King Saul Turns on David
READ 18:6-9, 12
What causes King Saul to turn on David?
Jealousy of the praise David
receives from the women of Israel.
He realizes that the “Lord was
with David and was departed from Saul” - in other words, he realizes that David
is the next anointed King of Israel.
READ 1 Samuel 18:1-5
How is it possible that two men, Saul and Jonathan,
could respond so differently to the loss of the throne?
One has the pure love of Christ
and the other does not (or has lost the Spirit).
How is it possible that one man, David, could respond
with the same loving attitude toward two men, Saul and Jonathan, who treated
him so differently?
Again, the pure love of Christ
– but it’s about to be tested.
But from that time on, King
Saul tries to have David killed; and eventually to hunt down and kill David
himself. David flees to the Judean
wilderness along the border of the Dead Sea, where he gains the leadership of a
group of outlaws. Things escalate to the
point that Saul gathers 3,000 men to hunt David and his outlaw band in the
desert. As luck may have it, Saul finds
a large cave in which to spend the night - the same cave that David and his men
use for their headquarters.
READ 1 Samuel 24:3-4
Why did David cut off a piece of Saul’s robe?
To show the King that he could
have killed him, but didn’t.
To make it clear that the
rumors that David is trying to take the kingship are false.
READ 1 Samuel 24:12
How does David really feel?
He still wants the Lord to
avenge him of the many hurts that Saul has caused him - he’s sort of cursing
him (“the Lord avenge me of thee”).
But David will not do the deed
himself.
We will see this
passive-aggressive behavior play out again with David in the story of Uriah.
But David does not always
“forgive and forget” or love with charity, as we will see in the Story of Nabal
and Abigail…
David and Abigail on the
Road to Carmel
David escapes to the desert
with his band. While there, they protect
the flocks of a wealthy man named Nabal from other outlaws and Bedouin
tribesmen, in return for a future payment of food and some sheepskins for
clothing. But when David’s servants went
to collect the payment at the end of the season, Nabal said “Who is David and who
is the son of Jesse? …Shall I then take
my bread and my water and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give
it unto men whom I know not whence they be?”
READ 1 Samuel 25:12-13
Why is David’s response to Nabal’s fraud and personal slight
different from his response to Saul’s murder attempt and banishment of David?
Everyone in Israel knew who
the “son of Jesse” was! David’s pride
could have been pricked.
It’s not fair - they provided
a service, are in need, and have been defrauded.
The wilderness of Paran (south
Judean desert) is a very inhospitable place (think Lawrence of Arabia) - their
“need” may be desperate.
David is still a natural man
at this point - he had a love for Saul which he chose to continue to honor but
for Nabal, the stranger, he had no prior relationship or love – he is not
filled with charity – for Nabal at least, as his love was conditional. This begs the question can you have the pure
love of Christ for some people but not for others – that doesn’t ring true to me.
What is David’s intent for Nabal and his household?
Justice.
Revenge.
Death.
Destruction.
The same thing Saul is
attempting to do to him (Saul is the
King but David has been “unfairly” anointed by the now dead prophet Samuel to
take the throne from him).
Why is being mistreated the most important condition of
mortality?
Eternity depends on how we
view those who mistreat us.
Mistreatment implies injustice
– if we deserve what happens to us, it is easier to accept; but if it’s unfair,
our hearts are really put to the test.
Nabal’s wife, Abigail, finds
out about what Nabal had done to David.
Fearing that he would march on their home in the hill country of Carmel,
she prepares all that is owed, and MORE, has it loaded on donkeys, and secretly
rides out to head off David and his army of 400 angry men.
READ 1 Samuel 25:25
Who is Abigail?
The wife of Nabal.
An innocent in this matter,
and probably one who was mistreated by Nabal herself.
She is a type of Christ.
READ 1 Samuel 25:23-24, 28
What did Abigail do for Nabal?
She atoned/recompensed for his
sins by delivering to David all that was owed and more.
She took upon herself his sins
- “upon me let this iniquity be” - "forgive the trespass of thine
handmaid".
Even though it was not her
fault and she had done no wrong.
She saved Nabal from certain
death at the hands of David.
She played the role of “savior
on Mount Zion” – an advocate and mediator who begged to be blamed for the
legitimate sins of another she cared for in order to save them from warranted
destruction.
