The Holocaust at Nob

Unscrupulous and unchecked power can create a situation in which a person is seemingly forced to make decisions they would never have otherwise made. I would suggest that David found himself in just such a situation as Saul relentlessly pursued him. Seeking to escape Saul’s murderous intent, David flees to Nob, where the sanctuary was currently located. The high priest, Ahimelech, upon seeing David, is apprehensive. But David dissembles and assures him that he is there on the king’s business. In the end, the priest gives David some of the Bread of the Presence so that those with David might have something to eat, as well as the sword David had won from Goliath. Unfortunately, an opportunistic member of Saul’s court witnessed all of this. He reports back to Saul what he had seen and Saul proceeds to damnably devote to destruction the priestly city of Nob.

Telling is the exchange between Saul and Ahimelech. Saul asks why the priest conspired with his sworn enemy. Ahimelech protests. It’s true that he helped David, even inquiring of the Lord for him, but as David was a much loved and respected member of Saul’s court this is something he had always done. Ahimelech didn’t realize that Saul had changed the rules. Good was now evil, and evil was now good. As a result, Ahimelech, along with the priests at Nob, are executed. When David heard the news he understood that it was his deception that had placed Ahimelech in danger.

There are a vast number of similar scenarios that were generated by the unfathomable rule-changing abuse of power perpetrated upon innumerable Davids in 1930s Germany. People were being placed in circumstances in which they had to make decisions they could not have imagined they would have to make. Some stood firm; most did not. I think the fateful decisions of David and his German counterparts serve as a warning: impossible situations make the unthinkable possible.

Peter’s denial of Christ fits the pattern. The good news is that Jesus extended love and forgiveness to Peter. This doesn’t justify Peter’s actions but it does teach that Jesus is the Lord of impossible situations, drawing good out of evil and transforming weak men into men of principled resolve who can say, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.”

Covenant Confidence

The love that David and Jonathan had for each other is described in terms that impress the reader with its depth of devotion and loyalty. It’s a type of love prized in human experience. However, their affection for one another was not the basis of their appeals that the other would faithfully extend kindness. They had covenanted together before God, and it was that bond, with its attending promises, that gave them confidence to expect benevolence from the other, even in the face of circumstances that could easily have tempted either of them to serve their own interests.

The covenant between these two friends is a reflection of the covenant God has made with his people. It’s a bond that has as its corollary chesed, the Hebrew term most often translated “loving-kindness” or “steadfast love.” As the writer of Hebrews explains, God desiring “to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose guaranteed it with an oath.”  He made a promise to Abraham and “since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, ‘Surely I will bless you and multiply you’” (Hebrews 6:17; 6:13-14). With that “surely,” God put himself on the line. He would stand by his word to extend chesed to those with whom he is in covenant.

This type of generous pledge making is reflected in the language of traditional marriage vows. The parties to the marriage vow “to have and to hold [the other] from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.” Don’t you long for that kind of love -- for love that is, in the words of Dale Ralph Davis, “not merely love, but loyal love; not merely kindness, but dependable kindness; not merely affection, but affection that has committed itself”? David and Jonathan made good on their vows. Unfortunately, some 50% of those who make such vows at a wedding do not. We can be assured, however, of God’s chesed for he has promised it and sealed his promise with the blood of his Son.

Love for the Lord's Anointed

Much has been made in recent scholarship of the relationship between David and Jonathan. Revisionists, looking for a way to baptize their own desires, label it homosexual. The absurdity of this notion becomes readily apparent when we remember that David is described as one of God’s choosing, a man after his own heart, a king who would rule as God would have a king to rule. Even a cursory glance at the expectations that God had for a king would note that he expected the would-be king to know and be submitted to the Law of Moses (see Deuteronomy 17). Current apologists for homosexuality themselves recognize that the Law of Moses is not kind toward homosexual activity. To suggest then that David and Jonathan enjoyed a sexualized male-to-male relationship is to suggest nonsense.

