in, but David refuses. David says Saul was anointed by God, thus it isn't right for him to take his life. Instead, David takes the opportunity to prove to Saul he means him no harm. When the encounter passes, David shows Saul a relic of the event, proving he was both undetected and within range to kill the king. At this revelation, Saul always admits his sin and ceases his pursuit of David momentarily. Why this revelation does not stick with Saul is unclear.
Top

Once Anointed, Always Anointed?

This passage led me to reflect on the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" or perseverance of the saints. This doctrine persists in denominations that stem from Calvinism. Baptists and other evangelical denominations hold this position as well.^[12] The idea is that once a person professes belief in Jesus, they are guaranteed salvation. The point of contention is whether this is dependent on their choices after professing belief. There are many people who claim to be "non-practicing" Christians; many of whom will say they believe in Jesus they just don't follow the Bible. Opponents of "once saved, always saved" attack the teaching because many who grew up in churches that adhere to the doctrine grow up to believe they can stray from Jesus' teachings but because they believe in him they're OK. I'll talk about the doctrine itself in a post by itself so that I can cover it in more detail, but right now I want to discuss this idea as it relates to how David viewed Saul.

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.1 John 3:9

We are told that those who are of God will not sin, which means once a person confesses Jesus is Lord, he/she should not be actively committing sin. This can't mean they never sin or that they won't receive eternal life if they sin once, because Moses sinned (everybody sins). He may not have seen the promised land, but he was taken to Heaven and appeared at the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36). However, the devil knows Jesus lives, chooses to sin, and will not be in Heaven. So where does that leave us? Personally, I believe it's about open rebellion versus minor slip-ups. Moses gets caught up in the moment and does something he shouldn't have; likely, he repents of the actions after he realizes his mistake. The devil, on the other hand, rebels openly, consciously choosing to do what God has told him not to do. If you have chosen Jesus, you will not choose to rebel or remain in sin (though you may fall into it on occasion), but if you have not chosen Jesus, you will rebel just as Satan did. We have to remember that people can claim to believe without actually believing.

Imagine you're on a boat and it begins to capsize, so you and your friend throw out a life boat. People from the boat will make their way out of the water and into the life boat. As long as they remain in the boat (and the boat has no holes), they will stay afloat, but if one chooses to jump off the boat, they may drown. Similarly, as long as we choose God we are guaranteed to stay afloat. The question is what will happen if we choose to jump ship? Did Saul truly repent, or was he in open rebellion against God?

David's insistence that Saul was anointed by God and thus should not be harmed begs the question, what did ancient Israelites believe. Samuel has told David he would be king and anointed him. Samuel has also informed Saul that the kingdom was being taken from him. Yet, when David is given the opportunity to kill Saul and claim the throw, he choses not to. Did David think "once anointed, always anointed?" Will Saul be in heaven despite his treatment of David and the priests?

David's perspective represents that of non-judgment. David knows that at one point, God chose Saul; that makes Saul a chosen person by God and worthy of respect. Saul's sinfulness is between him and God. While God may have placed David in situations that gave David the advantage and ability to kill Saul, God never issues a direct command to David that such a thing is to be done. David understand his anointing to give him authority as king after Saul has died of natural causes or in battle.
Top

References

1. "Michal". Wikipedia. 2016
2. Genesis 2:24
3. 1 Timothy 3:2,12
4. 1 Timothy 5:9
5. Matthew 19:9
6. LifeJourney Church. "David loved Jonathan more than women". Would Jesus Discriminate?. 2016
7. Musgrove, Jared. "The Truth About David and Jonathan". The Village Church. March 7, 2012
8. Guzik, David. "Jonathan's Final Attempt to Reconcile His Father and David". Blue Letter Bible. 2001
9. Biography.com Editors. "Anastasia Biography". Biography. June 22, 2016
10. YellowJacket. "How Does Jesus' Argument From David and the Showbread Work". Hermeneutics Stack Exchange. January 12, 2014
11. Holman Bible Publishers. Holman KJV Study Bible. pg. 501. 2014
12. "Perseverance of the Saints". Wikipedia. 2016

Why Does God Let Bad Things Happen?

Just because things aren't perfect on Earth, doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It doesn't mean He doesn't love us, and it doesn't mean He isn't watching out for us.

