Acts 16: Timothy Was Biracial...Sort Of

Timothy

Acts 16 tells us that Timothy was born to a Jewish mother and a Greek father. The Bible doesn't concern it self with "race" because the concept of race that we have today didn't exist; however, we are often told of tribal or national affilliations. These affilitions, like race, came with assumptions and prejudices that have parallels with the racial issues we see today.

Many of the stories I've heard from biracial friends have been about reconciling identities and getting others to accept both parts of their heritage. Although, Timothy's story is not about this specifically, I see a similar pattern. The begining of Acts 16 alludes to the pushback Timothy received (or was expected to receive) from the Jews because he had a Jewish father. The "need" to prove oneself to one side (or both sides) of one's heritage is still felt by people today, unfortunately.

Israel is a patriarchal society, so tribal identity is passed by the father.[1] We see this throughout the Bible and from the formation of Israel. Arguably, it is possible that a non-Jew could convert to Judaism, marry a Jewish woman and their children would still be considered Jewish, but that does not seem to be the case for Timothy.

We know that Timothy's father didn't convert or adopt Jewish customs because Timothy is an adult and uncircumcised. This is where we see the struggle in his lineage come to fruition. Despite having just concluded that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, Paul circumcises Timothy. We're going to talk about this act separately, but for now I want to talk about how it relates to Timothy's identity

Timothy's Struggle

The Jews would not accept Timothy as a Greek but they couldn't accept him as a Jew either. While there isn't anything that suggests he should deny his Greek father, there is a strong suggestion that he has to fully embrace his maternal roots to be part of that world. In some cases it may be possible to fully embrace two difference cultrues, but in many cases today there is contention, especially concerning nationality. I've heard many immigrants expressing strife with reconciling their "American-ness" with their heritage. I believe Timothy could relate.

What Can We Learn From Timothy?

Unfortunately, because the purpose of Timothy's story is not to inform us on the dynamics of nativigating multicultural identities, there is no real statement on how to handle such a thing, only interpretations. The act of Timothy's circumcision seems to be an act of him choosing his Jewish identity over his Greek identity, but we have to remember that this was really a statement about worship. Race, as we define it today, is not about religion or values, but in Timothy's case, it was about identifying who he worshipped. Greeks worshiped pagan gods and goddess but Jews worshipped YHWH, who had required all male children descended from Abraham be circumcised.

Notice, we get no information on how Timothy spoke. It is likely that he spoke both Hebrew and Greek, but did he speek like a Greek or like a Hebrew? In our society people judge "outsiders" based on dialects and accents, taste in entertainment, and many other trivial matters. You may be told you don't embody a particular culture for many insignificant reasons. These are not things we should trouble ourselves with; I believe God would have you to be confident in being yourself. What I took away from Timothy's identity struggle is that our identity in Christ should trump all things, as cliché as that might sound. Our actions should testify of our faith and that's all that really matters.

Why Did Paul Circumcise Timothy?

Now, let's come back to this act of circumcision. The last chapter we read (Acts 15) was literally an agruement about circumcision. During the arguement Paul advocated that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, and the council eventually agreed. So why is it that all of a sudden Paul is circumcising Timothy? I don't know the exact answer but I do have a few thoughts (and questions).

Did Circumcision Stop Being a Requirement for Jewish Men?

Christ Himself says He didn't come to change the law, which makes me wonder about the old covenant and the new covenant... There are multiple covenants in the Bible: the rainbow (Genesis 9:12-14), circumcision (Genesis 17:10), the laws of Israel (Exodus 24:7-8), Christ's resurrection (Hebrews 8:8), etc. The covenant God made with Abraham did not nullify the covenant God made with Noah. So why do should the covenant God made through Christ nullify the covenant He made with Abraham? In most of the discussions about circumcision, the New Testament is addressing whether or not Gentiles need to be circumcised. There's never a debate about the Jews. Customarily the Jews would have already been circumcised so there was no need for this discussion in reference to adults, but we also don't see parents opting to forego circumcision.

Unlike the average Gentile, Timothy had Israelite blood, thanks to his mother. The covenant of circumcision applied to Abraham and his descendants (including Ishmael), which technically still could be applied to Timothy. Conversely, God had never required the Gentiles to be circumcised physically, so circumcision of the heart was the only thing they needed to worry about. Perhaps those born Jewish by blood were still bound by the covenant with Abraham (which was not the same as the covenant made with Moses)?

