"Rizpah: The Influence of Faithfulness"

"Rizpah: The Influence of Faithfulness"

At first glance here's a classic Hebrew scripture story of blood and guts that should be left where it is--consigned to the obscure bit of 2 Samuel 21 in which it is placed. It appears to portray God as sending famine on the land because of Saul's treaty violations with the Gibeonites; and, bloodthirsty, needing human sacrifice to appease His anger.

Is God like the Gibeonite pagan Baal god who needs the sacrifice of Mot by Anat in order to restore the fertility of the earth? If so, it calls into question the whole issue of how the atonement for sin is accomplished--by human sacrifice or God's sacrifice? Rizpah's faith provides the answer.

Recurring famines were a part of ancient agrarian life. When a particularly hard-hitting three-year drought ravaged Israel, David inquired of the Lord for the reason. He was told, "It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites" (2 Sam. 21:1). Saul disregarded a treaty which the Gibeonites deceptively finagled with Joshua (Joshua 9:15, 16).

Instead of inquiring of the Lord for the remedy, David went to the Gibeonites for an answer to the dilemma. "... Wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?" (2 Sam. 21:3). David's accommodation to the heathen in order to find a means of expiating God is striking. The assimilation of religious ideas indicates a lack of discernment on his part.

The Gibeonite response is that it's not a matter of money; nor that they have any power over the lives of others, for only the king has that right over his subjects. David asks, What do you need? They reply, "Seven sons of Saul." So David grants their request: two sons of Rizpah and five sons of Michal, Saul's concubine and daughter.

The Gibeonites took the seven to a high place and ritually sacrificed them by dismemberment "and exposed their bodies on a hill before the LORD" (2 Sam. 21:9, NIV). According to the pagan fertility rite, this sacrifice served to restore Baal to life, to cause the streams to flow, to rain down fatness, and to bring to an end the drought which reigned in the absence of Baal. Did it accomplish its intended purpose? No rain came. The only consequence of this kind of violence that could be expected was a spiral into more revenge slayings on the part of Saul's descendants against the Gibeonites or even David's household.

However, Rizpah appears suddenly on the scene of execution where the body parts have been left exposed to dishonor and indignity. She returns love and peace for vengeance and violence. She sets up a six-month vigil in honor of the dead, warding off predators and vultures. Her solitary mourning and repentance saved the king and the nation from the slippery slope of absorbing the pagan concept of the atonement.

The Gibeonites believed that they must offer human sacrifice on the high place in order to appease the angry Baal who has vanished. This alone will bring back the rains.

The idea of offering an expiatory sacrifice to an offended deity has been taken up into popular Christianity. The common view of the atonement is that since God is angry with sinners and His justice has been offended, Jesus takes the hit vicariously for sinners, and God's wrath is assuaged. The more near Protestant view is that God is angry toward sinners, but since He loves them He doesn't take His wrath out upon them, but takes it out on His Son. Either way the bottom line is a God who is angry with sinners and needs a target.

When God gave the covenant to Abraham (Gen. 15:9-21), the ancient practice of walking between the animal parts solemnized God's promise. First, Abraham "reverently passed between the parts of the sacrifice, making a solemn vow to God of perpetual obedience" (Patriarchs and Prophets [PP], p. 137). Then God was represented as a "smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces" (vs. 17), "totally consuming them,"--"the severed victims" pointing to Christ (op. cit.)

God does not ask for our promises in order to enter into His covenant. Ellen White writes, "Your promises and resolutions are like ropes of sand" (Steps to Christ, p. 47). God found "fault with them" (Heb. 8:8) because Israel promised "all that the LORD hath spoken we will do" (Ex. 19:8)--egocentric-motivated faith. God's love compels us to believe His covenant "stablished upon better promises" (Heb. 8:6)--His own "better promises."

When Abraham passed through the victims, he represented Christ, the true Seed, through whom God's promise would be fulfilled (Gal. 3:16). In addition, Abraham represented his spiritual descendants. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed" (3:29). Abraham made the "vow to God of perpetual obedience" as the representative of the Seed. "For all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him Amen" (2 Cor. 1:20). The only promises worth believing in the everlasting covenant are the mutual promises of the Father and the Son.

Ellen White writes, "The Lord condescended to enter into a covenant with His servant, employing such forms as were customary among men for the ratification of a solemn engagement" (PP 137). The pagan custom for the violation of mutual promises entered into was for the party to be dismembered or ritually sacrificed in disgrace. However, God's covenant-promise to Abraham was a one-sided land grant promise. God took the forms of ritual dismemberment of the victims. Instead of conveying the pagan message of appeasing the angry deity, God communicated the gospel message by "totally consuming them" (ibid.). The animals that were sacrificed in connection with the worship of Jehovah in the Old Testament were consumed with fire. Thus the victims pointed to Christ who bore the "curse" of God-forsakenness on the cross, dying our second death (Gal. 3:13).

