National (In)security - 6 of 6

If you missed our first five sessions of National (In)security, please go back and start at the beginning:

• Session one - Further Context
• Session two - Seeing and Believing
• Session three - The (In)security of idolatry
• Session four - The King and I
• Session five: Extreme Makeover: The Saul Edition

Today we wrap up this present National (In)security series focusing on two heroes: Jonathan and David.

So, find a quiet space. Sit down and take a few breaths.

Today's session should may take about 90 minutes.

Ready? Let's begin.


Section one. Jonathan's Mission Impossible.




With the theme of Mission: Impossible now running in your head...let the adventure begin: read 1 Samuel 14:1-23, then click back here.

Before we get further in, let's consider some comments from Keith Bodner's commentary on 1 Samuel:

• evaluate the presentation of Jonathan as this episode unfolds.
• note the ambiance of the opening lines of this chapter, as Saul's posture of "sitting" will become increasingly familiar as the narrative continues.
• for those of you who are familiar with the story in 1 and 2 Samuel, can you feel the tension between the faith, honor and goodness witnessed in Jonathan and the fact that he will never be king?

We find ourselves immediately in a situation of Philistine occupation and the heir of Saul, Jonathan, and his armour-bearer moving into a dangerous situation. A mission impossible situation. Pinned-down with less sophisticated weapons and the enemy has the high-ground. But that doesn't stop Jonathan. Did you notice that it actually says he did it without telling his father, Saul, the King? Saul probably would not have let his son take on this dangerous mission, but is Jonathan just a young adrenaline-junkie looking for action and adventure or is there more to it? Obviously, as we read, there was more to it. Jonathan and his helper scout out the Philistine garrison position and acting in faith, they join God in a great rout of the Philistines. Way before John Wimber's timeless observation, Jonathan puts it into action: "Faith is spelled R-I-S-K!" Jonathan seems to intuit an opportune moment that God will win the battle, which prompts him into taking action. Take note here of the Hebrew term na'ar and it's translation in verse 1, "young man bearing his armour" or just "armour-bearer". We won't go into detail at this point, but take note of it here, because we will come back to this when we get to 1 Samuel 17.

P. Kyle McCarter gives the basic background for this episode that flows from the previous chapter, 1 Samuel 13: "The general situation in palestine is clear. It is a time of Philistine occupation, or at least of a strong Philistine military presence, in the central hill country...Saul's armies, deployed in the hills around Bethel to the north of Gibeah (13:2), represent an organized resistance force. In the immediate background is Jonathan's assassination of the Philistine prefect at Gibeah, an act of open rebellion..."

So while Jonathan is out being a catalyst for God's will, where is his father? The author of our text seems to be contrasting the action of Jonathan, the crown-prince, and his father, Saul, who is sitting under a pomegranate tree, which is curious because pomegranate's grow on bushes. Anyway, as chapter 13 made clear, Saul and Jonathan have the only equivalent weaponry - swords - with which to really partake in a battle. Saul seems to have a terrible sense of timing and realzing what to do when. I know I have struggled with this as well, and may be a common experience of others: when we have made a few mistakes or mis-stpes that errode our self-confidence, we get trapped in not knowing what to do next.

I sympatheize with Saul at this point, because I think I have been in that situation. In my situation, I had wise counsel that guided me to transfer my confidence in myself to having confidence in God. When people get like this they often can turn to many places: horoscopes, pamlistry, even mediums to contact the dead. Even in American Christianity, I think many a tortured and insecure person have ran from conference to conference seeking with great anxietyIt can be paralyzing, just as it is here with Saul. But I think the contrast we see through 1 Samuel 14 between Saul and his son Jonathan is striking. Jonathan and Saul both probably believe that God can help defeat the Philistines, and yet it is Jonathan who puts his belief into action and goes looking for the opportune moment rather than sitting back and waiting for God to come to him.

