Answering Bart Ehrman Series, Wk 1, “Yes, Jesus is Historical”

  Every fall we take time and focus on being prepared to give an answer to why we hold to faith in Jesus (1 Pet. 3:15). As a pastor, one of my responsibilities to this congregation is to equip the saints for the work of ministry (Eph. 4:12). One of the most needed areas of ministry is to be able to articulate well researched and thought through reasons as to why the Christian faith is true and a person should seek the Lord.

This year we’re going to focus our attention on one of the most referenced New Testament scholars that opponents to Christianity use to argue their points. Atheists and Muslims alike use Bart Ehrman’s work as proof that scholars, in the know, have debunked Christianity and those that still hold to the orthodox tenets of the faith, do so from an imaginary, rather than a historical basis.

For the next five weeks, we’re going to cover, and argue against, five main issues that Ehrman presents in his book, Jesus, Interrupted, as to why the orthodox faith of Christianity is wrong.

To give you a little background on Bart Ehrman, he was a fundamentalist Christian when he attended and graduated from Wheaton College. He went on to receive a Masters of Divinity and PH.D from Princeton Theological Seminary. While working through seminary, Ehrman rejected his fundamentalist views, and eventually became an atheist. He has been a professor at the University of North Carolina since 1988, and currently is the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Chapel Hill. He has written over thirty books, both scholarly and at the popular level. He is an expert in the New Testament and has debated issues pertaining to the historical Jesus and Christianity’s origins on numerous occasions. Yet, for all his credentials, we will see that Ehrman falls into the same trappings that all of us do. We become so focused on an issue that we cannot see how blind we are to it.

Now you might be wondering why we’re doing this instead of just teaching out of the Bible. In Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman issues a challenge to those in the pulpit. He writes, “Thousands of scholars just in North America alone continue to do serious research in the field, and the results of their study are regularly and routinely taught, both to graduate students in universities and to prospective pastors attending seminaries in preparation for the ministry. Yet such views of the Bible are virtually unknown among the population at large. In no small measure this is because those of us who spend our professional lives studying the Bible have not done a good job communicating this knowledge to the general public and because many pastors who learned this material in seminary have, for a variety of reasons, not shared it with their parishioners once they take up positions in the church. (Churches, of course, are the most obvious place where the Bible is—or, rather, ought to be—taught and discussed.) As a result, not only are most Americans (increasingly) ignorant of the contents of the Bible, but they are also almost completely in the dark about what scholars have been saying about the Bible for the past two centuries.”

There is a subtle attack within this quote of Ehrman’s, and a slight disdain for those who attend seminary, supposedly learning that the Bible is unreliable and yet, sweep those discoveries under the rug to hide them from their congregations. However, I have had undergraduate work in exploration of the Bible, and I am currently two classes away from a Masters of Religion. Over the course of my formal education and my personal research, I have come to a firmer trust in the reliability of the Bible, not less. However, I want you to be prepared for those who utilize scholars like Ehrman to chip away at your firm foundation. So, for the next four weeks, I’m going to present to you the scholarly case for the credibility of orthodox Christian faith as we seek to refute Ehrman’s claims.

So let’s get into the first of Bart Ehrman’s issues with the credibility of the Christian faith. In Jesus Interrupted, Ehrman writes, “In my lectures (given as part of a preaching series on ‘the historical Jesus”) I talked about why historians have problems using the Gospels as historical sources, in view of their discrepancies and the fact that they were written decades after the life of Jesus … I also talk about how scholars have devised methods for reconstructing what probably happen in the life Jesus …”

The historical Jesus is a key factor in the credibility of the Christian faith. Paul writes in First Corinthians 15:14, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” Everything hinges on the physical resurrection of Jesus for our faith. But in order to have a physical resurrection, there needs to be a real historical figure.

There is a group who are referred to as mythicists, that believe that Jesus is a combination of several religious beliefs amalgamated into the person presented in the New Testament. The thought is, Jesus is a large helping of Judaism, a cup of Egyptian deity stories, a dose of Babylonia gods, and sprinkling of Roman cultic practices. This belief has permeated, what is called the zeitgeist, or the collected cultural mindset of our society for decades. Its roots are in the late 1800s German theological schools, whose purpose was to separate the Jewishness from Jesus. It’s no wonder then that it would be the Germans who who would later seek to kill millions of Jewish people. 