Christ made the choice to die apparently cursed of God and totally forsaken--the second death. The last temptation of Christ was to come down off His cross and be with His Father. The revilers said, "If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross" (Matt. 27:40).
The Father did not abandon His Son in His greatest hour of need. He was there with Him. However, the great controversy with Satan would not permit Him to visibly support His Son, for Christ must endure the full wrath of sin which raged within and conquer by faith alone. As the world's Sin-bearer, He felt the condemnation that every sinner will feel when at last they feel God-forsaken because of their own choice to cut themselves off from Him.

Christ prayed, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46). His prayer was heard. "For He hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath He hid His face from Him; but when He cried unto Him, He heard" (Psalm 22:24). He died victorious over all outward evidences of defeat to the contrary. He died victorious over temptations from within to preserve self at all costs by rejecting the will of His Father--the cross. He kept His promise to be the Surety for the human race. In the final moment His faith declared, "It is finished" (John 19:30).

Oh, what price Love paid to sinners! The Father and the Son paid the price to you. It is for the purpose of winning enemy hearts to God.

What motivated Rizpah? She understood God's everlasting covenant promise to pledge Himself the sacrificial atonement for the sins of the nation. She chose to respond by faith to God's great love. She never spoke a word, but her life and example of repentance on a lonely mountaintop in identifying with the king and nation who were sliding into paganism, caught the attention of a messenger who reported it to David.

In response to Rizpah's "sermon" the king repented. He demonstrated by his actions that he was truly sorrowful. The neglected corpses of Saul and Jonathan, in addition to the dismembered Saulides, were given a proper burial; and the nation mourned. Following Rizpah's corporate repentance "water dropped upon them out of heaven" (2 Sam. 21:10).

--Paul E. Penno

--------------------------------------------------------
Please forward these messages to your friends and encourage them to subscribe.

"Sabbath School Today" is on the Internet at: http://1888mpm.org
To subscribe send an e-mail message with "subscribe" in the body of the message to sabbathschooltoday@1888message.org

"Joab: David's Weak Strongman"

"Joab: David's Weak Strongman"

The beginning of faith is believing the truth that "God's word" has inherent within it the power to create what it says. It is called the "beginning" of faith because one can believe this and still not act that way. One can believe that "God exists out there somewhere," that He is all-powerful, that He knows all things--even the number of hairs on one's head--yet act as if God is an impersonal Force in the universe that brought all the elements together to create the planet and set it in motion (through whatever means one chooses to believe). Therefore, it is now up to the human race to determine what is going to happen with it--thus hedging the concept of "God's word." However, believing that God exists and that His word has inherent within it the power to create what it says is the first step in the right direction.

That is the beginning of faith. But we don't want to stop short in any good thing. Let's take this one step further, that is, expecting God's word to do what it says. We are not going to be concerned about consequences if we do not expect anything to happen regarding our decisions, but when we believe God's promises to us, He can then bring His righteousness into our daily experience. So, if we believe that God's word has inherent within it the power to create what it says, to get the full benefit of that word, one can at least expect that benefit to come--that God will actually do something, even if it is only for somebody else. However, that still is not enough to cause us to do right. We need something more, for we are not capable, on our own, of making consistently correct choices, and we are not capable (on our own) of doing God's will. Psalm 14:3 says, "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." And Isaiah 64:6, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

There must be something that will allow God to bring our lives into harmony with His will.
We can take a lesson from the centurion of Mathew 8 who told Jesus that He did not need to come to his house, that indeed he was not worthy of such a majestic honor from Deity Himself. If Jesus would simply speak the word only, his servant would be healed. Listen to the response elicited by such faith, "When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, 'Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the [immature and self-centered] children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' And Jesus said unto the centurion, 'Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.' And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour."

So what did the centurion do? Did he offer Jesus expensive gifts? Did he ask Jesus for His "help"? (To ask the question this way would imply that the centurion could heal the servant himself, that he just needed that extra little "push" to "get him over the top.") Did he insist on some sort of fanfare excitement with the press available to take it all down and spread it all around? Did he try to manipulate Jesus through intrigue--or force Him against His will? No, nothing like this. He didn't even think it was necessary for Jesus to come to his house! Just speak the word, only. That is all. The centurion didn't do anything except to make his simple request.

He depended on God's word only to do what it says.

Now it becomes personal. To depend upon our own plans to hold us up, for example, involves a risk, for this implies that there is a "plan B" (our plan) if "plan A" (God's plan) should fail (in our own perception). I saw on a poster the other day the saying that life is all about how you handle "plan B," and that is good for general use because not everything goes the way we hope or expect. But when it comes to God's promise of righteousness, there is no "plan B," which means that there will come occasions when we see no human way out. It is God and His word only that will hold you up and carry you through--it will look as if you are going to fall, but you won't.

