1 Samuel 27: Sneaking In and Out

After another near encounter with Saul, David comes to realize he can’t play this hide and seek game anymore. Eventually, Saul will catch up to David and kill him. So David decides to run away from Saul by heading into Philistia and living with the Philistines. So Saul has all his men pack up their families and their possessions and move to Gath. David’s plan works. Sure enough, when Saul hears David moved to Gath, Saul quits his pursuit.

At this point the reader has to pause and ask “Why?” Why does David move to Philistia, after killing so many Philistines (especially Gath, the home of Goliath)? Wasn’t it wrong for David to leave his home country to live in the enemy’s territory? And what about Saul? Why did Saul stop pursuing? Really, it’s common sense. In common sense terms, David made the right decision to leave the nation of Israeland go to the Philistine country. A king only has jurisdiction in his own country. Only in rare circumstances, with permission, could a king go into a foreign nation after his adversary, but that would never happen when the two nations were enemies. David knew that and took advantage of it. Saul could only hunt David down while David was in Israel. Once David left Israel and entered Philistia, Saul could not follow him into Philistia. There was no way that King Achish would help Saul get David because Achish saw Saul as his enemy. I wouldn’t be surprised if Achish went by the old adage, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and thus decided to house David in his land. Saul must have already realized too that he could not pursue David into a foreign land. But it’s not like it’s going to bother Saul. Saul probably saw David only as a threat to his throne while David was in Israel. Now with David out of Israel, Saul believes there is no way for David to get the throne of Israel. So Saul ceases his search.

While David has moved into the land of Philistia, he’s not willing to fully integrate his life and his men’s lives into the Philistine society and Philistine culture. He boldly asks King Achish for a plot of land or some kind of territory for him and his men and their families to be separate from everyone else. David uses the guise of servants like himself living separate from a royal family, like Achish’s family. Achish likes the sound of David being his servant, so he grants David a whole town, called Ziklag. Ziklag is another town that borders Philistia and Israel. It’s about 15 miles northwest of Beersheba, the southern-most point of Israel. The author makes a note that this city has been in the hands of the kings of Judah since David received it. This side note makes two statements. First, it shows that this book was written during the days of the Divide Kingdoms of Israeland Judah because it separates the kings of Judahfrom the kings of Israel. Second, this verse demonstrates that even when David is in Philistia, he’s already gaining territory for the nation of Israel. David stays in this town for 1 year and 4 months.

So what’s a man to do while living in a foreign town for 1 year and 4 months? Invade foreign people groups of course! Verse 8 explains that the area between Egyptand Shur was occupied by 3 different people groups: the Amalekites, the Geshurites and the Girzites. The fact the author needs to explain this demonstrates a late date where the audience would not have known of these people groups, or at least would not know that these people were in that region. David’s method was simple. David would take his men to their land, kill all the men and women, and take the animals and the clothes. Then David would return to Ziklag. It’s key that David is killing all the men and women. Saul was commanded by the Lord to do the same thing. Saul failed, keeping people alive, but David succeeded.

Obviously King Achish knows David is raiding, for David keeps bringing back animals and clothes. What Achish does not know is where David is raiding or who David is raiding. Achish asks David, but all David gives is the generic answer, “Against the Negev of the [people’s name].” This explains why David killed everyone: so no one could rep ort back to Achish who David is really killing and why. King Achish has no reason to doubt David, so he believes David. His thinking: If David keeps attacking the Negev, he’ll only be seen poorly by the Israelites. According to Achish, it only helps the Philistines and hurts the Israelites.

I am going to continue to 1 Samuel 28:1,2 because I believe these two verses fit better with 1 Samuel 27than 1 Samuel 28. The transition is much more smooth when those 2 verses are added to 1 Samuel 27. King Achish probably wants to attack because he believes that David has weakened Israel with all the attacks in Negev. But he still needs one more piece. So Achish requests that David fight with the Philistines against Israel. David replies by saying, “Then you will see for yourself what your servant can do.” Does this mean that David, the one the Lord anointed as King of Israel, will fight God’s people in Israel? Some scholars would say yes, that’s exactly what David had in mind. Other scholars disagree, claiming David is using word play and irony here. While Achish might interpret it as a “Yes,” what David means is, “You will see for yourself what your servant can do…when I turn on you in battle.” I have to stick more with the second interpretation.