In his paper, “An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus (Part 1 of 2),” historian Tim O’Neill, addresses three attacks that are logged by mythicists at the historical Jesus. The first accusation is that, “There are no contemporary accounts or mentions of Jesus. There should be, so clearly no Jesus existed.”

For one, this discounts the Gospels as not being contemporary accounts, even though the tradition of who wrote the Bible goes back to at the latest the disciple of John the Apostle named Papias. As John Warwick Montgomery points out, Papias confirms the writings of the Gospels by Matthew and John as the Apostles who were with Jesus.  Papias also confirms that Mark was the secretary of Peter the Apostle, and Luke the researcher who accompanied of Paul. The way people go about rejecting the Gospels is to say they were written by Jesus’ followers and so cannot be trusted. Or mythicists, and some naturalists historians, will reject the Gospels because they contain the supernatural. However, if we follow that line of thinking, we better be prepared to get ride of a lot of history written by people who believed in the causes they wrote about. Say good by to anything about Confucius, or Alexander the Great, or a whole host of other historical documents. Though the Gospels were written by Jesus’ followers, they are still historical documents that attest to his life, and should at least be seen in that light. Further on in our series, we’ll dive into why we should not just see the Gospels as historical documents with turret, but how they are truthful.

The fact that we have the Gospels and that they are dated within three decades of Jesus’ life by three eyewitness, and one researcher, is actually rather astonishing in the ancient world. As O’Neill points out, “For example, few people in the ancient world were as prominent, influential, significant and famous as the Carthaginian general Hannibal. He came close to crushing the Roman Republic, was one of the greatest generals of all time and was famed throughout the ancient world for centuries after his death down to today. Yet how many contemporary mentions of Hannibal do we have? Zero. We have none. So if someone as famous and significant as Hannibal has no surviving contemporary references to him in our sources, does it really make sense to base an argument about the existence or non-existence of a Galilean peasant preacher on the lack of contemporary references to him? Clearly it does not.”

The fact that we have such writings as the Gospels, so close to Jesus’ life, for this itinerant Jewish man from the first century, when we have no such writings of great generals like Hannibal, shows us that Jesus’ story has more credibility than people think. 

Tim O’Neill’s second accusations from mythicists is, “The ancient writer ‘X’ should have mentioned this Jesus, yet he doesn't do so. This silence shows that no Jesus existed.” This attack states that because a certain ancient historian does not mention a person, then that person’s historicity comes into question.

This is what is called an “argument from silence.” An argument like this, to be correct, would have to go along the lines of a descendant claiming that their ancestor met a famous person, yet, in all their ancestor’s letters there was never once a mention of that meeting. We might make a claim, but there is no evidence from the source and so his science makes the claim invalid. However this isn’t the case with Jesus.

In the case of Jesus, people have come up with lists of ancient historians who should have mentioned Jesus but did not. One historian that O’Neill mentions is Lucanus. However, as O’Neill points out, Lucanus, wrote one poem and a history of a civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompey. The question arises, “Why would such a historian write about Jesus, when his concern was about Caesar?” It would be like a historian who, in the twentieth century, was writing about the American Revolution, jamming in something about a man named Billy Graham. The two are not connected and therefore the historian wouldn’t mention one in the other.

These types of historian connections makes up the bulk of mythicist lists as to who should have mentioned Jesus. Whereas those like Philo Judeaus would be a better candidate, since he wrote on Pilate and Judean events. But since he did not mention any Jewish preachers, prophets or Messianic figures, it figures that he would not have mentioned Jesus either. 

So it is not strange, however, that Jesus is not mentioned in many contemporary sources due to his irrelevance to Roman society in the first century. What is strange is that he is mentioned at all. In fact, Darrell L. Brock, in his book, Studying the Historical Jesus, finds nine non-Christian Roman and Jewish historical documents that do mention Jesus: Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar Sarapion, Josephus, Sanhedrin 43a, and Sanhedrin 107b. So, rather than there being no contemporary mentions of Jesus, the fact that there are any, and at least nine, shows that Jesus was known well enough to be mentioned. 