It Was Not a Salvation Issue

One thing is certain, in Acts 16, Paul does not make Timothy's circumcision about salvation. It is evident that this has to do with his identity as both Jewish and Greek. In previous discussions, the argument was that Gentiles could not be saved if they were not circumcised, which Paul rejects. In Acts 16, Paul isn't the least concerned with Timothy's salvation; the issue is how the Jews will receive him. Paul circumcising Timothy in this case is like wearing a cardigan to church—I'm not saved because I covered my arms and shoulders, but because some people have a problem with seeing skin,[2] it is easier to focus their attention on the message if I eliminate the distraction.

The Israelites were very legalistic and had been taught that uncricumcision was unclean, but more importantly, a Jew who was not circumcised was an anathema to them. The knowledge that he was uncircumcised would have distracted them from his message. (Yes, this is a lot more painful than simply putting on a jacket and yes, to the modern mind it is befuddling that the Jewish men and women would be so caught up on the state of someone's private body parts—that is why it is important to focus our mind on the time period so that we can understand the context.)

Increasing in Number

Acts 16:5 says the church increased in number daily. Does your church get new members weekly? Can you imagine new people joining your church daily? To have new members daily, you have to spread the Word daily!

Forbidden to Preach in Asia

Can you imagine the Holy Spirit telling you not to preach somewhere or not to tell someone about God? That's counterintuitive. However, in Acts 16:6-10, the Holy Spirit blocks the apostles from preaching in certain places. Perhaps it wasn't the right time, or maybe they just weren't the right people. Nonetheless, God directed them to where they were supposed to preach. Many Christians today are discribed as pushy—trying to force God on people. Yet, there are multiple passages where we see God tell His people to move on. The Holy Spirit is to direct us when to speak and when to be silent.

Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia. Acts 16:6

Lydia

Acts 16:11-15 tells us of the conversion of a woman named Lydia. She was from Thyatira (one of the 7 churches of Asia Minor mentioned in Revelation). Outside of being a refuge for Paul and Silas after they escape jail, the importance of Lydia is not really given. One thing I did notice is that she was already a believer in God; it seems that this is a conversion from Judaism to Christianity. Also, her entire household is converted, but neither her husband nor her father is never mentioned or named. This implies that she took the most active role in the conversion and subsequent interactions.

Imprisioned

One of the more interesting things I found in the chapter is the events which led to Paul and Silas being thrown in jail. A woman who was possessed by "a spirit of divination" begins following them around. We know that this is a demonic spirit because Paul and Silas cast out the demon, however, the woman is both aware that they have information about salvation and announcing it. When we think of possession and demonic spirits, usually we think of people trying to hinder God's Kingdom. We would expect this person to be getting in the way their preaching or harassing those who stop to listen. There is no mentioning of this type of behavior though.

I find this interesting for a few reasons. I see it as an example of how to treat "lost" people. One might argue that the woman is lost because she is participating in soothsaying and possessed by an ungodly spirit, however she seems to be reaching out in spite of her demons. In response, Paul does not scold her or make her feel like an outsider, but instead rids her of the demon. When people come to us seeking Christ, it is very possible that they have a demon or multiple demons that are being exploited by others. It is important for us to help them instead of judging.

I have two major questions about the situation, however. First, was the woman seeking help or was she causing a distraction? There are many who claim truths (usually mixed with partial truths and lies) that appear godly to the spiritually untrained eye. These people then lure away God's people under the pretense that are of God. I have met many who buzz around the Church, proclaiming The Most High as king of the universe, but are actually there to stir dissention. Second, why did Paul wait so long to cast out the spirit?

Regardless, once the woman is free of the spirit, she is no longer of value to the men exploiting her. In anger, they have Paul and Silas arrested. While in prison they continue to worship God, and just as He did for Peter, God delivers them from prison. Its interesting that despite being set free, they do not try to escape. As a result of this, they end up saving the life of the guard and converting him. How many times are we so concerned for ourselves that we flee a situation without concern for those around us? Only a connection to the Holy Spirit would convince you to stay in jail when you have been given a way to escape—most of us would have made a bee-line for freedom!

One final point on this section concerns the baptism of the guard. He was baptized the very hour he chose to be saved. Many churches make their members go through training and classes before allowing their baptism, but there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that people were baptised as soon as they confessed, not later.

What is Started in Public is Resolved in Public

Those who put Paul and Silas in jail agreed to let them go, but wanted them to leave in secret. Paul is angered by this and refuses to do so. He argues that they were publically mistreated so they should be officially pardoned. This is still an issue today. The media is quick to publish sensational news, but rarely do they print as large of an article to pardon someone wrongfully accused.

