LEARNING FAITHFULNESS FROM ABIGAIL

Posted on by BETH

Most everyone who studies Old Testament history knows the account of Nabal in 1 Sam 25. It is a true account of a man whose wife likely had to cover for him over and over again to keep someone from killing him. Even though we know that parents arranged the marriages, sometimes causing a good woman to marry a foolish man, we wonder how such a one could be faithful to her vows year after year in spite of his abuse. We often study how a man could marry several women or even commit treachery against his wife by putting her away for any reason (Deut 24:1-4, Mal 2:14-16), but there does not appear to be the same privilege for a woman under the Law of Moses. No matter what situation the Lord granted her, we know that she could not be pleasing under the Mosaic Law if she left her husband. Had this troubled couple been living today, we might apply Matthew 19:8-9 or 1 Cor 7:12-14 to their problems; however, even under New Testament law she could not divorce him scripturally and marry another man unless he had committed fornication. Was Nabal abusive to Abigail like he was to the other people around him? Possibly he was. Did Abigail still have an obligation to remain faithful to him? Absolutely!

Let me remind you of some of the things the Holy Spirit records about the man Nabal. He was a wealthy businessman who lived in prosperity (1 Sam 25:2, 6). He was able to hold a feast in his house like the feast of a king (vs. 36). In spite of all God had blessed him with, he was said to be churlish and evil in his doings (vs. 3). He was a railer (vs. 14). He was not a heathen as we might suspect because he was of the “house of Caleb” (vs. 3). When he was asked to give food to David and his men, he refused because he apparently did not know (or pretended not to know) them (vs. 11). Instead of searching out who the son of Jesse was, Nabal assumed the worst about the ones asking for food and water. Even his hired servants knew he was being unfair in his judgment and offensive in his answers (vs. 17). They dared to say, “…for he is such a son of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him” (vs. 17). His own wife knew what kind of man he was and explained to David that he was “…a man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him” (vs. 25). Apparently there was no hope that Nabal would change his ways, and it is said that the Lord returned his wickedness upon his own head (vs. 39). He apparently had a stroke and died ten days later. We know that the goodness of the Lord is meant to lead a sinner to repentance, and apparently Nabal’s life follows the same pattern we see in Rom 2:4; Psa 73:3-12; Job 21:7-13.

By contrast, Abigail is said to be a woman of good understanding and of a beautiful countenance (vs. 3). Abigail had neither married an idolater nor a stranger from another nation (Num 36:3; Deut 7:1-3; Josh 23:11-13; Neh 13:23, 27; 1 Cor 6:14). Apparently she had married well because she was given to a man from the house of Caleb, one of God’s most righteous leaders in the early days of Israel’s wilderness wanderings (vs. 3). She was said to have wisdom and wise counsel. When the servants heard that David intended to kill their master and his entire household because of the way Nabal treated them, they knew they could turn to Abigail for help to defer David’s anger. They trusted her to do something to save them all (vs. 17). We see that she humbled herself before David and begged for his favor (vs. 23) and that she had wisely prepared more food for him and his men than he had originally asked for (vs. 11, 18). She very wisely acknowledged that her husband should suffer because he had returned evil for the good David had done for him (vs. 21; Psa 38:20; Psa 109:5; Pro 17:13), but she asked that he take vengeance on her rather than Nabal or his workers. However, she requested that David would simply hear her words before he killed her (vs. 24). It was these wise words that would save David from shedding blood and avenging himself by his own hand (vs. 26; vs. 33; Lev 19:18; Rom 12:17; Deut 32:35). We see later in Psalms 94:1-3 that David never forgot the lesson God taught him through Abigail (Jas 1:17).

