6 Reasons Why I Disagree with John MacArthur and the Elders of Grace Community Church.

I would be remiss not to mention a couple things at the outset.  Dr. MacArthur’s ministry in preaching, teaching and writing has served my soul as long as I’ve been a Christian.  I have the highest respect for the faithful tenure of service that he has provided to Grace Community Church, the Church in general and countless numbers of peoples, in various languages, through Grace To You.  My disagreement with Dr. MacArthur is not personal.  I do think he and his elders erred on this matter.

Also I want to concede that the Elders at Elk Point Baptist Church also wrestled with this issue.  Although I was on vacation, I was privy to their work and I highly endorse it.  Their work in many ways is superior to mine.  They focused primarily on the issue that the political and legislative climate in California was totally different than the Province of Alberta.  To import a church’s reaction in that state and import their conclusion into our province was not logical.  My comments are not intended in any way as to undermine their work.  This blog looks at MacArthur’s position in light of his context and I remain convinced that it is unwise.  What gives rise to my response is the final sentence of his position, which reads: “Our prayer is that every faithful congregation will stand with us in obedience to our Lord as Christians have done through the centuries.”  The implication is obvious: to disagree is to be unfaithful.  The position of MacArthur is reported here: https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B200723

 In short here are 6 reasons why I disagree with their decision.   

 #1.

It is unfortunate that the GCC position did not reference exact California legislation.   We presume by the GCC blog that there was a “government-imposed moratorium on our weekly congregational worship or other regular corporate gatherings.”  The language of GCC is “moratorium”  meaning “halt” or “cessation.”  The language of the State includes ideas of restriction, re-location, addition of protocols.  Why did GCC escalate the language?

“Places of worship must therefore discontinue indoor singing and chanting activities and limit indoor attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. Local Health Officers are advised to consider appropriate limitations on outdoor attendance capacities, factoring their jurisdiction's key COVID-19 health indicators. At a minimum, outdoor attendance should be limited naturally through implementation of strict physical distancing measures of a minimum of six feet between attendees from different households, in addition to other relevant protocols within this document.”[1]

I think it is blatantly wrong for GCC to say that the State called them to cease their worship when it is apparent that the State asked for an adjustment to their worship.   We need to be careful of our language.  When the authors opt to use cease and desist language instead of amended and curtailing language it implies manipulation.

#2.

Civil disobedience seems unfounded and certainly not be the only moral course of action at this time.

  Churches throughout the US and Canada have found ways to honour Christ AND honour Caeser.  It is not true that GCC cannot meet.  They can meet out of doors. Is there any reasonable explanation why the larger congregation can’t meet in smaller groups?  I suggest two options to GCC. As an attendee I participated in a pastor’s luncheon (with 4000 + pastors and wives) hosted in GCC’s outdoor complex.  In what is normally beautiful California weather that would be an option.  Secondly, GCC and MacArthur boast some of the most qualified elders in the western evangelical world plus a cadre of exceptional professors at their Master’s Seminary, why couldn’t this 4000 member congregation fall under the leadership and preaching of various smaller groups held in COVID-19 respectful gatherings?  Alastair Begg’s church, Parkside Church, in Cleveland does this. I usually watch their full online service every Sunday.  To date, Alastair preaches to an empty auditorium and weather-permitting, the Church gathers out of doors for the evening service, seeking to meet under the COVID guidelines.

#3.

The State has not prohibited worship in every way and in all cases.  As yet this is not an Acts 5:29 scenario.  They have not been commanded not to meet (period).  They have been called to meet under certain conditions. Because they are not commanded ever to meet and because they are not commanded to disobey God.  They can still meet, still worship, still sing, still preach the Gospel, still evangelize.  So what might be behind this?  I am fearful that this appears to be more a political, social statement than an evangelical statement.  A careful listening of the following interviews given by MacArthur reveals, in his own words, that this is a “protest”.  His Church does not believe the narrative that lead up to the State’s restrictions.  In English they don’t believe the veracity of the medical claims.  By his own words MacArthur does not believe that the situation is as dire or deadly as being claimed.  They may also disbelieve the measures being taken as unnecessary or ineffective. These interviews will show this:

https://youtu.be/ssMW4QOCr7g

https://youtu.be/SR-TxvubxdA

#4.

