Monday, June 30, 2008

David's Broken Relationships, Part 2

Probably the most infamous example of a broken relationship in David’s life, maybe even more so than Saul, was David’s own son Absalom. This is a tragic story of a family literally torn apart by lust, revenge, murder, and rebellion. It begins with one of David’s other sons Amnon, who’s lust for and rape of his half-sister Tamar set into motion events that would ultimately lead to Absalom’s downfall:

After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. (2 Samuel 13:1 NKJV)

Amnon’s cousin and friend Jonadab convinced Amnon to use trickery in luring Tamar into Amnon’s house so he could rape her:

So Jonadab said to him, “Lie down on your bed and pretend to be ill. And when your father comes to see you, say to him, ’Please let my sister Tamar come and give me food, and prepare the food in my sight, that I may see it and eat it from her hand.’” (2 Samuel 13:5)

The ploy worked and Amnon got what he wanted from Tamar. Scripture then records that afterward, Amnon hated Tamar and sent her away (2 Samuel 13:15).

When Absalom heard about these things, he began to hate Amnon in his heart and eventually plotted revenge by setting a trap for him and killing him two years later.

And it came to pass, after two full years, that Absalom had sheepshearers in Baal Hazor, which is near Ephraim; so Absalom invited all the king’s sons. Then Absalom came to the king and said, “Kindly note, your servant has sheepshearers; please, let the king and his servants go with your servant.”

But the king said to Absalom, “No, my son, let us not all go now, lest we be a burden to you.” Then he urged him, but he would not go; and he blessed him.

Then Absalom said, “If not, please let my brother Amnon go with us.” And the king said to him, “Why should he go with you?” But Absalom urged him; so he let Amnon and all the king’s sons go with him.

Now Absalom had commanded his servants, saying, “Watch now, when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you ‘Strike Amnon!’ then kill him. Do not be afraid. Have I not commanded you? Be courageous and valiant.”

So the servants of Absalom did to Amnon as Absalom had commanded. Then all the king’s sons arose, and each one got on his mule and fled.
(2 Samuel 13:23-29)

David got word of Absalom’s murder of Amnon and Absalom fled the country to Talmai the son of Ammihud, king of Geshur (2 Samuel 13:37), and was there for three years.

However a turn of events would eventually bring Absalom back to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 14:1-24), although some time still followed until David finally forgave Absalom (2 Samuel 14:33). I suspect however that Absalom never forgave David. It is likely that had Joab not intervened, Absalom never would have returned to Jerusalem and Absalom may have known that.

Although on the surface it appeared that all was well, Absalom secretly began a conspiracy to overthrow David and take the kingship of Israel from him by force. The years of separation seemed to have taken their toll on their relationship. The cycle of unforgiveness and bitterness would destroy a young man and his family.

Absalom for four years turned Israel against David by promising that if he were king, he would be more fair in dealing with disputes (2 Samuel 15:2-7) and in that way he gained the support of the people. He convinced David’s counselor Ahithophel to join the conspiracy against David and along with the chariots, horses, and men he provided for himself, Absalom proclaimed himself king and marched on Jerusalem sending David and his men fleeing.

A turn of events in which spies from David undermined Absalom, would prove to be Absalom’s downfall. Although David wished that Absalom’s life be spared, Joab the commander of David’s army killed Absalom (2 Samuel 18:14,15).

David however still showed his heart by weeping for Absalom bitterly:

Then the king was deeply moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept. And as he went; he said thus: “O my son Absalom- my son, my son Absalom- if only I had died in your place! O Absalom my son, my son!” (2 Samuel 18:33 NKJV)

Despite the rebellion of Absalom and the attempt on his life, David still loved his son and longed to be reconciled.

Ahithophel as mentioned earlier, was also a Broken relationship for David. Imangine for a moment that your son hates you and tries to kill you and take what belongs to you. That would be unbearable in and of itself. But what if your friend with whom you had shared meals, and whose advice you prized sided with your rebellious son?

This was the situation David found himself in when his son Absalom proclaimed himself king and invaded Jerusalem. Absalom was assisted by David’s royal counselor Ahithophel. Scripture does not tell us what it was that caused Ahithophel to side with Absalom in trying to overthrow David, but regardless of the reason it left its mark on David.

Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. (Psalm 41:9 NKJV)

In this Psalm, David laments his friend and counselor turning against him and seeking his life. Although he entrusts himself to God, one can only imagine the kind of pain David felt as he thought of Ahithophel’s treason.

Ahithophel however would eventually kill himself apparently after Absalom overruled his advice and instead took the advice of Hushai, one of David's spies.

Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he was buried in his father's tomb. (2 Samuel 17:23 NKJV)

As we might imagine, David saw his share of heartbreak and betrayal. I think that one of the biggest things we can get from these broken relationships is to note David’s unfailing trust in the Living God.

Be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me! For my soul trusts in You; and in the shadow of Your wings I will make my refuge, until these calamities have passed by. I will cry out to God Most High, to God who performs all things for me. (Psalm 57:1,2 NKJV)

Particularly relevant is Psalm 3 which David composed while fleeing from Absalom.

LORD, how they have increased who trouble me! Many are they who rise up against me. Many are they who say of me, “There is no hope for him in God.” Selah.
But You, O LORD, are a shield for me, my glory and the One who lifts up my head. I cried to the LORD with my voice, and He heard me from His holy hill. Selah.
(Psalm 3:1-4 NKJV)

Despite all of David’s troubles and despite all his failings, God never stopped loving David or delivering him when David needed him the most. O how great is God’s faithfulness to His children!

Friday, June 27, 2008

Clarifying Remarks on the Lakeland Revival

I was going to post part 2 of my study on David's broken relationships but I felt it would be a good idea instead to clarify and qualify some of my remarks on the revival in Lakeland.

First, I want to say that it is possible that Todd Bentley did not mean to suggest that believers are equal to Jesus in every way. However, I admit this only as a possibility.

Second, I wanted to state whatever Mr. Bentley's doctrine might be and whatever the state of his soul, that does not necessarily have any direct bearing on the actual manifestations happening there. My pastor for instance was healed of a gall bladder condition and I have no reason to think that he is lying to me or misinterpreting what happened.

All this means is that there is the possibility that people are legitimately getting healed and raised from the dead in Lakeland, but then again it's also possible that that is not the case.

Thirdly, I still want to stand by my remarks about the content of Todd Bentley's message that night. It was classic health and wealth. He did say something if I remember correctly wherein he tried to distance himself from it, but I remain unconvinced.

I left that meeting place knowing that in whatever ministry I eventually (Lord willing) fill, I must keep the Gospel in the forefront and pray for the miraculous to manifest itself in conjunction with that.

I still do not support the revival, but hopefully what I have said clarifies a few things.

-Christian

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

This is Really Good

Someone sent me this article from Christianity Today written by Tim Keller. This is easily one of the best things I've ever read on evangelism. Enjoy.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/002/9.74.html

Monday, June 16, 2008

So I, uh...went to the Lakeland revival...

I went to the revival in Lakeland, FL tonight to check it out for myself. I've heard all kinds of things about it good and bad. I decided to go with as open a mind as I knew how to have albeit I had some questions and a few red flags were flying.

I got to the place a little after 7:00 pm and found my way to back of the auditorium. The band was all in place while what I guess was a pre-recorded message I presume from Todd Bentley was playing on the loud speaker. A few minutes later the band started playing their worship songs. I tried the best I could to discern the lyrics because they didn't have them up on the screens but I was able to pick up most of the songs. They were all good songs that sang what appeared to me to be God-centered lyrics. I heard "How Great is Our God", "I Exalt Thee" and some others that I did not recognize. As far as the worship song time, I had no real complaints. Actually, it was quite good.

About an hour later, Todd Bentley was introduced to speak. He did say some good things; like God choosing us and us being righteous in Christ, but about ten or fifteen minutes in he got to the bad part. He said that he received a vision of a rod with honey dripping down and likened it to Aaron's rod that budded and how that symbolizes God's choosing of us to release his favor and his anointing. He said that because we're righteous in Christ, there is really no separation between us and Christ. In other words, what Christ can expect to receive from God in heaven is exactly what we can expect.