Introduction

Tuesday, I was all in my feelings about the mistrial in the Michael Slager case. I tried to make myself remember that only one of the twelve jurors seemed to think it was OK to shoot a fleeing man in the back, not once, but multiple times (side note: in my opinion, the black police officer who saw that the taser was nowhere near Walter Scott's body should be on trial as an accomplice). Of course, that doesn't ease the hurt of knowing that one person can halt the delivery of justice when a black man has been shot by a police officer. Meanwhile, 2 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump,^[1] but the man who ran a campaign that incited racial violence is our president-elect. Seems like in both cases the system is working against black people. That's why it didn't surprise me when I saw so many comments and responses to the mistrial on Facebook when I logged on.

One of my friends posted the beautiful response of Walter Scott's mother, a proclamation of her faith in God and her strength to continue on. The comments on the video reflected a sentiment I've heard all too much it my life. They all boiled down to rage against God for letting bad things happen. So many people lose faith, or never gain faith, because they don't believe a good God would let these things happen. In the "woke" black community I see an even stronger aversion to God, with people blaming God for the enslavement of our ancestors. Reading those comments, I was moved to speak on the issue.

The issue is basically a cake made up of three layers: false doctrine, confusion of good and evil, and a sense of entitlement. Now bear with me, because we all fall into these traps—this isn't an indictment on people, but an attempt to show how what we are taught and how we feel create this disbelief, and an answer to some of the question broached.
Top

False Doctrine

People seem to think God is a fairy godmother waiting for us to wish on a star so He can grant our wishes. People quote "ask and ye shall receive" (Matthew 21:22) or "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" (Philippians 4:13) so much, that our image of God is that He just wants us to have what we want. When someone dies, we are quick say God has failed us, because we asked for them to live and for Christ to help them survive. We totally neglect John 11:25: "Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die." It's just another instance of picking and choosing what verses we want to believe and how we interpret them. If you believe the whole of the Bible, death isn't the end. Further, unless we live to see Jesus come back, we're all going to die some point; that's the price of sin.

We also tend to link sin with "bad people." If I say someone has sinned or is in sin, people assume I'm calling them a bad person. When a person like me says we're all going to die a first death because of sin, people are quick to talk about how good of a person the deceased is, but I'm not suggesting otherwise. We all sin. Abraham sinned, Moses sinned. David. Peter. Everyone in the Bible sinned (except Jesus). It doesn't mean we're "bad" people. The notion that because we haven't committed what we consider "major" sins, such as murder, give us a false sense that we aren't sinners so we should live long, healthy lives and reap the benefits of our "goodness."

Lots of preachers today are known as what has been dubbed "prosperity" preachers. They talk about all the great things that will happen if you follow Christ and stay true to God. According to them, life is a cake walk if you trust God: your bills will get paid, you'll find the spouse of your dreams, you'll be successful at whatever you do, and everyone around you will build you up...

Is that what happened in the Bible? Does the Bible not say that in the last days God's faithful won't be able to buy or sell (Revelation 13:17)—if you can't buy or sell, how do you pay bills (that's buying a service), how do you get paid (that's selling a service)? Was Jesus married? Paul? I'm not saying you won't find a spouse, but if the Bible were a Disney movie Christ would be the prince and the Church would be the princess, any other romance would be considered a subplot and likely not get a lot of air time.

Speaking of Disney movies, our society has us believing the good guy always wins in a triumphant victory, and then rides off into the sunset with his girl. We forget that Christ is the victor, not us. Most of the disciples ended up in jail or crucified. They weren't "successful" by the world's standard and they certainly weren't accepted by the world. So, why are people convinced that because Mr. Scott's mother (or anyone else) has strong faith, God will stop every bad thing from happening in their life? 1 Corinthians 10:13 tells us that God won't let us be tempted by more than we can handle; notice that He doesn't say He won't tempt us at all...

Job is my go to guy, for almost every thing in life, and is a perfect parallel for this situation. Job was a righteous man. God loved Job, and Job loved God, but the devil thought Job only loved God back because God gave him favor. As much as I hate to play devil's advocate, the devil's point of view makes sense. I'm sure if I'd lived during Job's era, I would have thought something like "yeah, sure, it's easy to be all righteous when you're being fed with a silver spoon."