Do you see what happened in the story? In the beginning, David leaves Israel for Philistia. The reader might think that, by doing so, David has disobeyed God and sinned. But instead of jumping to that conclusion, we let the narrative help us determine whether are not David’s actions are good or sinful. The narrative would lean the decision towards the good. By moving to Philistia, David gets Saul off his back, and allows his men peace and safety. Because of the move, David can focus on invading and raiding the pagan people groups still in the Promise Land. But also remember that David and his men aren’t assimilating into the culture. David insists that his Israelite men and their families have their own separate town. This town will eventually become part of the territory of Judah. In all these ways, David is helping the kingdomof Israel grow, even when he’s not in the land of Israel. David sneaks into Israel to get rid of the foreign people groups, and he sneaks out to deceive the Philistines into peace. David helps Israel, both internally and externally. Although I think God might have appreciated David more if David would have lived by faith and stayed in the land, God took David’s positions and used that to bring blessing to both David and the whole land of Israel.

So Ithink a good application is God can use you wherever you are in life, even if you are sinning. I want to make clear this is no permission to sin. Rather, I’m saying that no one can get so far off the path of God’s will that he or she can never be used by God ever again. David could account for this. At sometimes it would seem like David trusted the Philistines more than God for safety. Yet God used the Philistines to provide David with the safety and the town of Ziklag so David could grow the kingdom of Israel. Perhaps you too have fallen away from God’s will in your life, and you are doing your own thing, depending on yourself rather than God. Take this time to call God back into guiding you through His will. I guarantee you the first thing God will do is get you back onto His will.

Covenants (Part 2): Christians & Jews, Church and Israel

In continuing with my last post, my views on how the covenants progressed shape how I view how Israel in the church play in those covenants with God. Some say the church is the new Israel. Others say Israel is number one, and the church is number 2. Still others say Israel and the church are separate but equal. Those in the Old Covenant do their thing, those in the New Covenant follow that. Yet others say with time, the roles switch from Israel to church to Israel. This is my beliefs.

Let’s start with the Adamic Covenant. Why? Two things: First it is the original announcement of the Messiah (Genesis 3:15). Second, I remind you that the covenant was for humanking. The second part goes the Noahic Covenant was well: the Noahic is for Noah and his descendants, and since his descendants are all humankind today, it is also for all humans. It’s almost like renewing the Adamic Covenant to Noah after the “second creation,” if you will. So following that logic, God brought salvation from the flood to Noah, and from Noah the Savior will come, who will bring salvation of sins.

Now onto the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant establishes Abraham’s descendants, who will become Israel, God’s people. But remember, God still has all humanity in mind for salvation. It will be through Israel that this Messiah will come from. But the Messiah will bring salvation to all man, not just Israel.

I want to focus on a lot of the Mosaic Covenant. This covenant between God and Israel is conditional, but the unconditional promises of the Abrahamic Covenant still have to be fulfilled. So how will this work out? When Israel sins and falls away from God, they will be punished, enslaved and taken captive, but they will not be totally destroyed. The remnant kept alive can get rid of the curse by simply confessing sin, repenting, and seeking forgiveness. Then will come God’s restoration of the promises. This will become Israel’s perk of being God’s people. Time after time they will sin and fall from God’s Law. They anger God and God leaves them. Then they cry out to God, and God saves them. This becomes the “Israel cycle” seen through Judges, the Samuels, the Kings, and the Chronicles. Why does this happen?

It is the result of 2 covenants progressively being fulfilled togather, one unconditonal and the other conditional. The unconditional keeps the nation people-wise, but the conditional is what makes Israel a nation land-wise. Yet this only applies for Israel and not other nations. Consider Assyria and its capital Nineveh. Assyria can be a blessed nation if they bless Israel, but they don’t. They become idolatrous and lead Israel into idolatry. So God saends Jonah to call them to repentence. They do repent, and God spares them. But afterward, they fall back into sin. Does God once again call them repentence? No. He sends Nahum to pronounce judgment. After Nahum’s word, Assyria is no more. Israel, being God’s chosen, gets to experience grace and mercy with several second chances. God’s covenants with Israel are truly covenants of grace. The other nations have only one shot.