References & Footnotes

1. Jews today claim lineage through their mothers but that is not Biblical. If lineage was passed through the mother, the entire lineage falls apart as Jacob, the father of Israel is the one descended from Abraham and at least two of his sons (Joseph and Judah) marry Hamitic women. Most Jews today descend from Judah (some may be the tribe of Benjamin or Levi). Within the lineage of David are 3 non-Israelite women: Tamar (the Canaanite who bore Judah children), Rahab (the Canaanite who bore Boaz), and Ruth (the Moabite who married Boaz). If identity was passed through the mother, David would have been an illegitimate king.
2. I really don't understand this, but I have encountered several people (always men) who lose their minds over seeing a shoulder. That conversation however, is probably better suited for a post on misogny and modesty.

Acts 15: Disagreements in the Church

Let's agree to disagree is easy when it comes to trivial matters, less easy when it comes to matter of the heart/morality, and even less easy when it comes to salvation. Today, there are over 30,000 Christian denominations,[4] mainly due to doctrinal disagreements. This issue existed all the way back to the very beginning of the Church. This chapter gives us two examples of disagreements within the church—one of which doesn't seem to get resolved.

Circumcision & the Law

After the church agreed to allow Gentile converts, they quickly ran into the problem of what was required to be a true convert. Descendents of Abraham were required to be circumcised. Israelites by birth were circumcised on the 8th day, but converts were circumcised at conversion. We see in Genesis 34 that this process in adult males rendered them incapcitated. Can you imagine hearing the gospel, believing it, and then someone telling you to be saved you have to get circumcised? The Pharisees—presumably those who had converted to Christianity—were suggesting exactly that. Many of the early Church leaders disagreed with this stance, including Paul, Barnabas, Peter, and James.[1] Which poses a theological question: are you still saved if you don't circumcise yourself.

To resolve the matter, the leaders met to form a consensus. Peter argues that when God gave the Gentiles the Holy Spirit, He purified their hearts through faith. Peter also asserts that the Pharisees were asking the Gentiles to do something they couldn't even do (keep the law of Moses). After Peter's argument, Paul and Barnabas support his points by revealing the miracles God has worked for the Gentiles, proving His presence is there without circumcision. James concludes the discussion by outlining 4 things they should require of the new converts: abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, sexually immorality, meat from strangled animales, and blood.

So the Law is Gone?

There are two (and a half) interpretations of the council's decision. Some believe that this completely abolishes the laws of the Old Testament, leaving only the four requirements outlined by the council. More commonly, people divide the laws of Moses[2] and claim only a subsection of the laws were abolished. The remaining state that this isn't about abolishing laws but emphasizing what was important for salvation, particularly to the Gentiles.

It's one of the more confusing matters. Remember scripture has to work in harmony, and it needs context, so lets work through some of that.

After this council, when Paul writes to the Church in Corinth,[3] he says this:

⁹Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ¹⁰Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 KJV

Paul's statement lists traits that we are not to revel in. We'll save the specifics of the verse for when we talk about Corinthians but the basic concept is that these traits are seen as unrighteous. Many of them fit within the four things spoken against by the council, but some of them (thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, etc.) do not. Theft and coveting are covered by the 10 Commandments, for those who argue the 10 Commandments was not part of the Law of Moses but is the Law of God. However, guidlines about drunkenness and extortion are given in other parts of the law, parts that can't be distinguished from the Law of Moses.

In Acts 15:21, we can find clarity. James argues that each of the cities has someone who preaches the law of Moses (re: they have access to that information). There was a stark difference between the Gentile converts and the Jewish converts: one was converting religions and learning a new diety, while the other was simply relearning how to interpret old scriptures. The Jews who joined the Church were already well versed in the law and circumcised, there wasn't much that needed to change as they assimilated into the body. Gentiles, however, still needed to learn the laws. Those who were pro-circumcision, didn't want to include the Gentiles in the synagouge or the church without them being both circumcised and fully aware of the law. The opposing side proved that circumcision wasn't nessecary as God was already showing His Spirit to the uncircumcised Gentiles. Learning the law is something the Holy Spirit could handle once they surrendered their life to God. When the Holy Spirit filled them, they could go listen to the law read in thier respective city and gain that knowledge. However, it was not neceassary for them to keep that law in order for the Holy Spirit to enter their life, this is why we see Peter and Paul arguing that the Gentiles have felt the Spirit even though they are uncircumcised.