The only proper response is to say "Thank you," as Abraham did regarding the same promise from God in Genesis 17 by falling on his face, and also in Genesis 22 when he believes God's word, even as against God's own word itself expecting God to raise Isaac from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19; Daily Good News, vol. 2, #158). These are expressions from a heart-felt appreciation of the gift and its cost to God, for it cost Jesus the hope of His own eternal life. Israel's immature and self-centered response in Exodus 19 to God's promise (that is, His word only), was "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do." And God had to bring in the entire earthly temple and priestly services to remind man every time he sinned, which was inevitable with man's promise, that it is only through the sacrifice of God that man can do His will. [1]

When Jesus was hanging on that cross, He depended upon God's word only (John 5:19, 30) to hold Him when all evidence indicated that He was eternally separated from His Father--while He experienced that second death for us. He could not see through the portals of the tomb and there was no "plan B" for victory. He thought He was going to be lost--except for His faith that depended on the Father only to hold Him. His triumphant cry, "It is finished," "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" [2], gained the victory for you and for me and brought the whole human race to the Father. We don't need to worry about how all this will come out in the end, as Joab did, or try to force God's will, as Joab appeared to be doing, for we are already on the winning team. Don't make a contract with anyone or anything else, not even with yourself or with God, but cling by faith to God's promise and to His promise only.

--Craig Barnes

Endnotes:
[1] Note the ratification of Israel's broken promise to God in Exodus 24:3. This precedes the earthly services introduced in chapter 25.
[2] John 19:30; Luke 23:46.

For Further Reading:
Lessons on Faith, by E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones.
Give Us This Day Our Daily Good News, vol. 2, Waggoner and Jones.
The Desire of Ages by Ellen G. White.
--------------------------------------------------------
Please forward these messages to your friends and encourage them to subscribe.

"Sabbath School Today" is on the Internet at: http://1888mpm.org

To subscribe send an e-mail message with "subscribe" in the body of the message to sabbathschooltoday@1888message.org

"Abiathar: The Priest"

"Abiathar: The Priest"

In the Jewish sanctuary system, the priest was the appointed intercessor between God and man. One of the clearest ways God manifested His guidance for Israel through the high priest was by light or cloud appearing over one of two stones on the priest's breastplate, sometimes generally called the ephod. These stones were named urim and thummim. Abiathar, son of Adonijah, was a priest during most of David's lifetime, both before and after he became king. He was the priest on duty when David and his men entered the tabernacle and ate the showbread. Jesus mentions him in the New Testament when He used this event as an example of a seemingly unlawful act allowed because of extreme circumstances (Mark 2:26).

When Saul was anointed king, God provided guidance to him through the prophet Samuel and the temple priests. Saul's personality deteriorated during his kingship. Insane with jealousy, he felt sorry for himself imagining David was his enemy and everyone was in on the conspiracy. When Ahimelech rendered aid to defend David, Saul ordered the slaughter of him and 85 priests (1 Sam. 22:13-19). Abiathar demonstrated his loyalty to David by risking his life to tell him of the killing. Later, Abiathar (1 Sam. 23:6-12) brought the ephod to David who used it to seek God's guidance after Saul learned David's location and planned to attack and kill him.

By Saul's malicious act of killing the priests and their families, he deprived himself and his nation of God's guidance through this oracle and the priests who administered it. God used Abiathar to save the ephod and become a priest who could sympathize with David during most of his reign.

The intrigue and treachery of David's exploits make for interesting reading but remain just ancient stories unless we apply them to our lives today. God no longer uses priests and the urim and thummim to communicate with His church because He has given us His written word. In the late 1800s God selected two young men, A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner, whom Ellen White described as having "heavenly credentials."* Over 350 times, this modern day prophet endorsed the message God gave them, yet she and they faced opposition wherever they went. While their battles were not physical as were David's, the intrigue and distortion of truth finds some parallel with David's story.

God chose Jones and Waggoner to present the actual message, but, like Abiathar, He used Ellen White to provide support. Frequently, her support came in the form of actual revelation settling various issues. A case in point would be her statement on the question of whether the law described as the schoolmaster in Galatians is the ceremonial or the moral law (Gal. 3:24). "I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the school-master to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments" (The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, p. 1725). Significantly, that letter was written in 1900 after the brethren struggled together to study the issue.

Another example of her clarification of the 1888 message: "Several have written to me inquiring if the message of justification by faith is the third angel's message, and I have answered, 'It is the third angel's message in verity'" (Review and Herald, April 1, 1890). The third angel's message is the sanctuary truth. Hence, the 1888 message is an understanding of justification by faith, which is parallel to and consistent with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.