Not only was Abigail diplomatic, but she also had faith that Nabal would be killed by God himself (vs. 26). She very humbly acknowledges that the Lord has used her to do his work with David. She then gives David a blessing which could have been revealed to her by God (vs. 26-31). She begs for forgiveness and testifies that she knows that David is God’s anointed and will rule over all Israel. Judging rightly that she will be forgiven for the incident concerning her husband, she asks that David to remember her when he comes into his kingdom (vs. 31). At this news, David praises the God of heaven who had sent such a woman to save him from doing what he had intended to do (vs. 32-33). As soon as the news comes to David that Nabal is dead, he “remembered” her and called for her to be his wife (vs. 39). Abigail still shows her humility in her acceptance speech (vs. 41). She was willing to go to the house of David and to wash the feet of the king’s servants. What a beautiful heart she possessed so that she could be used by God to save a man from folly and still be willing to serve in other ways!

Here we see the contrast between two people (one righteous and one evil), and we see a perfect example of how God blessed a woman who endured grief-suffering wrongfully (1 Peter 2:17-24). She apparently gave honor and devoted service even to a froward husband. There is no indication that she tried to be loosed from him. She did not run away from him like the woman in Judges 19:1-2. No doubt she also gave loving devoted service to David after he called her to be his wife, and his heart could safely trust in her (Pro 31:11-12).

We have no promise that God will avenge us of our enemies in this life or that our blessings will come to us in this life, but we can be assured that we will be rewarded in eternity if we endure to the end (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7). May God bless us all to be more like Abigail.

KEEPING VOWS

Posted on by BETH

Some say that keeping vows is “not that big of a deal.” We can see by the recent statistics on marriage and divorce that the marriage vows count for little in today’s society. And what about our commitment to Christ when we were immersed in the waters of baptism? Did we promise to lose our lives for Christ and the gospel? Did we agree that Jesus is our king and Lord? If He truly is our Lord, we must do the things He says (Luke 6:46). I keep hearing from those who claim to be members of the church that the reason they became Christians was to escape pain and suffering and to go to heaven instead of hell. Their mind (attitude) seems to focus on what they can get from God rather than how they can serve Him. They seem to have forgotten they did not create themselves, but that He created them (Psa 100:3; Rom 1:21; Mark 8:36-37).

Judas Iscariot sold his soul for 30 pieces of silver (Mat 26:15). Some today seem quite willing to sell their souls for a high paying job, a new house, a new car, or even prestige or power. Both partners in a household will frequently work seven days a week to lay up treasure here on earth (Luke 12:16-21; Mat 6:26), but they rarely will spend more than an hour on Sunday to “serve the Lord.” Would spending that much time each week make any other commitment prosper? Certainly not, so why do people think it would please their Creator?

Others, claiming to be church brethren, cite family ties or commitments to explain why they have no time to assemble for study or worship or to work for Christ during the week. Maybe they believe they have to spend hours upon hours educating their children or helping them with homework. Perhaps they find it necessary to care for aging or invalid parents, which really should not have to be a choice we are forced to make. Provided we do not let these things stand in the way of our service to the Lord, we can do them with His blessing. Nevertheless, some follow these duties because of their great love for family or because of social pressures put on them. “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Mat 10:37). “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).

The Scriptures above appear to discourage Christians at times and cause them to want to explain them away rather than to believe and trust them. However, they also need to consider the promises given to those who do trust and obey. “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life” (Mat 19:29).

Christians should remember the account of Hannah in the Old Testament who made a vow to God and kept it. Hannah promised that if God would give her a son, she would lend him to the service of God forever. God heard her prayer, gave her little Samuel and she faithfully kept her promise. Not only did God bless her with a son, but later He gave her three more sons and two daughters (1 Sam 2:20-21). There can be no doubt that the “mother heart” in Hannah made her ponder her choice many times. We know she never forgot Samuel because she made a little coat to give him at the annual feast every year (1 Samuel 2:19). She must have had great joy in remembering Samuel as she stitched.

Dennis and I went home for a brief visit at the end of April and I made a shirt or dress to take to each of our children and grandchildren. Stitching and remembering our times together was my consolation for giving them up to serve in a foreign land, but at the same time I missed the ones left here whom the Lord has given me to take the place of my family (Mat 19:29).