The Importance of these 4 Things

The Law of Moses references the entire Torah (Genesis - Deuteronomy), so out of all those laws, why did they settle on these four? These four laws focus on what this particular group would have been struggling with. The ways of Roman/Greek pagan deities were in direct contrast to the God's way. Abstaining from these behaviors took the Gentiles out of their pagan lifestyle (and comfort zone), opening the door for the new way of life. Pagan rituals included sacrifices, consuming blood, and sex.[5] By putting these behaviors behind them, they were also announcing their allegience to God and welcoming Him as the authority in their life. Remember, the Jews already worshiped YHWH, they were just accepting Christ as the Messiah. In contrast, the Gentiles were learning and accepting a whole new lifestyle. They needed to cut the cords with their pagan gods to truly receive to the Holy Spirit.

Please note an important fact here. The Jews were used to salvation being dependent on an action on their part (circumcision, sacrifice, righteous behavior, etc.), but Christ gave us grace. In shutitng down the idea that circumcision was necessary, the apostles killed the idea that you had to earn salvation. Salvation was given without any of this. However, the behavior of a saved person is should align with the Holy Spirit. It won't be perfect, but if the Holy Spirit is leading, things considered ungodly will automatically be lessened and eventually removed from your life. This means all the things God despises, eventually you sould too, and He doesn't change.

Paul vs. Barnabas

When I think of disputes between individuals, I think of reconciliation, and when I think of reconciliation, I think of being on one accord. Many a Christian would have you to believe that "loving from a distance" is not Biblical, but when you look at Paul and Barnabas' disagreement at the end of Acts 15, you might not agree.

Paul and Barnabas agree that they should revisit the churches they have planted among the Gentiles (see Acts 13-14), and begin making plans to for their second journey. However, during this planning phase, they disagree about who should join them. Barnabas wants to bring John Mark, whom Paul considers a deserter. The disagreement between the two is so great that Paul and Barnabas split up. Barnabas takes John Mark and embarks on his on journey, while Paul travels with Silas.

There's a lot to pick apart here, from how they handle the disagreement to the implications of the disagreement.

Forgive and Forget?

When we talked about forgiveness at a Bible Study, we got hung up on the concept of forgive and forget. Forgiving is hard in itself, but we questioned whether we should truely forget some actions. For instance, you may forgive a pedophile but I don't think anyone would be comfortable with them leading the children's ministry. Similarly you may forgive a thief, but you probably wouldn't be so quick to nominate them for treasurer. We discussed these types of scenarios at length, trying to determine what truly constituted full forgiveness and what was the correct way to proceed—can a recovering thief never be the treasurer?

Paul seems to agree with us that there has to be some sort of process to get from point A to point B, because he is adamant that John Mark should not go with them. John Mark's crime appears to be abandonning them on a previous trip. No only does Paul not back down to suggest John Mark has changed, grew, or should otherwise be given a second chance, but the Church seems to support Paul's decision (Acts 15:40).

Agree to Disagree

Paul and Barnabas end their dispute by agreeing to disagree. Paul didn't cave to Barnabas' pressure and Barnabas didn't gave to Paul's. They both stood firm in what they believed in—a valuable lesson to those who've been made to feel that they have to cave in to keep the peace. What's really important about their decision to go separate ways is that it doesn't hurt their relationship. In 1 Corinthians 9:6, which takes place at a later time, Paul refers to Barnabas without malice. We also see in Colossians 4:10 and 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul seems to have reconciled with Mark as well. These men did not let their pride or ego get in the way of furthering God's mission. In fact, the disagreement worked for the glory of God in that separately, they covered more territory!

References

1. We actually see Paul get into the same disagreement with Peter in Galatians 2 (which assumably predates this council).
2. Some people divide the Torah into the 10 Commandments (which they call the law of God) and everything else (which they call the law of Moses). Others divide it into ceremonial vs. moral laws—and even within that what is categorized as what can be different.
3. There are plenty of references online that have dates for the when events happen in the Bible, but I recommend having a Chronological Bible in your library. The one I have not only orders the books of the Bible based on timeline, but it interleaves passages from different books according to the timeline. For example, the instead of giving you the gospels as separate books, you read the account of events from each author back to back. A word of caution, some dates are disputed so you should still research the information presented to you for yourself.
4. "Denominations". Christianity Today; visited June 30, 2020
5. Geoffrey Stone. "‘Sex and the Constitution’: The ancient Greeks". The Washington Post. March 21, 2017

1 Kings 17-19: Elijah, Ahab & Jezebel

1 Kings 17-20 takes a break from a series of brief records which introduces many kings to focus on God's prophet, Elijah who lived during King Ahab's reign in the northern kingdom.