If we fail to use the advantage afforded us by the teaching of the prophet, are we in danger of repeating Saul's mistake? By keeping her endorsements of the message of righteousness by faith, are we in effect "killing" the prophet's message?

In David's declining years, because of political expediency, Abiathar changed his loyalty from his king to support Adonijah's bid for his father's throne. Abiathar knew that God had made his wishes clear that Solomon was to be king, but somehow he joined the conspiracy against Solomon. What kind of distortion did Abiathar invent to assuage his conscience and the consciences of his co-conspirators that God had made a mistake in selecting Solomon? When we distort both the actual message and the endorsements, do we join those who originally opposed the divinely credentialed messengers and the prophet? Do we not perpetuate the "conspiracy?"

An example of distorting the 1888 message is to say that the church accepted righteousness by faith and is teaching it, when in fact, it is teaching the evangelical Arminian concept of righteousness by faith. Ellen White maintains that the message was not accepted (Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 234, 235). To insist that the church accepted righteousness by faith, contrary to her eyewitness account, is to participate in a falsification of our history.

Truth never suffers from study and scrutiny by honest and humble investigators. Our duty of loyalty to the church should be equal to Christ's (John 12:20-25), but even Christ spoke of the church's indifference to her Bridegroom in the Song of Solomon (5:1-3). Because He rebukes and chastens those He loves, He warned Laodicea of her apathy in Revelation.

We can with confidence, examine not only the message, but our history of its reception. If we are to learn from the mistakes of ancient Israel, does it not make sense that God also wants us to learn from choices made by our more contemporary brothers and sisters in the church's relatively recent past? In doing this, we must never be directed by a spirit of criticism or debate, but our motivation must always be the Spirit of Truth.

By failing even to investigate the past, we risk perpetuating the errors of the past. God has preserved enough of the record to make a thorough examination possible. No explanatory "filter" is needed as the original sources speak to us from the pens of those who wrote them. When we study to understand and submit to the Holy Spirit's guidance, there is nothing to fear.

--Arlene Hill

* Review and Herald, March 18, 1890 and Sept. 3, 1889; Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, pp. 412, 413.

Resources for Further Investigation:
1888 Re-examined, Robert J. Wieland
Let History Speak, Donald K. Short
--------------------------------------------------------
Please forward these messages to your friends and encourage them to subscribe.

"Sabbath School Today" is on the Internet at: http://1888mpm.org

To subscribe send an e-mail message with "subscribe" in the body of the message to sabbathschooltoday@1888message.org

Uriah: Faith of a Foreigner

Uriah: Faith of a Foreigner 

The story begins in 2 Samuel 11:1 where it says that it was the time of the year when the kings went out to battle, but David was in his palace and here is the first red flag pointing to the change in David. In the first part of David’s life, he was known as a man after God’s own heart, but not so any longer for David’s heart was knowing only self. 

David lusts after Bathsheba and has her taken from her home, and he commits adultery with her. Later Bathsheba sends David a message that she is pregnant. David’s mind begins to scheme to protect self and image.

He sent for Uriah, thinking that when he would go to his home and lie with his wife, the pregnancy would be covered up. Uriah appears. David encourages him to go home and wash his feet, eat, drink and lie with his wife. Uriah departs the king’s presence, goes just outside, and stays with the king’s servants—never once going near his house.

The next day David questions Uriah as to why he had not gone home, and Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah are dwelling in tents, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields. Shall I then go to my house to eat and drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing” (2 Sam. 11:11).

Uriah’s words come from a man sincere in his love for God and His people. The natural human spirit has no such concern and is motivated only by what they want, when they want it and how they want it. Everything they do is centered in self and so their motivation is called an egocentric motivation. EGO stands for Easing God Out of the heart and life. The egocentric person finds the idea of a higher motivation too restrictive.

David was demonstrating an egocentric motivation – “Its all about me and what I want.” Uriah demonstrated a higher motivation than self – this higher motivation is the natural motivation of a converted person under the influence of agape.

“A higher motivation becomes realized in the close of time than has prevailed in the church in the past ages—a concern for Christ that He receive His reward and find His ‘rest’ in the final eradication of sin. All egocentric motivation based on fear of hell or hope of reward is less effective” (Robert J. Wieland, Ten Great Gospel Truths, #8, p. 27).

Uriah had an appreciation of the agape of God, which delivered him from egocentric motivation. We too can experience this change in motivation, providing we do not resist the drawing of the cross.

“Now as never before, we are to repent and be converted, that our sins may be blotted out, that an utter end shall be made of them forever in our lives” (A. T. Jones, The Consecrated Way, p. 127, Glad Tidings Publishers ed.).