Back to the Messiah. The Messiah is once again promised in the Mosaic Covenant. In Deuteronomy 18:15-19, as Moses is running out of time, he says God will raise up among the Israelites a prophet like Moses. They must lsiten to this prophet, for if they don’t, they will be cut off from the people, God’s Covenant, and God Himself. This prophet is the messiah, who we will later know as Jesus.

In the Davidic Covenant, the messiah is identified as a descendant of David, the king of Israel/Judah (Jeremiah 31 & Ezekiel 37). So if you’re keeping track of titles, it’s Savior, messiah, prophet, king. As stated earlier, the Davidic Covenant is unconditional. No matter what any king does, there will always be a kingly ruler available. But since David and his descendants are Israelites, they are under the conditional Mosaic Covenant. So what does this mean? If a king falls away, or leads a nation away, the kingship will be taken away from that king. But there is always a candidate ready, even if they are not king. Take Zerubabbel, for example. He was in the kingly line (Matthew 1:13), but because of the sins of his fathers, the Persians were in control. Yet Zerubabbel became the governor of formally known Israel. In short, while David’s household may fail, in the end, it will be rebuilt, as Amos says (Amos 9:11).

The promises of the Messiah in the Old Covenats are fulfilled in Jesus, the Son of God (even the Old Testament states the Messiah is divine!). This is the offspring of Eve that will strike the serpent’s (Satan’s) heel and crush gis head. This is the Judah-king promised to Abraham and David. This is the prophet Moses foretold. Jesus fills all those roles. So it is the Messiah who is to start the new covenant. Naturally. Yet Christ’s message is not received by all, His opposers execute Him. Death does not stop Him. Three days later He rises from the dead. During His last days on the earth, He founded the church, and asked for Peter to lead until His return.

My argument is that the church does not officially begin until Acts 2, when the Holy Spirits comes on the first believers. This the start of the church age. In the beginning, the church is all JEwish. The cloest thing to now-Jewish are Greek prosletyes, but they are circumcized and [Mosaic] Law-abiding. It is not until Acts 10 do Gentiles come into the picture. This opens the door for Paul to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, as God states in Acts 9. Now a church is on the scene made up of both Jews and Gentiles. The church is clearly a product, and maybe even the audience, of the New Covenant. Just like Israel was the recipiant of the Old Covenants, so the church is the recipiant of the New Covenant. Does this cause inconsistancy in the covenants?

The first thing I want to state, if I haven’t enough, is that all the Covenants, both the Old and New Testament ones, are both for the Jews and the Gentiles. Both the Jews and Gentiles would receive salvation. Both the Jews and the Gentiles would receive blessing. While Israel is God’s chosen people and the center of the Old Testament, I believe it is incorrect to say it is Israel soley and push out the foreign nations.

Remember what Moses said about the Prophet God will send like Moses? The people must accept him. Anyone who rejects Him will be cut off. This means the Israelites/Jews were not playing “The Messiah Game” (The Dating Game with the Messiah). It’s not like God said to Israel, “Alright, I’m going to start sending one messiah after another. If you like him, keep him. But you don’t like him, get rid of him and we’ll go on to the next canidate.” No. Israel did not have a choice. God chose the Messiah. This is one of the things I do believe is predestined. Jesus, God’s Son, was predestined to be the Messiah to save the world. Since Israel had no choice, they must follow Him. If they don’t, they have no part will be condemned with their sin. Thus, I believe that any Jew that rejects Jesus rejects God’s Covenants, reject God, and reject salvation. The Jews of the 1st century (as well as the 1st century Roman Gentiles) who are responsible for Christ’s death, are condemned. This is backed up in the narrative called “The Sign of Jonah” (Matthew 12:39-41, Luke 11:29-32). In this narrative, Jesus says this generation (1st century Jews) will be condemned (and by sinful Gentiles, too!) because they did not adhere to the message of the one greater than Jonah, who is Jesus. They had to accept the Messiah Christ Jesus, or they will be condemned.

