Douglas Wilson

The Gospel and Thanksgiving

Douglas Wilson on November 20, 2011

Introduction

The gospel is good news for everyone, and this includes all those who have already heard and believed it. The gospel is food, not just information, and so when the gospel is declared rightly it creates and reinforces true faith. The gospel does not unsettle true faith. You are a congregation of God’s people, a congregation of saints. So if I address you this morning with a charge to believe the gospel, it is not because your faith in Christ is doubted, but rather because we must all believe the gospel, and we must do so always. At the same time, to encourage you—not unsettle you—I want to declare the gospel to you. Established saints will be strengthened by it, professing Christians (but unconverted) may be quickened by it, and unbelievers who are visiting us may be called to Jesus Christ.

The Texts

“And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions” (Mark 10:17-22).

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7).

Summary of the Texts

When a young man runs up (whom I believe to have been Mark himself), he asks Jesus the way to eternal life. Jesus points him to the law of God, giving him a list of the commandments from the second table of the law, all but one—the prohibition of covetousness in the Tenth Commandment. The young man answered that he had done well on all that. All that obedience and he still did not have eternal life! So Jesus tells him that one thing was still missing. He gives him an assignment that touches the nerve center of his ongoing disobedience to the Tenth Commandment. He went away sad, it says, because he had great possessions, which he wanted to keep.

Saul of Tarsus was another young Jewish man who was prepared for the gospel by that same Tenth Commandment. He would not have known sin except for the law. He would not have known lust if the law had not said “Thou shalt not covet.” The second table of the law can be summarized. The law leads us to Christ by posing the fundamental question, which is, “what do you want?”

Wanting and Thanking

We are told in Scripture not to let anyone beguile us with enticing words (Col. 2:4). We are told to overflow with thanksgiving (Col. 2:7). Thanksgiving and covetousness are therefore mutually exclusive. Being seduced or enticed by covetousness (by what you are wanting) is therefore not possible in a thankful heart.

The Arc of the Story

One of the reasons the doctrine of regeneration is so important is because the doctrine of generation is so important. God fashioned man out of the dust of the ground in the first place, but it was the breath of God that established us after His image. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). First God formed, and then God breathed. When God breathed the breath of life into our first father, it was then that he became a living soul, created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). This scriptural language of “image” is closely connected to the reality of generation. When Adam had a son, it was a son in his own image, in his own likeness (Gen. 5:3). This is language that plainly echoes what God had done initially with Adam. Adam had a son after his own image just as God had a son after His own image. In some sense, Adam was son of God by generation.

The way it was with Adam downstream was also the way it was with Adam one generation upstream (Luke 3:38). And keep in mind that Adam means man, or mankind. We may therefore read it as “mankind, the son of God.” Now when Adam sinned, what he was sinned. He was a son of God who sinned. This meant that a new form of generation was established. In some sense, the sons of God became sons of the devil. The mechanism that accomplished this was the mechanism of separating us, as a race, from the life of God. “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Eph. 4:18). First there was generation, then degeneration, and then, for the elect, regeneration.

Here is the fundamental question behind each of these categories. Who’s your daddy? Never seek to define your identity apart from your relationships. When did we become sons of God? We were generated in His image when He breathed the breath of life into our first father. When did we become objects of wrath, children of the devil? When our first father took the fruit that had been forbidden to him, but which he coveted anyway (Gen. 3:6; 1 Jn. 2:16). When were we born again, when were we regenerated? When we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ in truth, moved by the Spirit to do so, and God the Father became our Father once again. In short, it happened when the central covetousness died, and the central thanksgiving was born. What is it to be born again? It is the death of covetous wanting, and the birth of thankful wanting.

The Grace of God’s Law

Theologians refer to the three uses of God’s law. But the first use refers to a revelation of God’s character, the righteousness of God that condemns the unrighteousness of man. With regard to the rich young ruler, we are talking about the first use. In order to come to Christ, the old man must die (in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which is the glorious gospel). But do not grab the old man, and cut his fingernails, or give him a haircut. Do not arm wrestle with him. He must be crucified—his beating heart, which is wanting, always wanting, must die. When that man is raised in Christ, his grasping covetousness has been replaced.

