Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Disciple: Week 9, Days 2-3
The Difference
When I was reading the story of King Saul yesterday, I kept wondering if what he did was really so bad that he deserved to be rejected by God as King of Israel.
Yes, he spared the life of King Agag of the Amalekites and kept the best sheep, cattle and calves alive although he was supposed to completely wipe out the Amalekites and everything that belonged to them. And true, he kept the livestock alive out of greed, but it’s not like he committed adultery, got the woman pregnant and then arranged to have the woman’s husband killed for fear of discovery, right?
Of course the latter is precisely what King David did.
Sure, David was punished—the child born of the adulterous affair died and later his own son tried to kill him—but not like Saul, who ended up losing his sons, kingdom and life.
But when I thought about it a little more, I realized that the key difference between Saul and David was not what they did, but their attitudes.
This probably sounds very obvious—like a Sunday school answer—but it was nonetheless a meaningful revelation for me.
God wasn’t just angry that Saul disobeyed or that Saul allowed greed to overcome him, but rather God was angry that Saul demonstrated a complete lack of reverence or fear of the Lord.
Samuel spends an entire night crying out to Lord for Saul, but when Samuel goes to confront Saul, he is told that Saul has gone to Carmel to “set up a monument in his own [honour]” (1 Samuel 15:12). God has given Israel victory over the Amalekites, but instead of thanking God, Saul immediately goes off to glorify himself.
And what’s the first thing he says to Samuel when Samuel catches up with him? “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions (1 Samuel 15:13).” What supreme arrogance! It takes a lot of nerve to lie outright to one of God’s chosen servants!
Then when Samuel actually confronts Saul about his disobedience, Saul asserts that he “did obey the Lord” and tries to commend/excuse/justify himself saying (emphases added) “The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal” (1 Samuel 15:20-21). He does not apologize but instead tries to make his disobedience seem righteous or, failing that, to excuse himself by shifting blame for his actions onto his soldiers. (I also wonder at the translation “your God.” Does this mean that Saul does not acknowledge God’s rulership over him, or is it just a vagary of the translation process?)
It is only when Samuel tells him that God has rejected him as king that he admits to his guilt. But his apologies lack sincerity; even as he confesses his guilt, he still seeks to shift the blame: “I have sinned. I have violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the people and so I gave in to them” (1 Samuel 15:24). (And apparently he can’t keep his excuses straight either.)
Moreover, after admitting his sin, Saul’s first instinct is to save face rather than to earnestly seek forgiveness from God:
It’s clear that his confession is an appeasement tactic rather than a true acknowledgment of his sin. He isn’t looking for reconciliation with God; he just wants Samuel to “forgive him” so that he (Saul) can put on a proper show of worshipping God. (And again, there's that “your God.”)
Contrast Saul’s behaviour with David’s:
As soon as Nathan confronts him with his sin, David admits “I have sinned against God” (2 Samuel 12:13). That’s it. No excuses or justifications, just a simple acknowledgment of the truth.
Another sign of David’s true repentance is his acceptance of his son’s. He knows that he was in the wrong and so does not try to escape the consequences that follow. True, he fasts and pleads with God for his son’s life while the child is ill and dying, but once the child is dead, he cleans himself and “[goes] into the house of the Lord and [worships]” (2 Samuel 12:20).
And even later he shows that he has truly repented by correcting his ways. Pastors and scholars often point out that David’s first sin was staying at home when he should have been leading his soldiers into battle. Well, in 2 Samuel 21:15-17, David is among his men while they fight the Philistines. He’s so involved, in fact, that he nearly gets killed and, as a result, his men swear to him: “Never again will you go out with us to battle, so that the lamp of Israel will not be extinguished.”
Again, this all may seem really obvious, but I think it’s the first time I’ve really appreciated the difference between the two men.
And it makes me think about my own attitude towards God and repentance. When I pray for God to forgive my wrongs, am I truly being sincere in asking forgiveness? Or, like Saul, am I simply praying out of a sense of obligation and in the hopes of somehow appeasing God?
