O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul
Saul has died. In the end, his gallant effort to fall on his own sword was unsuccessful, so he succeeded in getting Amalekite to kill him. Amalekite has gone to David to tell him of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. David tore his clothes, and sung a lamentation about the deaths and ordered that it be taught to the people. Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely. How the mighty have fallen.
David listens to Amalekite’s story, tears his clothes, sings his song, and is still so upset that he orders Amalekite killed right then, for having killed the king.
This is the same Saul who has repeatedly tried to kill David. And yet, David mourns. What greater affront is there to a person than to try to take their life, except to try repeatedly? And yet, David is inconsolable, and mourning. This says something to me about forgiveness.
We all have been wronged, or felt betrayed, or attacked. Few have had repeated attempts on our lives. I don’t know about you, but I’m able to hold on to hurts for a lot longer than it appears David did, for seemingly inconsequential things. I’m not sure that I’d write poetry and rend my clothes on the occasion of the death of those who have sinned against me.
What did David have that I don’t? Or how did he see things differently? I can only guess, but I can imagine that he did not forget Saul’s betrayals. Rather, he was able to hold that at the same time that he held on to Saul’s loveliness, and kindness. Saul’s evil didn’t negate his goodness. Saul’s bad acts didn’t make him entirely bad, any more than his good acts made him entirely good. Perhaps David was even able to separate the acts from the person entirely. What Saul did was not who he was. He was a beloved child of God, who sometimes did good things and sometimes did bad. His behavior did not define his soul, both when Saul behaved well and when he behaved badly.
What does that say about today’s culture and our quickness to make people heroes or villains? Should we be determining someone’s entire character by their behavior? Doesn’t that make it too easy for us to miss the complexity of human nature?
Take any overcharged conflict now. Was the policeman who kneeled on George Floyd’s neck behave badly? Absolutely! Should he be held accountable? Absolutely. Was he a villain, through and through? Absolutely not. He probably had lots of wonderful traits, and even in his job had done good things. And regardless of his behavior, he’s a beloved child of God. People are doing the same thing now to George Floyd. Was he a perfect good human, a hero? Absolutely not. But regardless, he was a beloved child of God.
If you look at any conflict, political, social, interpersonal, you can probably do the same thing. Identify good and bad behavior from both players. And if David is a model to be followed, we should not make heroes or villains out of any of them. Their behavior speaks for itself, and in the end will be judged by God. We are asked to love. Regardless. That’s what David did.
Saul has died. In the end, his gallant effort to fall on his own sword was unsuccessful, so he succeeded in getting Amalekite to kill him. Amalekite has gone to David to tell him of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. David tore his clothes, and sung a lamentation about the deaths and ordered that it be taught to the people. Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely. How the mighty have fallen.
David listens to Amalekite’s story, tears his clothes, sings his song, and is still so upset that he orders Amalekite killed right then, for having killed the king.
This is the same Saul who has repeatedly tried to kill David. And yet, David mourns. What greater affront is there to a person than to try to take their life, except to try repeatedly? And yet, David is inconsolable, and mourning. This says something to me about forgiveness.
We all have been wronged, or felt betrayed, or attacked. Few have had repeated attempts on our lives. I don’t know about you, but I’m able to hold on to hurts for a lot longer than it appears David did, for seemingly inconsequential things. I’m not sure that I’d write poetry and rend my clothes on the occasion of the death of those who have sinned against me.
What did David have that I don’t? Or how did he see things differently? I can only guess, but I can imagine that he did not forget Saul’s betrayals. Rather, he was able to hold that at the same time that he held on to Saul’s loveliness, and kindness. Saul’s evil didn’t negate his goodness. Saul’s bad acts didn’t make him entirely bad, any more than his good acts made him entirely good. Perhaps David was even able to separate the acts from the person entirely. What Saul did was not who he was. He was a beloved child of God, who sometimes did good things and sometimes did bad. His behavior did not define his soul, both when Saul behaved well and when he behaved badly.
What does that say about today’s culture and our quickness to make people heroes or villains? Should we be determining someone’s entire character by their behavior? Doesn’t that make it too easy for us to miss the complexity of human nature?
Take any overcharged conflict now. Was the policeman who kneeled on George Floyd’s neck behave badly? Absolutely! Should he be held accountable? Absolutely. Was he a villain, through and through? Absolutely not. He probably had lots of wonderful traits, and even in his job had done good things. And regardless of his behavior, he’s a beloved child of God. People are doing the same thing now to George Floyd. Was he a perfect good human, a hero? Absolutely not. But regardless, he was a beloved child of God.
If you look at any conflict, political, social, interpersonal, you can probably do the same thing. Identify good and bad behavior from both players. And if David is a model to be followed, we should not make heroes or villains out of any of them. Their behavior speaks for itself, and in the end will be judged by God. We are asked to love. Regardless. That’s what David did.
No comments:
Post a Comment