Banking Blessings Ministry welcomes you to 2020. We pray for husband-wife interactions and relationships based on understanding God’s intentions for husband-wife leadership. We discuss our understanding based on biblical accounts of family interactions, with more detail regarding the Shunammite couple that illustrate honor and support of family leadership. The Shunammites illustrate effective management of family affairs based on seeking solutions instead of fault, apportioning responsibilities instead of blame, and establishing methods instead of guilt. This approach helped the Shunammites’ union to be harmonious and effective and will work equally well for any modern-day husband-wife union.
For the year 2020 and beyond, we pray for husband-wife interactions and relationships based on deeper understanding of God’s intentions for family leadership. Therefore, we begin our studies this year with a discussion of leadership of husband-wife union: to share understanding and inspire positive husband-wife interactions. We use examples from the bible to explain that God created marriage to combine man and woman in a union of seamless complements, channels overall leadership of the union through the husband, and often assigns the wife leader and custodian of critical information in specific matters. We focus on accounts from the Shunammite couple to illustrate that a husband-wife union will be harmonious and effective if it honors and supports (1) husband’s overall leadership of the union and (2) wife’s potential leadership and custodianship of critical information in specific matters. In contrast, the union will be disharmonious and ineffective when honor or support for family leadership is lacking.
David followed God’s schedule to become king of Israel without knowing the full schedule at any time. Similarly, God may grant a prayer with a promise, set a schedule for fulfilling the promise, want the recipient to follow the schedule, but may not reveal the promise or schedule to the recipient. We look forward to understanding better through our bible study program for year 2020: how David responded in specific events without knowing what events to expect, when to expect them, and how they might be relevant to his over-all objective of becoming king. The program will include a study of Joseph’s prayer: an example of a believer’s prayer God granted with a promise but did not reveal either the promise or his schedule for its fulfillment. We thank you for participating in our 2019 bible study program and look forward to your joining us again in 2020.
God called David to kingship of Israel, had Prophet Samuel anoint him king, and led him through a schedule of events that lasted approximately ten years and culminated in the people of Israel formally electing him king. We recently completed a study series on David’s experience as king in waiting, during which we examined the events he encountered, his response to the events, and the outcomes. We see the events as a sequence of steps whereby God prepared David for the kingship and led him incrementally toward becoming king. The series has been instructive because of helping us understand that God will lead a person incrementally toward accomplishing any mission that he defines for the person.
As we discuss in a previous study under Human Relationship with God Regarding Work, he often will lead a person to accomplish a mission through a schedule of task increments without revealing the entire schedule at any time. Each task increment leads to an outcome that ushers in the next task. Thus, the person proceeds through God’s schedule in a series of steps that culminate in completing the mission and accomplishing the objectives, without knowing the full schedule at any time.
David followed God’s schedule to become king of Israel without knowing the full schedule at any time. As we discuss in a previous study under Waiting for God’s Time—David Anointed King of Israel, God did not reveal the schedule to him or any person, not even Prophet Samuel that anointed him king. Therefore, David followed God’s schedule without knowing the specific events in the schedule: what events to expect, when to expect them, and how they might be relevant to his over-all objective of becoming king of Israel.
God selected David to be king, set a schedule for his becoming king, expected him to follow the schedule, but did not reveal the schedule to him or any other person.
Human interactions from David illustrate there is a time to drive events (i.e., make things happen) and a time to wait and respond to events driven by others. God often drives events through people. At times, he may want a person to initiate an event and provide leadership; whereas at other times he wants the person to wait and respond to events initiated by others. David provides examples based on interactions during a period of approximately seven years from the death of Saul through confirmation of David as king of Israel. He initiated a few events and provided leadership to accomplish the objectives. However, he mostly waited patiently to respond to events initiated by others. In every case, his response demonstrates leadership based on unwavering commitment to what is right and just. The events culminated in his confirmation as king of all Israel.
David was confirmed king of Israel approximately seven years after the death of Saul. His interactions during the period illustrate an important choice: should a person drive events (i.e., make things happen) or wait and respond to events as they occur (i.e., wait for others to initiate the events)? Every person will likely face such a choice while waiting for God’s intervention: do you drive events or wait and respond to events driven by others? The choice depends on communication with God. He may want a person to initiate certain events and lead others through. Alternatively, he may want the person to wait and respond to events initiated by others. A person guided by right and just will recognize God’s command to initiate events and provide leadership, in contrast with attempts by the Devil to mislead; because God will not command an action that violates right-and-just mandate. Also, such a person will recognize when and how to respond to events initiated by others.