Introduction

1 Kings 17-20 takes a break from a series of brief records which introduces many kings to focus on God's prophet, Elijah who lived during King Ahab's reign in the northern kingdom. King Ahab marries the infamous Phoenician, princess Jezebel, and is often at odds with Elijah. While Ahab is definitely a familiar name, I would say that during my tenure in the church and over the course of my studies, Jezebel and Elijah have gotten more focus from the church. Ahab seems to fade into the background as a secondary character, but I think that's something worth discussing as well. In this post, I'll talk about all 3 people.
Top

Elijah, the Prophet

Outside of Daniel and Isaiah, Elijah might be one of the most well-known prophets of Israel. He performed amazing miracles and became the second person in human history to join God without ever dying (covered in 2 Kings).
Top

Was Elijah Even An Israelite?

When we are introduced to Elijah in 1 Kings 17:1, we are not told what Elijah's tribal affiliation is, but that he was a "Tishbite" and an inhabitant of Gilead. Gilead was located East of the Jordan, an spanned across the territories of Gad, Reuben, and Manasseh.^[1] While it doesn't definitely prove that Elijah was a member of one of these tribes, it definitely increases the possibility. You may be surprised to know, there's actually a debate about whether Elijah was even an Israelite at all.^[2][3][4]

Unlike most important figures of the Bible, we aren't told a single thing about Elijah's ancestry. Up until this point, most people we meet are identified by tribe and/or father. When we meet Elijah's apprentice, Elisha, in 1 Kings 19, we are promptly told who his father is. For the kings, we are told who their father is and many times who their mother is as well. Samuel and Nathan's parentage are also given. This is not the case with Elijah. When you combine this information with the fact that the word inhabitant in 1 Kings 17:1 is translated from the word towshab, which means "sojourner, stranger or foreigner,"^[5] it becomes pretty suspicious. 1 Kings 17:1 is the only place the word is rendered "inhabitant" instead of stranger or foreigner. If translated as the rest of the occurrences, 1 Kings 17:1 would have said Elijah was a stranger in in Gilead, i.e. a Gentile who had made his home in Israel. ^[2][3]

Other scholars are adamant that Elijah was an Israel. They point out the fact that it is possible that "Tishbite" is a reference to a family line, negating the claim that we have no familial information on Elijah. Further, they point to Elijah name, which is of Hebrew origin and means "He is my Yah (God)."^[4] Some believe Elijah is the same Eliah mentioned in 1 Chronicles 8:27, and thus a Benjamite.^[6]

What makes it hard to gauge which argument is correct is the fact that both arguments suffer from faulty premises.

Those who believe Elijah must be a Gentile base the assumption almost solely on the word towshab in 1 Kings 17:1. While foreigner and stranger generally apply to non-Israelites, does sojourner? If Elijah is Eliah and a Benjamite via 1 Chronicles 8:27, He would originally have been from the southern kingdom and an outsider in another tribe's lands. The other complaint given is that Elijah doesn't follow Jewish law; he believes God can be worshipped anywhere and never makes an effort to go to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple. Elijah's assumption that he can worship anywhere doesn't have to be of foreign influence, however. The kings of Israel had already began putting this idea in their citizens' minds to keep them from returning to the southern kingdom. Besides, most of the Israelites weren't following the law themselves, how does that prove he was a Gentile?

Those who are adamant Elijah was not a Gentile assert that a Gentile couldn't have a Hebrew name, or that we aren't told of Elijah's circumcision and conversion to Judaism. As a Black person in the U.S., the assumption about the name baffles me. My real name is of French origin; I am neither French nor have I ever been to France. I know countless Asian Americans who have European names; these names were generally adopted when they arrived in the U.S. and are not their given names. Throughout the Bible we see God change people's names, but throughout life we see people change their own names. Furthermore, Elijah's parents could have been the ones to convert, and after converting, decided to give their son a Hebrew name. This is similar to how first generation Americans will sometimes give their children "American" names. The omission of an information about Elijah's conversion would be covered by the notion that his parents were the ones to convert; he would then have automatically been circumcised as a child, but he still wouldn't be Hebrew by blood. Of course, in the New Testament, when the apostles were introducing the Gentiles to the Word, they are explicitly told not to worry about circumcision (see Acts 15). The idea that this would have prevented the Israelites from listening to Elijah is interesting because Ahab wanted him dead. Most of the northern kingdom had already fallen into idolatry and those that hadn't weren't really in the position to reject anyone from their numbers. Plus, after Elijah rose a person from the dead, I'm sure they didn't care about the specifics of his lineage.