The David Chronicles 28: The Grave of Exile

Douglas Wilson on November 13, 2011

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

Under continued pressure from Saul, David is forced to leave Judah and take refuge with Achish, who was the king of Gath. He had complained in the previous chapter that certain men were trying to force him to serve other gods (1 Sam. 26:19) which he was unwilling to do. He was willing, however, to look like he was changing sides. During this time, David was playing a high-stakes double game.

The Text

“And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul: there is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape into the land of the Philistines; and Saul shall despair of me, to seek me any more in any coast of Israel: so shall I escape out of his hand . . .” (1 Sam. 27:1-12).

Summary of the Text

David said that if the situation continued unchanged, he would eventually be killed by Saul. This was not unbelief, but rather a knowledge of contingencies. If this, then that—knowing the final end result does not change the intermediate contingencies. As a result, David decided to take refuge with the Philistines (v. 1). When he sought refuge in Gath, it is likely that he negotiated this with Achish beforehand. Given that a couple thousand people were likely involved (the wives and families of 600 men), he probably didn’t just show up one day (vv. 2-3). The plan worked; Saul stopped hunting for him (v. 4). After a bit, David asked Achish to give him a town to live in (v. 5), and the king responded by granting him Ziklag. This is how Ziklag came to be a town in Judah (v. 6). This exile of David’s lasted for sixteen months (v. 7).

David began to raid three groups, enemies common to the Israelites and Philistines both (v. 8). One of the groups was the Amalekites, against whom God had required Saul to wage total war. But this was not “holy war,” or the ban, because David would bring back livestock. But he would kill all the adults, lest someone talk (v. 9). The other two groups were Geshurites and the Gezrites. The first group was mentioned in Josh. 13:2 as one still needing to be displaced, but we know nothing about the latter group. David would tell Achish that he had raided Israelites or their allies (v. 10), and he would leave no grown survivors (v. 11). Achish concluded that David had made himself utterly obnoxious to Israel, and that he would therefore remain the servant of Achish forever (v. 12). Achish thought that David had burned all his boats.

Some Background

Ziklag was a town that had been given to the tribe of Simeon (Josh. 19:5; 1 Chron. 4:30), and in Joshua 15:31, it is numbered among the towns of Judah. The town was about 25 miles southeast of Gath, which gave David the liberty of movement he needed.

Achish would of course have known about Saul’s pursuit of David, but would have had no reason whatever for suspecting David’s dogged loyalty to Saul. And David saw no reason why he should correct this assumption that Achish had naturally come to. Achish may have been a throne name and, if so, this may not have been the same king that David fooled with his pretended madness in chapter 21. After this exile of David’s, Israel had a curious relationship with Gath, which of course had been Goliath’s home town. After David became king, he was allied with Gath. When certain prophetic passages condemn the Philistines, the city of Gath is not mentioned in them (Amos 1:6-8; Zechariah 9; 2 Sam. 6:10). David was the kind of man who inspired loyalty everywhere he went, and a number of men followed him from Gath (2 Sam. 15:18). And Achish at one point takes an oath in the name of YHWH, which means that it is at least possible that he became a convert (2 Sam. 29:6,9).

The Grave of Exile

David, the future king of Israel, has to leave Israel first. Saul wants to kill him, but God intends to kill him a different way—a way that leads back to life. This is God’s way of doing things. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but had to go down to Egypt first—out of Egypt God called His Son (Hos. 11:1). The fact that Jesus was the antitype of this kind of “exile and return” sheds light on all the types found in the Old Testament. Jacob had to leave the land he was to inherit, and then come back with his family. Joseph was sold into exile in Egypt, and was so invested in this pattern of promise that he saw to it that his bones were returned from exile (Heb. 11:22). All of Israel was taken into exile in Babylon, and Nehemiah and Ezra led the return. And in the first part of 1 Samuel, we saw that the ark of the covenant went into exile among the Philistines, just like David here, and was then brought back. As a true king over Israel, how could David not have to spend time in exile?

The Day of Odd Beginnings

We are taught in Scripture not to despise the day of small beginnings (Zech. 4:10). But if we are close readers of the scriptural narrative, we must also master the art of not despising the day of odd beginnings.

