d 1 Samuel 21 God Sends David to Gath

8/3/2014 1 Samuel 21 God sends David to Gath?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f40/1-samuel-21-god-sends-david-gath-80394/ 1/16

Forum The Scriptures OT Historical Books 1 Samuel 21 God sends David to Gath?

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register

before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forumthat you want to visit from the selection below.

See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

OT Historical Books discuss 1 Samuel 21 God sends David to Gath? in the The Scriptures forums; Itpuzzles me why David went to Gath. It is a crazy thing to do, another Philistine city perhaps but Gath?Carrying Goliath's sword? Yet ...

User Name Password Log in

Remember Me?

RegisterHelp

What's New? Articles Classifieds Blogs Arcade

Today's PostsNew Posts FAQ Calendar Forum Actions Quick Links Advanced Search

Results 1 to 16 of 16

Be the first of your friends to like this.Like

LinkBack Thread Tools Display

09-09-2013, 04:35 PM

Join Date:Posts:Blog Entries:

Dec 20071,577

27

1 Samuel 21 God sends David to Gath?

It puzzles me why David went to Gath. It is a crazy thing to do, another Philistine cityperhaps but Gath? Carrying Goliath's sword? Yet we learn that Ahimelech sought theLord for David from Doeg the Edomite and from Ahimelech himself. Moreover Ahimelechhad sought the Lord on David's behalf before.

What then was the answer? If we take the actions of David to be in obedience to Godthen he was told to go to Gath. Once there however he was seized rather than fetedand faith gave way to fear. In that moment David switched from offering his services tofeigning madness. This I think is where David "failed" - his faith could not keep pacewith God's protection.

This all seems speculative and flies in the face of most commentators: until we readchapter 27 when David returns to Achish's court and is well received. Moreover in theprovidence of God David is able to fight the Philistines and pass off the captured bootyas Hebrew in origin.

Can you refute me from the text?

Eoghanattending Wick Baptist ChurchScotland

specialist subject: Creationist Genetics (Bottleneck effect of the Ark)interests: holiness (practical theology)member of Biblical Creation Society (available as a guest speaker in the far north ofScotland)

#1

Puritanboard Junior

Eoghan

Forum



09-09-2013, 05:21 PM

Join Date:Posts:

Aug 20086,042

Gordon J. Keddie, "Dawn of a Kingdom" (EP) says that, "David's flight to Philistia .....wasa failure of faith."

"The events of his escape called him to stand his ground rather than run away. Butoppression makes many a wise man mad (Ecclesisates 7:7). And David ran to Jonathanand then to Ahimelech, spraying his path with lies and deceptions that were later tostain his conscience with blood (22:22)."

Richard Tallachcommunicant member, Knox Free Church,Perth, Scotland GB

His Name forever shall endure;last like the sun it shall:Men shall be blessed in Him,and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

#2

Puritanboard Doctor

Peairtach

09-10-2013, 02:19 AM


Dec 20071,577

27

I was interested in Walter Chantry's observation, "Was David not capable of doubleentendre?" The question was which "King" he was on a mission for? I just wonder ifDavid went to Gath in response to the word of the Lord?

Even if David did not go in obedience to the Lord's command - he went in chapter 27 ina manner consistent with faith.



#3

Puritanboard Junior

Eoghan



09-10-2013, 11:07 AM

Join Date:Posts:

Feb 20047,414

I take it as an interpretive maxim, that generally when we see one of the Israelitesgoing out of the promised land (be it Abraham, or Elimelech, or David, etc.), it is a badsign.

I do not see ch.27 as intended to be viewed in a basically positive way, but in fact asfraught with peril. It sets David on a course that will ultimately bring near-disaster onhim, his calling, and Israel, as he is boxed into a situation (ch.29) from which there is nohonorable or good move (but God delivers him, through much fire).

Yes, in ch.27 David operates partly "consistent with his faith" as he labors to deliverIsrael in a "masked-crusader" manner. But he had finally left the land earlier because hisfaith faltered. Saul's oppression had finally worn down David's divine trust; he assumedhe must have used up "eight-lives," or "two-strikes." He thought he couldn't surviveanother of Saul's assaults, while not forsaking his "goodly heritage," or the people ofGod who should (eventually) wholly trust in him.