I think we can learn something from this portrayal of Jonathan and Saul given by Erwin McManus:

"Jonathan is an unusual character in the history of Israel...this unique individual who did not allow his circumstances to limit the impact of his life. The Philistines were warrior(s)...described as idolatrous and wicked. It was God's desire to establish Israel as a nation that would reflect His character...Jonathan did not tell his father, but sneaked out while the six hundred warriors with them were asleep. The circumstances that led Jonathan to make his decision expose a dilemma we all face. As warrior-king, Saul had the responsibility to lead the charge. He had been commanded by the Lord God to engage in battle and was promised a sure victory...which leads to what we might call the pomegranate dilemma. Samuel described the dilemma that faced Jonathan. he told us that Saul was staying on the outskirts of Gibeah under a pomegranate tree in Migron, and with him were his six hundred soldiers, and also Ahijah, who was the priest of the Lord. In other words, all of the political, military, and religious authority needed to act was under Saul's direction. Earlier Saul was too impetuous to wait on Samuel to invoke a blessing of God before they went into battle. Now he was paralyzed and afraid to engage in the very same battle. There is a tragic reality that many times the very things that God blesses us with become the obstacles to seizing our divine moments...The greatest danger that success brings, aside from arrogance, is the fear of losing what has been gained."

And the fear of losing what has been gained will take Saul to very dark places as we shall see as we continue through 1 Samuel.

God does a great thing through Jonathan's risk. I'm not sure we can picture Jonathan' climb up the side of the hill on his hands and knees like this, but I thought I would share this scene for fun:




Thus Jonathan and his valiant assistant move out in faith and God literally rocks the world of the Philistines. The literal rendering of the Hebrew herdat elohim in verse 15 is "terror from God" or a "shuddering of God," which can also be witnessed to in Genesis 35 and 2 Kings 7.

Notice in verse 21, the reference to "Hebrews" who were with the Philistines and then turn and join Saul and Jonathan. The Hebrew word for "Hebrew" here is 'ibri. P. Kyle McCarter gives us some perspective on this:

"...the term 'ibri, "Hebrew," appears most often in the Bible as the designation of an Israelite in the speech of foreigners (or in speeches by Israelites to foreigners: Exodus 3:18; Jonah 1:9, etc.); the only clear exceptions in narrative materials to this generalization occur in Gen 14:13...in the story of Moses, where the ethnic distinction between Egyptians and Hebrews is crucial (Exod 1:15; 2:11,13), and in the present passage. The term is also used in legal (Exod 21:2; Deut 15:12) or quasi legal (Jer 34:9,14) material, where matters of kinship require emphasis...Scholars have long entertained the possibility of a connection between 'ibri and 'apiru, a title applied to certain peoples of disputed cultural background and affiliation...most often as enemies of established societies."

In the Amarna letters, which are ancient diplomatic correspondence from the Pharoah in Egypt to his underlings in Canaan, the 'apiru appear almost exclusively as militant mercenaries or even highway bandits/robbers. While these Egyptian records speak of 'apiru, those written in Akkadian refer to Habiru. These 'Apiru/Habiru are often described as displaced people, disturbers of the peace, malcontents who harassed the Ancient Near East during the second and third millennia. Not infrequently these 'Apiru/Habiru hired themselves out as mercenaries.

Further scholarship and research has ascertained that 'apiru/habiru is originally a sociological, not an ethic, term. It is significant that "Hebrew" occurs in the Book of Exodus especially when the sojourn in Egypt and the Egyptians oppression are concerned. It is likely that a process of assimilation took place: ancestors of the Israelites who had freely gone down to Egypt later became assimilated to other 'apiru/habiru. The latest scholarship by Anson Rainey actually points to another group similar to 'apiru called the shasu, who in one Egyptian text from the late 13th century BCE - the Papyrus Anastasi VI - refers to the transfer of shasu tribes down into Egypt, "...in order to keep them alive and in order to keep their cattle alive." Interesting parallel with the Gensis account of the Israelites going down into Egypt (beginning in Genesis 42). In any event, the use of the term emphasizes the oppressed nature and staus of God's people.


OK, let's move on and read the rest of chapter 14; click on this link and read 1 Samuel 14:24-52, then return here.

Saul commits another blunder in his binding of the entire gathered fighting men with his oath or vow. We can conjecture at some motivations for Saul's oath, but most of them are mere good intentions. At this point in the battle with the Philistines, perhaps Saul is trying to do the best thing: keep his men from being dispersed chasing the Philistines who are filled with "the terror of God."