MacArthur claims the US historic claim to separation of Church and State with its Biblical support. However what is overlooked is that the doctrine of separation of church and state has never been assumed in cases of building codes, fire regulations, health and safety concerns and even charitable status issues.  In Elk Point Baptist Church that are a myriad of things we do in compliance to the civil authorities from the above-mentioned to use and reporting of funds, Constitutional particulars, marriage licensing, etc. etc.  Indeed we would agree with MacArthur that there are many important areas that the State has no right to interfere, but health and safety of citizens is part of their God-given portfolio and we humbly submit recognizing that.

#5.

There appears to be no regard for what has become a very real health concern in the State of California. Photos of the congregation without masks or social distancing appear insensitive to the reality.  If there was a gas smell at GCC, not only would the worship be halted, the building would be evacuated and members would not re-convene until the health threat had passed.  God’s call to love Him with all our being cannot be set against His call to love our neighbour.  From the beginning of this so-called pandemic, Christians have been reminded to be sensitive to one another’s needs and to think not only of you, but others as more important (Philippians 2:3-5).  What is fundamentally different that a mass gathering without due care and diligence on a beach in San Diego and 4000 people packed into an auditorium without due care for their neighbour?  Both smack of unbridled insensitivity to the needs of others.

Lastly,

 #6.

But perhaps with equal importance we must come to the conclusion that the New Testament does not condition our response to human authorities on whether we think they are fair or even if we think their conclusions are based upon faulty data.  “Children, obey your parents if you think they’re right.” (!!?!!)  Peter lived through and instructed the Church in the most egregious, wicked regime in human history. Here’s what he wrote,  

“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:13–17, ESV) [Emphasis mine].

For instance, let me assume that I think that the work of the epidemiologists is faulty; that the medical analytics are flawed; that the diagnosis and treatment is lacking; along with a multitude of other foundational defects.  None of those things offer a free ticket to disobedience.

Conclusion

I end as I began.  With the deepest gratitude and respect for Dr. MacArthur and Grace Community Church I am not only surprised, but saddened that they would promote this position, for the reasons they give. They also have worldwide influence and I wish they had exercised greater discernment. I sadly see a political or social motivation more than an evangelical one.  I am also repulsed by the notion that to disagree with them renders me and my church as unfaithful.  I position myself in a vulnerable place to differ with such a giant in the faith. To God alone be the glory.

   

 

---

[1] https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship--en.pdf

The Ultimate Goal of Christian Friendship - 1 Samuel, Part 35

In the previous chapter, Saul attempts to kill David eight times. He initially tries to persuade Jonathan to murder David, but Jonathan refuses and asserts his friend’s innocence (vv. 1–5). In response, Saul vows not to harm David. However, he goes back on his word a short time later (vv. 9–10). David flees to Samuel at Ramah and goes into hiding and we have the remarkable story of David’s friendship with Saul’s son, Jonathan.

1 Samuel 20 (ESV)

David is confused as to why Saul wants to kill him.  At this point Jonathan doesn’t seem certain that this is his father’s wish.  Between the two of them they hatch a plot. Jonathan will excuse David from sitting at dinner with the King.  How the King reacts will convince both men one way or the other. “If he says, ‘Good!’ it will be well with your servant, but if he is angry, then know that harm is determined by him.” (1 Samuel 20:7, ESV)

David was certain of Saul’s murderous intentions, but Jonathan would seek to determine if they are valid or not and he promised to tell David.  In their friendship they made a covenant.

“And Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the Lord take vengeance on David’s enemies.” And Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him, for he loved him as he loved his own soul.” (1 Samuel 20:16–17, ESV)

Their covenant is further amplified in vv. 13–17, 42; 23:17, 18. The disclosure involved David hiding by a rock heap.  Jonathan would shoot three arrows near the heap and send his servant to fetch them. If Jonathan tells us servant to fetch the arrows in front of David’s hiding place that means that things are OK with the King.  If he commands his servant to fetch arrows beyond David, the news is bad.

At the King’s table, Saul initially said nothing about David’s absence.  But eventually he asked, and Jonathan gave the planned reply. “Jonathan answered Saul, “David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem. He said, ‘Let me go, for our clan holds a sacrifice in the city, and my brother has commanded me to be there. So now, if I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away and see my brothers.’ For this reason he has not come to the king’s table.”” (1 Samuel 20:28–29, ESV)

“Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan.”^[1]  There’s the answer.  The King’s anger is affirmed.  Jonathan brings the news to David.  “And as soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground and bowed three times. And they kissed one another and wept with one another, David weeping the most. Then Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, because we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring, forever.’ ” And he rose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41–42, ESV)

One of the most obvious insights into the relationship of David and Jonathan was their unbelievably faithful friendship.   Even in this chapter we learn that:

• It was stronger than personal desires (v4).
• It was stronger than family relationships (v9).
• It was stronger than personal ambition (v31)
• It was stronger than the fear of death (v3).
• It was stronger than time (v15).