All in all, I think it could go either way. Both sides make valid points, there are just so many caveats and exceptions that it's hard to say one is more accurate than the other. The idea of Elijah being non-Israelites provides a nice symmetry to later events. For instance, when Moses and Elijah appear to Jesus, it would represent both the Jews and the Gentiles. It would add another layer of depth to the interpretation of the Word, for certain. However, I don't think the difference is so important that it changes the overall message of God.
Top

A Drought

Instead of a background story, we jump right into Elijah's first mission from God: he brings news to Ahab that God has pronounced a drought on Israel. Neither rain nor dew would fall in land until God said so, and considering the fact that Israel is located in the desert, this was probably a much bigger deal than it would have been in a place with more abundant water in the land. In water rich lands, it would take time to deplete the water resources before any effects of a drought could be felt, however in Israel, the effects would be almost immediate.
Top

Refuge

To protect Elijah from the effects, God sends him to a brook called Cherith which was near the Jordan. Scholars associate this brook with Wadi Qelt, though they are not certain that is a correct match.^[7] Once at the brook, Elijah is fed by ravens. People often associate ravens with death and evil because they are black, but this proves that God was not a respecter of color. God entrusts ravens to bring bread and meat to Elijah each day while he is in the wilderness. Interestingly, this means that the food was considered clean even though it had been in their beaks first--I highly doubt the ravens were able to wrap the food in a bag or cloth before carrying it away. Had the Pharisees thought about it, they would not have chastised Jesus about eating bread without washing his hands in Matthew 12. Two things that were never declared unclean--a living raven and bread or dirt and bread in Jesus' case--can't make each other unclean. This is also a reminder that unclean designated the status of whether we could eat the animal or not, animals such as mules, horses, and donkeys still played a critical role in farming; it was only when they died that they became unclean.

When the brook dried up, Elijah had to find another place of refuge. This time, God sends him to a widow in the city of Zarephath. Although she is struggling to feed her own family, she provides for Elijah as well. Elijah tells her that her supply will not falter until God sends rain to Israel, and as prophesied, they are able to eat until the rain falls.

It is interesting that God sends Elijah to the wilderness first and to the woman second. Once could easily question why not send Elijah to the woman from the get go. Sending Elijah first to the wilderness, where ravens provided for him, strengthened his faith in God. It is easy to assume a human is kind simply by nature and to attribute their generosity to luck or chance. However, ravens bringing you food is a miracle; it is much harder to look over God's glory in such an act. Just as Israel had to come through the wilderness where God proved Himself, this is where Elijah's journey began, too.
Top

Raising the Dead

One of Elijah's most miraculous moments was when he brought the widow's son back to life from the dead. Just when everything should have been returning back to normal because the drought had passed, the son of the widow fell ill. The woman thought this was some sort of punishment from God for her past sins brought on by Elijah. Troubled by the events, Elijah prayed for life to return to the young boy. God hears Elijah's request and grants life back into the boy's body. This is the first resurrection spoken of in the Bible, but it is not the only resurrection to be brought about by human hands.
Top

A Ray of Hope

Three years after Elijah's first encounter with Ahab, God sends Elijah back to tell them of the coming rain. When Elijah gets to Ahab in Samaria, a famine is ravaging the land. It makes sense that after a three year drought, there would be a shortage of food.

Before Elijah arrives, Ahab calls for a man named Obadiah. Obadiah was a God-fearing man and was trying to do right by God. When Ahab's wife Jezebel went after the prophets, Obadiah hid 100 of them in a cave and brought food and water to them. This must have been difficult during the famine. I'd wager Ahab didn't know about any of this, otherwise, I think Obadiah would have been on Ahab's bad side.

Ahab wanted Obadiah to search for water and grass for the livestock. Keeping the livestock alive would have been a top priority in the kingdom. Without rain, crops would have been almost impossible to grow leaving meat and animal products such as eggs or milk to be the only provisions left. If the animals died, the Israelites would have nothing.

When the two men split up in search of these resources, it is Obadiah who runs into Elijah. Elijah asks Obadiah to tell Ahab that he is present but Obadiah sees this as a death sentence on himself. Ahab had apparently been looking for Elijah unsuccessfully for some time. Obadiah was afraid Elijah would disappear, provoking the kings wrath. During this time it seems the queen (Jezebel) was purging the kingdom of people who worshipped the Lord, in favor of pagan worshippers. Elijah is not afraid to meet the king and queen however; he gives his word that he will remain.

Ahab is quick to blame the situation on Elijah, just as people today blame the troubles of the world on God and His people. Elijah quickly reminds Ahab that it is he and his line that have forsaken the commandments and brought God's wrath upon them. Elijah has Ahab gather everyone, including the false prophets of Baal and Asherah, to mount Carmel.
Top

A Challenge Issued

Elijah says the same thing the New Testament tells us: you can't follow two gods. Elijah gives Israel the same choice we have today, to follow God or to follow the false Baal. Elijah points out that he is the only prophet of the Lord left but Baal has 450 men claiming to be his prophets. Elijah challenges them to bring 2 bulls to be sacrificed, only, they would not put fire to them. The men of Baal were to call on Baal to enflame their bull, and Elijah would call on God to enflame his.