David provides several examples through his interactions during the seven-year period after the death of Saul as he waited to be confirmed king of Israel. He initiated a few events and provided leadership to accomplish the objectives. However, majority of the events he encountered during the period were initiated by others. David waited patiently as the events occurred and responded in a way that demonstrates his leadership based on unwavering commitment to doing what is right and just.
Although some of the events were tragic and potentially could have increased disunity among the people, David used the events to unify Israel under him because his response in each case demonstrated commitment to what is right and just. We discuss the events to identify those he initiated and led and those he joined and provided leadership after others initiated the events. Also, we highlight how his response demonstrates commitment to right and just.
Through his reverence for Saul in life and response to the death of Saul, David illustrates individual responsibility in human relationship is unidirectional and independent. Every person is accountable for his/her responsibility in any relationship, independent of the other party’s behavior. David revered Saul in life and honored him in death to fulfill his responsibility to the God-anointed king, irrespective of whether Saul was good or bad to him. He was accountable to God for the way he related to Saul. Also, independently, Saul was accountable to God for the way he related to David. Their accountability to God was personal and independent, as was their individual responsibility to the relationship.
Individual responsibility in human relationship is well described by Apostle Paul in his letter to Romans [12:17–18]: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” As we discuss in a previous study under Sin Repentance and Forgiveness in Human Interaction, the phrase “as far as it depends on you” means focus on the aspects that depend on you—the things you control, and leave the other party to handle the things they control. Therefore, Paul’s message reminds every person to perform their individual responsibility in any relationship irrespective of the other party performing or failing to perform theirs.
We discuss David’s response to the death of Saul as an example of a person focusing on his individual responsibility in a relationship without minding the attitude of the other party. For several years prior to Saul’s death, he considered David an enemy and pursued him relentlessly to take his life but was unsuccessful. In contrast, as we discuss in a previous study under Guided by Right and Just—David Spares Saul, David remained respectful of Saul as the sitting God’s anointed king of Israel and would not “lay a hand” on him even when he encountered enticing opportunities to kill Saul. When he was informed of the defeat of Israel and death of Saul and Jonathan at the hand of Philistines, David mourned for Saul, Jonathan, and the nation and army of Israel. He mourned for Saul in fulfillment of his responsibility to respect and honor the God-anointed king of Israel. His mourning for Jonathan was an expression of sadness for losing a friend and warrior that represented a great promise for Israel. He mourned for the nation and army of Israel out of spiritual recognition of a need to lead Israel through repentance to regain God’s favor to restore her superiority against Philistines.
David proclaims basic civil rights principle by recognizing battle proceeds as an example of “what the Lord has given us” and guided us to actualize through combined effort of all. He declared that “all will share alike” irrespective of their roles or contributions. His ruling establishes the principle of equality of access to facilities of society as a fundamental human right. The principle follows from equality under the law, which Saul violated through discriminatory execution of judgment against Amalekites. God terminated Saul as king of Israel for the violation. These events establish civil rights as God’s mandate and any civil rights violation as a departure from Godliness.
David proclaimed a basic principle of civil rights to diffuse a developing dispute among his followers regarding the sharing of battle proceeds. He had led his followers in a successful battle against Amalekites that raided his base in Ziklag: burned and plundered the base and took his and followers’ families captive. David pursued and caught up with the raiders, defeated them in a fierce battle, recovered all they had taken including the human captives, and took additional plunder.
When they returned to their base, some of the followers that joined in the battle claimed those that did not join were not entitled to share in the plunder. David rebuked them and explained the battle proceeds were an example of “what the Lord has given us” and must be shared by all irrespective of their roles or contributions [1 Samuel 30:24]: “The share of the man who stayed with the supplies is to be the same as that of him who went down to the battle. All will share alike.”
David’s ruling of all will share alike defines a basic principle of civil rights that has far-reaching applications in understanding relationships between individuals and society. To understand the applications, we discuss the expanded meaning of battles and battle proceeds in modern-day societies and the roles and contributions of individuals in such battles. Further, recognizing that the principle of all will share alike derives from the more general principle of equality under the law, we recall a previous study to understand that both principles describe God’s civil rights mandate for governing relationships between individuals and society.
In coercive redirection, God intervenes by placing an insurmountable obstacle to compel a person to abandon planned wrongdoing or a course of actions inimical to self-interest. That is, people planning to do something that would cause them to depart from God’s path encounter circumstances beyond their control that force them to withdraw from the plan. We discuss an example from David, when Philistine commanders rejected him from joining their battle lineup against Israel.
We discuss an example of divine intervention whereby circumstances beyond a person’s control compel him/her to abandon a planned course of actions that would harm his/her interest or the interest of others. As a result of the intervention, people planning to do something that would cause them to depart from God’s path encounter an insurmountable obstacle that compels them to abandon the plan.
