The 3 Kings.
Many a time, Christians have undergone pain, loss and heartache in general circumstances. In A Tale of Three Kings, Gene Edwards elucidates the three possible reactions to such situations with the illustration of three kings as suggested by its title. The three kings namely are King Saul, King David and the would be King, Absalom.
The first half of the book engages between King Saul and the than shepherd boy. “Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands.” The chapter before that, David had just taken down the Israel’s greatest threat to sovereignty, Goliath. Moreover, the chapter before that, David had just been anointed as the future King by Samuel and that happened just after Samuel said to King Saul “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours who is better than you.”
Saul’s conclusive link was that his personal harpist and son-in-law was to be the one who’d over-run his regime. Saul couldn’t take that, and he explicitly proved that by throwing spears at David. Technically, he had the right to. Any King has totalitarian rights over his people.
“And Saul cast the spear, for he said, ‘I will pin David to the wall!’ but David escaped his presence twice.”
In the study of King Saul, I personally was taught the inherent moral contradiction he possessed. King Saul was talented and definitely anointed at some point of time or another. Many pray for the power of God. More every year. Those prayers sound powerful, sincere, godly, and without ulterior motive. Hidden under such a prayer and fervor, however are ambition, a craving for fame, the desire to be considered a spiritual giant rather than the altruistic stance of sincerely wanting to enstrengthen the kingdom of God. The person who prays such a prayer may not even know it, but dark motives and desires are in his heart. Prayer for power is the short way, circumnavigating internal spiritual growth. Many confuse he order of such things. Ideally, growth comes and thus responsibility is awarded as in the parable of the talents. But since, internal growth being an intangible entity, many chose to jump straight to the responsibility and others assume he/she has the internal growth.
Personally, although not stated in the book, I thought this was clearly shown in Saul’s offerings. He gave the offerings to gain a godly reputation. Or at other times, he did it to gain favor just before a major battle. But he never ever gave to God willingly just as David willingly wanted to build God a house. Saul gave to portray himself as the good guy, and he knew that after working out biblical economics, his offering would be returned by God. True, but incomplete.
The book says that God sometimes gives unworthy vessels a greater portion of power so that others will see the true state of internal nakedness within that individual.
David had a question : what do you do when someone throws a spear at you?
The initial, natural, human response would be ‘just wrench it out of the wall and throw it back!’ and in performing this small feat of returning thrown spears, he could prove many things. You could show you’re courage, you’re willingness to stand for what is right etcetera. Furthermore, once King Saul were to depart from the earth, you would be the uncontested ruler of Israel.
Yet, David understood true authority and submitted to whom God anointed. And in that process, God taught David brokenness. After all, if one were to throw back spears in the manner King Saul did, you would indefinitely take after King Saul, and become quite mad.
Twice, he could have freed himself and his company from the pursuit, but twice he spared King Saul’s life.
In that sense, David would have fallen into the trap most people would after being granted power and become King Saul the second, but King Saul came along, intending to finish off David but only managed to eradicate the King Saul within David.
Absalom was the one who fell for the trap.
While the first half deals with service, the second deals with authority, where David is now King and Absalom is the leading contender for the throne.
To the eyes of many, Absalom was like David in his younger days. His greatest attribute would probably be discernment. He could find a solution to any problem. And by that, it was not long before that he had rallied all popularity among Israel. The difference between him and David was that Absalom was simply too rash. He could not accept the fact that Solomon was to be King in his place. Therefore, he took the matter into his own hands and attempted to assume power.
To David, the trial of Absalom was no different from the trial of Saul. He accepted the fact that inasmuch as God could promote him, God also could equally take away all that belonged to him. He, like Moses against Korah, left the matter unto God and as God did to Moses, so did God do to David and delivered him from the hand of Absalom.
This is my poorly attempted summary. To get the full picture, one should really get one’s hands on the book. It’s literature is one that’s content is deep yet comprehensible to understanding.
To be a Saul, a David or an Absalom? You decide.
The first half of the book engages between King Saul and the than shepherd boy. “Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands.” The chapter before that, David had just taken down the Israel’s greatest threat to sovereignty, Goliath. Moreover, the chapter before that, David had just been anointed as the future King by Samuel and that happened just after Samuel said to King Saul “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours who is better than you.”
Saul’s conclusive link was that his personal harpist and son-in-law was to be the one who’d over-run his regime. Saul couldn’t take that, and he explicitly proved that by throwing spears at David. Technically, he had the right to. Any King has totalitarian rights over his people.
“And Saul cast the spear, for he said, ‘I will pin David to the wall!’ but David escaped his presence twice.”
In the study of King Saul, I personally was taught the inherent moral contradiction he possessed. King Saul was talented and definitely anointed at some point of time or another. Many pray for the power of God. More every year. Those prayers sound powerful, sincere, godly, and without ulterior motive. Hidden under such a prayer and fervor, however are ambition, a craving for fame, the desire to be considered a spiritual giant rather than the altruistic stance of sincerely wanting to enstrengthen the kingdom of God. The person who prays such a prayer may not even know it, but dark motives and desires are in his heart. Prayer for power is the short way, circumnavigating internal spiritual growth. Many confuse he order of such things. Ideally, growth comes and thus responsibility is awarded as in the parable of the talents. But since, internal growth being an intangible entity, many chose to jump straight to the responsibility and others assume he/she has the internal growth.
Personally, although not stated in the book, I thought this was clearly shown in Saul’s offerings. He gave the offerings to gain a godly reputation. Or at other times, he did it to gain favor just before a major battle. But he never ever gave to God willingly just as David willingly wanted to build God a house. Saul gave to portray himself as the good guy, and he knew that after working out biblical economics, his offering would be returned by God. True, but incomplete.
The book says that God sometimes gives unworthy vessels a greater portion of power so that others will see the true state of internal nakedness within that individual.
David had a question : what do you do when someone throws a spear at you?
The initial, natural, human response would be ‘just wrench it out of the wall and throw it back!’ and in performing this small feat of returning thrown spears, he could prove many things. You could show you’re courage, you’re willingness to stand for what is right etcetera. Furthermore, once King Saul were to depart from the earth, you would be the uncontested ruler of Israel.
Yet, David understood true authority and submitted to whom God anointed. And in that process, God taught David brokenness. After all, if one were to throw back spears in the manner King Saul did, you would indefinitely take after King Saul, and become quite mad.
Twice, he could have freed himself and his company from the pursuit, but twice he spared King Saul’s life.
In that sense, David would have fallen into the trap most people would after being granted power and become King Saul the second, but King Saul came along, intending to finish off David but only managed to eradicate the King Saul within David.
Absalom was the one who fell for the trap.
While the first half deals with service, the second deals with authority, where David is now King and Absalom is the leading contender for the throne.
To the eyes of many, Absalom was like David in his younger days. His greatest attribute would probably be discernment. He could find a solution to any problem. And by that, it was not long before that he had rallied all popularity among Israel. The difference between him and David was that Absalom was simply too rash. He could not accept the fact that Solomon was to be King in his place. Therefore, he took the matter into his own hands and attempted to assume power.
To David, the trial of Absalom was no different from the trial of Saul. He accepted the fact that inasmuch as God could promote him, God also could equally take away all that belonged to him. He, like Moses against Korah, left the matter unto God and as God did to Moses, so did God do to David and delivered him from the hand of Absalom.
This is my poorly attempted summary. To get the full picture, one should really get one’s hands on the book. It’s literature is one that’s content is deep yet comprehensible to understanding.
To be a Saul, a David or an Absalom? You decide.