Perhaps, due to David's disappearance entirely from the land, and his shadow-defenseof only a Judean flank--instead of (perhaps) finding a new shelter among the northerntribes--we witness a "lost opportunity" for the eventual king to forge a strongerallegiance with those northern tribes to his house. The happy union of the whole peopleunder the reign of the house of David only lasted for one more generation; then thenorth broke away.

Rev. Bruce G. BuchananChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI

Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the DestroyerActs 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12

When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:

Oh, that God the gift would give usTo see ourselves as others see us. --Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements-- Suggestions? -- Sermons

1 member(s) found this post helpful.

#4

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger

Contra_Mundum

09-10-2013, 07:07 PM


Dec 20071,577

27

#5

Puritanboard Junior

Eoghan

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum



I beg to differ it can be to a place of safety -

Elijah lodged with the widow of Zarapheth in SidonJacob went to EgyptMary and Joseph lodged in Egypt



I take it as an interpretive maxim, that generally when we see one of the Israelites goingout of the promised land (be it Abraham, or Elimelech, or David, etc.), it is a bad sign.

09-10-2013, 07:23 PM


Dec 20071,577

27

Living in Israel was "fraught with peril". As chapter 27 explains Saul stopped seekingDavid when he learned he was at Gath. Not only so but as the commentators observeDavid had responsibility for his men - 600 in number, their wives and children. Hisdecision to move into Gath gave refuge to his men and their families. As such it was aresponsible move.

Moreover he removed the threat to any in Israel who helped him. Saul had already killedthe priests at Nob for helping David - innocent of complicity. How much more wouldSaul's wrath be kindled against anyone knowingly helping the fugitive and outlaw.

To dwell on what disaster might have befallen David in chapter 29 is speculative. Indeedone might be tempted to ask similar questions of Jonathans presumption in climbing upto the Philistine garrison. That could have ended badly for Jonathan - no?

Given the historical events I am inclined to observe the providential care which God hadfor David. This finds expression in Psalm 34 and 56 neither of which are penitential and aconfession of sin!

David's trust in God's providential care was vindicated. His actions saved the lives of

many in Israel who would otherwise have been held accountable for giving succor toSaul's enemies and shows concern for the family life of his followers. David's characteras a shepherd is still there!

#6

Puritanboard Junior

Eoghan


I do not see ch.27 as intended to be viewed in a basically positive way, but in fact asfraught with peril. It sets David on a course that will ultimately bring near-disaster onhim, his calling, and Israel, as he is boxed into a situation (ch.29) from which there is nohonorable or good move (but God delivers him, through much fire).





09-11-2013, 01:10 AM

Join Date:Posts:

Feb 20047,414

All of these were sent out of the land on a particular mission, by the direction of God.We don't even have to guess about it, as if from the results. The directions are quotedin Holy Writ.

I can add to the list begun in your post above:Jonah.Elisha, 2Ki. 8:7.Joseph, involuntarily, but as was made plain, by divine design.

And we can add to the list of those who left voluntarily, and had sorry experience, Those who fled Israel for the "safety" of Egypt, Jer.42-44.

Compare with the people who were exiled--that is, sent out of the land forchastisement:Jacob (typological), on his way to Padan-Aram.Threats to return the people to Egypt, Hos.9:3.Assyrian (northern) and Babylonian (southern) exiles.

#7


Contra_Mundum

Originally Posted by Eoghan

I beg to differ it can be to a place of safety -

Elijah lodged with the widow of Zarapheth in SidonJacob went to EgyptMary and Joseph lodged in Egypt


I take it as an interpretive maxim, that generally when we see one of theIsraelites going out of the promised land (be it Abraham, or Elimelech, orDavid, etc.), it is a bad sign.



Enemies and wicked men who took refuge among the Gentile nations:Hadad the Edomite and Rezon son of Eliadah, 1Ki.11:14-25.Jeroboam, 1Ki.11:40.

The evidence is overwhelming, so far as I can see it. Israel, and individual Israelitesbelonged nowhere but in the Promised Land. The borders of the land might be extended,but that would be at the expense of those nations surrounding. The enemies of God'speople would lose ground.

A person might leave the land temporarily, as for business, diplomacy, etc., even for avery long time. But always with a return in view. And those who were sent forth bydivine commission evidently went out of the land by faith, with expectation that hewould come home again. It was culturally significant that the Israelite be buried "withhis fathers" (cf.1Ki.13:22; 14:31 etc.).

