BUT… College Press has made the majority of this set available for free online in .pdf format. I don’t know how long this will last. It may be to your advantage to go download them and save them while they are available. This is good stuff! You will be rewarded!

http://www.collegepress.com/storefront/node/238

Nathan confronts David from bricktestament.com

It must have been frightening. The historical account doesn’t detail how Nathan was directed—it simply says, “Then the Lord sent Nathan to David…” (2 Sam. 12:1). Nathan wasn’t to confront just any man about his sins—he was sent to confront the king of Israel. Who would dare rebuke a king? But how could Nathan dare say “No” to God? Nathan’s acceptance of God’s command resulted in one of the most familiar confrontations ever recorded in scripture.

The scriptures suggest that Nathan was more than just a prophet of God. Nathan was informed of David’s desire to build God a temple (2 Sam. 7). David’s second son was possibly named after the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 5:14). Nathan named David’s second son by Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:25). Nathan remained loyal to David during the rebellion of Adonijah and anointed Solomon as king (1 Kings 1). The Lord didn’t just send a prophet to confront David, He sent a friend.

It was Nathan’s relationship with David that formed his approach. David had gone to great lengths to cover up his iniquity. Meanwhile, God had been preparing David’s heart for the confrontation ahead. David wrote, “For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer” (Psalm 32:3–4). God’s heavy hand no doubt softened the calloused heart of the king, but it was the well-crafted approach of a friend that pricked his heart. Notice the wisdom of Nathan’s approach:

• Nathan used David’s experience as a shepherd (2 Sam. 12:3–4). The choice of a lamb was purposeful. Who could deny that? Nathan appealed to the heart of the shepherd boy turned king. If anyone understood the love for a special lamb, it would be the former shepherd.
• Nathan appealed to David’s wisdom and judgment (2 Sam. 12:1–6). As king, David had judged numerous times for the people. He served as the equivalent of today’s Supreme Court hearing and judging the most difficult cases. While David’s personal life was plagued by guilt and misery resulting from sin, the king was still capable of executing righteous judgment. Nathan understood this and appealed to David’s judgment.
• Nathan appealed to David’s knowledge of the Law. The subject of Nathan’s story violated a number of Mosaic Laws. He violated the tenth commandment, which forbids one from coveting anything belonging to his neighbor (Ex. 20:17). David’s pronounced judgment of restoring the lamb fourfold was a direct application of Exodus 22:1, “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.” As David’s friend, Nathan understood the king’s knowledge of the Law.

It was Nathan’s knowledge of his friend that equipped him to confront David with great wisdom. David’s anger was quickly aroused as he pronounced his righteous judgment. He failed to see that he had sought to remove the speck from another’s eye while a beam extended from his own (Matt. 7:1–5). Nathan responded to David, “You are the man!” (2 Sam. 12:7). David had pronounced judgment on himself. His God-softened heart had finally been defeated by the loving rebuke of his friend. He responded with a penitent heart (2 Sam. 12:13).

Nathan was the best friend David ever had. Nathan could have defended his friend. He could have attempted to justify the sins of David. But rather than cower before the king, Nathan rose to the challenge and helped turn his friend back to God. James wrote, “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19–20). Nathan saved David’s soul from death. That’s friendship! The wise man said, “A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (Prov. 17:17). The darkest hours of life reveal the greatest friendships.

We need to learn from David. Rather than respond with bitterness towards Nathan, David saw the love of a friend. He responded with godly sorrow that produced repentance. He understood what courage it must have taken for his friend to confront him.  We should seek to imitate David’s response to a rebuke.

We also need to learn from Nathan. True friendship is manifested in the willingness to save a friend’s soul despite the risks. Nathan knew his rebuke of the king could have cost him a friendship and possibly his life. He was willing to risk it all to save the king—to save his friend.

King David from bricktestament.com

Imagine for a moment offering to build a temple for the Almighty God and being told, “No.” That is exactly what occurs for David in 2 Samuel 7. David was to be commended. Unlike the people of Haggai’s day who dwelt in paneled houses while the Lord had no house (Haggai 1:1–6), David actually felt guilty for living in a luxurious home while the Ark of God rested in a tent (2 Sam. 7:2). Initially, the prophet Nathan determines the proposal of David to be a great thing (v. 3). But later, the Lord sends Nathan to tell David not to build the temple.