David was strong enough as a leader to be able to handle grumbling in the camp. But do you think that any of the men who had urged David to kill Saul in the cave had occasion to say privately that “if the king had only listened to us . . .” Do you think Abishai thought that the move to Ziklag vindicated David’s refusal to take Saul’s life when the two of them had the clear opportunity? I have urged you many times to “read the story you are in,” but part of this task is understanding the role of contrary readings. Other people are trying to get you to read differently. They point to the very things that you think are lining up with Scripture, and buttressing your faith, and they point to those very same things as refutations. Running around the countryside in mortal danger, declining God’s opportunities offered up on a silver platter, having to go into exile in Gath, and then taking up residence in Ziklag. I mean, Ziklag? Really?

But the center of the new Israel, the center of Israel’s glorious period of monarchy, was right there in Ziklag. Do not despise the day of odd beginnings . . . but only if it is a God beginning.

The David Chronicles 27: Forgiveness and Do-overs

Douglas Wilson on November 13, 2011

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

The story in this chapter has many similarities to the story two chapters earlier, when David spared the life of Saul in the cave. In both instances, Saul was completely within David’s reach. In both cases, David was urged to take Saul’s life. In both situations, David took a token that would prove that Saul had been within his reach. In both cases, Saul would acknowledge the justice of David’s behavior. But there are striking differences as well, as we will see.

The Text

“And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah, saying, Doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon? . . .” (1 Sam. 26:1-25).

Summary of the Text

David’s old adversaries, the Ziphites, reported David’s location to Saul (v. 1). Saul pursued David with 3,000 men, the same number as before (v. 2). Saul camped by the hill Hachilah (v. 3), and David had scouts determine Saul’s location (v. 4). David comes there, and sees where Saul slept, with Abner next to him, and the 3,000 soldiers around (v. 5). David asks for someone to accompany him into Saul’s camp, and Abishai, David’s nephew, volunteers (v. 6). So David and Abishai go, and make it to Saul, who is sleeping with his spear stuck in the ground next to his head (v. 7). Abishai urges that he be allowed to pin Saul to the ground; two strokes will not be necessary (v. 8). David refuses, as he did before in the cave (v. 9). David had learned from the example of Nabal; God will take care of this (v. 10). David will not take matters into his own hand, but he does take the spear and a water pot (v. 11). They got away because a deep sleep from the Lord was upon the encampment (v. 12).

David got a good distance away (v. 13), and then called out to taunt Abner for his dereliction of duty (vv. 14-16). Saul recognizes David’s voice and calls him his son (v. 17). David asks, again, what fault he has committed (v. 18). Who is driving this, God or men (v. 19)? Why should the king waste his time looking for David (v. 20)? Saul confesses his sin, and invites David to return (v. 21). David invites someone to come fetch the spear (v. 22). He asks the Lord to apply the Golden Rule to him (vv. 23-24), and the chapter concludes with Saul blessing David (v. 25). This concludes Saul’s interactions with David.

Some Background

Abishai is David’s nephew, son of his sister Zeruiah (1 Chron. 2:16-17), and therefore Joab’s brother. Here David restrains Abishai, but a good portion of the rest of the David story will consist of his inability to control his relatives. He has a good start, but he does not continue. Abishai wants to successfully pin Saul to the ground, with the same spear that unsuccessfully tried to pin David to the wall. Abishai would not have to strike twice—as Saul had attempted to strike twice. The spear is the symbol of the Saulide pattern of rule, which is to say tyrannical, and David refuses to rule in that way. Rather, he takes that spear away, and demonstrates to Saul that he is not the kind of anointed king that Saul has been. His conscience smote him for cutting the robe; it did not smite him for taking away the tyrannical spear. In the cave, the encounter was arranged by providential chance. Here the encounter was entirely at David’s initiative. He has taken the lesson from Nabal, and is beginning to take the initiative—but without ungodly revolution.

Stories Have a Way of Unfolding

In the New Testament, we are told that Esau could not go back in time to undo the consequences of what he had done (Heb. 12:17). We may repent of our sins, and God will forgive us our sins (1 John 1:9). We are not always given the opportunity to repent the consequences of our sins. History matters, Biography matters. The way the story unfolds matters.