The final accusation from those who deny the historical Jesus is, "The earliest Christian traditions make no mention of a historical Jesus and clearly worshipped a purely heavenly, mythic-style being. There are no references to an earthly Jesus in any of the earliest New Testament texts, the letters of Paul." 

To refute this obvious incorrect claim, O’Neill gives several passages of Scripture from Paul to dispute this accusation. I think three will suffice here. Galatians 4:4, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law ….” Romans 1:3, “concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh …” 1 Corinthians 2:8, “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Jesus birth, life, and death are all seen through Paul’s letters. Jesus wasn’t a mythical figure, but a flesh and bone person who walked the earth, taught his disciples, and was crucified. 

The writings of the New Testament clearly speak of Jesus walking as a human. He ate food (Matt. 26:26-30), felt tired (Jn. 4:6), wept (Lk. 19:41), and experienced pain (Matt. 26:37). A person might not believe his deity, but what one cannot reject is his humanity. 

The historicity of Jesus is an important foundational aspect to our faith, because as Second John states, “I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist (v.1:7).” To deny that Jesus was a historical, flesh and blood person is to deny him in his ministry work, and the facts of history. 

In fact, Barth Ehrman countering the mythicists, states, “I can assure you, as a historian, that whatever else you might want to say about Jesus, he certainly existed.” So though, Ehrman may reject that Jesus is who the New Testament says he is, what Ehrman cannot and will not deny, is that Jesus was a historical person, who walked the dusty roads of Judea in the first century.

With Jesus’ historicity established, next week, we’ll dive into the Bible itself, taking two of our five weeks to look at how we can trust the Scriptures we read.

But my challenge for you today, is to ask this question, “Do I trust that Jesus came in the flesh?” Not only does it have historical significance, but the Scriptures state, that Jesus was God who took on our flesh that he may die for us. The flesh of Jesus shows the love of God, that he would go to almost any length to bring us back to himself. This week, understand the reality of God’s deep love for you, because the King of Heaven took on the flesh of earth, so that he may die for those in rebellion against him, that anyone who would put their trust into Jesus would receive his eternal life.

Let us be a people who not just follow a mythical figure, but the true God who walked the earth, died for sinners, resurrected to open his eternall life to us, and who calls us to that life today. Amen.

1 Samuel Series Wk 24 - “Well Done, Isn’t for Steaks”

  The Olympics are a treasure trove of people who overcome odds to take home gold. Stories abound of athletes who have worked tirelessly over years to be able to prove themeless against some of the greatest competitors of their generation.

One such story was the runner, John Stephen Akhwari. Akhwari was a Tanzanian marathon runner, who represented his country in the 1968 Olympics, which were held in Mexico. Akhwari’s story begins like the other racers. He got up to the the starting line and took off with the pack. He wasn’t a favorite to win, due to the high altitude, but that didn’t stop him from trying. But, at around the ninth kilometer, something happened. Several of the runners jostled for position, and in the aftermath, Akhwari fell. Hitting the pavement with his shoulder and knee, be began to bleed. Medical attention was given, and though he was encouraged to stop, he kept going. Jogging, walking, and limping his way towards the finish line, Akhwari  kept going. In the end, out of the fifty-seven competitors who finished the race, he finished last. First place came in at 2:20:26, while Akhwari come in at 3:25:27. Though the crowd was small by the time he crossed the finish line, cheers erupted that he finished his race. Afterwards, when asked why he kept running, he answered with these famous words, “My country did not send me 10,000 miles just to start the race; they sent me to finish the race.”

And it’s this idea of fishing the race that brings us to our final chapter, and week in our summer series of First Samuel, where we’ll be reading through the final chapter, chapter 31, starting in verse 1. But before we get into that, let’s briefly talked about the three sections that we have covered through this book. 