Now, therefore, thus you shall say to my servant David, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people Israel. And I have been with you wherever you went and have cut off all your enemies from before you. And I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. –2 Samuel 7:8–13

Later David charges his son Solomon concerning the building of the temple. David said, “My son, I had it in my heart to build a house to the name of the LORD my God. But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars. You shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me on the earth’” (1 Chron. 22:7–8). Traditionally, the interpretation of David’s statement is that God would not allow him to build a temple as a form of chastisement for his violent warring.

In order to understand God’s reasons for not allowing David to build the temple, both passages must be harmonized. In 2 Samuel, God’s reason for not allowing David to build the temple was because the house and throne of David was to be established forever. The offspring of David afterward would build the Lord’s House. It is important to understand that God’s requirement in 2 Samuel 7 of establishing the people of Israel so that they would no longer be afflicted and establishing the throne of David forever required great bloodshed. The only way to establish David’s house and throne was through violent wars on the oppressing enemies surrounding Israel. The only way to plant Israel so that they would be planted and disturbed no more was through violent bloodshed. Harmonizing the two passages together shows that while David was not allowed to build the temple due to bloodshed, God actually not only approved of David shedding that blood—He commanded it.

It must be noted that the throne of David took a greater priority than a temple for the grandest of reasons: the throne of David would still stand long after the temple had been torn down and rebuilt. The throne of David was required for more than just a physical throne for Israel—that throne was established so that Jesus Christ would sit on the throne of David today long after the need for temple-based worship had ceased. The reader today has the benefit of understanding the need for David’s throne within the context of God’s plan for man’s redemption unlike David who merely saw a need for God to have a temple.

It should impress the Bible student to realize and understand the importance of God’s plan for man’s redemption. God loved all mankind so much that He preferred to dwell in curtains in order to firmly establish the Messianic throne so that mankind could be the recipients of the gift of grace. Yes, thousands of years ago God showed His love for us by seeking our interests above His own.

During the battle against the Amalekites, two hundred men remained behind due to weariness. This may seem odd to many considering the Amalekites had the wives, children, and many possessions of the two hundred men. But David and his men had been forced to march from the rallying point at Aphek to Ziklag only to return and find the city in flames. They immediately begin pursuing the Amalekites and their families and came to a valley in the terrain of Israel that was difficult to cross. Rather than slow the entire army down, they made the decision to remain behind.

Upon the return of David and the four hundred soldiers, the men who fought respond with a selfish and envious proposal:

Then David came to the two hundred men who had been too exhausted to follow David, and who had been left at the brook Besor. And they went out to meet David and to meet the people who were with him. And when David came near to the people he greeted them. Then all the wicked and worthless fellows among the men who had gone with David said, “Because they did not go with us, we will not give them any of the spoil that we have recovered, except that each man may lead away his wife and children, and depart” (1 Sam. 30:21–22).

There seems to be a similar attitude of the older brother from Luke 15, “Look…I have served you…you never gave me…” (Luke 15:29). Both attitudes are rooted in selfishness. It is the mindset of, “Look what I’ve done…I’ve done all of the hard work while these people got off easy.” David’s answer was simple: “They shall share alike.” The father in Luke 15 continued to see both young men as his sons.

It is easy to be swayed by the temptation of selfishness. The mentality of entitlement says, “I worked harder than those people…I deserve more than they do.” In Christ, all are one. No one has a quicker path or an easier paved road. All are united in Christ to receive the same inheritance. When Christians understand that all “share alike,” it removes the problems of selfishness, envy, and jealousy. It doesn’t matter if one brother has served faithfully for forty years while another brother has only served two years. Both will receive the same inheritance. All share alike.

All men should be thankful that God approaches them with the “share alike” mindset. There is not one person who deserves preferential treatment over another. In fact, no one deserves anything from God. That’s why it’s called grace! No matter how many battles one has fought, he doesn’t deserve more than another who has fought little. All share alike.

God is the giver of good and perfect gifts. We should all give thanks that He allows us to all share alike.