The Difference
When I was reading the story of King Saul yesterday, I kept wondering if what he did was really so bad that he deserved to be rejected by God as King of Israel.
Yes, he spared the life of King Agag of the Amalekites and kept the best sheep, cattle and calves alive although he was supposed to completely wipe out the Amalekites and everything that belonged to them. And true, he kept the livestock alive out of greed, but it’s not like he committed adultery, got the woman pregnant and then arranged to have the woman’s husband killed for fear of discovery, right?
Of course the latter is precisely what King David did.
Sure, David was punished—the child born of the adulterous affair died and later his own son tried to kill him—but not like Saul, who ended up losing his sons, kingdom and life.
But when I thought about it a little more, I realized that the key difference between Saul and David was not what they did, but their attitudes.
This probably sounds very obvious—like a Sunday school answer—but it was nonetheless a meaningful revelation for me.
God wasn’t just angry that Saul disobeyed or that Saul allowed greed to overcome him, but rather God was angry that Saul demonstrated a complete lack of reverence or fear of the Lord.
Samuel spends an entire night crying out to Lord for Saul, but when Samuel goes to confront Saul, he is told that Saul has gone to Carmel to “set up a monument in his own [honour]” (1 Samuel 15:12). God has given Israel victory over the Amalekites, but instead of thanking God, Saul immediately goes off to glorify himself.
And what’s the first thing he says to Samuel when Samuel catches up with him? “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions (1 Samuel 15:13).” What supreme arrogance! It takes a lot of nerve to lie outright to one of God’s chosen servants!
Then when Samuel actually confronts Saul about his disobedience, Saul asserts that he “did obey the Lord” and tries to commend/excuse/justify himself saying (emphases added) “The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal” (1 Samuel 15:20-21). He does not apologize but instead tries to make his disobedience seem righteous or, failing that, to excuse himself by shifting blame for his actions onto his soldiers. (I also wonder at the translation “your God.” Does this mean that Saul does not acknowledge God’s rulership over him, or is it just a vagary of the translation process?)
It is only when Samuel tells him that God has rejected him as king that he admits to his guilt. But his apologies lack sincerity; even as he confesses his guilt, he still seeks to shift the blame: “I have sinned. I have violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the people and so I gave in to them” (1 Samuel 15:24). (And apparently he can’t keep his excuses straight either.)
Moreover, after admitting his sin, Saul’s first instinct is to save face rather than to earnestly seek forgiveness from God:
“Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”
[. . .]
“I have sinned, but please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord your God.” (1 Samuel 15:25, 30)
It’s clear that his confession is an appeasement tactic rather than a true acknowledgment of his sin. He isn’t looking for reconciliation with God; he just wants Samuel to “forgive him” so that he (Saul) can put on a proper show of worshipping God. (And again, there's that “your God.”)
Contrast Saul’s behaviour with David’s:
As soon as Nathan confronts him with his sin, David admits “I have sinned against God” (2 Samuel 12:13). That’s it. No excuses or justifications, just a simple acknowledgment of the truth.
Another sign of David’s true repentance is his acceptance of his son’s. He knows that he was in the wrong and so does not try to escape the consequences that follow. True, he fasts and pleads with God for his son’s life while the child is ill and dying, but once the child is dead, he cleans himself and “[goes] into the house of the Lord and [worships]” (2 Samuel 12:20).
And even later he shows that he has truly repented by correcting his ways. Pastors and scholars often point out that David’s first sin was staying at home when he should have been leading his soldiers into battle. Well, in 2 Samuel 21:15-17, David is among his men while they fight the Philistines. He’s so involved, in fact, that he nearly gets killed and, as a result, his men swear to him: “Never again will you go out with us to battle, so that the lamp of Israel will not be extinguished.”
Again, this all may seem really obvious, but I think it’s the first time I’ve really appreciated the difference between the two men.
And it makes me think about my own attitude towards God and repentance. When I pray for God to forgive my wrongs, am I truly being sincere in asking forgiveness? Or, like Saul, am I simply praying out of a sense of obligation and in the hopes of somehow appeasing God?