The first section we covered focused on Samuel the final judge in the era before the monarchy. Through Samuel’s life, we saw a man who lived out the call of God even when it was difficult. From his first prophetic message to Eli about how he and his sons were going to be judged by God, to him watching as the nation of Israel turned away from God as their king to embrace a human, Samuel stayed focus on enacting the will of God through it all. It’s from this section that we understood that, God calls all of his people to abide in his holy will. No matter the situation, his will is what matters for our lives. 

In the second section, we saw the beginning of the monarchy with Saul. Saul started off good, but quickly began spiraling into sin. Instead of fulfilling his role as an under-king to God, Saul became more and more focused on solidifying his own power. He did this, not by his military might, but by taking credit and associating himself with whoever was seen by the people as doing well. We saw in Saul a person who rejected the will of God and rebelled against him. From this section we understood that, God calls us to freely accept his will, and not rebel against him, because there are consequences for being outside the will of God. When Saul rebelled against God, he did so on his own intuitive and today, we’ll see the final consequence of that rebellion. 

Finally, in the last section, we have seen the rise of David. From his anointing by Samuel, to his fleeing from Saul and living among the Philistines. Through David’s battles, his sparing of Saul’s life twice, and his ability to listen to wise council, we saw the good and kingly things David could do as he followed God. We also saw how his lies led to other people’s deaths. Through it all, we saw how, God desires us to eagerly follow him in humble trust that is confident that he will work things out as we seek and obey him, with a return mentality of repentance. David and Saul are not too different from each other, but the key difference was their desire to return to God and have his will be done. 

With the whole book of First Samuel summed up in our minds, we can read the final chapter. Let’s read, First Samuel 31:1 together. 

1 Now the Philistines were fighting against Israel, and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines and fell slain on Mount Gilboa. 2 And the Philistines overtook Saul and his sons, and the Philistines struck down Jonathan and Abinadab and Malchi-shua, the sons of Saul. 3 The battle pressed hard against Saul, and the archers found him, and he was badly wounded by the archers. 4 Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and mistreat me.” But his armor-bearer would not, for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. 5 And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died with him. 6 Thus Saul died, and his three sons, and his armor-bearer, and all his men, on the same day together. 7 And when the men of Israel who were on the other side of the valley and those beyond the Jordan saw that the men of Israel had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they abandoned their cities and fled. And the Philistines came and lived in them.

8 The next day, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, they found Saul and his three sons fallen on Mount Gilboa. 9 So they cut off his head and stripped off his armor and sent messengers throughout the land of the Philistines, to carry the good news to the house of their idols and to the people. 10 They put his armor in the temple of Ashtaroth, and they fastened his body to the wall of Beth-shan. 11 But when the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead heard what the Philistines had done to Saul, 12 all the valiant men arose and went all night and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan, and they came to Jabesh and burned them there. 13 And they took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh and fasted seven days.

The book of First Samuel ends on a down note, much like the book of Judges. What started with Samuel seeking the will of God, ends with the chosen king of Israel dying at the hands of Israel’s enemies. And not only that, but Saul ends his life by falling on his own sword. But not only does the king die, three of his sons die as well. One of which, Jonathan, if his father was a better king, would have most likely led Israel in a godly way. But even this possible outcome falls, because of the sins of his father. Saul and his sons’ deaths conclude Samuel’s final prophecy from beyond the grave, which was uttered in First Samuel 28:19.

And with this conclusion, a glimmer of hope from the book of Ruth shines. The awaited king, David, can now take his place, and whose story we’ll pick up in, with the Lord’s allowance, next summer. 

Since this final chapter is so short and to the point, what can we walk away from it with? The simple answer is to understand how God wants us to end our stories. 

Samuel ended his story by being faithful his whole life. He, unlike other judges, was what God desired from his people. To work justly with each other, to be humble, and to seek after God’s will over their own. Saul, on the other hand, ended his life with his will square in his face. In his last rebellious action, he did not even let those that were sent as a judgment against him to take his life. Instead, with an almost thumbing of the nose to God, Saul kills himself. And yet, even then, God’s prophetic word rings true. Saul died and so did his sons. Saul’s life ends in failure. His rule, which God called him to, ends without even a true seconded generation of heirs to take it over. And all that Saul had worked and bleed for, God has given to another. 

