Why do we judge Michal so harshly?

[nephilimiyr]

Well, I think we woiuld all agree that since none of these commentators spoke in tongues or prayed for the sick that their interpretations of scripture were not always correct.

BTW, who's David Guzik?

EEK! I hope that was sarcasm?

 

[nephilimiyr]

The P/C spin on this story is that Michal was “struck barren” (which the context does not support) because she was critical of David’s wild dance. The usual application being that we are not supposed to criticize wild gyrations in public worship services, a convenient application for those who think Sunday’s are showtime down at the Pentecostal church.

Yeah, you're right there. The P/C message, and I use "the P/C message" not to incorporate all P/Cs but alot, is that because God struck her down with barreness that that means wildness and that nothing should be seen as 'over the top'. You have a point there, but again, I wouldn't say all P/C churches or denominations preach that, at least not today.

That's why in my first post I said the main message is that there is freedom and liberty in worship as long as it is in Spirit and in truth. And I do think people need to be appropriate and respect the type of worship that is accepted in that particular church. If you're a person who likes to jump up and down, shout, and wave your hands, don't do that in Sunday mass if you chose to visit a Catholic parish.

 

[Always in His Presence]

That's why in my first post I said the main message is that there is freedom and liberty in worship as long as it is in Spirit and in truth. And I do think people need to be appropriate and respect the type of worship that is accepted in that particular church. If you're a person who likes to jump up and down, shout, and wave your hands, don't do that in Sunday mass if you chose to visit a Catholic parish.

QFT

 

[nephilimiyr]

QFT

Great, but does that mean you disagree with what I said in my first paragraph? If you disagree with that, I would like to know why. I do value your opinion.

 

[JimB]

EEK! I hope that was sarcasm?

Nope. Honestly, I have never heard of David Guzik.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.​

 

[nephilimiyr]

Nope. Honestly, I have never heard of David Guzik.

LOL, no no, I wouldn't have suggested you were useing sarcasm for not knowing someone. I'm asking you if you really believe that if someone doesn't speak in tongues or prayed for the sick (healing ministry?) that they are prone to more error than someone who does speak in tongues and has a healing ministry type thing going on?

Let me think about this though, I may end up agreeing with you....

The problem I have with this is that by virtue of your statement, it's implying that anyone who speaks in tongues is without error or has less error than someone who doesn't. This is at least a good question and maybe worth a thread of it's own.

 

[jiminpa]

Well, that’s the standard P/C version. I just don’t buy it.

~Jim

Some things have to be believed to be seen.​

Of course you do don't. Wouldn't be your style to agree with anything taught by charismatics.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Of course you do don't. Wouldn't be your style to agree with anything taught by charismatics.

That isn't true, I wouldn't be so absolute in saying that since I'm, a charismatic, currently in contension with him on this comment of his "I think we would all agree that since none of these commentators spoke in tongues or prayed for the sick that their interpretations of scripture were not always correct."

I'm sorry but only a person with a charismatic persuation would say something like that.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Great, but does that mean you disagree with what I said in my first paragraph? If you disagree with that, I would like to know why. I do value your opinion.

I don't disagree with the first paragraph, I was emphsising the second.

I also do not, for five seconds, believe that PC in general believe, emphasis or preach this. If se do, I would venture that it might be taught once in a decade.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I don't disagree with the first paragraph, I was emphsising the second.

I also do not, for five seconds, believe that PC in general believe, emphasis or preach this. If se do, I would venture that it might be taught once in a decade.

But I was not in general saying anything about anybodies beliefs. I try to avoid that as much as I can because I know that in any given movement or church there is a wide variety of beliefs. Balance, in that paragraph I was very careful in how I worded it, and yes I probably could've done a better job at it. I mearly was pointing out that yes, some, perhaps most, P/C chuches may preach that Michal's barreness was due to God's judgement upon her but not all Charismatics churches agree with that.

 

[JimB]

LOL, no no, I wouldn't have suggested you were useing sarcasm for not knowing someone. I'm asking you if you really believe that if someone doesn't speak in tongues or prayed for the sick (healing ministry?) that they are prone to more error than someone who does speak in tongues and has a healing ministry type thing going on?

Let me think about this though, I may end up agreeing with you....

The problem I have with this is that by virtue of your statement, it's implying that anyone who speaks in tongues is without error or has less error than someone who doesn't. This is at least a good question and maybe worth a thread of it's own.

Good grief, no. Quite the contrary. I have seen more error among P/C’s than any other evangelical group I have been around. Strange winds of doctrine blow in every direction, sometimes in this forum, and it usually comes from the latest unscriptural quasi-biblical buzzwords or phrases (a.k.a., charismababble) taken from some book hawked by some televangelist over the tube—i.e., Jezebel spirit, Joshua generation, prophetic utterance, apostolic anointing, harvest of souls, binding and loosing, manifestation of the Spirit (or spirit), bearing witness, receiving a revelation, etc. etc., ad infinitum.

Being Spirit filled (or claiming to be) does not seem to guard anybody from error.

That's why this forum is more fun than any other.

What I meant by my previous statement is that quoting a commentator who does not see the value of speaking in tongues or healing the sick from scripture is not a final authority on scripture.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.​

 

[JimB]

Of course you do don't. Wouldn't be your style to agree with anything taught by charismatics.

Getting personal, are you, Jiminpa? I’ll overlook (and not report) this broadside. (Apparently, you have nothing constructive to add to this thread.)