Then men of Baal cry out to their deity from morning until noon, but nothing happens. Elijah mocks the men by suggesting that their god is sleeping or out on an adventure. The men even resort to self harm to attract the false god's attention. As one can expect, Baal does not answer and no fire engulfs the bull.

When it is Elijah's turn, he creates a trench of water around the sacrifice. Following this, he prays to God. Elijah asks that God will show Himself to the people so that they may turn away from Baal and back to the true God. God answers Elijah's prayer and sets fire to the bull. When the people see this, they fall to the ground to worship God.
Top

End of the Drought

Elijah commands them to put the prophets of Baal to death. After this is carried out, rain returns to the land. Elijah sends Ahab ahead of the rain by chariot and he runs before the chariot with the help of God. This should have been seen as a friendly gesture, but it was not taken as such by Ahab or his wife.
Top

Conflict with Jezebel

Photocredit: FreeImages.com/Shyle Zacharias

When Jezebel hears that all of her pagan priests have been killed, she sets out to kill Elijah. Elijah flees to Beersheba, where he leaves his servant but continues himself into the wilderness. In the wilderness Elijah asks God to end his life. Elijah felt like he was no better than his fathers; an understandable feeling after you've killed 450 men. While Elijah is sleeping under a juniper tree, God sends an angel to wake him. The angel tells Elijah to rise and eat of the cake and water God has provided. Appearing twice, the angel persuades Elijah to eat informing him, that his journey is great. Elijah was sustained for 40 days and nights on this alone. We should never fear how we will survive when following the path the Lord has set for us; rest assured, He will provide.

After the 40 days, God speaks to Elijah while he is living in a cave. When God questions Elijah on why he is in the cave, Elijah explains his dilemma (which God already knows). God's question was likely to prompt Elijah into thinking about why he would hide away when the people really needed him. God places Elijah on the mountain, and he sends a wind, an earthquake, and fire. None of these acts of God "contain His Spirit," however. It is a still small voice that actually speaks to Elijah. This is evidence that while God is big and powerful, He is also peaceful and calm. He does not reveal himself only through destruction but by this still small voice as well. Once again, God questions Elijah about what he is doing there. Likely, God's message to Elijah was that He is all powerful; there is no need to hide when you are fighting on God's side of the war.
Top

Ahab

Although Ahab isn't particularly fond of Elijah, it is Jezebel who becomes angry and decrees that Elijah should be killed. Given the fact that Jezebel was both a pagan and a female, one would think she would not have held such power. For her to command such power, Ahab had to have given it to her. Either he acted as a puppet, commanding everything she asked, or he gave the order for his servants to follow her instruction.

While I see nothing wrong in a healthy partnership where the wife is able to express her opinions and thoughts, there is something amiss about a king who allows someone else to take control of his kingdom. Ahab's inability to be the "ultimate" authority in his kingdom stemmed from his lack of leadership skills. Likely, he had no leadership skills because God had not appointed him king. We will continue to see Jezebel usurp power and undermine Ahab's rule throughout the text. Perhaps if Ahab had married a different woman, or had stood his ground, he wouldn't have gone down in history as such a bad king. At least, he probably would have been more recognizable than his wife and arch enemy.
Top

Jezebel's Legacy

When I was little, my parents bought me horse who had already been named. Her name was Jezebel, though everyone in my family called her Jazzy or Jazabelle. We all thought it was crazy that she had been named Jezebel; that's almost as bad as naming your pet Lucifer! Jezebel clearly wasn't a positive figure in the Bible, but when I hear the name "Jezebel," I don't think of calculating and murderous, as Queen Jezebel proved to be, I think of a promiscuous woman.

In everyday speech, jezebel is used about the same way as "hussy." Urban dictionary lists the term to mean a variety of things, from beautiful to "whore."^<[8] Jezebel is also the name of a popular magazine that is targeted to women and specializes in "celebrities, sex, feminism, and issues relating to women's empowerment." Is it not odd that a magazine supposedly about women's empowerment, chose to name itself after the evilest woman in the Bible? Why not name it after Esther? Mariam? Deborah? They could have even named it after a famous woman who was from secular history, but they chose Jezebel. Why?