In the incident outside the cave, David had called Saul his father, and Saul calls David his son. In this episode, Saul calls David his son, but David does not reciprocate. He acknowledges that Saul is still the Lord’s anointed (v. 9), and he still calls Saul “lord” and “king” (v. 17). But he does not call him father. In the previous episode, Saul does not invite David to come home with him, and here he does. But the water is under the bridge, and Saul does not have an opportunity to restore what he destroyed. David does not take up the invitation. In the previous situation, Saul ended by predicting that it would go well with David (1 Sam. 24:20), while here he ends by blessing David (1 Sam. 26:25). This is a sad end to a tragic relationship.

David’s Argument

David says here, as he had said before, that certain “men” may be poisoning Saul’s mind against David (v. 19). This may be more than just tact on David’s part. Saul certainly had his own brain snakes, and bore the central responsibility (which David knows and says), but there is no reason to assume that there were not counselors around the king taking full advantage of this.

When David “calls out,” he calls out Abner. Abner deserved to die (v. 16) because he had not protected the Lord’s anointed. David, on the other hand, had protected the Lord’s anointed, and discharged Abner’s office better than Abner had. Abner’s failure to act meant he deserved death, and David’s refusal to act meant that he did not deserve death—and that he should, by rights, be in Abner’s position. David then compares Saul’s hunt for him as a king with 3,000 men hunting for a partridge (lit. a calling bird) in the mountains. What a waste.

What the Locusts Have Eaten

You have heard before that God takes you from where you are, and not from where you should have been. Our God is a gracious God, and there are many instances where He wonderfully restores what the locusts have eaten (Joel 2:25). God is a Healer, a Savior, a Deliverer, and His ability includes the ability to restore. Ask Him to restore what the locust has eaten. But do not think about this like children. Do not presume upon it. If you hear the Lord’s voice today, do not harden your hearts as the Israelites did in the wilderness—on the presumption that tomorrow (or the day after) you may ask God to restore. What Saul lost, Saul lost. As R.C. Sproul might put it, right now counts forever.

Reformation Sunday 2011: Reformation in the Boneyard

Douglas Wilson on October 30, 2011

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

The end of October approaches, and as we mark and celebrate Luther’s Reformation, our heart’s desire and prayer should be for future historians to be able to describe it as a relatively small one. “Small” does not mean insignificant, but we should still see it as the Holy Spirit just getting started (Heb. 9:10). Eye has not seen and ear has not heard what God has prepared for those of us who love Him. So as we emphasize the five solas (as we should), let us exult in the one which is the true integration point for all of them—solus Christus—the cornerstone of every future reformation.

The Text

“Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor. 5:16).

Summary of the Text

Christ died and rose for the world, and if we are to follow the apostle Paul’s argument here, this means that we have an obligation to see that world differently. We are called to see the world as saved in principle, beforehand, in the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection. We should not see the world as saved when our eyes finally tell us it is all right for us to believe. Who hopes for what he already has? The world will be saved because we already see Christ crucified and risen, and so we declare to the world what that means. What is it that overcomes the world? Is it not our faith?

The apostle tells us that how we see non-Christians is directly related to how we see Jesus. How we see the world is directly related to how we see Jesus. We like to think that a high Christology and a low cosmology go together, but they do not. We like to think that a high Christology and a low anthropology go together, but they do not. New Age mystics and distorters notwithstanding, we worship a cosmic Christ. Externalists notwithstanding, we worship a personal, heart-felt Jesus. “For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart” (2 Cor. 5:12).

Believing this to be the case, we are no longer permitted to understand any man “after the flesh.”There is a way of understanding humanity that does not take into account what Jesus did on the cross, and what He accomplished when He rose from the grave. That way of understanding humanity may call itself “realistic,” but how is it realistic to ignore God’s inauguration of the new creation?

The Obstacle of Total Depravity

Some may want to see men “after the flesh” because of the orthodox doctrine of total depravity (which is the orthodox and biblical doctrine), but how is it that we have come to believe that total depravity somehow has more power to hold down Jesus than the stone tomb did? The fact that Jesus was buried in a stone tomb is a biblical doctrine also, but that was not the end of the story.

Yes, unregenerate mankind is totally depraved. Yes, it is true that we cannot autonomously contribute in any way to our own salvation. Yes, it is true that we were dead in our trespasses and sins. But let us never preach the doctrine of total depravity without also declaring there has been a great earthquake, and that an angel of the Lord has rolled away the stone in front of that imposing doctrine.