 “Then Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, because we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring, forever.’ ” And he rose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:42, ESV)

 Verse 42 reads this way in the NIV: “The Lord is witness between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants forever.”   Many take this phrase to be a blessing.  It sits well on Christian plaques and posters.  But it is actually an imprecation – a calling of God’s judgment on one another, if in fact they or their offspring fail to keep the covenant.  The CEV captures the essence: “And remember, we each have asked the Lord to watch and make sure that we and our descendants keep our promise forever.” 

 But there is a deeper story here than simply a lesson on good human friendships.  I think it is caught up in this verse: “May the Lord take vengeance on David’s enemies” (1 Samuel 20:16b, ESV).  David is now God’s representative to Israel.  He is the anointed King awaiting enthronement. He also prefigures the perfect King who would come and rule over God’s people.  Jesus Christ is his son – his offspring.  The friendship of David and Jonathan was in fact a preservation of the Seed of David, King Jesus. To wipe out the household of David is to eliminate the promise of a Savior. 

Saul stands as the personification of the offspring of Satan (Genesis 3:15) seeking to crush the offspring of the Woman.  On this path of human history, the friendship of David and Jonathan stood opposed to that plan.  Here the story collapses into one point.  The marks of a great friendship include the cooperation of friends to stand against all that opposes Christ.  Friendships will either support the glories of Christ or they will oppose Christ.

 

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 20:30). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

The Doctrine that Undercuts Racism

“Total Depravity not only protects us from pride—it protects us from racism. A heart understanding of Total Depravity eradicates any kind of racism in our hearts. No people, tribe, or race outran the curse of sin. Nations and races have committed all kinds of hellish depravity against each other. From the mistreatment of Israelites in Egypt, through the African slave trade, Jim Crow in the United States, Nazi Germany, the Klu Klux Klan, to hate crimes against Syrian refugees in Europe, and right down to sentences said among friends that begin with, “I’m sorry, but Mexicans/Chinese/Italians…”—it all comes from Total Depravity. And once we know Total Depravity, we see that racial superiority is a charade. Every person of every shade of skin under the sun is, by nature, dead in sin. No one is better. Total Depravity explains why racism is so hard to see, repent of, or forgive. Depravity blinds us to depravity.”

- Humble Calvinism © 2019 J.A. Medders

Trudeau vs. Lucki

This is going to sound very arrogant.  I do not intend it so. The rhetoric today, especially surrounding the tragic death of Floyd George is wearisome.  The Preacher, Qohelet, would exclaim, “Vanity, vanity. All is vanity."  When our culture departs from God and His Word there is a tiresome emptiness to the language. Nothing is more obvious than the universal condemnation by our political leaders, following the mantra of movements like Black Lives Matter, indicting us all with the charge of “systemic racism”.  To her credit, the Commissioner of the RCMP doesn’t buy that. But her statement brought the criticism of our Prime Minister.

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said today the RCMP and other police agencies across the country have a problem with systemic racism — a day after RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki said she's "struggling" with the term and denied racism is entrenched within the organization.

"Systemic racism is an issue right across the country, in all our institutions, including in all our police forces, including in the RCMP. That's what systemic racism is," said Trudeau when asked about Lucki's comments by reporters during a news conference in Ottawa this morning.” [1]

Commissioner Lucki said this, “That is an interesting question because in the last couple of days I have honestly heard about 15 or 20 definitions of systemic racism," she said.

"If it refers to an unconscious bias that exists ... we definitely have that in the RCMP and we are not immune to it at all. There are times when our members don't act in accordance with our core values, which includes racism, and it's those times that we have to make sure that that doesn't happen."” [1]

Lucki is on point.  People are using the term “systemic racism” in casual and careless ways.  Prime Minister Trudeau is using the term in casual and careless ways.  If we are talking about Canadian government policy in years past that levied indelible harm to our indigenous people, that is systemic racism.  If we are talking about dogmatic, legislated assaults on black Americans by the US government in years past, that is systemic racism.  For systemic racism to occur in Canada’s police forces there needs to be structural, programmatic, pedagogical intent and applications toward racism.  Quite clearly there is not.  As a former soldier I can say with confidence that there is not systemic racism in the Armed Forces.  Businesses and institutions cannot be unilaterally slurred be assuming systemic racism.  