So first, I believe it is wrong to say Israel and the church are two separate camps. Why? For starters, it gives froom for Pluralism. You can get saved by a relationship with Jesus OR be following the Law and offering sacrifices. This is contradictiong to John 14:6 and Acts 4:12, which says Jesus is the only way and the only one who can give salvation. Also, this idea renders evangelizing to Jews useless. What’s the point of telling the Jews how to get saved when they will be saved anyway? Yet we see Paul going to the synagogues with the gospel (hold on to the thought; I will use it again on my correct view of the debate). This must mean the Jews need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. So pretty much this makes a Jewish Christian redundant, and then would mean church only makes sense if you’re a Gentile. This doesn’t make sense since the church in its earliest stage is all Jewish.

Second, it is wrong to say that Israel has been replaced by another nation. No nation is the “new Israel,” not even nations “founded on Christian ideals.” I’m not 100% where this idea comes from. All I can think up is that God chose Israel based on obedience to God’s Law. I think it’s just national pride seeking God’s favor in national and international decisions. Simply why not, this idea is unbiblical. Nowhere in Scriptures does it mention God choosing a new nation for His people.

Along with that notion, it is wrong to say that the church completely replaces Israel. If that were true, this would mean God has abandoned His promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, David, and all the Israelites. This also allows lots of room for anti-semetism. It is not in the Bible, not even in the New Testament, do we read God abandoning Israel and the Jews. Like I said earlier, the apostles evangelize to Jews first, seen both in Acts and the epistles. The end times in Revelation (arguably) focus more on Israel than on the church. Jesus Himself spends more time with the Jews in Israel than to the Gentiles. Heck, Samaritans get more attention than the Gentiles. So it’s not church replacing. I declare replacement theory a heresy (see Romans 11).

But at the same, it cannot be said Israel is above the church or above any nation, especially modern-day Israel. I say the last part because there is a difference between Israelis (those living in the land owned by the modern state of Israel) and the Israelites (descendants of Israel/Jacob, who are also called Jews or Hebrews). While primary outreach is to Israel, there is much outreach to the Gentiles. The second half of Acts is focused on Gentiles coming to Christ. (As a matter of fact, most of the time when Jews are mentioned, they are the opposition!) The New Testament also denies the idea that Christians must become Jews first. In the end, in Revelation, we see people from all tribes, all languages, and all nations in heaven, not just Israel. Pretty much, I want to sum this all up by saying that with the New Covenant, God no longer sees nations, especially in the Jew/Gentile divide. In the context of New Covenant, it is an individual matter. God sees the personal choices of individuals decidin whether or not to have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Yes, it is true with Mosaic and Davidic Coveannts, salvation was by nation. Now in the New Covenant, salvation is an individual decision. The only other way is God sees the communal fellowship of the church. It is God’s kingdom, but not to be compared by the kingdom of this world.

After I told you what I don’t believe, now onto telling you what I do believe. I can’t say a single word or phrase to describe my views. This is why I had to be more precise by describing what I don’t believe. The best way I can try to describe is to describe it in a more general term: God’s people. Both the church and Israel is God’s chosen people. They are both from the start chosen to receive redemptive salvation, whether it be Jew or Gentile. Once more, I will repeat it both Israel and the church are God’s people. Yet it is not equal. While Israel and the church are God’s chosen people, the church is greater than Isreael. why? The Christian Chrch is in the New Covenant, the Jewish Israel, is still following Old Coveannts, and the New Covenant is greater than the Old Covenant. But make sure you understand when I say the church is “greater” Israel, I in no way mean that God has rejected Israel, God hates Israel, God had replaced Israel, or God looks down on Israel. None of these are true. They are still His chosen people. It is just that the church has chosen the better, the greater. A good illustration to this is John the Baptist. Of him Jesus says he was the greatest of the Old Coveants, but the weakest in the New Covenant is greater than him.