Saul is a tragic figure in the Scriptures. On the outside, he had all the looks of a king, but on the inside, he allowed his sin to run rampant, and it destroyed the people around him. Saul is a case study for the believer who desires to follow God. If we desire God, then we need to learn to seek him instead of rebelling. To submit to God’s word and his will. To look to God’s kingdom rather than our own.

Paul wrote these important words in Second Timothy 4:1-8 as he was coming to the end of his life, “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. But as for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.”

Believer, we are called to be about our Father’s business. To think and focus on his kingdom. To be prepared at all times to speak the truth of his Gospel, and to stand unmoving, ready to die, for what we hold true in Christ Jesus. When we do this, we finish the race strong. 

Saul started off well enough. He did the things Samuel told him to do, but slowly Saul’s focus shifted from God to himself. As believers, it’s not simply how we start this walk with Christ, it’s how we end it that matters.

To the churches in Asian minor, Jesus used this phrase seven times, “To the one who conquers … (See Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21)” Christ doesn’t just call us to have a mental belief that he is God, or a mental belief that he rose from the grave. No, Jesus calls us to a life where his Lordship is over us. Where we live out his call. Where the conquering he did on the cross, is shown through our lives at our last breath. Where we face death as victors, because we have the Victor over us.

It is in that moment that, when the battle of this life ends and the dust settles, that those who have not just said they believe in Jesus, but have trust him with their lives, stand before him and hear the most important words a disciple of Christ could ever hear, “… Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master. (Matthew 25:23)”

Today, as we reflect on the life of Saul, let us not get it into our mind that a simple cognitive belief is what Jesus desires from us. The word belief in the Scriptures does not lend itself to such a simplistic idea. Belief that Jesus calls us to is a life where our will is laid down, and his will is taken up. It is where his life was given that he may receive our lives. Where we look back with our dying breath and proclaim, “Not I, but Christ has lived my life.” 

Saul shows us that a life can be either submitted to God, or rebel against him. Let us, who proclaim to follow Christ, truly do just that. Live, not for self, but for Christ.

My challenge for you this week is to take your belief before Jesus and wrestle with him. Ask him if you merely have a head knowledge of him, and if you do, seek him to have that knowledge transferred to your heart. That his grace would abound in you, and his life and will would supplant yours.

Let us be a people who are faithfully running the race set out before us, and look forward to the words of our Savior, “Well done.” Amen.

1 Samuel Series Wk 23 - “God’s Invitation to Restoration”

  Mr. And Mrs. Burke were sitting in their family room one evening. The husband was reading the newspaper while, his wife knitted. Mr. Burke let out a little chuckle when he noticed that in the paper there was a man named Patrick Burke who was getting married. He shared this with his wife, and she laughed to. Their son was named Patrick, but they knew it couldn’t be their Patrick, because he was returning from military duty and they were to pick him up the next day. But they thought it was funny enough to clip the announcement out and take it with them when they picked up their son the next day. Their plan was to give him a hard time about the whole situation. However, their jaws dropped when they saw their son stepping out off of the plane with a newborn in his arms and an unknown lady standing next to him. 

The confusion was quickly cleared up when Patrick informed his parents that he was merely helping the new mother with the baby because the tarmac was wet. The parents were relieved and Patrick chucked at this little homecoming mix up.

Homecoming stories are some of the most satisfying tales. No matter if it’s home for the holidays or coming back from war, the joy of returning to family is something that captures people’s hearts.

And it’s this idea of being able to return that brings us back to our series in First Samuel, where we’ll be picking it back up in First Samuel chapter 29, verse 1. As we jump back into First Samuel 29:1, let’s do a quick refresher on where we are.

As we entered the third section of First Samuel, we were introduced to David, God’s chosen king to lead Israel. Through David’s introduction, we walked away with understanding that, God desires us to eagerly follow him in humble trust that is confident that he will work things out as we seek and obey him.