We should magnify the greatness of our disease so that we might magnify even more the greatness of the cure. We do not magnify the greatness of the disease in order to proclaim that “not even Jesus, the great Healer, could deal with it.”

Resurrection Talk is Crazy Talk

This is crazy talk, I know. But it is also biblical talk. This whole world, since the sin of Adam, has been nothing but one, vast, pole-to-pole boneyard. We believe that death is the one inexorable ruler. We live in a global Marbletown. Whatever could Jesus do in a world like this? What could He possibly do that could transform a world like this? The gospel reply is that He could come back from the dead in it.

Billions of sinners, dead in their sins. Son of man, shall these bones live? Ah, sovereign Lord, you know. Son of man, prophesy to the bones. But Lord, bones can’t hear anything. Son of man, prophesy to the bones. But Lord, they are not paying any attention. Son of man, prophesy to the bones. But Lord, that’s not how I learned to do it in seminary. Son of man, prophesy to the bones. But Lord . . . but Lord . . . To see men after the flesh is to see nothing but the bones.

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

We do not invite Jesus into our lives—down here in the boneyard. Rather, Jesus invites us into His life, and the whole world is invited. The ministry of reconciliation is based on the fact of the cosmic reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

Definite Atonement Both Ways

Some may object that this dilutes the truth of definite atonement. Not in the slightest. All who were purchased for eternal salvation by Christ will in fact be eternally saved. Those who were not so purchased will not be. The point here is not that Christ died indiscriminately for every last man, whether elect or damned. The point is that Christ died for the world, and those who are excluded from Christ are therefore excluded from that world—they are cast into the outer darkness. To be saved is to be saved into the new humanity. It is to be saved into the world.

But it further means that definite atonement is not synonymous with “tiny atonement.”The reality of definite atonement is seen in the specific numbers allotted to each tribe—12,000 from each tribe, no more, no less. The majestic extent of definite atonement is seen when John turned and looked. What did he see? He saw a multitude that no man can number (Rev. 7:9). How many will be saved? We can’t count that high. Look at the stars, Abraham. Use the Hubble telescope, Abraham. So shall your descendants be.

How will these things happen? What will bring it to pass? The glorious message of a glorious substitution will be declared and presented to every living creature. What shall we tell them? We should give them the message that we were told to give to them. We should prophesy to the bones. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

The David Chronicles 26: War on an Empty Wineskin

Douglas Wilson on October 16, 2011

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

In this story, when Nabal was done with his drinking bout, it says that “the wine was gone out of ” him (v. 7). The Hebrew word for wineskin (what wine goes out of) is nebel. Nabal is a nebel, a deflated wineskin. God deals with him after David refrains from taking matters into his own hands, and God placed this story in the Bible as a cautionary tale—on many fronts. Nabal is a stand-in for Saul in this section—we have already seen how Saul is a Laban figure, and Nabal is Laban spelled backwards, in both Hebrew and English.

The Text

“And Samuel died; and all the Israelites were gathered together, and lamented him, and buried him in his house at Ramah . . .” (1 Sam. 25:1-44).

Summary of the Text

This is a fascinating story, masterfully told. The chapter begins with the death and burial of Samuel (v. 1). There was a man in the region of Carmel (not the mountain in the north), and he was very rich (v. 2). His name was Nabal (which means fool), which probably means that it was his nickname (v. 3). His wife was intelligent and beautiful, and her name was Abigail. David heard that Nabal was shearing his sheep (v. 4), and so he instructed ten young men to go to Nabal and to respectfully ask for sustenance, based on their respectful treatment of Nabal’s shepherds (vv. 5-8). This the young men did (v. 9). But Nabal answered true to form (v. 10), with a reply full of me-my-mine (v. 11). The young men returned to David with Nabal’s taunting reply (v. 12). David mustered 400 of his men, and they all strapped on their swords (v. 13). But one of Nabal’s servants told Abigail the story, and we learn more details about “the son of Belial” (vv. 14-17). So Abigail loaded up some donkeys with many provisions, sent them ahead of her (like Jacob with Esau), and she came after (v. 18). She did not tell her husband (v. 19), and then she came to meet David—one woman against 400 men with swords (v. 20). Now David had stated his complaint and vowed that he would slaughter any “that pisseth against the wall” (vv. 21-22). When Abigail saw David, she hurried, and bowed down to him (v. 23).