Athletes often serve as role models for children today. Often, that results in young people growing up wanting to build muscle, wear certain shoes, and collect ink (tattoos) like their favorite player. It is rare to find a true role model for young people. When someone steps up to the challenge, they deserve to be held in high regard.

Scottie Reynolds not only deserves to be recognized for his great example, he is being recognized. The March 8^th edition of Sports Illustrated features an article on Reynolds and another player from Texas, Damion James. Here are a few quotes from the article written by Kelli Anderson:

But nothing triumphed Scottie’s commitment to his faith. As a freshman he led the Hornets to the regional championship game and then, as a crowd of 5,000 at Robinson High in Fairfax, VA, looked on in aghast, left early in the fourth quarter because it was time for Wednesday-night Bible study. Scottie took flak from schoolmates but never reordered his priorities. Is it any surprise his nickname around town was the Exception?

On a team loaded with kids from Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., Reynolds stood out. He had come in with rock-star hype, unusual for a Wildcat recruit, yet was humble. He didn’t drink or smoke. He still went to church and Bible study without fail…

Speaking of Scottie’s family life Anderson wrote:

The whole crew ate dinner together every night and piled into the family van to attend church on Sunday and Bible study on Wednesday.

While there are other young people who make strong stands every week for their faith, it is rare to read a story about faith and faithfulness in the pages of Sports Illustrated. Perhaps what is even more surprising is that the article has no negative interpretations of Reynolds’ faith. It appears his conduct and character has prevented them from finding an area to attack his reputation and/or faith.

Paul told Timothy “Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim. 4:12). One cannot deny that Scottie Reynolds has lived those words. Not only has he set an example for believers—he has established an example for the world to witness.

March Madness is here. In a few days, the tournament will begin and we’ll be glued to our televisions watching our favorite teams. Perhaps we should add Villanova to that list and watch #1–Scottie Reynolds. Last year, it was Reynolds that drove the lane to make a layup with half of a second left to beat Pitt and send ‘Nova to the Final Four. The best part about that play was I was able to explain to my nine year old son that Scottie was a brother in Christ. He was the kind of athlete we could not only cheer for but that we could also follow his example.

In a world where our children are bombarded with negative examples, isn’t it great that God has blessed us with some good young people we can share with our children as godly examples.

Then David said in his heart, “Now I shall perish one day by the hand of Saul. There is nothing better for me than that I should escape to the land of the Philistines. Then Saul will despair of seeking me any longer within the borders of Israel, and I shall escape out of his hand.” So David arose and went over, he and the six hundred men who were with him, to Achish the son of Maoch, king of Gath. And David lived with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, and David with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel, and Abigail of Carmel, Nabal’s widow.

Perhaps the first thought of the reader in 1 Samuel is simply, “Why change now? What is the reason behind David deciding that hiding out in the caves of Israel no longer was a viable option?” Some would reply with the statement of v. 1—Now I shall perish one day by the hand of Saul. But is that really a new understanding by David? There are numerous occasions where David realizes his life is in danger at the hand of King Saul (1 Sam. 18:11; 19:2, 11; 20:41–42; 21:21–23; 24:22). Surely David had not just reached the conclusion that his life was in danger. That was the purpose of his fleeing and dwelling among the caves.

It appears the answer to the question “Why?” is found in v. 3: And David lived with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, and David with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel, and Abigail of Carmel, Nabal’s widow (1 Sam. 27:3). Why did David dwell among the Philistines? Because David was a family man—he now had two wives to take care of. In 1 Samuel 25, we read that David takes Ahinoam, the Jezreelite, and Abigail, the widow of Nabal, as wives. Prior to that point, David had taken Michal as a wife but in his haste to find safety from his father-in-law he left Michal behind. Saul later gives Michal as a wife to another man (1 Sam. 25:44). While David runs from cave to cave, he is joined by six hundred men but is apparently without family until he marries the two wives in chapter 25. Hopping from cave to cave in fear is not exactly a great life for a family. So it appears David flees Israel to Ziklag because he is not only a future king and mighty warrior, but he is now a family man as well.