This is the power and truth Uriah pointed out when speaking of the ark (sanctuary). While the ark and the congregation dwell in tents, David lounges in the palace shepherding his uncontrolled lusts with just as much concern as when he was tending his sheep.

Uriah rebukes David by asking, under the circumstances; shall I go home to eat and drink and lie with my wife? Then he takes an oath and says, “I will not do this thing.”

“Christ is a Good Shepherd who is seeking His lost sheep even though we have not sought Him. A misunderstanding of God’s character causes us to think He is trying to hide from us. There is no parable of a lost sheep that must seek and find its Shepherd” (Robert J. Wieland, op. cit., #4).

David the shepherd king is now only a lost sheep in a king’s palace.

“Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us” (1 John 3:15, 16). David then hated God and plotted His murder just as surely as he did Uriah’s.

The LORD sent Nathan to David—because the Good Shepherd always seeks His lost sheep—with the parable of the ewe lamb: “The light was flashed sharply upon the king, while he was in utter darkness as to what was thought of his actions in regard to Uriah. … The king was so completely wrapped in his garments of sin, that he did not see that he was the sinner” (Ellen G. White, Letter 57, 1897; Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 1023; emphasis supplied).

“Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the LORD.’ And Nathan said to David, ‘The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die’” (2 Sam. 12:13, 14).

“David awakens as if from a dream” (The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, p. 379).

“The Lord draws us, but does not employ force. He calls, but does not drive. ... God has purposed salvation for every soul that has ever come into this world” (Ellet J. Waggoner, Waggoner on Romans, pp.140, 143).

David’s confession was deep and sincere. “Confession means, speaking the same thing; acknowledging that which is said; agreeing together. The confession of sin is the acknowledgment of sin that has been pointed out. The Holy Spirit comes as a convicter of sin, and says, ‘You have sinned in this thing,’ and we confess our sin when we speak the same thing, and say, ‘Yes; that is true.’ … Confession, therefore, means the acknowledging of what has been made known to us” (Ellet J. Waggoner, “Confessing Christ in the Flesh,” The Present Truth, March 8, 1894).

“Abraham believed [agreed with] God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). This is righteousness by faith. Confession is the same thing as this for it is arrived at the same way. When the Holy Spirit points out our sin and we agree with Him that it is true, we are made clean—righteous. He believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.

“The wrong was done to a man; the sin was against God; and to God the transgressor was accountable. ‘So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God,’ both for our sins against God and our wrongs to our fellowmen. All sin is, without qualification, against God” (A. T. Jones, “Divine and Human Government,” American Sentinel, July 16, 1896).

“Every act which shows a lack of love for our neighbor, shows a lack of love for God; the wrong which one may do to his fellow-man is only secondary; the greater wrong is against God” (Ellet J. Waggoner, “The Consequence of Pleasing God,” The Signs of the Times, April 20, 1888).

—Daniel H. Peters

Abigail: No Victim of Circumstances

 Abigail: No Victim of Circumstances 

The ancients were amazed and mystified by the gospel, and so are people today: it says that God treats His bitterest enemies as friends. Jesus addressed Judas Iscariot as “friend” and forgave His own murderers. He actually took their guilt upon Himself, being “made … sin for us, who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). The reason is something that the Bible calls “justification.” The Father treated His own Son as an enemy so He could treat us as friends. One half of the process of the atonement is God being reconciled to His enemies (us). This was accomplished by the sacrifice of His Son, so that He has “reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, … reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). The other half is our being reconciled to God, which is accomplished by our understanding and believing the gospel—the truth of His reconciliation to us by someone preaching the message, “Be ye reconciled to God.”

 There is a strange, unearthly love involved in this reconciliation-justification process—agape. It “never faileth” (1 Cor. 13:8), but neither is it naive, or foolish. It recognizes immediately that beneath the revolting exterior, the other person may have some decency or self-respect left which will respond to “grace” and “justification.”

 Can “the kings of the earth” benefit from this Bible idea? Many will say, No; national interests are too valuable and complex to be influenced by any idea associated with “grace.” But a “king-to-be” was once saved from a terrible mistake of unnecessary violence by a woman who spoke words of common sense inspired by the idea of justification by faith—the story of Abigail and David is in 1 Samuel 25:2-42.

---------------------------------------

How can one find happiness in a marriage where one feels his or her spouse is less than satisfactory, in fact, downright ornery? There is a fascinating case history of a woman trapped in a marriage probably worse than any you have ever heard about.

 Abigail was intelligent and beautiful. For some reason, she married Nabal, a cantankerous, ill-mannered boor who turned out to be extremely ornery. Many a woman would have walked out on him. Yet, she found her niche in history by holding on.