Fact is, like you, I once swallowed everything that I was spoon-fed by my P/C mentors, everything they taught (and mis-taught) me … until I realized that they weren’t infallible, after all, and probably were also mis-taught the stuff tfrom previous generations. They just passed down error as a whole package to me and I swallowed it without questioning it.

A lot of what we have learned just may be wrong, J-pa, and it takes courage to admit it and relearning what we have mis-learned. But I have discovered that it takes more courage than many P/C’s have to ever admit they were wrong about anything.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.​

 

[JimB]

Michal’s objection to David dancing in the religious procession seems to have been motivated by jealousy. She said, “How distinguished the king of Israel looked today, shamelessly exposing himself to the servant girls like any vulgar person might do!” (2 Sam. 6.20). Considering David’s less-than-honorable behavior toward women during his marriage to Michal, she may have been justified in her suspicion of his motives. She didn’t object to him dancing before the Lord, she objected to how he danced and possible hidden motives in shamelessly exposing himself to the servant girls. I think in their past and future relationship Michal may have had some justification for those feelings.

If such a rift existed between David and Michal, and this account seems to indicate that there was, it is no wonder that she remained childless (note, it does not say she “was stricken barren” or that God had anything to do with her barrenness). My guess (inference/assumption) is that she was childless because the marriage bed had been defiled and she and David did not live as loving husband and wife.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.​

 

[probinson]

Michal’s objection to David dancing in the religious procession seems to have been motivated by jealousy. She said, “How distinguished the king of Israel looked today, shamelessly exposing himself to the servant girls like any vulgar person might do!” (2 Sam. 6.20). Considering David’s less-than-honorable behavior toward women during his marriage to Michal, she may have been justified in her suspicion of his motives. She didn’t object to him dancing before the Lord, she objected to how he danced and possible hidden motives in shamelessly exposing himself to the servant girls. I think in their past and future relationship Michal may have had some justification for those feelings.

Are you trying to imply that Michal was justified in despising David in her heart?

Let's drop all speculation and conjecture for a moment. The one thing scripture tells us clearly is that Michal despised David in her heart. Do you believe that was "justified"?

Everyone says they're not trying to justify Michal's despising of David, but posts like this make me wonder...

 

[JimB]

Here's my case ...

Holding Michal and not David responsible for her not having children seems to be out of step with what we know about their relationship from 1 & 2 Samuel.

In the beginning of their relationship there was love (1 Samuel 18.28). Michal risked her life to save David from her father’s treachery (1 Samuel 19.11-17). This was before their marriage (though David claimed her as “my wife&#8221, and at the time David fled for several years into the wilderness from Saul, during whihc time Saul would give Michal to another man, Palti (a.k.a. Phaltiel, 1 Samuel 25.44).

Later, after Saul’s death and David had assumed the throne, he demanded Michal, his espoused, back from Phaltiel, to whom her father had given her in marriage, as though she were chattel property (2 Samuel 3.12-16). Phaltiel’s devotion to Michal is obvious and may well have been returned by her. Now, this was after David had already had his illicit affair with Abigail and taken her away from Nabal to be his wife … after having Nabal killed (1 Samuel 25). In the process, David (still betrothed to Michal) decided to not only marry Abigail but yet another woman, Ahinoam of Jezreel (vs.25.43).

Putting myself in Michal’s sandals, I would have felt totally unloved by David who could give himself away to two other women but much loved by Phaltiel and would have been deeply resentful David’s condescending (not to mention unfaithful) attitude toward her. My guess (i.e., my inference/assumption) is that whatever love she had for David had dissipated and was replaced with resentment and comes to the surface in 2 Samuel 6 when she reacts against David uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants (vs.6.20). There is definitiely some justification for those feelings.

Let’s face it, for all his qualities David is also portrayed as the Bill Clinton of the OT.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.​

__________________

 

[Always in His Presence]

And yet the Righteous God virtually ignored all that and only mentioned her despising David. How do you explain that?

 

[JimB]

And yet the Righteous God virtually ignored all that and only mentioned her despising David. How do you explain that?

My translation uses the word “contempt” not despised. Another version has her looking “with scorn” at David’s antics in the presence of the “maidens” Anyhow, as bad as it is to despise (or look with contempt or scorn at) someone, I can see why she might have held those feeling considering all that she had endured from David. This looks like it was just the icing on the cake, or the straw that broke the camel’s back, for her.

How do you know God “ignored” the other. Isn’t that one of those nasty assumptions?

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.​

 

[probinson]

There is definitiely some justification for those feelings.

This is kind of what I was getting at with Tamara yesterday, which she denied; You're seeking to justify Michal's feelings.

You seem to be saying that Michal was justified in despising David in her heart.

So let me ask you the same thing I asked Tamara yesterday; Do you believe it is ever OK to despise someone in your heart?

 

[probinson]

How do you know God “ignored” the other. Isn’t that one of those nasty assumptions?

Can you present scripture that shows God admonishing David for this?

 

[nephilimiyr]

My translation uses the word “contempt” not despised. Another version has her looking “with scorn” at David’s antics in the presence of the “maidens” Anyhow, as bad as it is to despise (or look with contempt or scorn at) someone, I can see why she might have held those feeling considering all that she had endured from David. This looks like it was just the icing on the cake, or the straw that broke the camel’s back, for her.

How do you know God “ignored” the other. Isn’t that one of those nasty assumptions?

I would say the author of the story found it necessary not to address it, hows that?

As for whether Michal was justified for what she felt in her heart about David, I would say that David gave her reasons to feel that way, but that doesn't make it justified, but it is what it is.