There is a lesson in true leadership seen in David’s example. True leadership is selfless. Certainly David could have selfishly resided in Israel hopping from cave to cave while dragging his family with him. It is likely David’s wives would have cooperated fully considering David was living that way when they married him. But David’s leadership made a better choice for his family. He put them first finding them a place that offered safety, security, and a sustained normal routine of life.

It is not uncommon for husbands today to make selfish decisions. They decide to move to a certain location for a better job without regard for what it may do to the family. Often a dominating directive of “Deal With It!” is given to the family. It would be good for all to learn about true godly headship from David. Leading a family takes the needs of all into account. After all, isn’t that what Jesus did for the church? All men are instructed to follow Jesus’ style of leadership—a selfless leadership that considers the needs of others (Eph. 5:25–33; Phil 2:3–7).

Men, learn the lesson of leadership offered by a humble shepherd who would be King. Learn from David. Put your wife and your children’s interest above your own.

It is not unusual to find individuals who struggle with submission. Submission and its inherent difficulties are most often discussed in the realm of the marital union. Wives are commanded to submit to their husband (Eph. 5:22). The 21^st Century concept of marriage, gender roles in the home, and the concept of submission often provide difficulty in this regard. But the reality is that people in general often struggle with submission. In 2 Timothy 3:1–5, Paul says the inability to show respect and restraint is a sign of difficult times.

There are exceptions. In 1 Samuel 22, King Saul commands his men to kill the high priests and the priests. It is interesting to note that the men refused: And the king said to the guard who stood about him, “Turn and kill the priests of the LORD, because their hand also is with David, and they knew that he fled and did not disclose it to me.” But the servants of the king would not put out their hand to strike the priests of the LORD. (1 Sam. 22:17). Was it okay for those servants to refuse to obey Saul? How do good bible students harmonize the command to obey the king with this refusal to obey King Saul, a king over Israel?

Perhaps the words of Peter are the best way to understand this passage:

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. –Acts 5:27–29

Peter and the apostles were instructed to not teach about Jesus. What was their response? “We must obey God rather than men” (v. 29). God has delivered the command to always submit to the human leadership. But, when that leadership makes demands and requests that contradict God’s Will, the choice must be made to follow God—even to the point of disobeying those in authority.

The question to consider is, “Are we today as Christians living in America in the position that we need to start disobeying the leaders in order to follow God’s Will?” Many bible believers today believe that point is approaching. Leaders in the evangelical movement are warning of coming legislation that will force Christians to choose. Is that day here? The brief answer is, “No.” Even the Hate Crime legislation recently passed makes exceptions for speech and religious teaching. Can someone attempt to twist the laws in a way that persecutes those of The Way? Absolutely. And if that day comes, then Christians will have to choose to follow God’s will. We will have to say “No” as Saul’s servants did in 1 Samuel 22.

What our current response should be now is to lay aside any anxieties and worries about that occurring and pray for our leaders. Paul’s instructions to Timothy apply to all men today—we should pray for all of our leaders that they will allow us to live a quiet and godly life without interference (1 Tim. 2:1–4).

My prayer every day is that God will continue to provide us that peaceful and quiet path to righteous living. I pray that He will use me to change this community, region, and nation one soul at a time. But I also pray that if I am ever forced to choose between Him and men, that I will have the courage to choose righteousness. May God help us all to have the courage to stand like Saul’s servants.

Jonathan’s devotion to David is seen repeatedly. 1 Samuel 19 begins with Jonathan standing up to his father, King Saul, about his intent to kill David. It is important to realize Jonathan is putting his own life at risk by going against the ever-moody Saul. Just chapters earlier we read of Saul vowing to kill his own son Jonathan for eating during a battle with the Philistines (1 Sam. 14:24–30, 42–46). Saul relents and vows to allow David to live. But soon after that promise, Saul changes his mind once again and seeks to kill David. 1 Samuel 20 records the scene between David and Jonathan when Jonathan warns his friend of his own father’s wrath and rage. As he sends David away to flee for his life, Jonathan and David wept, kissed one another, and then separated (1 Sam. 20:41–42). The wise writer said, “A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (Prov. 17:17). Surely, Jonathan and David’s relationship put that wise saying into practice.