The question often comes back to how Jezebel got associated with sexuality and promiscuity; her evil deeds dealt with idolatry, not sex. I suspect it comes from a misinterpretation of 2 Kings 9:22, in which a reference is made to the whoredoms of Jezebel. However, this isn't a reference to sexual whoredom. The bible often uses this phrase when discussing idolatry. To bow to other gods is to commit adultery to the true God (remember, we are the bride of Christ). I'm pretty sure people misinterpreted this verse until suddenly Jezebel was a whore and her name became an insult meaning whore.
Top

Elijah Makes an Ally

God sends Elijah to Damascus, where he is instructed to anoint Hazael to be the king of Syria. Even though Syria was not God's chosen land, He was still in control of who should be king. The Bible focuses on God's chosen people, so we often forget that God is supereme over the whole world. This means God has always had a hand in what happened in other nations. Just because these nations were not chosen to preserve God's word does not mean He forgot about them or abandoned them. Remember many of the surrounding nations were also descendants of Abraham.

In addition to instructing Elijah on forming this alliance with Syria, God gives Elijah instructions for Israel. God appoints Jehu to be anointed king and replace Ahab. God says that Hazael will slay their enemies, but those not slain by him were to be slain by Jehu, and those not slain by Jehu, were to be slain by Elijah. Elijah was given a plan to ensure all of God's enemies were stamped out; if one person failed to do the job, there was another to carry out the task. To aid in this upcoming battle, God reveals that He has 7000 followers still in Israel. These 7000 had not succumbed to idolatry and had resisted the popular trend of bowing to Baal. I think it's safe to say, as long as we're still here, there is a sizable army of God still present in the world.
Top

The Next Prophet: Elisha

Also in Elijah's instructions from God, was the appoint of an apprentice to become the next prophet: Elisha. Elijah convinces Elisha to follow him. Elisha was the son of Shaphat. Elisha is eager to follow Elijah, who was likely well known and admired in circles that still worshiped God. In celebration of the honor, Elisha kills a set of oxen and the people of Elisha's town feast with them. After the feast, Elisha follows Elijah to become the next prophet according to God's command.
Top

References

1. M.G. Easton M.A., D.D. "Gilead". Illustrated Bible Dictionary, via BibleStudyTools.com. 1897; visited January 2017
2. Elijah Was A Gentile". Beware Deception. May 3, 2009
3. "1 Kings 17:1 Commentary". via BibleHub.com; visited January 2017
4. "Elijah was NOT a Gentile". OSY Ministries. 2011
5. "Strong's H8453: towshab. Blue Letter Bible; visited January 2017
6. Emil G. Hirsch, Eduard König, Solomon Schechter, Louis Ginzberg, M. Seligsohn, Kaufmann Kohler. "Elijah. Jewish Encyclopedia; visited January 2017
7. Holman Bible Publishers. Holman KJV Study Bible, pg. 616. 2014
8. "Jezebel. Urban Dictionary; visited January 2017

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

Joshua 5: Ceremonies in the Promised Land

The Israelite confirm their devotion to God by getting circumcised and celebrating the Passover.

Introduction

Before the Israelites can go to war, they have to wrap up all of their unfinished business with God! This includes circumcision and celebrating the Passover. In addition we learn that the kings of the Canaanites and the Amorites have heard of Israel's miraculous entry. This news makes their hearts melt.
Top

Circumcision

It appears that during their years in the wilderness, the Israelites had neglected circumcision. Joshua is commanded to circumcise all the men using sharp knives. Joshua 5:2 says "again" and "second time" in reference to circumcision, which could be referring to time periods; the Israelites practiced circumcision before captivity and now they would take of the practice again, for the second time. Of course, it could also refer to a second circumcision.^[1][2] Regardless of what is meant by "again," the sign goes back to the covenant made with Abraham and symbolizes their faith. The circumcision also served as a symbol of their status as the chosen people.
Top

Passover

Unleavened Bread

The Israelites kept the Passover on the 14^th day as instructed. The observance occurred in Gilgal, outside of Jericho. This was the last time they received manna from God. Now that they were in the promised land, they could eat their fill from the land. Gilgal is mentioned throughout the Old Testament; it is featured prominently in 1 Samuel.
Top

Captain of the Host of the Lord

God sends someone, referred to as the captain of the Host of the Lord. Joshua was concerned that his drawn sword was meant for Joshua, however, the man reveals his identity as a captain of God's army. Upon this news, Joshua begins to worship the man. The man responds that Joshua should remove his shoes because he stood on holy ground. I wonder if this man was Jesus or the Holy Spirit. It seems unlikely that worship of an angel would be allowed, which implies the captain must have been part of the Godhead.
Top

References

1. "Joshua 5:2 Commentary". Bible Hub. 2016
2. Joshua 5:2 Commentary. Bible Study Tools. 2016