Now I believe that the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer is a precious truth and one worth preaching and dying for, but the simple fact remains, I am not Jesus! Should I expect all of heaven to fall down and worship me? Should I expect to be exalted to the right hand of the Father? Should every knee fall down before me and confess that I am Lord? He went on to compare us as Christians to Esther and how she received everything she needed from the king and how the king asks us to ask whatever we wish and then encouraged us to ask for houses, properties, airplanes, and cars, and all manner of material things. Debt cancellations too. He based this on the teaching of Christ that those who give up all they have for his sake and the gospel's (lands, houses, parents, brothers, sister, wives, children) would receive a hundredfold in this life. He also told us that we should ask for more than just for our needs to be met.

The truth is, I cannot support this revival. I hope my words are full of grace and compassion, but this I do not believe is from God. I know that places like Corinth had some seriously off-key doctrine, but that wasn't everybody and it likely wasn't all the leadership (although there were false apostles there). In this case, the entire event is geared to this kind of thing. It's just too much ear tickling.

-Christian

Friday, June 13, 2008

The Advantages and Dangers of the Middle Ground

One of the things I've been reflecting on lately is the concept of the "middle ground". In a nutshell, it is a position that attempts to adhere to the strengths of two diametrically opposed positions while throwing out the weaknesses. Many times, such a position will reject the "tyranny of the 'or'" in favor of the "genius of the 'and'".

For example, traditional Evangelicalism is the "middle ground" between Fundamentalism and Liberalism. It was believed by the first Evangelicals during the 1940s that Fundamentalism had an orthodox theology but was poor at engaging the culture effectively. Conversely, Liberal Theology was good at engaging the culture, but did not have an orthodox theology (obviously!). Thus Evangelicalism is the "middle ground", attempting to have an orthodox theology while at the same time engaging the culture effectively.

In many cases, such a "middle ground" has an almost romantic feel to it. It makes one feel wise and balanced. Indeed, sometimes that is a good thing. We need wisdom and balance. Many times, two opposite positions will over-emphasize one thing to the exclusion of another while the other position over-emphasizes what the other de-emphasizes.

One distinct disadvantage though is that holding such a middle position opens one up to being shot at from both sides. Case in point: I would hold to a position that is consistent with New Covenant Theology. On one hand, I appreciate the contributions of both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology and try to hold them in tension and make adjustments where necessary. On the other hand, New Covenant Theologians are criticized by both camps because we disagree with hallmarks of their respective theologies.

As I said before, sometimes a middle ground position is a good thing. It helps us to balance two equally true truths and hold them in tension. But just because it is a middle ground position does not make it true.

For example, I believe in a literal hell. It is eternal, it is conscious, and it will be terrifying beyond description for those whose fate it will ultimately be. Those who never place faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to rescue them from their sins will suffer God's righteous and just anger and wrath there. The opposite position is that of Universalism. This view believes that all human beings (and the devil and demons too in some cases) will ultimately be restored to God and finally saved. However, there is a "middle ground" position. That of Annihilationism. According to this view, those who are ultimately unsaved will simply cease to exist, either after suffering God's wrath for a time or in some cases immediately upon death.

Well that sounds like a reasonable, and balanced view now doesn't it. There's just one problem. It's not true! Scripture repeatedly affirms the eternality of hell (Matthew 25:41,46;Mark 9:43-48; 2 Peter 2:17). So then, the "middle ground" position isn't always the truth.

What then shall we do? I would suggest a few things:

1) It is a good idea to seriously consider the middle ground position because often (though not always) it does succeed in holding in balance two truths emphasized respectively by opposite positions. I believe the Charismatic Reformed tradition is a good case in point.

2) However, truth is truth whether or not it is the middle ground. On occasion, like the example of eternal punishment, one position is true while the other position and the middle position are untrue.

3) We should always talk about our positions with others in a spirit of humility, love, and consideration.

4) Try to understand where the other person whose position you disagree with is coming from. Speak the truth of what you believe in their language as it were. You might find you're making some progress.

5) Recognize that you could be wrong. Be humble enough to change your position and make the necessary (and sometimes painfully uncomfortable) changes in your life.

Well I hope this makes for some interesting food for thought.

-Christian

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

David's Broken Relationships, Part 1

Virtually any believer can identify with King David. Out of all the men of the Bible, it seems as if the scriptures are more honest about the life of David than any other person in scripture excepting maybe our Lord Himself. The honesty of Scripture concerning David extends to his triumphs (1 Samuel 17:12-58) to his colossal failures (2 Samuel 11:1-12:25) to incidents in his life (1 Samuel 18:1).