NEAR THE FATHER

Posted on by BETH

When our children were small, they used to love to be near their daddy no matter where he was or what he was doing.  If he had some outside job to do, they were right behind him, following his every step.  If he went somewhere in the car they would gladly stand next to him with their arms around his neck while he drove.  (Those were the days before seat belts and car seats.)  When he came home late from Bible studies, they would sit by him while he ate his evening meal-just watching and waiting for any sign of affection.  As they grew a little older they loved to accompany their dad on those evening studies.  Road trips were the best.  Sometimes they curled up in the back well of the car floor board as the thump, thump, thump of the tires on a cement road lulled them into slumber.  They were content just to be wherever he was.

Rocking ChairWhen I was a child, I remember seeing my mother sit for hours reading her Bible.  Because I was a very active little girl, the concept of sitting in a chair seemed untenable to me, but surely my mother knew what it was like to be near her Heavenly Father.  On her death bed, her continual request was that I sing the hymn “Be with Me Lord.”  Just the idea of being near her Heavenly Father gave her great comfort.

Seeing this kind of affection in our family has often made me wonder why children in God’s family don’t have more desire to be near their Heavenly Father. Why would God’s children not continually seek the Father in his Word, just to be near him? How often do we draw close to our Father in study?  Are we searching the scriptures daily (Acts 17:11)?  Do we go to the Father in prayer just to be near Him, or do we wait until some crisis arises when we must have his help? Are we praying without ceasing (1 The. 5:17)? Like children of a physical family, if we abide in close fellowship with our Father through prayer and study, we will be greatly blest.  What comfort and love we are missing if we are not near to Him.

HERE A LITTLE, AND THERE A LITTLE

Posted on by BETH

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little (Isaiah 28:9-10).

We all need to teach and teach and teach our children and grandchildren at every opportunity. Lessons must be seen as well as heard daily. They must be illustrated and reinforced time after time–facilitating learning by rote memory at first, even by unconscious assimilation because it is lived daily in their homes, and finally by understanding.

One mother told about her experience with a person who did not comprehend how and why we teach our children at every opportunity. She said, “The other day I was in the grocery store checkout line, and the lady behind me asked why I was getting little kid bicycle helmets so soon after Christmas, as if the only time we can get our children anything special is Dec. 25! I just told her that my four year old twins were learning the meaning of the word covenant, and that we had discussed about Abraham’s covenant with God that morning. I further explained that this was my end of a covenant that I’d made with them to show them what a covenant was, and that they had to keep up their end in order to get the reward.”

The mother went on to say, “The lady in the check-out line rather sarcastically commented, ‘I bet they’ll remember that for all of two minutes!'”

Responding more to herself than to the worldly lady, the Christian mother said, “Not if they understand what we teach them and we live it and use it and talk about it all the time.”

Obviously, the lady in the grocery line did not care what that mother had to say at that point, but then she was not trying to please people of the world; she had a Lord to glorify and her children’s souls to save.

Perhaps we might all better understand the principle by reading Deut. 6:7-9 and analyzing it part by part to be sure we apply it correctly.

  • And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children,
  • and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house,
  • and when thou walkest by the way,
  • and when thou liest down,
  • and when thou risest up.
  • And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand,
  • and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
  • And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house,
  • and on thy gates.

As a final shocking illustration of how children learn little by little, I want to share this short video clip.

http://viewpure.com/gXjE68-_jBs

Are your children and grandchildren learning good or evil?  What about how you spend your time?  Let me not apply the lesson.  That is for you to do.

Video Clip DISCLAIMER:

My intent is to teach, encourage and promote Christian behavior that glorifies the Lord and the church.

SAVED THROUGH CHILDBEARING

Posted on by BETH

The statement that woman “shall be saved in childbearing” has caused some great concern for diligent students of scripture. The statement is intended to be of great comfort, not consternation. Literally understood in the context, the promise is not only encouraging but humbling.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety (1 Tim 2:15).