So where does this leave Israel and the Jews? To start with basics, Jews was the foretold messiah. The promised redeeer to all peoples, and the promised king for the Jews. The Jews are the first ones to receive the gospel. We see this in the Gospels with Jesus, the Acts with the apostles, and in the epistles with Paul. Even in the 21st century, there are missions focusees specifically for outreach to the Jews. When presented the gospel, they have the choice of accepting Jesus as the promised Christ or rejecting Him. Idealistically, the Jew will receive Jesus as their messiah. He goes from Jew to Christian, and “upgrades” from a member of Israel to a member of the church. As a member of the church, he is equal to his gentile brothers and sisters. But the Jew who rejects Jesus will then be rejected by Jesus. Without Jesus, they have no part in the covenant. Let me propose that the Jewish convert to Chistian has more in common with the Gentile Christian than a Jewish person who is not a Messianic Jew. That is because the Christian Jew and Christian Gentile are now part of a new “nation”, the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God consist of those who make Jesus, the Son of God, their king. A Jew must make Jesus Messiah and king to be part of the kingdom.

There’s a couple sections I want to look at to prove my point. First, Luke 4:24-27. To set the picture a bit, Jesus is preaching is his home town Nazareth, and the audience is looking down on him. Jesus starts out by saying “No prophet is accepted in his hometown.” Christ then gives two examples to prove His point: Elijah and Elisha. Elijah helped a widow in Zarephath, a town in Sidon, instead of helping any of the widows in Israel. Elijah helped Naaman, a commander of the Syrian army, instead of bring healing to an Israelite with leprosy. Now the main point here is that a prophet usually has to leave his hometown for his ministry to be accepted, but I think Jesus is bringing up another point in here. God does not choose who to help based on nationality. The reader sees the prophets ministering to Gentiles over the Israelites in this section. They must have had faith for the miracles to happen there (Matt. 13:58 states that lack of faith can lead to lack of miracles). So that concludes God chooses to look at people by faith over their nationality. The Israelites back in the time of Elijah and Elisha, including the widows and lepers, were probably idolatrous just like their king. But Naaman and the widow at Zarepheth must have shown some kind of faith for the prophets to work.

Another demonstration of my beliefs is the narrative of the Syro-phoencian woman. This story is found in Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30. Jesus is in the vicinity of Sidon and Tyre, when a local women comes to him, and cries out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession” (Matt. 15:22). It is interesting alone that the Greek woman calls Jesus by a title referring to Christ’s role in the Davidic Covenant, something a Jew would be familiar with. Christ’s actions might strike the reader as odd. He seems to be ignoring the woman. Only Matthew records Jesus uttering, “I was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24), referring to the Jews. Some believe what Jesus is doing here is testing the woman to see if she simply gives up or keeps persisting. Others think Jesus is reminding the woman that is mission on earth is not healer, but to bring the promised salvation to the Jews. Another opinion says Jesus is telling the woman he must help the Jews before helping her. This continues the story. Jesus says to the woman, “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs” (Mark 7:27). The idea of “first” here is ordinal. Jews get first dibs. Jesus uses the imagry of dogs begging at the table, as some as our house pet dogs might do. Why would a parent make a meal for their children, only to give it to the dogs? That would be downright wrong. In the same way, it would be wrong to tell the Jews the whole Old Testament their Savior was coming, only to give his undivided attention to the Gentiles. It would be wrong to give the blessings to the Gentiles which the Jews have been waiting for. The cool thing is that the woman counters Jesus with the same illustration: “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table” (Matt. 15:27). Pretty much, the woman says that while the master should feed the child the bread, the dogs should be allowed to pick up what the children drop. If the master is Jesus, the children is Israel, the dogs are the Gentiles, and the bread is the blessings, let’s draw up a literal picture. Jesus says to the woman that is wrong for Him to go to the Gentiles to give them blessings when it was meant for Him to bless the Jews all along. The woman would reply that if Israel rejects Jesus, it’s not wrong for the Gentiles to pick up the blessings they are throwing out. Jesus seems to like her answer, as the woman returns home, to find her daughte healed. The Greek woman speaks truth. God does go to the Jews first, for he promised them blessings from the start, including forgiveness of sins. But if the Jews reject Jesus, the promised Savior, it is free game for the Gentiles. Paul reacts similiarly in Acts 18:6. When the Jews become abusive towards about the gospel he is preaching, Paul gives up on preaching to the Jews and from then on, speaks only to the Gentiles.