She took the blame for the whole thing (v. 24), and said that her husband’s name was about as appropriate as it gets (v. 25). She pleads with David to spare her husband, while at the same time pronouncing an imprecation on him (v. 26). Let her gift of provisions be accepted (v. 27). She states that the Lord will give David “a sure house” (v. 28)—he will be blessed and his enemies not (v. 29). And when he is king (v. 30), let him have no cause to regret at the top what he did to get to the top (v. 31). She asks to be remembered (v. 31). David blesses her and her wisdom, and received her gift (vv. 32-35). Abigail returned to Nabal, who was feasting and very drunk (v. 36). But in the morning, when the wine was gone out of him (remember he is a wineskin), she told him. His heart died, and he became like a stone (v. 37). Ten days later, the Lord struck Nabal and he died (v. 38). And so David blessed God who had vindicated him (v. 39), and he summoned Abigail to become his wife (vv. 39-40). She comes to David and marries him (vv. 41-42). David was apparently already married to Ahinoam (v. 43), and Saul had given Michal to another man (v. 44).

The Heart of this Story

Remember that in the previous chapter, David had identified himself as a son of Saul (1 Sam. 24:11). Saul had reciprocated (1 Sam. 24:16). Here he calls himself a son of Nabal (v. 8), but Nabal responds by contemptuously referring to him as the “son of Jesse” (v. 10). Lots of breakaway servants nowadays.

Abigail was both beautiful and wise (v. 3) and, as the event will show, decisive and courageous as well (v. 23). She simultaneously saves her current husband from the consequences of supreme doltishness and she saves her future husband from bloodguilt, saving two men at once. She knows David will be on the throne, and she knows that tormented consciences and thrones don’t go well together. When she bows (v. 23), and calls herself a “handmaid” (v. 24), and asks to be forgiven for her “trespass” (v. 28), don’t be fooled. She is using what God gave her with cunning and mastery. She works it, and is in complete control of the situation.

Miscellaneous Applications

There are a number of applications we can take away from this passage.

· The authority of a husband is not absolute. No human authority is. There is nothing here to indicate that Abigail was in the wrong, and much to show that she was in the right. She honored the lawful authority of her husband in much the same way that David honored the lawful authority of Saul—while knowing that God was going to change everything shortly. She honored Nabal more than Nabal did, which is how David treated Saul. She is a feminine counterpart to David. Biblical submission prohibits rendering to any creature the absolute submission that belongs only to God. And beware of men who demand absolute submission beneath them, and are scofflaws toward the authorities above. There are many men who want to reserve to themselves the right to be blockheads, and they also think biblical submission means that their wives are required to not notice.

· David vowed to slaughter Nabal and all the males of his house, and Abigail persuaded him to break that vow. It would have been a sin to keep that sinful vow. It is no sin to repent of having made one, provided the repentance includes the sinfulness of taking the vow. David repents of his sinful vow with another vow (v. 34).

· The law of God prohibits a king from multiplying wives (Dt. 17: 17), and David is moving toward a real problem here. He never takes as many wives as Solomon does, but he begets more sons than he can be a father to. By the time he became king in Hebron, he had six sons, all with different mothers (2 Sam. 3:2-5). Polygamous marriages are recognized as real marriages in Scripture, but they are nevertheless sub-creational (Gen. 2:18) and sub-Christian (Eph. 5:23; 1 Tim. 3:2), not to mention substandard. David was living below the creational norm, but I don’t believe this was a violation of Dt. 17 standard yet (2 Sam. 12:8-9).

· We are told that Abigail was beautiful and intelligent—but we are not given a photo of her, or her SAT scores. But the fact that we are told this means that relativism is out—this includes aesthetic relativism.

A Prophetic Warning

This story is not placed here as a romantic interlude. The chapter serves as a prophetic warning. David narrowly missed incurring bloodguilt in the previous chapter, and he misses it even more narrowly in this chapter. He is teetering dangerously. Previously, he stopped his men from killing Saul. Here Abigail stops him from killing the proxy stand-in for Saul. She becomes David, and he becomes his men. Abigail manages to prevent the death of Nabal from being a grief to David while on the throne—but she sadly does not prevent the death of Uriah from being a grief to David while on the throne. Uriah was another inconvenient husband who got between David and an attractive woman.