It is in these things that believers can take comfort and instruction from the life of David. Given that the New Testament places a high priority on the Old Testament for the instruction of the Church and its members (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6-11; 2 Timothy 3:16,17), we should look at the life of David (as well as any other person in Scripture) and consider well the lessons we can learn.

It seems that David knew more than most people the pain of broken relationships. These are relationships that started well but for one reason or another, ended disastrously with really no hint of any kind of reconciliation.

We start with David’s tortured relationship with his predecessor to the throne of Israel, Saul. It is David’s successes and his popularity and Saul’s jealousy that lead to Saul’s epic fall from grace.

The Bible notes that initially Saul loved David:
"So David came to Saul and stood before him. And he loved him greatly, and he became his armorbearer.
Then Saul sent to Jesse, saying, 'Please let David stand before me, for he has found favor in my sight.'”
(1 Samuel 16:21,22)

David achieved a very high status in Saul’s court and among the people of Israel. Unfortunately, it would be David’s victory over Goliath and its aftermath that set Saul against David. Saul’s jealousy and paranoia over David’s popularity and the obvious fact that the Lord was with David but had left Saul, tore the relationship apart and ultimately ended with Saul’s tragic suicide (1 Samuel 31:1-6).

Saul’s daughter Michal, David’s wife was another broken relationship David endured. Scripture records that Michal was originally in love with David:
"Thus Saul saw and knew that the LORD was with David, and that Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved him…" (1 Samuel 18:28).

Michal even saved David’s life on one occasion from the wrath of Saul:
"Saul also sent messengers to David’s house to watch him and to kill him in the morning. And Michal, David’s wife, told him, saying, 'If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be killed.'
So Michal let David down through a window. And he went and fled and escaped.
And Michal took an image and laid it in the bed, put a cover of goats’ hair for his head, and covered it with clothes.
So when Saul sent messengers to take David, she said 'He is sick.'”

(1 Samuel 19:11-14 NKJV)

However, Michal’s love for David would eventually turn into hatred. Although it appears that Michal would continue as David’s wife, there does not seem to be any hint of reconciliation.

"So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David with gladness. And so it was, when those bearing the ark of the LORD had gone six paces, that he sacrificed oxen and fatted sheep.
Then David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was wearing a linen ephod…Now as the ark of the LORD, came into the City of David, Michal, Saul’s daughter, looked through a window and saw King David leaping and whirling before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart…Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, 'How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!'...Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death” (2 Samuel 6:12-14;16;20;23 NKJV).

A couple of things bear mentioning in this text. First, Michal’s disposition toward David has obviously changed. We read at first that she loved David greatly, even to the point that she defied her own father in saving his life.

However, there is probably one particular incident that turned Michal against David.

After the deaths of Saul and Jonathan, David was crowned King of Judah. However Ishbosheth, one of Saul’s other sons was crowned King of Israel and the two houses had a long civil war for control of the whole Kingdom. This is detailed in 2 Samuel 2-4.

During this conflict, Abner, one of Ishbosheth’s generals planned to defect to David’s side after an argument with Ishbosheth (2 Samuel 3:6-12). David agreed to Abner’s offer on the condition that He bring with him Michal his wife whom Saul had previously given to Paltiel while David was a fugitive from Saul: "…But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was from Gallim." (1 Samuel 25:44 NKJV).

Seeing things from Michal’s perspective may help explain (though certainly not excuse) her antipathy towards David.

Here is her husband whom she apparently hasn’t seen in years, an enemy of the family, who has also married other women (see 1 Samuel 25:42,43; and also a list of his sons from these and other marriages – 2 Samuel 3:2-5). Meanwhile Michal has moved on with her life in a new marriage to a man who obviously loved her very much (see 2 Samuel 3:16 where he weeps over her as she is being taken away), and David forcibly removes her from that life. It was probably not a very happy reunion.

The next thing to notice is that verse 23 indicates that she had no children to the day of her death. This would seem to indicate (although we can not be dogmatic) that she and David continued to have a sexual relationship. If she had no children, the text would seem to imply that she tried to but failed. Even though David had other wives (Bathsheba; Abigail), David had to live in an unhappy marriage.

Next time we'll deal with two more of David's broken relationships.

-Christian