The Syro-Phoenecian woman is not the only Gentile who seeks Christ’s healing powers. There is also a Roman centurion who also needs Jesus for His healing power. The centurion’s servant is sick and about to die. Jesus begins on a trek to lay hands on the servant, but on the journey, He is stopped by a messenger with a message from the centurion. The centurion says he doesn’t deserve to have Jesus under his roof, but understands that Christ’s words alone can heal the servant, so all Jesus has to do is say the word, and the servant will be healed. Jesus replies, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith” (Matt. 8:10). Now the Matthew account of this story gives more that Jesus says. In verse 11, Jesus continues, “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11). Let’s start back at verse 10. Jesus remarks that of all the people that he has run into on this earth, the one with the greatest faith is not a Jew, but a Gentile. Jesus prefers the Gentile with faith over the unfaithful Jew. Now onto verse 11. Remember that Matthew’s Gospel is written to a Jewish audience. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are well know to the Jews as the patriarchs of Israel. To dine with them would be considered being a part of their blessing. The phrase “from the east and the west [and north and south (Luke 13:29,30)]” simply could be said, “from all over.” This means outside Israel. Jesus is saying in the end the Gentiles will join the Jews in the promised salvation and blessings. The Gentiles will be those who have the faith like the Roman centurion. In conclusion, the great faith is what catches God’s attention for salvation and blessings, not nationality.

Romans chapter 11 is a really intersting chapter on the subject. First, starting in verse 1, Paul make it clear that God has not rejected Israel. Skipping down to verse 11, Paul repeats that Israel has not fallen out of the picture. This is where it gets interesting. Paul’s explanation for Gentiles receiving salvation is to make Israel jealous. One commentary I read suggested that if a Jew walked into a church service, he should be jealous that he doesn’t have what the Christian has. Back to Paul in Romans, he admits that some of the Jews has fallen away. Interesting enough, Paul says the Jews falling away opened a window for the Gentiles receiving salvation. Paul uses two allusions: a batch of dough and branches. The first image is the batch of dough. Just when two batches of dough are mixed together to become one, when the unholy is mixed with the holy, it becomes holy as well. The second picture is with branches, but also roots and wild shoots. The wild shoot is the Gentiles. The natural branches are the Jews. The roots are traditionally the patriarchs (and the Abrahamic Covenant), but I can see it being Christ, the root of our salvation. The Gentile Christians have been grafted in with the believing Jews in place of the Jews who do not believe. Both the believing Jews are Christian Gentiles are coming from the same roots, the same source. The common denominator is faith (Rom. 11:20). The ones who belong with God are those with faith, the same faith that credited Abraham with righteousness (Gen 15:6). Paul makes it clear to the Gentiles that they have a reason to be prideful. For if God will not give Israel a second chance, the Gentiles will most definitely not get a second chance. Thus, naturally, the branches cut off can be grafted back in.

So the main question: what happens to God’s people in the eschaton? Since I refuse to acknowledge or take a stance on the rapture (that’s a whole different subject), I am aware this leaves a whole bunch of possibilities. Christians may live through all, some or none of the tribulation. In any case, we see this draw back to Israel. Has God abandoned the church? No. Being the greater one, the church has been dealt with and sealed, possibly in the form of the rapture. As for Israel, they get a second chance. Like I have shown before with the combination of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant, Israel always gets a second chance. This will be their last second chance. By the time the tribulation comes, there will be no more Gentiles coming to the Lord. As the world comes to an end, God will make one last call to the Jews. Still, it is a call for Israel to have faith in Christ. They will not get saved by following sacrifices or obeying laws, but faith in Jesus. They will have all the way up to the Great White Throne judgment to make the decision to have faith in Christ. Thos Jews who still reject Jesus will be judged and condemned, but those who accept Him as messiah will become part of the kingdom of God.