READ 1 Samuel 25:32-33
What did Abigail do for David?
She pled for him to not exact
retribution.
She stopped him from exacting
revenge - and sinning himself in the process!
So, she atoned for David’s (and his army’s sins), too.
She softened his heart and
enabled him to forgive Nabal.
She gives him comfort in his
legitimate hurt at the hands of Nabal - David was deprived of Nabal’s love, but
he receives Abigail’s instead (and more).
Who is the real “sinner” in this story?
David.
…and Nabal.
It is the story about a sinner
(David) responding sinfully to the sins of another sinner (Nabal).
Who committed the greater sin?
This is impossible to know -
it’s a trick question.
However, David, as the victim,
will feel that his sin of non-forgiveness is “not as bad” as Nabal’s sin
against him. However, this is even
harder to overcome because it feels unjust to let it go.
The Atonement of Christ
When Christ stands before
the Father (and comes to us) to atone for the sins of another and seek our
forgiveness, does He say “forgive them for they know not what they do” or does
he say “forgive the trespass of thy servant?”
He has taken upon himself our
sins.
He says, “forgive the trespass
of thy servant (me, Christ)”.
Neither Abigail nor Christ actually committed the sin,
but their willingness to assume another’s sins illustrates who forgiveness is
for; so who is forgiveness for?
Forgiveness is for the victim
who was sinned against - the Lord will forgive who He will forgive, but we must
forgive all men.
Why must the victim forgive a legitimate offense?
To remove the poison that the
perpetrated sin has placed within the heart of the victim, that the victim may
be healed.
Because the Savior has taken
the offense upon Himself – for the good of all concerned (sinner and victim).
Why does Christ/Abigail not haul the sinner forward and
make them beg the victim for forgiveness (“say you’re sorry, and MEAN it this
time!”)?
For the victim’s sake. The victim may still feel justified in
withholding that forgiveness from the perpetrator, but how can they withhold it
from a loving Lord?
To enable them to more easily
repent of their failure to forgive.
Because they have taken the
sinner's sin upon themselves - Christ became guilty of sin so He could suffer
the atonement and overcome those sins before the Father.
The Lord says, “upon me let
this iniquity be”; in effect, He says “let me deal with it, if there is any
dealing to be done – I will be the judge of that because I know more than you
about what has really happened and why.
But you, please let it go, for your own sake! Let me take it, as I have already done.”
Should it matter to the victim if the sinner is really
repentant or not?
No - not if the victim wants
to be healed and forgiven themselves
(This is a HARD DOCTRINE - who can hear it?).
And not if the victim doesn’t
also want to add “self-righteous arrogance” to “failing to forgive”.
It is as if, in the Garden of
Gethsemane, the Lord’s agony came in waves - a first wave for the sins
that we commit against the Lord, each other and ourselves, with all of the
regrets, shame and guilt that come with realizing truly what we have done -
standing in the light of day with a full realization of all our guilt. But then it is as if a second wave
would follow and mirror the first, and in the second wave He suffered the pains
endured by the victims of the acts committed by those in the first wave - now
it was anger, bitterness, loss and resentment.
Why might the second wave (the victim’s hurt) be harder
to suffer than the sins of the first wave (the sinner)?
When the sinner comes to
themselves and sees their sins in their full context, they feel a natural
regret; plus, their sin is more obviously a sin.
But the victim may feel it is
their right to hold resentment, and to judge their persecutor - to withhold the
peace and love for that person - they feel justified in doing that; they will
feel justified in their righteous indignation against the sinner.
Why are we required to lay down any burden we may be
carrying - including forgiving those that unjustly sin against us?
When we withhold forgiveness
from others, we are in effect saying that the Atonement alone was insufficient
to pay for this sin.
We are holding out for
more.
We are finding fault with the
Lord’s offering.
We are, in essence, demanding
that the Lord repent for an insufficient atonement.
So, when we fail to forgive
another, we are failing to forgive the Lord - who, of course, needs no
forgiveness.
Christ can share with us His
insights into the suffering He has suffered for those who have hurt us and for
those we have hurt. These insights into
the Atonement form the basis of the “pure love of Christ” - they are truth -
things as they truly are, not just as we think they are, and at their heart is
love - the kind of love that encourages and comes from sacrifice for
another. Whatever we may see in others
that troubles us, He cries to us: “Upon me let this iniquity be.”