The stumbling block for these folks is the strong language that characterizes Jonathan’s love for David (see 1 Samuel 18). But the real reason for Jonathan’s love for David was Jonathan’s love for God. He saw in David a kindred spirit, a man who loved God and possessed great faith that God would defend his name.

Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, echoed this exemplary response to the presence of the Lord’s anointed (see John 12). Like Jonathan to David, her soul was knit to the Lord’s anointed and she responded with devotion and love. To the contrary are the responses of Saul and the Pharisees. They saw in the exploits of the Lord's anointed reasons to hate and fear, and they plotted to destroy the object of their wrath. But it was not to be. God was with David, and God was with Jesus. The plans of the jealous come to naught as God's plans overrule.

These disparate responses are worthy of contemplation. And rather than finding ways to minimize their impact by suggesting, for instance, that Jonathan's love for David was coupled with lust, we should ask for the grace to see the Lord's anointed as Jonathan and Mary saw him, worthy of total devotion.

Hallowed Be Your Name

One of the most famous stories in the Bible is David v Goliath. The message of the story, however, is often misconstrued as being about a weak party triumphing over a powerful one as when, for example, a small software company takes on Microsoft for something like copyright infringement. In such a scenario, Microsoft has overwhelming resources and can easily crush the attempt by the small market share “David.” Yet, should the small company win despite the imbalance, we would say it was a David v Goliath confrontation.

This typical application of the biblical account misses the point. Yes, shepherd boy David beats towering brute Goliath, but what is at the heart of the story is David’s zeal to maintain God’s honor. He is provoked to action by the “uncircumcised” Philistine’s defiance of the army of Israel and, by extension, Israel’s God. This affront needed to be addressed and David was willing to do it.

We have our own Goliath’s that have marched out on to the field of battle defying the “living God.” For instance, loud voices treat with contempt the biblical understanding of marriage as they seek to bring political power to bear upon the church. If possible, they would “give [our] flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field” (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Now, I’m not an alarmist (and, no, I don’t think it’s the “end times”) but I do think that great and grave challenges face the church in the not too distant future. We must determine now that we will stand, as did David, with the “living God.”  I’ve included a link below to a document that I hope you will take time to read. It places a challenge before us regarding several important issues. The intent of the framers of the declaration was to encourage Christians to determine beforehand how they will respond should they need to make a choice between honoring God and yielding to the threats of Goliath. Manhattan Declaration

A Banquet of Bondage

An incident from Numbers 11, in which Israel complained against the Lord’s provision as he brought them from Egypt to the Canaan, the Promised Land, is instructive. They had grown weary of the journey and the manna, the divinely supplied food that was given to sustain them. In their complaining they expressed a longing to return to Egypt. In Egypt, they said, they had “fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic.” But, of course, in Egypt they also had slavery and servitude. Somehow their current circumstances blinded them to that part, so much so that they remembered the foods they now craved as costing them “nothing.” Remarkable! This rejection of the future the Lord had for them caused his judgment to fall on them.

A similar type of grumbling happened in the ministry of Jesus. God had sent him as the Bread of Heaven, the true bread that the manna foreshadowed. By feeding on him Israel was to be sustained until they reached the greater Canaan, eternal life. Yet, like their ancestors in the wilderness, they complained about God’s provision. They rejected the Bread of Heaven and chose instead to feast on the fare of their spiritual Egypt.

The problem with the malcontents, Old Testament and New, was that they had lost sight of the goal that Yahweh had for them. As a result, they ended up on the wrong side of God’s history. His plan was moving forward toward Canaan and all the complaining in the world wasn’t going to stop it. The first generation died in the wilderness, never partaking of the land that “flowed with milk an honey.” Those in Jesus day remained dead in their trespasses and sins, never partaking of the wedding feast of the Lamb.

If we are going to make it through our journey we need to keep our eyes on the goal God has for us. We cannot allow trials that might attend our walk to turn our eyes back to Egypt as though what we had before is better than what we will possess. Egypt was servitude and the delicacies it offered made for a banquet of bondage. God has promised and God will provide. Resist the voices from within and without that would tell you otherwise.