The bible provides an excellent example based on the rejection of David from a Philistine battle lineup. The Philistines setup camp to attack Israel from the North in the area around Mt. Gilboa. David lived in Philistine on exile at the time, hosted by Achish, the king Gath. The king co-opted him to join the Philistine lineup for the battle.
However, Philistine commanders did not accept David joining them in battle against Israel. They prevailed on Achish to order David to return to his base: “Now get up early, along with your master’s servants who have come with you, and leave in the morning as soon as it is light” [1 Samuel 29:10]. Therefore, David and his men departed the Philistine battle lineup and returned to their base of Ziklag inside Philistine territory. Thus, the rejection became an “insurmountable obstacle” that God used to compel David to abandon his plan of joining Philistines in battle against Israel. The Philistines later defeated Israel in the battle and killed Saul and his three sons, including Jonathan, at Mount Gilboa.
PLAN INIMICAL TO SELF-INTERESTDavid’s interest would have been harmed by joining Philistines in the battle, irrespective of the battle outcome. If he fought faithfully alongside the Philistines, then his reputation with the people of Israel would be harmed, irrespective of whether the Philistines won or lost. If the Philistines won (as they did), then the people of Israel would have blamed David for their defeat and the death of Saul and subsequently would likely not accept him as their king. On the contrary, if the Philistines lost with David fighting on their side, Israel would also have rejected him as their king because of fighting alongside their enemy. Alternatively, if he flipped to join Israel during the battle but they still lost to the Philistines, the people of Israel would have considered him too weak to lead them as king. Still the worst outcome would have been if he flipped and helped Israel and Saul to victory against the Philistines. Such an outcome would have violated God’s plan to terminate Saul with the battle and would have harmed David’s projected kingship. God would not permit his plan to be thwarted. He stepped in to redirect David away from joining the Philistines in the battle. Thus, God placed the Philistine commanders as an insurmountable obstacle to compel David to abandon a plan that would have harmed his interest.
PRAYER FOR COERCIVE REDIRECTION David’s experience illustrates coercive redirection as a form of divine intervention that God may cause to occur for any person using another as channel. May we join in prayer to ask God for coercive redirection whenever we find ourselves on a path inconsistent with his purpose. May we pray the same prayer for our children, especially for our children. If ever any of our children should allow themselves to approach a path to wrongdoing or a course of actions inimical to their interest, may God place an insurmountable obstacle to compel them to abandon the path and return to his ways. God did this for David and will do the same for any person that will worship and serve him.
In this study, we discuss the rejection of David from Philistine battle lineup as an example of coercive redirection. Voluntary redirection, whereby God provides a person opportunity to re-evaluate and abandon planned wrongdoing voluntarily, is discussed in a previous study under Opportunity for Voluntary Redirection—In Waiting for God.
Voluntary redirection refers to an intervention whereby God provides a person opportunity to re-evaluate and choose to abandon planned wrongdoing. We discuss an example from David, when he set out intending to attack Nabal for refusing with ignominy a request for food assistance. David expected Nabal to honor the request in gratitude for guarding Nabal’s shepherds and flock in the field. He reacted angrily by promising to attack Nabal. Alerted to the potential attack by a quick-thinking servant, Abigail judged David and his men deserved the food they requested and intercepted them with generous supply and an appeal to David’s reputation. David recognized Abigail as a manifestation of God’s intervention, showed appreciation, and confessed and repented from his initial plan.
The life of David as king in waiting includes two event sequences during which he appeared to proceed toward actions inconsistent with his God-fearing reputation and responsibility as God anointed king in waiting. However, both event sequences terminated with David withdrawing from the initial plan. We discuss each of the event sequences as representing God’s intervention to provide a person opportunity to abandon a path to wrongdoing. The intervention could present the person with freedom to choose to abandon the path or compel him/her to a different path.
In voluntary redirection, the person is free to respond to the opportunity as he/she chooses. The intervention presents him/her with the opportunity and freedom to re-evaluate and voluntarily abandon the planned course of actions. In coercive redirection, in contrast, developments beyond a person’s control compel him/her to abandon the planned course of actions. Both types of redirection represent God’s intervention to provide a person opportunity to pull back from planned wrongdoing and seek a path to Godliness.
We discuss examples from the life of David as king in waiting. The examples are in fact manifestations of God’s intervention in David’s life to guide him away from actions inconsistent with keeping “the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just” [Genesis 18:19] so that God will fulfill his promise to David. God’s guidance may manifest the same way for any person, providing the person opportunities for voluntary or coercive redirection from a course of actions that would violate Godliness. The example on coercive redirection will be discussed in a future bible study. The current study focuses on the example of voluntary redirection.