Think about it: we are the bride of Christ, so you should always think about faith as a relationship between you and God. Love comes easy when the other person gives you everything you want and need. However, we know that men can get irritated with their wives because they talk through the football game and women can get irritated with their husbands because they don't want to spend 4 hours in the mall picking out the perfect towels. I know both of these are overly stereotypical; I'm exaggerating to making a point. The truth is, you're never going to be 100% satisfied with your spouse; they're going to do something you don't like at some point. That's the price of having free will and independent thought. What keeps people together is the fact that you're choosing to love the person (this applies to any relationship really). God doesn't want us to be gold diggers, claiming to love Him simply because He gives us everything we ask for. He wants us to choose Him. That's the whole point of Him letting Satan screw up Job's life; He proved that Job would trust and choose Him despite his pain and misfortune.

God knew that Job had done nothing to deserve the misfortune that befell him. God knew that Job loved Him, but He wanted to prove to the world what that love meant—that's why we know the story today. In the end, Job ended up with more blessings than he'd had before his trial, but people often forget that he still had to live through the trial. Do you think that just because God gave Job more children he forgot all about the children that died? Satan thinks that by wreaking havoc in lives of God's children, we will leave God, that's why he wanted to torture Job. Satan's goal is to steal as many from God as he can—even if you aren't joining a Satanic temple to worship the devil, the simple fact that you turn away from God is a victory in Satan's eyes. The easiest way to do this is to get you to question God's love.
Top

Confusion of Good and Evil

Let me ask you, how do you define a good person versus a bad person, and how do you assess a good action from a bad action? Right or wrong, some people in the country believe Micahel Slager was the good person, and Walter Scott was the bad person. Clearly, one the jurors believed killing Walter Scott was OK. We don't all have the same definition for these things, so who is right? Will we ever agree?

An Evil Guy

Most of us will agree that Hitler was a bad person; bad is an understatement. We feel this way because of what we know he did. Would we have felt this way in say, 1930? Would it have been a good action for someone to have killed him before he rose to power? Perhaps instead of outright murder, an illness claimed his life, would that have been better? If Hitler had died before he became the infamous murdering maniac he was, it would have been considered a tragedy and there would be absolutely nothing to make us say "he deserved to die." His mother would have felt the same pain that Mr. Scott's mother is feeling now.

I'm not suggesting Mr. Scott could have turned into a murdering machine later in life. I gave this example to remind you that how we view an action is completely relative to what we know. As humans, we have limited information. No matter how many different news sources we keep up with or how close to the victim/murderer we may be, our opinion of good and bad is based on biased information. God on the other hand knows all the information, that's why He's the only one able to judge good and evil in the end. The jury may acquit a murderer, but God will handle the final judgment. For all we know, God has an even worse fate lined up for Mr. Slager.

With the knowledge we have, it's easy to say what we think would have been a better outcome. Yet, we don't actually know how changing an event alters our current realty. Remember, if an event never happens, we loose every thing we learned from it. Now think, what did we learn from Hitler and World War 2?

Hitler didn't invent anti-semitism. He didn't even invent the idea of eugenics (the process of weeding out undesired genes to create a "superior" races of people). Had Hitler not shown the world the damage these ideas could cause, would California still be a hotbed for researching eugenics?^[2][3][4] Would someone else have picked up that torch? If the US hadn't bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no one would know the harm radiation from nuclear bombs does after the initial explosion. We may have seen nukes fly back and forth across countries, resulting in even more people dead, before anyone realized the danger if the weapons had been delayed for the next war.

I'm not saying these things are good—they're horrific moments in humanity that should bring shame and saddness—but everything happens for a reason. We can't see what would happen if different events had played out over history. We don't know if it would have been better or worse. God does. I choose to trust He took us down the best path, despite our subconscious determination to do as much harm to one another and the Earth as we possibly can. Outrage over the death of our black men is going to serve a higher purpose, you can believe that.

An Evil Time

Since the issue and the comments were more specific to black people, I want to address the issues brought up about God and slavery while I'm talking about the ambiguity of how life works. One of the commenters said slavery (assumably the enslavement of Africans in the Americas) was proof that God didn't exist. Really? Were the Israelites His chosen people? Were they not enslaved for 400 years? Interestingly, we too were enslaved for around 360 years (roughly 1503 to 1865^[5][6])—history has a way of repeating itself... Of course the same logic goes for slavery that goes for what I said about WWII... What would the world look like today if slavery had never occurred?