This attempt to deflecting the problem and blaming systems is an age-old trick — and it won’t work.  Commissioner Lucki is closer to the truth as she uses the term “unconscious bias”.  And that charge can be duly levied upon all mankind.  The Bible calls it our “sin nature”.  It is our default setting.  We are born with one shtick and that is to prefer ourselves above others.  We live in a post-modern world where words and definitions don’t matter.  The cultural definition of racism is so broad and so thin it is meaningless, all meaningless.  As the Commissioner noted there is no agreement on the term systemic racism. 

Nelson Mandela unfortunately said this, “No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate.”  Nothing could be more wrong than that.  His application is that if we learn to hate we can learn to love.  Not a chance!!!   The Bible teaches us that we are born with a sin nature that is inclined to all manner of evil including preferring ourselves over others.  Apart from a change of heart that is offered in the Christian Gospel, there is no hope.  

The Bible teaches that there is but one race.  The Bible teaches that through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ our self-centered, self-absorbed, self-centered default bias can be forgiven and replaced with a heart motivation to love God and love others as ourselves.  This can only occur through the miracle of salvation.  When this miracle takes place, men and women, blacks and whites, people from every nation, tribe and language are united in essential and eternal unity with Christ and one another.  There is no other solution.

So Commissioner Lucki I commend you.  We do have an unconscious bias to honour, prefer, love ourselves above others and only the redeeming work of Jesus Christ can change that.   

_______________________________________

1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-systemic-racism-lucki-trudeau-1.5607622{

The Infallible Test of the Spirit's Work, 1 Samuel, Part 34

Previously I wrote, “The jealousy, anger, resentment of Saul forever changed the course of his reign.  As to David we read that Saul “stood in fearful awe of him.”  Proverbs 29:25 (ESV): “The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.””  In Chapter 19 of 1 Samuel we have the ongoing saga of Saul’s resentment and assault on David.

1 Samuel 19 (ESV)

In this chapter, Saul attempts to kill David eight times. He initially tries to persuade Jonathan to murder David, but Jonathan refuses and asserts his friend’s innocence (vv. 1–5). In response, Saul vows not to harm David. However, he goes back on his word a short time later (vv. 9–10). In vv11-17 we read that Michal betrays her father’s confidence for the sake of saving David. Michal lies to her father to cover up her deceit. David flees to Samuel at Ramah and goes into hiding.

Twice Saul sent messengers to Ramah to arrest David but when they came into the company of Samuel we read, “1 Samuel 19:20 (ESV): the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.”  And then Saul goes himself and we read:

1 Samuel 19:23–24 (ESV): “And the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night. Thus it is said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?””

This leaves us with several questions.  What is the nature of this prophesying?  How can a man who is subject to harmful spirits also be under the control of God’s Spirit?  What in the world does nakedness have to do with all this?

It is likely that Samuel and these prophets, including David now, were in some sort of Spirit-filled worship, perhaps declaring God’s Word with or through song.  When Saul’s messengers came into the scene the Spirit of God overwhelmed them and they were irresistibly led to join the group. Saul experienced a similar fate except the author tells us that 1 Samuel 19:23–24 (ESV): “And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night.”  This appears to be a Divine act of humiliation.  Naked doesn’t necessarily mean naked[1].  The Faithlife Study Bible suggests:

1 Samuel 19:24 (FSB): “Saul removes his regal robes when encountering God, confirming the judgment of 15:23, 28. This involuntary prophesying seems designed to humiliate Saul and show that, despite the trappings of power, he is helpless before God.”

The ESV Study Bible adds, poignantly: 1 Samuel 19:23–24 (ESVSB): “The aggressive, angry king is humbled, even comically humiliated, before the power of the Lord, against whom he vainly strives.”

As I read this account I am reminded of Jonathan Edwards book: A Treatise onReligious Affections, where he writes,

“From these things it certainly appears, that religious affections being in a very high degree, is no evidence that they are not such as have the nature of true religion. Therefore they do greatly err, who condemn persons as enthusiasts merely because their affections are very high. And on the other hand, it is no evidence that religious affections are of a spiritual and gracious nature, because they are great. It is very manifest by the holy Scripture, our sure and infallible rule to judge of things of this nature, that there are religious affections which are very high, that are not spiritual and saving.”