Following David’s introduction we saw how Saul continued to spiraled into sin so deep that when he sought God, God was silent. This was because Saul was seeking God for his own purposes and not God’s. This is when Saul went to a medium to contact Samuel who had recently died. It was through this interaction that we walked away with the understanding that, God calls us to rely solely on him to experience the spiritual, because the spiritual realm is skewed to us, and his goals are for our benefit.

Then last week, we took a brief detour to understand the spiritual battle around us. We talked about the three foes: our flesh, the enemy, and the world, and the oppressive battle we all face. From last week, we came to the understanding that, God does not want us to be lackadaisical in the spiritual battle, but to seek him in preparation for it.

With all this refreshed in our minds, we can jump back into First Samuel, 29:1, where we’ll be looking at two of the final three chapters. Let’s read starting in verse 1 of chapter 29.

1 Now the Philistines had gathered all their forces at Aphek. And the Israelites were encamped by the spring that is in Jezreel. 2 As the lords of the Philistines were passing on by hundreds and by thousands, and David and his men were passing on in the rear with Achish, 3 the commanders of the Philistines said, “What are these Hebrews doing here?” And Achish said to the commanders of the Philistines, “Is this not David, the servant of Saul, king of Israel, who has been with me now for days and years, and since he deserted to me I have found no fault in him to this day.” 4 But the commanders of the Philistines were angry with him. And the commanders of the Philistines said to him, “Send the man back, that he may return to the place to which you have assigned him. He shall not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he become an adversary to us. For how could this fellow reconcile himself to his lord? Would it not be with the heads of the men here? 5 Is not this David, of whom they sing to one another in dances, ‘Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands’?”

6 Then Achish called David and said to him, “As the Lord lives, you have been honest, and to me it seems right that you should march out and in with me in the campaign. For I have found nothing wrong in you from the day of your coming to me to this day. Nevertheless, the lords do not approve of you. 7 So go back now; and go peaceably, that you may not displease the lords of the Philistines.” 8 And David said to Achish, “But what have I done? What have you found in your servant from the day I entered your service until now, that I may not go and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?” 9 And Achish answered David and said, “I know that you are as blameless in my sight as an angel of God. Nevertheless, the commanders of the Philistines have said, ‘He shall not go up with us to the battle.’ 10 Now then rise early in the morning with the servants of your lord who came with you, and start early in the morning, and depart as soon as you have light.” 11 So David set out with his men early in the morning to return to the land of the Philistines. But the Philistines went up to Jezreel.

v.29:1-11

In the last chapter, the catalyst for Saul going to the medium was that the Philistines were coming out to war against the Israelites. Saul didn’t know what to do because God was silent. Now, we learn about what was happening to David at this same time. 

As the Philistines gathered people from their various cities, David and his men came out to help Achish who was kind of like their patron at this time. However, the other Philistine commanders were not comfortable with David being a part of their attack on Israel. This was because of David’s reputation as an effective warrior for Saul, and it caused them to reject him, especially as someone bringing up their rear.

One thing we need to see here is that Achish was blinded to what David was actually doing. Achish says he has seen nothing wrong with David, and yet, David has been raiding everyone except the Philistines and Israelites. That Achish doesn’t see that David hasn’t been truthful with him, is a testament to Achish not being able to see the obvious threat David posed that everyone else saw. The deceitfulness of David needs to be acknowledged as a bad point for David, because this bad and good of David becomes a cycle of his.

At the end of the chapter, when told of the situation, David agrees to return to the city he was working out of.

v.30:1-20

Following this, in the first twenty verses of chapter 30, we find out that the city that David had been working out of, was ransacked. All the people, livestock, and goods were carried off by a raiding party of the Amalekites. Remember, Saul was supposed to break the Amalekites early in the book, but he didn’t. So his sin has now affected David. But David had been raiding people like the Amalekites himself, so they’re just returning the favor. 

It is here that we get a good point from David. He seeks God to see if he should go after the raiders. It might seem like an obvious “yes,” but even in David’s loss, to seek God first is the answer. Something that Saul stopped doing, hence why God was silent to him.