It is a fact that in their skirmishes and battles with the Philistines, every time the Israelites have them on the run, the Israelites fail to follow through. Perhaps that is just what Saul realizes and tries to commit his men to actually follow through. Perhaps Saul is blundering in seeking to be like Joshua, who also put his men under an oath with similar language in Joshua 6:26. Either way, the text is clear in stating that Saul caused distress on his men, committing a great blunder.

The Septuagint (click here to learn more about the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures), actually uses the word blunder, and McCarter picks it up in the Hebrew word segaga, which refers to a mistake made out of ignorance or carelessness or inadvertance. Milgrom adds, "when one commits a segaga, he is conscious of his act...but not of its consequences." Again, Saul fails to foresee how his action will affect everything else. The pattern of Saul's impetuous anger and lack of good judgement are beginning to be more developed and the consequences are felt more and more as we progress through the narrative.

Thus ensues a crisis involving the heir of Saul, his son Jonathan. We have previously noted connections between Saul and Samson, but now let's read Biblical commentator Miscall's notes on the interesting connections between Saul and another of the shoftim: Jephthah:

"Saul, like Jephthah, crushed the Ammonites. Saul, like Jephthah, makes a hasty, stupid vow that threatens, and in Jephthah's case takes, the life of a child. Saul's oath, in some ways, makes even less sense than Jephthah's. At least Jephthah's vow was explicitly designed to ensure victory. The association of Saul's curse - "cursed be the man who eats food before it is evening and I am avenged on my enemies (1 Sam. 14:24) - with victory not obvious. Does he consider it a form of fasting? Is he convinced that some ritual is necessary? Saul's motivation for the vow is unclear. "

Another character-flaw of Saul begins to emerge here, although when we looked at chapter 15 last time we saw it there too. Saul seems to care too much and give too much weight to what "the crowd" thinks than focusing on being obedient to the work given him to accomplish. So while Saul has bound the people with an oath, and they mostly uphold the oath until his own son violates it in eating from the honeycomb. Notice that Saul - beginning to become obsessive about divine guidance in evey move he makes (yet tragically making all the worng moves eventually), is consulting God and just as Jonathan violates the curse and the curse goes into affect, the guidance/oracle falls silent in verse 37...somethings gone wrong. Yet, while he searches and through divine guidance comes to find the culprit, only the intervention of "the crowd" saves Jonathan from Saul following through on his word.

We learn a lot more about Saul as this chapter unfolds. Did you notice the carefully-worded interaction and comments about one another between Saul and Jonathan? Again, we see the issue of fatherhood emerge from the fabric of the text. How does their relationship at this point compare with other father-son relationships that we have explored?

Jonathan says that his father has "stirred up trouble for the land." The Hebrew word-picture here is stirring up muck in a pond and making what would have been clear, cloudy. Keith Bodner also points out that this statement reflects the Achan narrative in Joshua 7, where Achan "brings trouble" on Israel after the victory at Jericho (where the echo of God shaking the enemy, and bringing down the walls of Jericho can be heard.).

We should also point out in verse 39 where Saul utters his vow, 'as YHWH lives', can be seen as a expletive. Thus the oath sworn under God's name implies that if you do not follow through - which we know Saul does not - you have taken God's name in vain, thus breaking one of the 10 commandments. Saul's impetuous use of God's name in vain - and as an expletive - will be witnessed again when we get to 1 Samuel 20.

One final note before we go to the next section: the disaster that Saul is becoming, led by the consequences of his impetuous and misguided vows and actions, are bringing the tragic character of Saul more fully into focus, in that while he is not merely a depraved man, but also a man abandoned by God as his relationship with God detriorates increasingly and expotentially from here on out. In other words, Saul's failure as a leader can also increasingly to traced to the failing relationship he has with God and being lost in his own disorienting shame, fear and insecurities.



Section two. Shepherding and the Discipline of Following.

Let's star out this section with a little encouraging word from the always-inspiring Erwin McManus:




We are moving on to 1 Samuel 16, because we covered 1 Samuel 15 in our last session.

OK, let's read 1 Samuel 16:1-13, and then return here.

And finally, we have the appearance of the anti-hero that we have all been looking forward to: David. Biblical scholar Jobling points notes an interesting bit of information: the anointing of David occurs in the exact middle of 1 Samuel.

