Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ 1 Samuel

[Bliss is Bliss]

The Old Testament says it's OK to hate your enemy.

In 1 Samuel 25, David gets insulted because a man named Nabal refuses to feed his troops. So David and his soldiers travel to Nabal's farm planning to kill every adult male on the premises. Along the way he is met by one of Nabal's women who bribes David into changing his plan.

In 1 Samuel 25, none of the above is described as any kind of moral faux pas on David's part. But the real non-Christian stuff comes in verse 39:

39 When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Praise be to the Lord, who has upheld my cause against Nabal for treating me with contempt. He has kept his servant from doing wrong and has brought Nabal’s wrongdoing down on his own head.”

Wow. What happened to "judge not lest ye be judge"? What happened to "love your neighbor as yourself"?

I mean, I know that Jesus did not teach "Judge not lest ye be judged" until several hundred years after this event. But the problem, again, is that 1 Samuel 25 reports this behavior on David's part as thought it is perfectly in keeping with God's will.

Basically, The OT says it's OK to hate your enemy whereas the NT says it is not. The most blatant example is the Canaanite genocide. God commanded those who believe in him to kill every man woman and child in certain Canaanite tribes. How is that "Love your neighbor"? How is that "Love your enemies"? It's not.

We are talking about 2 different gods here.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for asking the question. You have some misunderstandings in both areas. After David has been offended, he assembles a fighting force to exact revenge on Nabal. Abigail meets David, knowing that her husband has done wrong, but also knowing that what David is about to do is wrong also (1 Sam. 25.26: The Lord has kept him from this senseless bloodshed and from avenging himself wrongly, viz., with his own hands). She assumes that the Lord is using her in the intervention to prevent David from the blood-guilt towards which he was heading in his anger. She instead begs David to forgive the offense (v. 28) and not to do something that would be wrong, namely follow through with hating his enemy and killing him (v. 31, speaking of David).

David acknowledges that her words, her rebuke and her intervention are of the Lord (v. 32), and he changes his tune and his plan (v. 33). It's not too long before the Lord judges Nabal (v. 37). In v. 39 (the verse you mentioned specifically), David feels vindicated in feeling the offense that he felt, by Nabal's death at the hand of the Lord. He also recognizes that God, through Abigail, kept him from doing wrong ("hating his enemy" and killing him), and that Nabal has been judged for his wrongdoing against David and many others. So you see, David's action was considered a moral faux pas, and both Abigail and David credit God with making that clear. David, in his rashness to judge Nabal, was judged himself by the gentle rebuke of Abigail, and that his wrong hatred and killing were brought to a halt by Abigail's resourceful and diplomatic actions. She is portrayed here as a heroine who saved the monarchy. There is nothing in the text portraying David's attitudes and actions are "perfectly in keeping with God's will." On the contrary, he is halted, his course is changed, and he acknowledges that it would have been wrong to do what he was planning.

So, basically, the OT is perfectly consistent with the NT that it's not OK to hate your enemy. We are not talking about 2 different gods here. You have totally misread and reversed the story.

As far as your "blatant example" of the alleged "Canaanite genocide," you are just as misinformed about that. It's a much larger discussion, and I'm not sure I have room (within the word limits here, since I've already written about 1 Sam. 25) to address it in this post. If you want to know the truth about it, though, just write back, and I'll do a separate post on it. Just so you know, though, there was no Canaanite genocide. We can talk about it if you want.

[Bliss is Bliss]

> The Lord has kept him from this senseless bloodshed and from avenging himself wrongly, viz., with his own hands).

The story does not say that it would have been wrong for David to avenge himself in the absence of the bribe.

> David's action was considered a moral faux pas, and both Abigail and David credit God with making that clear.

So far as I can tell David only refers to his thwarted action as "bloodguilt' because (had Abigail not shown up) he would have killed people not knowing that one of them was willing to pay him off so that he would not kill them: "unless you had hurried and come to meet me, truly by morning there had not been left to Nabal so much as one male.” 35 Then David received from her hand what she had brought him.

>It's not too long before the Lord judges Nabal (v. 37). In v. 39 (the verse you mentioned specifically), David feels vindicated in feeling the offense that he felt,

He rejoices in the death of a man he was supposed to love.

> he also recognizes that God, through Abigail, kept him from doing wrong ("hating his enemy" and killing him),

David never says this. As I said above David's rampage would have been wrong only because someone in Nabal's camp was willing to pay David off to not kill them (and David would not have known this had Abigail not come out to meet him).

