Recent comments
Jean Williams on Kids@church/Click: Some great material for your children's Sunday School
Jean Williams on Temptation and the garden
Andrew Clarke on Kids@church/Click: Some great material for your children's Sunday School
Andrew Clarke on Temptation and the garden
Andrew Clarke on A Vine confabulation
Current discussions
God, the universe and all that: Part 3
(12 comments)
A Vine confabulation
(4 comments)
Temptation and the garden
(2 comments)
Kids@church/Click: Some great material for your children’s Sunday School
(2 comments)
God, the universe and all that: Part 2
(1 comment)
Recent posts
Temptation and the garden by Jean Williams (2 comments).
All our temptations are garden temptations. I don't usually talk much about gardening when I lead Bible studies, but … more
God, the universe and all that: Part 5 by Lionel Windsor (0 comments).
In this fifth and final instalment of his five-part series, Lionel Windsor reveals what the solution to … more
Experiencing God by Karen Beilharz (0 comments).
If you've just joined us, in these Saturday posts we've been looking at classics from The Briefing archive … more
God, the universe and all that: Part 4 by Lionel Windsor (0 comments).
In the fourth instalment of a five-part series, Lionel Windsor uncovers the answer to the riddle. (Read … more
A Vine confabulation by Ian Carmichael (4 comments).
We at Matthias Media have recently made available a free and downloadable discussion guide for Col Marshall and Tony Payne's … more
God, the universe and all that: Part 3 by Lionel Windsor (12 comments).
In the third instalment of a five-part series, Lionel Windsor discovers we humans are significant in the … more
Kids@church/Click: Some great material for your children’s Sunday School by Jean Williams (2 comments).
I teach Sunday School for children regularly, but I don't always have the time and energy to write my … more
Experiencing confusion by Karen Beilharz (0 comments).
I mentioned in my last Saturday post that for the next little while, we would be looking at … more
God, the universe and all that: Part 2 by Lionel Windsor (1 comment).
In the second instalment of a five-part series, Lionel Windsor contemplates the extent of our significance in … more
Stark treatment of the Crusades by Peter Bolt (2 comments).
Revisionist history is probably as common as it is unethical. There are lessons to learn from the past, but … more
You’re right Gordon - even David says:
I don’t know why I always thought of him only as a man after God’s own heart, until he commits adultery with Bathsheba. But I’m not sure I understand what your point is.
Yes, I’m not sure what the point was exactly either. BTW, wasn’t Michal David’s wife before Saul gave her away after David fled from him?
Okay Gordon, I am going to take the bait and possibly appear a fool.
Aren’t we all “nasty, sleazy piece(s)of work”?
I get that, but I don’t get what you are trying to say.
Please explain for me and the rest of the lurkers out there who don’t want to go to bed tonight still wondering about this post.
I was just hoping people would click through on the Romans 4:4-8 link and say ‘A-ha!’
Those verses say:
<i>4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”</i>
So yes, Lucy, we are all by nature nasty sleazy whatsits; no need to follow anyone’s example when it comes to that.
Where David was distinctive (although not unique—Romans 4 points to another fine sleazebag, namely Abraham) is that he acknowledged his sin and looked to the one who would credit him righteousness apart from works—God alone.
<i>That’s</i> the example of David that we should be following!
Sorry for any confusion, and as they say in the classics, “Do not commit adultery”.
Jamie, yes, Michal had been given to David as a wife, and then to another man, Paltiel (1 Sam 18:27, cf. 1 Sam 25:44), who is subsequently spoken of as her husband by the writer of 2 Sam (2 Sam 3:15-16). They had weirdo marriage arrangements in those days. Come to think of it, we have weirdo marriage arrangements these days.
I reckon it’s one of those situations where 2 or 3, or 4 wrongs don’t end up making even one fraction of a right.
I do think we’re prone to cut David in particular way too much slack and to give him the benefit of the doubt because God, in His grace, used (very) ordinary men to do extraordinary things. If we read these stories without a pedestal mentality, David’s sinful humanity is evident all over the place—even later in his life. Which, of course, makes God’s mercy and grace only that much more overwhelming! I find that people are relieved when they hear that we don’t need to excuse David in the least for his bad behavior, even though it WAS David.
[I think also that the willingness of Scripture to canonize these stories of its “heroes” is an amazing testimony to its truthfulness in other areas as well!]
Thanks Gordon. I have now been outed as a non clicker-through. To my shame it did not even occur to me that the answer was there in the passage. I was fooled by the title. D’oh.
hmmmm… in 1Kings 11:6 David gets a clean bill of health:
“So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.”
So may be Romans is right and at least in regard to following the LORD completely we should imitate David?
Commenting rules
If you would like your comment to be considered for publication, please observe the following rules:
Failure to adhere to these rules will result in your comment being quietly deleted.
If you want to give us feedback but don't want your comments to appear on the blog, DON'T use the form below. Instead, please send us an email or click on the button below.
Your Comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.