You're welcome to disagree, however I find this interpretive maxim to be one helpfulinter-textual key underlying OT theology; which then finds its epochal asymptotic shiftin the cross, as the NT age reveals no more a typological geographical kingdom onearth, but instead God sending his church en masse away from a geopoliticalconcentration. Now the church is back in Egypt/world, free-but-in-exile, journeying inthe wilderness.





09-11-2013, 02:14 AM

Join Date:Posts:

Feb 20047,414

#8


Contra_Mundum



I do not see ch.27 as intended to be viewed in a basically positive way,but in fact as fraught with peril. It sets David on a course that willultimately bring near-disaster on him, his calling, and Israel, as he isboxed into a situation (ch.29) from which there is no honorable or goodmove (but God delivers him, through much fire).



You're free do differ. It's fine with me. I'm confident in the representatives of thehistory of interpretation with whom I side.

God had promised David the throne. The only way Saul could have his life would be ifGod were not true to his word. Ergo, David's self-counsel ("David said in his heart, 'Ishall perish someday by the hand of Saul," 1Ki.27:1) was deceitful above all things.There were other options besides running for the border. David does not "inquire of theLord" on this occasion, as he had done in times past.

And if (as I am) one is predisposed to at least question the wisdom of such a move ontheological grounds, then the disturbing fallout of this choice can easily appear to beevidence of it's innate folly. So no, I cannot agree that remaining inside Israel's borderscarried anything like the same degree of PERIL as leaving did.

Premature judgment in praise of moving David's men and their families to Ziklag, 27:6,should be tempered by the grievous results that are reported in 30:1. That peril is whatDID in fact overtake all those vulnerable people precisely BECAUSE they were in such aplace. If it was improper for David to move himself and all his men and their chattels outof Israel, then David was culpable before God (though not men) for any harm thathappened to them.

Speculating about whether such a captivity or similar would have taken place also insidethe land is true special pleading. Pointing at Nob doesn't justify David's self-counsel andhis decision; nor does pointing at some "good" come about, when we likewise do notknow if that good was less than what might have been accomplished had he stayed.Those are pragmatic judgments, not theological or ethical ones.

And even if one possessed the divine-awareness of what should happen withoutintervention, one should always do as God has revealed (i.e. remain in the land), not aswe think things will work out best. We might as well speculate that God could havemade David king months or years earlier than he did, if he had remained, by removingSaul sooner. Perhaps David's departure left Saul to reign, and the people suffer him, forthat much longer (all in God's providence).

Simple fact: in 1Sam.29 I'm not speculating at all about what David is "really" thinkingwhen he promises to assist the Philistines against Israel. We don't know, and the textleaves all of that in a bewildering fog of uncertainty. Would David take this moment tostrike at Saul? Would he do as Achish's fellow princes feared, and strike the Philistines

Living in Israel was "fraught with peril". As chapter 27 explains Saul stopped seekingDavid when he learned he was at Gath. Not only so but as the commentators observeDavid had responsibility for his men - 600 in number, their wives and children. Hisdecision to move into Gath gave refuge to his men and their families. As such it was aresponsible move.

Moreover he removed the threat to any in Israel who helped him. Saul had already killedthe priests at Nob for helping David - innocent of complicity. How much more wouldSaul's wrath be kindled against anyone knowingly helping the fugitive and outlaw.

To dwell on what disaster might have befallen David in chapter 29 is speculative. Indeedone might be tempted to ask similar questions of Jonathans presumption in climbing upto the Philistine garrison. That could have ended badly for Jonathan - no?

Given the historical events I am inclined to observe the providential care which God hadfor David. This finds expression in Psalm 34 and 56 neither of which are penitential anda confession of sin!

David's trust in God's providential care was vindicated. His actions saved the lives ofmany in Israel who would otherwise have been held accountable for giving succor toSaul's enemies and shows concern for the family life of his followers. David's characteras a shepherd is still there!



from behind? Any course David might follow would jeopardize some holy thing or person.That is the point of the text, and he is only extricated from the scene by God's movingAchish to reluctantly side with his peers against his (presumed) lieutenant.