> his wrong hatred and killing were brought to a halt by Abigail's resourceful and diplomatic actions.

Basically, Abigail paid the mob protection money.

> As far as your "blatant example" of the alleged "Canaanite genocide," you are just as misinformed about that. It's a much larger discussion,

How many paragraphs does it take to justify genocide?

> Just so you know, though, there was no Canaanite genocide. We can talk about it if you want.

So, when it makes Christianity look good, you are willing to admit that the Bible contains fiction masquerading as history.

[jimwalton]

The story of David in 1 Samuel 25 is not meant to be a complimentary story. It's actually showing quite a bit of negative attitudes and behavior on his part, not approving of many of them, and certainly not holding them up to us as examples. Much of what David does in the chapter is wrong; much of what Abigail does in the chapter is noble, intelligent, tactful, diplomatic, and wise. The Bible uses her story to elevate women and to show the rightful place they had in creating Israel. If it were not for her, David by this action would have made a huge mistake, probably been relegated to the category of a tribal lord, would never have become king. The point of the story is how delicately it all hangs in the balance, and simple mistakes can be huge, history-changing errors. Abigail saves the monarchy.

The death of Samuel marks the end of an era and leaves a power vacuum. The plotline is now: who will rise to be lead in a worthy manner? In verse 1 we see David is already on the move. The plot: is it time for David to ascend the throne? The literary foil (or the one who is supposed to play that role) is introduced: Nabal the fool, the mean and ill-behaved. Abigail is also introduced as both intelligent and beautiful. The chapter is going to be filled with good/evil themes.

David has been a Robin Hood type of character in the Judean wilderness—advocating for the poor, protecting people despite his banishment, and doing so with honor. Nabal continues to play the evil fool, and instead of responding with nobility, David sinks to his level, arming his men in petty and immature vengeance, to meet hostile attitude with hostile action.

In her wisdom, Abigail understands that one horrific offense is about to lead to a horrible mistake, and takes immediate action to rectify the situation and prevent senseless killing. She acts with intelligence, humility, generosity, and selflessness. We don't need to be a rocket scientist to comprehend that she understands that David is about to make an irreversible mistake. (The text does not paint David as thinking or doing right, or as having made good decisions here.) Her husband has been a fool; she is trying to prevent David from also acting the fool (v. 25).

Verse 26 is instructive. Her use of the terms "bloodshed" and "avenging yourself with your own hands" are deliberately designed to show David the error of his ways in the eyes of God. Her actions and words are pure genius.

In v. 28 (also 30) we see that she has the monarchy in mind, where David has only murder. She backs him off with "Let no wrongdoing be found in you." She reinforces it in v. 31 with the guilt of wrongdoing and regret he will have on his conscience for "the staggering burden of needless bloodshed" or of "avenging himself."

You say that the text doesn't say David was wrong to avenge himself in this way, but this is it. Abigail nails it. His repentance from his act in the name of God betrays that he came to understand that he was indeed wrong.

> So far as I can tell David only refers to his thwarted action as "bloodguilt' because (had Abigail not shown up) he would have killed people not knowing that one of them was willing to pay him off so that he would not kill them.

Not quite. He certainly would have killed them off had Abigail not shown up, but I think you're misinterpreting the "bribe." David was looking for recompense for his protection; Abigail was "paying" that. It was the rightful thing to do, not a bribe. David had provided a good and necessary service (vv. 15-16). Abigail's "gift" was the right response, not a bribe.

> He rejoices in the death of a man he was supposed to love.

You're right. David is not the hero here. The only thing he does right in the whole story is repent from his intended act of murder. David's attitude is of rejoicing in the death of Nabal is not praised.

> David never says this

Yes he does, in 32-34.

> Abigail paid the mob protection money

I can see where you think this, but "the mob" is a criminal organization involved in criminal activity. David was actually doing noble things (15-16). He's not the mob, but his passions get the best of him here and he needs an intervention.

> How many paragraphs does it take to justify genocide?

About 10 paragraphs, but not to justify genocide, but to explain to you what was really going on during the conquest. It's too big to write here. If you want to talk about, I'd be glad to, but there isn't room since I'm addressing the 1 Sam. 25 story.

> So, when it makes Christianity look good, you are willing to admit that the Bible contains fiction masquerading as history.

Now now. That's just silly. It's a ridiculous statement unworthy of you and this conversation.