 If a prince charming had visited Abigail’s village, she doubtless would have become a princess. But none came along, and it seems that her parents encouraged her to go with Nabal. She could have consoled herself with the thought that he was steady and solid. At least he knew how to make money. Perhaps mom and dad encouraged her to believe that she could either change him or learn to love him. She shouldn’t pass him up. He was the scion of a prominent family, destined to wealth and influence. With her warm, winsome ways, Abigail would impart to his lordly ranch a touch of grace.

 Soon after the wedding, Abigail realized she was bound for life to someone who was a perfect fool when it came to human relations. Neighbors and the hired hands avoided him whenever possible. To make matters worse, he took to drinking, and Abigail learned that no problem can be so bad but what alcohol can make it worse. The hired help could leave, but Abigail felt chained in a marital dungeon “till death do us part.”

Covering for Nabal’s boorish ways developed in Abigail qualities of grace and diplomacy. She learned how to pour oil on the troubled waters her husband had roiled up. The irritating grain of sand produced in her soul the legendary pearl. She developed expertise in managing men who had trouble managing themselves. This eventually led to a new chapter in her life.

 She remained faithful to Nabal, believing that God in His own good time and way would transmute her pain into happiness. To the end of her marriage, she kept her conscience clear, holding the ranch together, winning the love of the hired help and the neighbors, and in the process carving out for herself a special niche of distinction in female history.

 Nabal’s drinking problem finally did him in, and believe it or not, when Abigail was free, a prince did show up who married her. David, Israel’s rightful heir to the throne, happened on the scene. In an unpleasant encounter, Nabal rubbed him the wrong way and David in a rare fit of anger decided to avenge the insult with violence. But for Abigail’s intervention, David’s rash act would have haunted his royal conscience for the rest of his life and could have ruined his reputation as a fair and compassionate ruler. Abigail’s well-developed skills in diplomacy and exquisitely tactful finesse saved David from himself. Her hastily composed but eloquent speech pointedly reminded him that his rashness could be the undoing of his royal honor. Never has a woman averted tragedy so skillfully.

 Unlovable as Nabal was, Abigail was protective of her unworthy husband. She assumed his guilt: “On me alone … be the blame.” “Please forgive the transgression of your maidservant” (verses 24, 28, NASB). She implied that Nabal’s faults were hers as well as his, for were not the two “one flesh”? For all time to come, Abigail demonstrated the oneness implicit in marriage!

 In due time, following Nabal’s demise, David married Abigail (see verse 42). The king-to-be not only loved her; he felt she would help him manage his own weaknesses. According to Ellen G. White, “The Spirit of the Son of God was abiding in her soul. Her speech, seasoned with grace, and full of kindness and peace, shed a heavenly influence. Better impulses came to David, and he trembled as he thought what might have been the consequences of his rash purpose” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 667).

 The story of Abigail reveals that God Himself undertakes to help the unlucky spouse who is getting the bad end of a bargain. He or she can find happiness in fidelity, through unexpected ways. God never went to sleep on Abigail, nor did He abandon her. To Him who sees when the sparrow falls, Abigail and her unhappy marriage were important. God took the trouble to delineate her story as an encouragement to millions of people since and even for eternity to come.

 

—Excerpted from the writings of Robert J. Wieland

"Jonathan: Born for Greatness"

Sabbath School TodayWith the 1888 Message Dynamic 

Background Characters in the Old TestamentLesson 4: "Jonathan: Born for Greatness"

Recently, there was a report that hundreds of couples wanted to be married on 10-10-2010. Apparently, they thought the numeric repetition increased the chance the marriage would be a success. There are no records to check, but if there were, it would be interesting to see if the marriages that took place on 10-10-1010 were even more successful because of the better repetition. Much of the world thinks luck or chance influences success in relationships.

Most folks understand that friendships and marriages come with the good times and bad, but they also believe there is a limit to how much bad a person is required to tolerate. Today, few think friendships require us to give up our personal rights to time, happiness, wealth, and convenience. Certainly no one believes maintaining friendships should require sacrifice or suffering.

In the English language, we have a single word to describe the many facets of love. Sometimes we use the word to mean brotherly love. The Greeks used the word "phileo," which gave Philadelphia its name, the city of "brotherly love." Sometimes the word "love" means the sensual physical love which the Greeks called "eros," from which the word erotic is derived.

Jonathan and David's relationship is described in 1 Samuel 18:1: "… Jonathan had given his heart to David and had grown to love him as himself" (REB). To love someone as you love yourself cannot mean either phileo or eros. Both words carry the concept that the relationship is dependent on the kindness or attractiveness of each person. For either word, if the emotion fades, or the payback of the relationship diminishes, the friendship is ended.