When we are first introduced to David, we find David in an important place: shepherding sheep, which is probably easier and less hassle than herding cats:



Samuel re-enters the narrative, and we see him mourning for Saul. Again the poigancy of tragedy felt. Even though Samuel is much-more straightforward in this anointing scene with David, we cannot escape the overarching point of how important good leadership is to God, especially the leadership of His people.

I was reading a paper from Don Williams recently in which he pointed out that the calling and role of 'pastor' is unique to the Christian faith. All the world religions have their teachers...they have prophets and sages. Yet while the disciple/discipled relationship is not unique to Christianity in particular, the role of a pastor is. I find that really interesting, because the term pastor is derived from 'shepherd'. I know from my own studies in biblical and ancient near eastern civilization that the image of a shepherd with his sheep was adopted by rulers throughout ancient times as descriptive of themselves.

Here we find YHWH instructing Samuel in the midst of choosing David from among his brothers, all of whom look like great candidates for leadership from outward appearance...just like Saul did. Keith Bodner notes that Samuel, upon seeing Eliab, does not wait for God, but when he first sees him Samuel immediately says: "No doubt, before YHWH stands his anointed!" While most English translations render this line as "Samuel's thought," the more obvious understanding in the Hebrew is that this is a public pronouncement. This is an utterly serious matter, and while Samuel is prevented from following through by YHWH interrupting him, how should we understand the "mistake" of the prophet? Whatever we think, this mis-step by Samuel seems to be followed by humility, as he is much more subdued when David is finally anointed, because we do not witness the detailed instructions that Samuel gave to Saul. rather, it simply states that Samuel returned to his home in Ramah. Several times throughout 1 Samuel 16, the text points out that David is tending to the flock, or David is with the flock. In YHWH's choice of David as a king for His people, David becomes a 'shepherd-king' who reflects the 'shepherd-heart' of YHWH for His People, because the heart of the matter is YHWH's heart, and leaders who shepherd God's flock being people after God's own heart.

Shepherds guide their flocks from both the front and the rear. Shepherds use undershepherds (and also dogs like Border Collies) to help steer the flock - they walk from side to side behind the flock to help steer it. I actually put into practice one of his insights while working with Ukrainian orphaned children at one of the summer camps. We took some of the orphaned children to an amusement park and then split into several groups. My friend and I lead our group from behind it rather than from in front of it...for the very reason that we didn't want to lose anyone who had been entrusted to us (of course, being fathers probably helped us in this aspect too).

Yet too often leaders are too busy playing 'King of the Hill' to really have true concern to care for those under them. As Dave Goetz points out, the rub lies in the fact that if you are a leader, you are already in a position of power. But where does your power come from and how is it exercised? Those seem to me to be the key issues for leaders in any sort of endeavour. Some types of power include:

• Punishment: the power that comes from your capacity to coerce or punish someone
• Reward: the power that comes from the potential reward you can hand out
• Reverence: the power that comes because people admire or like you
• Expertise: the power that comes because of your superior knowledge or ability to get things done
• Information: the power that comes from having information others want

Exercising leadership requires self-knowledge of the leaders own short-comings, but most especially in my estimation patient listening and discernment. The best intentions of any leader can be corrupted. Perhaps we need to understand that the enduring force of leadership comes not from personality and popularity nor from the standing and recognition from some piece of paper on a wall behind a desk, but rather from the hard work flowing from our life's endeavour.

For Christians, our life's endeavour, as Jesus puts it, is to pursue first God's reign and God's justice in Christ. Therefore, the strength of our leadership is in humility and dependence upon Him. Our powerfulness is in our weakness. That is just how it needs to be with Christian pastors, they are following Someone else as they lead others. This is actually fairly difficult. They should get their leading from Jesus, the Great Shepherd, then act to steer the flock in the direction indicated by Jesus. Pastors and elders are undershepherds who guard the flock under the Chief Shepherd's watchful eye (Acts 20:28). Theirs is a full-time responsibility because they minister to people who, like sheep, often are vulnerable, defenseless, undiscerning, and prone to lose direction. We also need to recognize that pastors and servant-leaders in the church are not first of all servants of people...for this is the path too many have trodden to burnout. They are primarily servants of God...seeking God's interests and priorities in the life of His people, and therefore they are freed to serve the deepest needs of His people. Also, lest leaders become self-serving, I think Gordon MacDonald has it right when he says: "Servanthood is not about how I add value to my life but about how I add value to yours."