But the fire of David's ordeal is only just then begun, as he and his men return to theburned-out ruins of Ziklag, ch.30. You can't persuade me that with the stench of smokein his nostrils, and stomach-churning loss, and fear for his own life at the hands of hisown men, that David isn't seriously questioning his non-divinely-directed move to thisforeign-soil outpost. Only now does he "inquire of the Lord," v8. Since 27:1, it's been allhuman wisdom, and spending his spiritual capital.

But of course, David is never out of God's providential care. I don't need Pss. 34 (afterhis first flight) and 56 (in light of events of his second) to offer any explicit confessionof sin, in order to validate my contention. God does, in fact, bring sufficient good out ofthis situation, showing how he is able to use even those acts of his servants that aremixed with errors small and great. He make deliverances. He brings the man after hisown heart to the throne, after trying him sore.

After all, David doesn't achieve the throne because he's never been sinful or foolish.Like all the other OT heroes, David is exalted in spite of his many flaws and failures. He'sgreat because God makes him great.

Blessings,





09-11-2013, 02:49 AM


Dec 20071,577

27

There is a freedom we are given to act without divine revelation. This is the case todayas it has been in the past (charismatics aside). The choices we make are not on thewhole sinful missing God's perfect will. I take it as an established principle that God is asmuch in charge of providence as He is of the miraculous. By exercising ourselves inaccord with God's revealed will we grow and demonstrate what motivates us.

David had regard to those who followed him and sought respite from Saul's fury for themas much as for him. The death of the priests at Nob were on his conscience and heavoided making any Israelite complicit with him. In both these regards his character isexemplary. We are armchair quarterbacks who sit in judgement without ever having thatexperience of being fugitive from the authorities.

Post Holocaust I think we can better judge the ethics of lying in extremis. My proposalis that David did not sin by leaving Israel, fleeing is not a sign of guilt (in most states).Did Joseph not flee Potiphars wife? David was not forbidden to enter Philistine territory,indeed such intelligence as he gathered would serve him well in later years. His duty

#9

Puritanboard Junior

Eoghan



was to survive Saul's wrath to succeed him, in so doing he was prudent in seekingsanctuary with the one power which would not extradite him.

We fail to remember that the Spirit of God was with David. What this meant in practicewe might speculate on but it is a factor. David wrote Psalms which are Messianic in theirpredictions. He was prophetic!

Yes David gave way to fear and abandoned his plan of speaking up for himself and thosewho were with him. At the moment when he was seized his plan changed and in thatmoment he gave way to fear, forsaking faith. I would suggest that all othercondemnation of David is speculative with armchair quarterbacks piling on in a scrum(UK rugby term, ruck in US?).

Give David a break! He wrote amazing Psalms at this point in his life and was far from abacksliden wreck making shipwreck of his faith as some, nay most, speculate.



09-11-2013, 01:27 PM

Join Date:Posts:

Feb 20047,414

As I have already argued, I think David is acting against the revealed will of God, whichis one aspect of his sore trial. He must be corrected before he is elevated. Whom theLord loves, he chastens.

I also would argue that we have to take into account the difference in the epochs, nowand then. We cannot map 1-to-1 all the freedoms we enjoy now onto the Moses-law-bound Israelites laboring under pedagogical discipline. Our relative "freedom ofmovement" is not transferable to an Israelite like Elimelech, who takes his family toMoab (all very reasonable, right? famine in Bethlehem and all that), and loses both hislife and his inheritance. It takes a literal resurrection-type miracle of life-from-the-dead

#10


Contra_Mundum


There is a freedom we are given to act without divine revelation. This is the case todayas it has been in the past (charismatics aside). The choices we make are not on thewhole sinful missing God's perfect will. I take it as an established principle that God is asmuch in charge of providence as He is of the miraculous. By exercising ourselves inaccord with God's revealed will we grow and demonstrate what motivates us.



to bring that inheritance back to life through the persons of Ruth and Boaz. Anotherinstance of Providence overcoming human failure. And it results in David's birtheventually.

To which, I have to add that there are even greater constraints laid upon those whomGod has chosen to be special types, and are public persons, who do not act only forthemselves but as mediatorial agents in relation to God's people considered as theChurch. These kinds of people (like David) are so far from having radical freedom; butwe even recognize that today's men-of-state and royals (and other celebrities) are"imprisoned" in their powerful roles--which make their frequent "acting out" the moregauche.