In a word, Edwards argues that by simple observation of person who is under the influence of and seemingly affected by something spiritual is no evidence in itself that they are experiencing a sanctifying manifestation.

To be more blunt, just because someone experiences great tears; physical weakness and even things such as shaking or other manifestations; or a person experiences great grief and regret does not confirm they are experiencing the sanctifying work of the Spirit.  There has to be more evidence than that to decide one way or the other.  That is the point of Edwards’ book and what he will explain.

To be facetious, if many modern Christians had walked in on this praise service in Ramah they would have assumed by the uncontrollable expressions of praise, the anointing and perhaps “slaying of the Spirit” that a revival was in process.  Books would be written.  Appearances on so-called Christian TV would be made.  Strategies to replicate the event would be offered.  There would be no discernment as to what is actually going on. 

I commend to you Edwards’ book.  This does not comprehensively treat his infallible signs of the Spirit’s work, but it is a good summary:

“I shall consider Christian practice and holy life, as a manifestation and sign of the sincerity of a professing Christian, to the eye of his neighbors and brethren. And that this is the chief sign of grace in this respect, is very evident from the word of God.”

Will Saul arise from his stupor a man that is committed to holiness?  Then it can be considered a sanctifying work of the Spirit.  If holiness of life is not evident, true worship is absent also.

 

 

 

---

[1] Nakedness does not always signify complete nudity, but is also applied to a person with his upper garment off (cf. Isaiah 20:2; Micah 1:8; John 21:7).

Not Your Usual Father-in-Law! 1 Samuel, Part 33

1 Samuel 18:17–30 (ESV)

Undoubtedly this is the strangest marriage arrangement on the pages of Scripture.  In keeping with his promise (“And the men of Israel said, “Have you seen this man who has come up? Surely he has come up to defy Israel. And the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father’s house free in Israel.”” (1 Samuel 17:25, ESV)) Saul offers his eldest daughter Merab to David as a wife.  The first hint that not all is well in the king’s heart is his added expectation: “Only be valiant for me and fight the Lord’s battles.”^[1]

It is here the author lets us in on a secret: Saul still wants to kill David (v17b).  David, on the other hand shows a humility of heart. “And David said to Saul, “Who am I, and who are my relatives, my father’s clan in Israel, that I should be son-in-law to the king?”” (1 Samuel 18:18, ESV).  This supports the notion that his desire to combat Goliath was truly for God’s honor and not for his own reward.  During the time that passed Merab became the wife of another. 

Father Saul learned that daughter Michal loved David, so immediately he saw another opportunity.  His motives were still ungodly.  “Saul thought, “Let me give her to him, that she may be a snare for him and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.””^[2]  We are not sure how Michal could be a snare to David.  In Chapter 19 we learn that she practiced idolatry and perhaps Saul saw that to morally defeat David.  But with the help of David’s servants, Saul was able to convince David to accept Michal as his wife.  But again, he adds a dangerous proviso: “‘The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies.”^[3]

Saul thought that surely David would die as he takes up this challenge.  Not so! 

“David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.” (1 Samuel 18:27, ESV)

Saul’s failure to get David killed exasperated this monarch: “Saul was even more afraid of David. So Saul was David’s enemy continually.”^[4]

The author’s postscript on David was amazing: “Then the commanders of the Philistines came out to battle, and as often as they came out David had more success than all the servants of Saul, so that his name was highly esteemed.” (1 Samuel 18:30, ESV)

In Psalm 76, Asaph wrote, “Surely the wrath of man shall praise you; the remnant of wrath you will put on like a belt.” (Psalm 76:10, ESV) A modern paraphrase reads, “Human defiance only enhances your glory . . ..” (Psalm 76:10a, NLT) The message of this story as we consider the Big Story is that “I am God, and there is none like me,  declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.”^[5]

David was God’s anointed.  In David there would come the greatest son, the Lord Jesus Christ.  The rage of Saul could not prevent that.  God’s purposes will stand.  It was Job that would say, ““I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.” (Job 42:2, ESV)

All of Saul’s plans failed. He added expectations to his original offer hoping David would die in battle. He asked for the lives of 100 Philistines, hoping David would die in battle. He viewed his daughter as a snare and offered her to David.  The result was the intensified anger of Saul and the magnified glory of God.  Every time Saul tried to bring David into a vulnerable place, into a place that would take his life, it brought David closer to kingship – it brought the purposes of God to establish a Davidic dynasty closer to fruition.  It brought Jesus Christ the Son of David, into reality.  “No purpose of Yours can be thwarted.”