The two men received and accepted a kind of love for each other that only God can give. The Greeks called this love agape. There is no expectation of reward in this kind of love. It is not dependent on the worth or attractiveness of its object. Often, as attractiveness fades, so does the love. Not so with God, who is agape. He demonstrated this love by giving His Son to die for the people who had rebelled against Him. There was no attractiveness, worth, or even reciprocal love that induced God to rescue the human race. We demonstrate a misunderstanding of God's love if we think our behavior will change God's love for us. He already loves us as much as is possible, even from before we were born.

Jonathan is a perfect example of how the Holy Spirit can change a heart to be willing to relinquish what are thought of as rights to personal happiness in a relationship. He was born heir to the throne of Israel, but he learned to respect that God still considered the nation a theocracy, and it was God who established and anointed kings. God had chosen David to succeed Jonathan's father as king. Jonathan could have chosen to disregard God's anointed and followed his father's command to find and kill David, but he accepted God's choice.

Instead, Jonathan became a protector of both his father and David. He risked the wrath of the king by trying to persuade him not to kill David. He defended his father to David, trying to convince him that his father had changed. He risked his life by making David's excuse from attending the king's banquet and warning him of Saul's murderous intentions. God moved on Jonathan's heart and was able to use him as a peacemaker between his father and the next heir to the throne chosen by God.

In the ultimate demonstration of affection, Jonathan gives us a glimpse of Christ in transferring his royal robes to David (1 Sam. 18:4). Christ loved the world enough to voluntarily divest Himself of every divine prerogative (Phil. 2:6-8) that He might not only obtain our verdict of acquittal, but that He might give the character of His righteousness to those willing to receive it.

To the world, this kind of self-sacrificing love is incomprehensible. "What's in it for me" is not a phenomenon of the most recent generation, it is endemic to all sons and daughters of Adam. To love another in the face of personal risk and suffering without hope of earthly reward is not something fallen humans can genuinely cultivate in their characters even if they might want it.

Does God merely (a) offer us His friendship, or has He (b) given it? The Bible gives the answer: (a) is what the Bible calls the "old covenant" (which Galatians 4:24 says leads to "bondage"). The new covenant (b) is the truth that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" (not offered to do so), "that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish" (John 3:16). The Samaritans got the point: Jesus was not merely offering to be "the Saviour of the world;" they said He is (John 4:42). Paul got the point, for he said that "the living God ... is the Saviour of all men," not merely offering to be (1 Tim. 4:10), and Isaiah saw the reason why this is true: "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). He has already died the second death "for every man" (Heb. 2:9). So, now it's time to humble your heart and believe, appreciate, what He has already done for you. That kind of faith will change your life! (Condensed from "Dial Daily Bread.")

Such self-sacrificing love can only be achieved by accepting it as a gift from the Lord. "In Jonathan, the son of Saul, the Lord saw a man of pure integrity,--one to whom He could draw nigh, and upon whose heart He could move" (The Youth's Instructor, Nov. 24, 1898).

--Arlene Hill

--------------------------------------------------------
Please forward these messages to your friends and encourage them to subscribe.

"Sabbath School Today" is on the Internet at: http://1888mpm.org

To subscribe send an e-mail message with "subscribe" in the body of the message to sabbathschooltoday@1888message.org

Caleb: Living With the Wait

Lesson 2: Caleb: Living With the Wait - 10/9/2010

“Overcomer” stood on the brink of the Promised Land. Before they had reached the border they could see the smoky blue-tinted hills of the land of Canaan off in the distance. Now they were at the border and they beheld the River Jordan sparkling before their eyes and standing as the final physical barrier between them and bliss—the coveted land of “milk and honey.” Ever since God performed His miracle of the parting of the Red Sea and the utter destruction of their enemy bondage, they had been looking forward to this day. Here they are; what are they going to do?

The land was already theirs, for God had given it to them: “And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers” (Ex. 6:4). Would they believe the all-powerful word of God that has inherently within it the power to create what it says? Or would they allow the sparkling spears of the “giant” barrier before them to blind them into thinking that the Jordan crossing was impossible and destined to be fruitless?

Let them not forget their father Jacob who wrestled with God and would not let the promised blessing pass un-sustained as he submitted to divine power. To him was given the name “Israel” which means “overcomer.” This is their heritage. Now they stand at the crossroads of the entrance to the Promised Land. What will be their decision? It is time to occupy what, in title, is rightfully theirs—to take possession of the Promised Land—given to them by the almighty Ruler of the universe. It is time to believe His word. What is their answer?