The silence of the text in regard to David's not inquiring of the Lord respecting hismove, and the pains the text takes to tell us that David only took counsel with his ownheart, are potent indicators of the error of his choice, the weakness of his faith at thistime. It is not that any of us owe David a break. He is for us a beautiful example of thevicissitudes of our own temperamental faith, and how God does not let someone likeDavid go, and in fact sets him up on high.

Indeed, look at Ps.56! Consider how powerful that statement of faith is, when (as Ibelieve, and have preached it thus) it comes forth out of the whole context of the mini-exile into Philistia, and the fearful prospect of the battle with Saul, and Ziklag. Ps.56gives voice to the man who has suddenly been confronted with the fact that he is (bywhatever course) brought into a place of utter helplessness, from which he now realizeshe can only be helped by the Greatest Power. So much the stronger, for it beinguttered by David "in a far country" when he "came to himself" (Lk.15:17).

I am not offended if we disagree on this. Php.3:15, "...if in anything you thinkotherwise, God will reveal that also to you," or if needful to me.





09-11-2013, 07:46 PM

Join Date:Posts:

Mar 200312,603

#11

They're stalling and plotting against me

py3ak



1 Samuel 22:5 should settle the issue of whether David was supposed to stay in theland or not.

Ruben: AdministratorF.P.C.Indianapolis

...diffidence is found the inseparable associate of understanding. -Samuel Johnson

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Teologa en Mexico The Howling Wilderness

09-11-2013, 11:02 PM

Join Date:Posts:

Feb 20047,414

Thanks, Ruben, I appreciate the reference. I had thought about David's safe-keeping hisparents for a while in Moab, but did not go back and read the passage.

I agree, the sense of the prophetic Word is that while David may have a dispensation tohideaway his parents for a season among distant relatives (still a functional exile), HEon the other hand has no such authorization.





#12


Contra_Mundum

09-12-2013, 03:05 AM


Dec 20071,577

27

#13

Puritanboard Junior

Eoghan

Originally Posted by py3ak



It does ... ...in the context of chapter 22. It also implies that David was "free" tochoose prior to that. When the prophet was told to marry a prostitute (referenceneeded) from the marketplace it countermanded his freedom to choose a wife prior tothat word of God.

We are not Charismatics who do not get out of bed until we have (claim) directrevelation from God. We have general principles and the rest is up to us for the mostpart.

I somehow think that the land of Israel is like those dog collars which are tied into aboundary wire. As someone approaches the boundary they receive a mild electric shock.Not so. When David settled his family in Moab that was "outside" Israel but he went onto add it to Israel later.Now tell me was David disobedient in visiting part of Israel-to-be?

There are many things where we are free to act until we receive direct revelation -which is pretty infrequent these days. Ruth was not Jewish, Nineveh was Persian(?) andMelchizedek was... ...well we don't know; but he was not Jewish.



1 Samuel 22:5 should settle the issue of whether David was supposed to stay in the landor not.

09-12-2013, 03:09 AM


Dec 20071,577

27

#14

Puritanboard Junior

Eoghan


It puzzles me why David went to Gath. It is a crazy thing to do, another Philistine cityperhaps but Gath? Carrying Goliath's sword? Yet we learn that Ahimelech sought theLord for David from Doeg the Edomite and from Ahimelech himself. Moreover Ahimelechhad sought the Lord on David's behalf before.

What then was the answer? If we take the actions of David to be in obedience to Godthen he was told to go to Gath. Once there however he was seized rather than feted andfaith gave way to fear. In that moment David switched from offering his services tofeigning madness. This I think is where David "failed" - his faith could not keep pace withGod's protection.

This all seems speculative and flies in the face of most commentators: until we readchapter 27 when David returns to Achish's court and is well received. Moreover in theprovidence of God David is able to fight the Philistines and pass off the captured booty asHebrew in origin.



emphasis added



Can you refute me from the text? Not from the general consensus, quotationsof the opinions of men or your personal opinion based on 1 and 2 Kings.

No the relevant scriptures here are chapter 21, Psalm 34(?) and 56(?) and ofcourse the New Testament references to the incident

09-12-2013, 08:58 AM

Join Date:Posts:

Mar 200312,603

I'm always glad to lend any small support to your own stimulating reflections, Bruce.