Here are a few more thoughts on Jesus as the Good and Chief Shepherd from Vineyard pastor and theologian Don Williams:

• Christ is the Chief Shepherd. All shepherding must be under him, submitted to him, and like him. This would have saved the church from abusing the shepherding concept, whether by ecclesiastical rule or by recent discipleship theories.
• Christ places his flock under the care of earthly shepherds. They remember that they serve him, caring for "God's flock," not their own ["my ministry, my church"].The shepherds must have pure motives, not be controlling, greedy or abusive. They (and those they shepherd) are to be humble - broken before God and each other, shorn of pride.
• Shepherding is not a duty but a privilege, without ulterior motives, coming from a servant's heart. (where other motives emerge, they are to be confronted - shepherds work in plural, not in singular ministries). They form a team ministry.
• Shepherds are servants of the flock. As such they will be examples of Christ-like character.
• As shepherds, they are submissive to Christ (and implied, submissive to each other), they are to receive submission from "young men." But this is not a power position, it is a place of mutual service and humility: "All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another....Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he (not yourselves or the ecclesiastical machinery) may lift you up in due time." (v.5-6)

We'll end this section the way we began, because I think Erwin McManus has something important to say here, and I think it relates to Saul. I think I see fear and shame and doubt creeping into Saul's life incident-after-incident in scripture. McManus tells us where that leads:





Section three. You Give and Take Away.


OK, let's read 1 Samuel 16:14-23, then return here.

The tragedy of Saul really sets in here, doesn't it? And it's rather controversial again, so let's wrestle with this controversy, just as we wrestled with others including the ambiguities of the relationship between Samuel and Saul and also the issue of genocide and the Amalekites.

The controversy we face immediately is in verse 14: the Spirit of YHWH is taken away from Saul and: "...an evil spirit from YHWH terrorizes him." God sends an evil spirit to torment Saul, the chosen one? This has been another threatening issue to many Christians over the years. Perhaps, P. Kyle McCarter can help us in beginning to engage with this controversial issue:

"In ancient tradition a person once touched by divine spirit can never again be free...Another way of saying this is that the infusion of spirit is never neutral. It may endow with special powers, or it may breed misery; and indeed the spirit now torments Saul. We may speak of mental illness if we want - Saul manifests some symptoms of paranoia, others of manic-depressive illness - but surely Hertzberg is correct to stress the fact that "Saul's suffering is described theologically, not psychopatheically or psychologically." The evil spirit is "from Yahweh" and will play its part in the working of the divine plan."



I'd like to share two other provocative comments from Keith Bodner. First, there seems to be in the Hebrew sentence structure of verse 21 in the line, "And David came to Saul, and stood before him, and he loved him greatly, and he became his weapons-carrier." Who loves who? The Hebrew text does not contain "Saul" as the subject, thus the plain reading would infer that David loved Saul greatly. Second in the final picture in this chapter, David is ministering to Saul and soothing the king with his musical therapy during intense times of spiritual torment. What does this astounding ministry image communicate?

One last thought before we wrap up today's session and this present series. David's name in Hebrew means: 'beloved'. A fitting name for one so beloved by Jews and Christians as well as Muslims and more secular artists and writers. David has this mythos about him and his life sparks are interest. Besides Jonathan, he is really the most positively-portrayed person in 1 and 2 Samuel, yet at the same time we witness that David is also sooo human. He is also beloved and not insecure in the ways we have seen others to be. In being the "beloved" did David experience the kind of wholeness and love that casts out fear, as 1 John 4:18 speaks of? We will get more into all of that and David's "mythos" in our next study series.


Section four. Assignments.

• memorize this passage that memorializes Saul's positively: "He acted valiantly and defeated the Amalekites, and delivered Israel from the hands of those who plundered them." - 1 Samuel 14:43
• Take some time to reflect on the leadership issues of shepherding and Jesus' perspective on servant leadership. How do power and servant leadership interact? Do you have to give up power to be a servant leader? When given the position to lead, have I been selfish or selfless? Who am I seeking to truly serve?
• If you are interested in more of what you heard here from Erwin McManus and his teaching on Soul Cravings, check it out here.
• We will return in a few weeks with the next study series and pick up where we left off in 1 Samuel 17. Until that time, be sure to check back here weekely for some great related teaching and reading in between series.