 

 

 

 

 

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 18:17). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[2] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 18:21). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[3] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 18:25). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[4] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 18:29). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Is 46:9–10). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

The Atomic Toxicity of Resentment, 1 Samuel Part 32

1 Samuel 18:6-16 (ESV)

1 Samuel 18:6 (ESV): “As they were coming home, when David returned from striking down the Philistine, the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with songs of joy, and with musical instruments.”

Celebrating the victorious homecoming of the victorious king would not have been unusual. But the author tells us that the song that the women sang honoured David more than Saul: 1 Samuel 18:7 (ESV): “Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands.”

Saul became angry at David’s prominence and the next day we read, 1 Samuel 18:10–11 (ESV): “A harmful spirit from God rushed upon Saul, and he raved within his house while David was playing the lyre, as he did day by day. Saul had his spear in his hand. ¹¹ And Saul hurled the spear, for he thought, “I will pin David to the wall.” But David evaded him twice.”

Saul’s anger comes directly from the prominence given to David.  It is interesting that while Saul mused about the apparent dishonour he was feeling, David returned to his humble duties.  Seeing David in that role infuriated Saul to the point of wanting to kill David.  It’s quite amazing what a wounded pride will do. 

Saul was well aware that the honour given to David, although expressed by the women in Israel was from the Lord.  That made him afraid. 1 Samuel 18:12 (ESV): “Saul was afraid of David because the Lord was with him but had departed from Saul.”  Jealousy, resentment, anger and fear dominated Saul’s existence.

Saul removed David from his presence and set him up as commander of 1000.  That was a clear statement to oppose the accolades given to David.  Saul had a problem with David and the response of Israel made it worse:

1 Samuel 18:14–16 (ESV): “And David had success in all his undertakings, for the Lord was with him. ¹⁵ And when Saul saw that he had great success, he stood in fearful awe of him. ¹⁶ But all Israel and Judah loved David, for he went out and came in before them.”

Jealousy and resentment invaded the first family rivalry. Genesis 4:4–5 (ESV): “And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, ⁵ but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell.”  This anger led to murder.  James 3:16 (ESV): “For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.”

There’s a lot of inaccurate, sensational teaching in the Christian church about Satan, demonism, and their evil affect on Christians.  But the Bible is very explicit: to harbour resentment is to give an opportunity to Satan. Ephesians 4:26–27 (ESV): “²⁶ Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, ²⁷ and give no opportunity to the devil.”

I remember speaking to someone who was taking psychotropic medicines. “Do you know what was going on when you thought you had a ‘mental disorder’ and needed psychiatric help?”  What I heard was a story of disappointment, bitterness and resentment.  We are left to wonder how things might have been different if their reaction had been different?  

Eliphaz knew the truth but wrongly applied it to Job.  But what he said still retains its truthfulness: Job 5:2 (ESV): “Surely vexation kills the fool, and jealousy slays the simple.”

The jealousy, anger, resentment of Saul forever changed the course of his reign.  As to David we read that Saul “stood in fearful awe of him.”  Proverbs 29:25 (ESV): “The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.”

When others succeed we can trust the Lord.  When others say things that harm us, we can trust the Lord. He is sovereign and raises the lowly to great heights and lowers whom He chooses. He is the ultimate Arbiter, the defender and the protector of His people. Romans 12:19 (ESV): “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.””

“He lowers us to raise us, So we can sing His praises. Whatever is His way all is well. He makes us rich and poor, That we might trust Him more. Whatever is His way all is well.”[1]

The destructive power of jealousy, bitterness, resentment and anger is beyond comprehension.  Only forgiving as Christ forgave us; trusting in the loving, providential rule of God; and seeking the comfort of the Holy Spirit will bring the serenity that we long for.

 

 

---

[1] Claire Hamilton | Johnny Parks © 2009 Integrity Worship Music (Admin. by Capitol CMG Publishing (Integrity Music, David C Cook)) Parks Publishing (Admin. by Capitol CMG Publishing (Integrity Music, David C Cook))