Well, for one, I doubt the United States of America would have ever existed. Part of what made America financially stable was the fact that it had a free source of labor. The ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of religion (albeit, only for white men at the time) would have never gained popularity, because America wouldn't have existed. The Catholic Church would probably still be torturing people who dared to disagree with them. Would Europe have relinquished the colonies in Africa, Southeast Asia, Australia, and the Americas? Would they have ever been inspired to lead a revolt, or would Europe still be greedily consuming these countries resources while decimating their people? If the US never grew in to a super power, what would have happened when the world went to war?

Another obvious consequence would be the erasure of most of our own existences. Let's face it, as black as we claim we are, African-Americans are, on average, about 20% white.^[7] Chances are, most of us wouldn't exist because ol' massa wouldn't have been able to rape our great-great-great-great-grandmother. Sure, she might have still had a child, but it would not have been the same the child. Furthermore, all of the inventions by slaves would probably not have been invented; why invent stuff you don't need?

We're so content to focus on one detail, we forget there's a bigger picture. Regardless of whether you look at our lives from a religious point of view or from an atheistic point of view, we are but a speck in the grand scheme of things.
Top

Entitlement

I know, I know, you still want to know why so much bad stuff happens on Earth. It isn't satisfactory to simply say God is providing us with a choice or that these things happen for a reason. It doesn't really make us feel better that the Bible clearly shows bad things happening to good people, either, does it? Why can't we just be happy?

³But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: ⁴In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.2 Corinthians 4:3-4

Well, have you ever stopped to think about who's running the show here on Earth, and why?

We've been taught to think in terms of black and white, not just racially, but for good and evil too. Good always wins, and evil always loses. Yes. In the end. But it isn't the end yet, is it? We're in the middle of the story! Right now Satan is the ruler of this world; that's why bad things happen. The world rejected God when they crucified His Son on the cross; the message was "we want to do it our way."

We want to tell God what we will and won't do, but expect Him to swoop in and save us every time the world plunges into chaos. We don't want prayer in schools. We don't want "In God We Trust" on our money. We don't want "under God" in our pledge. We don't want to take the whole Sabbath for rest and worship. We don't want to give up the things God has said were bad for us. Yet, suddenly, when tragedy strikes, we feel like God has wronged us because He didn't intervene. That's entitlement...

Like I said earlier, we all sin. I may not be a cold-blooded killer (or even a warm-blooded killer—does that exist?), or an adulterer, or a thief, but I'm not perfect. Therefore, I do not deserve a perfect life. Adam and Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit. Now, we're all born with the knowledge of good and evil and the freedom to choose. If I choose wrong, my actions don't just affect me, they affect everyone around me. Eve's choice affected Adam. Together, their choices affected Cain and Abel. Cain's choice to be jealous killed Abel. Could God have put a bubble around Abel to protect him? Sure. Could God have struck Cain dead the moment the idea crossed his mind? Sure. Of course, then we wouldn't have free will. If we had no choice in the matter, that would make Him an evil dictator. If you could make your spouse stay with you forever and only do what you wanted, but on the inside, they though to do differently, and you exercised your power over them, would you be a good person? Conversely, if you gave your spouse the freedom they deserve and they chose to betray you, are they entitled to your forgiveness? Do you owe them anything?
Top

The Battle Isn't Over

Just because things aren't perfect on Earth, doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It doesn't mean He doesn't love us, and it doesn't mean He isn't watching out for us.
Top

References

1. Wolf, Richard. "Clinton's popular vote lead surpasses 2 million". USA Today. November 21, 2016
2. Black, Edwin. "The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics". History News Network. September 2003
3. "Introduction to Eugenics". Genetics Generation. 2015
4. Cherney, Isabelle. "The History of Eugenics in the United States". Crieghton University. 2016
5. Adi, Hakim. "Africa and the Transatlantic Slave Trade". BBC. October 5, 2012
6. Wickham, DeWayne. "Wickham: Do you know when slavery began and ended?". USA Today. February 10, 2014
7. Gates, Henry Louis. "Exactly How ‘Black’ Is Black America?". The Root. February 2013