Ruben: AdministratorF.P.C.Indianapolis

...diffidence is found the inseparable associate of understanding. -Samuel Johnson

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Teologa en Mexico The Howling Wilderness

#15

They're stalling and plotting against me

py3ak


Thanks, Ruben, I appreciate the reference. I had thought about David's safe-keeping hisparents for a while in Moab, but did not go back and read the passage.

I agree, the sense of the prophetic Word is that while David may have a dispensation tohideaway his parents for a season among distant relatives (still a functional exile), HE onthe other hand has no such authorization.



09-12-2013, 12:30 PM

Join Date:Posts:

Feb 20047,414

It isn't clear to me just what you're demanding. All the discussion set forth so far iswholly reliant on Scripture. What "opinions of men" have been introduced into thethread? You yourself don't stick to ch.21 and Pss.34 & 56, but appeal to 1Sam.22(Ahimelech) & ch.27 (David's second excursion to Gath) as validating your assessmentof David's whole series of moves that leads him to Gath in ch.21. Why is it OK for you topass the bounds you set, but not others? Scripture does not SAY that God commandedDavid to go to Gath, but it's an important conclusion that YOU have arrived at based onyour macro-assessment of many textual, contextual, and broadly biblical factors.

You may be saying that you're willing to entertain some kind of explicit statement fromwithin so many verses of the incident (a narrow context-window), or from ONLY textsoutside it that YOU deem relevant, that could overturn your interpretive conclusions.That's your prerogative, but it also more-or-less indicates that you've defined the issueso as to control (if you can) for possible refutation. 1Sam.22 is quite arguably close-context to ch.21, those divisions being human convention. The narrative is not a stringof separate pearls.

I think you recognize that your read of David's actions runs counter to one well-definedbody of interpretation (I don't even know if I'll call it a "general consensus"). That's fine.I myself have dared to challenge "received opinion" on numerous points and passages."Let each be fully convinced in his own mind," Rom.14:5. That's where you should leaveit. Then you wait, and see if others see what you see in the text and support it,adopting your critique of the inadequacies of other views.

It's poor form to ask for input, and then ignore--not silently, but with petulantreassertion--or dismiss as acontextual, the biblical argumentation given by the otherside; and worse, to accuse those who disagree, and have argued to another end, ofabandoning all fidelity to the text. To be biblically accurate is necessarily to agree withyou?

In case you hadn't noticed, you have brought to an OT text your own "interpretive

#16


Contra_Mundum


emphasis added


Can you refute me from the text? Not from the general consensus,quotations of the opinions of men or your personal opinion basedon 1 and 2 Kings.

No the relevant scriptures here are chapter 21, Psalm 34(?) and56(?) and of course the New Testament references to theincident



---- PuritanBoard

Ruth study guide recommendations? | 1 Samuel 19:13 David married to an idolator

Contact Us The PuritanBoard Archive Top

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 4.2.2 Copyright 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 2011, Crawlability, Inc.

maxim," namely that behaviors falling within acceptable norms for NT believers (as youreckon it) are the standard for judging the actions of OT characters. That'sdemonstrably false, in my estimation, because OT behavior was not constrained merelyby timeless universal morality, but also by significant positive regulation peculiar to theOld Covenant era.

Then too, there is the selective nature of the holy-record. These stories are notespecially exemplaristic, i.e. for describing activity that is either moral or immoral,faithful or unfaithful human action; as if they were Aesop's Fables, but for Jews andChristians. Rather, the main purpose of the record is Christological. Thus, I seek toevaluate David's moves, behaviors, thoughts, and words throughout his career in termsof how well he typifies Christ. And conversely, how his stumblings expose him as stilljust an imperfect man (though God greatly exalted him) like the rest of us, in need ofthe Son of David who should redeem both him and all of us.

Peace.





1 member(s) found this post helpful.

Digg

del.icio.us

StumbleUpon

Google

Bookmarks

You may not post newthreads

You may not post replies

You may not postattachments

You may not edit yourposts

Posting Permissions

BB code is On

Smilies are On

[IMG] code is On

[VIDEO] code is On

HTML code is Off

Trackbacks are On

Pingbacks are On

Refbacks are On

Forum Rules



Copyright 2002-2012 PuritanBoard.com Designed and hosted by WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Ratings, Guides, and Advice

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 3940 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

d 1 Samuel 21 God Sends David to Gath

Documents

Transcript of d 1 Samuel 21 God Sends David to Gath