Their answer is “No.” The first clue of this came when they wanted to explore the land. Why explore the land? It was already theirs. They didn’t need to check the fertility of the land, for had not God said that it was good land? (Ex. 3:8). They didn’t need to know the strength of the armies, for there was no battle to fight, at least no more so than the methods they had already employed to defeat the mightiest army in the then-known world at that time—when they stood and watched, while God parted the Red Sea and closed it up. After all, God would have used hornets, if necessary, to fight for them (Ex. 23:28). As it happened, God sent angels to knock down the walls of Jericho. Another time, they sent the choir to meet the Ammonites (2 Chronicles 20). God did not ask them to fight. They decided to do that entirely on their own.

They forgot all about the promise and power of God to accomplish for them the gift He had given them. All He wanted them to do was to walk in faith, believing His all-powerful promise. Instead, they could remember only their own faulty promise to God at Sinai (Ex. 19:8) and could see no way through. They were right on only one point. They themselves had no power whatsoever to accomplish God’s will for them, but they were blinded to the power of God. They asked that they might die in the wilderness, and surprise, God gave them what they asked for. (Be careful what you ask for—you just might get it.)

Then, they decided to enter the land, again in rebellion to God’s word that had told them they would be forty years in the wilderness (to die there at their request), thus sealing their unbelief.

Enter the subject of our lesson—Caleb tried to stem the rebellion. He and Joshua, two of the ten sent to check out the land, brought a message of hope, leaning upon the inherently all-powerful word of God. They pleaded with the people, insisting that God is capable of carrying out His promises, even in the face of what looks to us to be against all odds. What was their “reward” for this act of kindness? They were put down, criticized, and the people attempted to stone them.

Caleb’s life is an example of how to witness to a lukewarm Laodicean church during a time when the word of God is so little known and so little understood, even among God’s professed latter-day people. God had said they would be in the wilderness another 40 years. Ellen White wrote in 1901, “We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel; but for Christ's sake, His people should not add sin to sin by charging God with the consequence of their own wrong course of action” (Letter 184, 1901; Evangelism, p. 696). Caleb did not become discouraged in his teaching and encouraging the people, but quietly accepted his lot with God’s people. He chose to live in the faith of God’s new covenant promise to write His law in his heart and cause him to cherish His Word and do His work. Today, however, we also can hasten the Lord’s return. Let God bear His fruit in you (see Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 69).

By 1888 we, too, were brought to the brink of the Promised Land. Only this time, the stakes were much higher, for this real estate is the eternal heavenly land of Canaan, the New Earth and the New Jerusalem. The story is played-out all over again. But instead of Caleb and Joshua, we have A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. They too brought a message of hope and the power of God. They too were put down and criticized. They too were treated viciously and their message rejected. Wrote Ellen White:

“You cannot tell how it pains me to see some of our brethren taking a course that I know is not pleasing to God. They are full of jealousy and evil surmising, and are ever ready to show in just what way they differ with Elder Jones or Waggoner. The same spirit that was manifested in the past manifests itself at every opportunity; but this is not from the impulse of the Spirit of God” (Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, pp. 82, 83).

“I have deep sorrow of heart because I have seen how readily a word or action of Elder Jones or Elder Waggoner is criticized. How readily many minds overlook all the good that has been done through them in the few years past, and see no evidence that God is working through these instrumentalities. They hunt for something to condemn, and their attitude toward these brethren who have zealously engaged in doing a good work, shows that feelings of enmity and bitterness are in the heart. …” (The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 1026, 1027).

“It is not the inspiration from heaven that leads one to be suspicious, watching for a chance and greedily seizing upon it to prove that those brethren who differ from us in some interpretations of Scripture are not sound in the faith. There is danger that this course of action will produce the very result assumed; and to a great degree the guilt will rest upon those who are watching for evil. ...” (General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 28, 1893, p. 419; Letter, Jan. 9, 1893).

“The opposition in our own ranks has imposed upon the Lord’s messengers [Jones and Waggoner] a laborious and soul trying task; for they have had to meet difficulties and obstacles which need not have existed. ... Love and confidence constitute a moral force that would have united our churches, and insured harmony of action; but coldness and distrust have brought disunion that has shorn us of our strength” (ibid.).

Here is a sample of their message from the pen of A. T. Jones: “The finishing of the mystery of God is the ending of the work of the gospel, first, the taking away of all sin and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness—Christ fully formed—within each believer; and secondly, the destruction of all who then shall not have received the gospel, for it is not the way of the Lord to continue men in life when the only possible use they will make of life is to heap up more misery for themselves” (Give Us This Day Our Daily Good News, vol. 1, no. 14).

This is what God is waiting for. The ending of the work of the gospel is our entrance into the heavenly Promised Land. We are standing on the brink of eternity, having waited, not 40, but 122 years since 1888. Will you believe? Overcomer, will you let God gain the victory in you? Israel finally did go in. Claim His promise now, and let Him take you in.

—Craig Barnes