It should be noted at the outset that the literal rendering of the Greek in this passage is “she shall be saved through (dia) the (one) childbearing. The Greek definite article is included before the word ‘childbearing’ and the word ‘childbearing’ is a singular noun, not a plural verb. If, as some believe, he referred to the fact that the women bear children, then the word ‘childbearing’ would have been a verb, ‘by bearing children.’ The Lord does not use a verb, but a noun, ‘the childbearing.’ The scriptures state that ‘they’ (women) will be saved through the (one) childbearing.

Why do almost all translators leave out the definite article before the word ‘childbearing?’ The reason is that a definite article is often left out of the English translation because it could confuse the understanding. For example: the definite article is generally found before proper names such as ‘Peter,’ ‘Paul,’ ‘Barnabas,” etc. It would not help our understanding in the English language to include the definite article because our language does not use the definite article before proper names. The translators chose to leave the definite article out before the word ‘childbearing’ as they did a multitude of other words.

The context of 1 Tim 2:15 is a comparison of the places of men and women in God’s plan. There are some things the man is authorized to do which the woman is not. In giving the reason for the difference, he notes two events of history in the Garden of Eden. After the two reasons, he notes that even though there are different places in God’s plan for man and woman, the woman has a reason for being saved which involves childbearing. As mentioned, ‘the childbearing’ is a singular noun referring to one birth. We cannot ignore this fact for a proper understanding of the reason for woman’s salvation.

Another passage with a similar context of the comparison of men and women’s place in God’s plan (1 Cor 11:11-12) gives further light on the topic. The man is described as the head of the woman (1 Cor 11:3) and he makes a similar point in that the man and woman are not the same because the man is the glory of God while the woman is the glory of man (1 Cor 11:7). However, to be certain that man did not imagine himself above what he should, he reminded the Corinthian brethren that the man is not independent of the woman, because he is born of woman (viz. his mother). The pattern in this passage is not to show the advantage of the man over the woman but to remind the man that he is very dependent on the woman. Man could not exist if it were not for woman.

Similarly, the teaching in 1 Tim 2:11-15 gives another comparison of men and women’s places in God’s plan. The woman is not allowed to teach the man, but to be in silence (1 Tim 2:11). The reasons are then given: 1) The man was created first (1 Tim 2:13) and 2) The woman was deceived, but the man was not. To keep the man from feeling superior or the woman from feeling inferior, he reminds them that the only way women will be saved is through woman. Were it not for Mary bearing Jesus, no one would be saved. This is both comforting to the woman and humbling to the man.

“Notwithstanding she shall be saved in the childbearing (singular), if they (both men and women) continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” (1 Tim 2:15).

Unfortunately, the King James rendering misses two very important words, though it is faithful in the last one (1 Tim 2:15).

15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

We all agree that the ‘she’ refers to the woman of the preceding verses–namely, women in general. Women in general will be saved “in childbearing.”

The expression: “in childbearing” has three essential parts for a proper understanding:

1) “in” is the Greek word for dia (Strong’s # 123) which literally is translated ‘through.’ In this sentence it is in the genitive case which allows for the meanings of a) place, b) time, or c) instrument (according to Thayer’s Dictionary).

2) The definite article is not translated in the English but is certainly included in the Greek. As in English, with only a few exceptions, the definite article demands its own special place in the sentence or phrase. It is unfortunate that the King James translators saw fit to leave it out.

3) “childbearing” is feminine, singular, genitive. Thus this particular expression “the childbearing” refers to one of a kind, not childbearing in general.

“…she shall be saved in childbearing” is literally, she shall be saved through the (one) childbearing (singular). The one childbearing that will save all people, both men and women, is Mary’s giving birth to Jesus.

This expression gives particular honor to women in the same sense that 1 Cor 11:11-12 reminds us that even though the man is the head of the woman (1 Cor 11:3), nevertheless, were it not for the woman, the man would not exist. Therefore, man is dependent on woman even though man is the head of the woman.