We’re then told that six hundred men take off to go after the raiding party, but two hundred stayed behind at a brook because they were exhausted. The remaining four hundred capture an Egyptian servant of the Amalekites, who gave them their location, and David’s men recapture all that was lost to them.

v.30:21-25

It’s after the raiding party is defeated, and David and his men return, that we pick up the passage once again in verse 21 of chapter 30.

21 Then David came to the two hundred men who had been too exhausted to follow David, and who had been left at the brook Besor. And they went out to meet David and to meet the people who were with him. And when David came near to the people he greeted them. 22 Then all the wicked and worthless fellows among the men who had gone with David said, “Because they did not go with us, we will not give them any of the spoil that we have recovered, except that each man may lead away his wife and children, and depart.” 23 But David said, “You shall not do so, my brothers, with what the Lord has given us. He has preserved us and given into our hand the band that came against us. 24 Who would listen to you in this matter? For as his share is who goes down into the battle, so shall his share be who stays by the baggage. They shall share alike.” 25 And he made it a statute and a rule for Israel from that day forward to this day.

Upon returning to the other men, we’re told that “… wicked and worthless fellows …” who were a part of the victory did not want to give any spoils to those who stayed behind. Here’s that word again, “worthless.” These men had their sights set on evil things, in this case their distain for those who stayed behind. They went to battle, they put their life on the line, they won the fight, and so they should be the one’s who get the spoils.

However, David sets a precedent here, that anyone and everyone will receive their share of spoils, because it’s not only on the front lines where battles are won. All those who play supporting roles, aid in their own way to bring about victory. In this case, those who stayed behind still helped by being a backup guard if the battle had gone poorly.

This interaction reminds me of Matthew 20:1-16 and Jesus’ Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. In that parable, Jesus talks about the owner of a vineyard who hired some people on at an agreed upon wage. Later in the day, the owner hires more people. At the end of the day, everyone gets paid the same amount. Those at the beginning protest that the others received the same pay, but it is the owner’s choice in what he pays. 

Here we see a similar situation. Though the two hundred men did not fight in the battle, they still did work, just a different type, and David was willing to share the spoils with them as well.

Here’s another good point for David as he shows that he makes a good king, by showing compassion and wise governing.

v.30:26-30

In the final five verses, we’re told that David not only shares the spoils with those that are around him, but also with others who were most likely affected by the raiders. David’s story in First Samuel, ends with a kingly action, which sets up his eventual coronation in the next book. 

Walking away from this passage, we can see the key characteristic that will cycle through David’s life. He does sinful things, and he does righteous things. He lied to Achish to save his own skin, but he sought God and shared the spoils. 

And this is why God is willing to use David for his purposes. David isn’t a perfect person. He lies, cheats, and steals. Yet, he turns back to God. He humbles himself before the Lord and the Lord uses him to work out the plans he has for the coming savior, Jesus. 

David’s life, is one that shows that God’s desire for his people is that they continually return to him, even when they mess up. This is the key difference between Judas and Peter. Both betray and reject Jesus in their own way. Judas for silver and with a kiss he betrays Jesus. Peter to save his own life, and with his words of rejection. The difference is, Judas doesn’t return to Jesus, but takes his own life. Peter, on the other hand embraces Jesus’ restoration and goes on to be a prominent leader in the early Church.

It’s a similar situation with Saul and David. Saul will not return to God, he just wants to use him. While David will return to God for God’s work.

And it’s this return that God wants. God desires that his people have a return mentality. When we sin, we return in humbleness, seeking the restoration of relationship. Later, through the prophet Joel, God would say this, “‘Yet even now,’ declares the Lord, ‘return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts and not your garments.’ Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and he relents over disaster (Joel 2:12-13).”

No matter what we have done, or how far we have strayed, God’s intention is to restore us, that we may experience his freeing life. So this week, my challenge is that we each solidify a return mentality. Seek the Holy Spirit to break through any deceitful thoughts that tell you, “God doesn’t want you," or that, “You’ve done to many things wrong for his forgiveness.” No, if God could forgive David for his lying, which led to a whole town being killed, he can forgive, what we deem in our own lives, as unforgivable.

Let us rest this week in the great grace of God, whose desire is our restoration. Amen.