The picture preserved for us is reminiscent of the song entitled, “Blest Be The Tie.” The author wrote, “When we asunder part, it gives us inward pain…” Genuine friendship creates a bond and relationship that is not easily broken. Separation provides pain and anguish for two who truly love one another.

Jesus told the disciples concerning love, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34–35). The love we show—brotherly love—towards each other is a sign for all people to know we are truly following Christ. This love should imitate the pattern of David and Jonathan. We should be woven together in our relationships. When we are separated, it should cause us to suffer. When one person is weeping, it should cause us all to weep (Rom. 12:15; 1 Cor. 12:26). Our relationships should be that strong and close-knit.

What is puzzling is how often Christians can walk away from one another without any pain. Christians who have experienced the close family fellowship for any period of time should have great difficulty leaving one another. The scene should be similar to that of David and Jonathan who wept. Too often someone walks away with harsh criticism, rash statements, and unfair judgments without any remorse or pain over the separation. Such behavior certainly fails to imitate the example found in 1 Samuel 20.

Before you point the finger at another for not providing you with that type of relationship, realize it is our responsibility to seek those relationships. It is up to each one of us to provide others with deep rooted personal contact that cultivates close-knit togetherness. The scriptures never encourage us to focus on what others fail to give us—they always point us towards serving God and others. Rather than blame others for the failure to cultivate David and Jonathan relationships, we must hold ourselves accountable.

May God help us to follow the example of David and Jonathan!

Saul failed to keep God’s commands. Before Samuel even enters the camp, God warns him of Saul’s disobedience. Perhaps the most alarming statement by Saul is his arrogant claim of obedience to which Samuel asks, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen I hear?” (1 Sam. 15:13–14). It is important to note that Saul was convinced he had pleased God. He just knew Samuel would be pleased with the report.

Saul responds to Samuel’s question like any good spineless leader. To paraphrase, “The people wanted to keep the livestock to worship God. Surely that was okay. God likes worship after all, doesn’t He?” (1 Sam. 15:15, 21). Saul even declares his obedience to God as second time: “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord. I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me” (1 Sam. 15:20). Samuel’s response is perhaps one of the most memorable statements in scripture:

And Samuel said, “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king.” –1 Samuel 15:22-23

Paul said the things of old were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4). The story recorded in 1 Samuel 15 is rich with application.

• God’s people must obey. Too often man wants to obey on his own terms. It is common to see religious service that incorporates convenience and compromise with obedience. Saul destroyed the place called Amalek but he spared Agag the king and the livestock that God had specifically commanded to be destroyed. Saul compromised on the conditions of the command. He not only declared his obedience once, but twice. Samuel says, “Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry” (v. 23). One cannot compromise the conditions and commandments given by God. Obedience, full trusting obedience, is what is always required.
• God does not accept worship from disobedient people. The poetic words of Samuel serve as a warning to all of God’s children: “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams” (v. 22). Amos delivered a similar message to the people of his day from the Lord: “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies…Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen” (Amos 5:21–23). It seems man has fallen prey to the false thinking of Saul. As long as someone offers sincere heart-felt worship to God, surely He won’t refuse it. Some even suggest that the definition and understand of worship is determined by the worshipper today under the New Covenant. Perhaps God’s servants should heed the warning of Samuel and Amos—God will reject your worship when it is not done in total obedience. It is not up to man to define worship. It is not up to man to change the nature of worship. It is not up to man to make additions and/or subtractions to worship. Man must simply come to God with humility and worship in complete and total obedience.

A brief survey of the religious landscape in 2010 reveals numerous patterns of worship. One church promotes a contemporary style with a “Come as You Are” atmosphere and promises of an emotion-based “religious experience.” Another markets a traditional style of worship often viewed as ritualistic ceremonial worship void of any emotion and spirit. Which is it? How can God’s people experience true worship and still remain obedient to God?

Perhaps the key to understanding God-pleasing worship is found in Jesus’ words to the woman at the well: “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:23-24). The key to God-pleasing worship isn’t contemporary or traditional styles, it’s worshipping in “spirit and in truth.”

Admittedly, some groups have plenty of spirit and no truth. Others have truth but no spirit. May God help us to be obedient and worship in spirit and in truth.

In my study I heard a quote from an article in one of Ralph’s lessons and then found an online copy of the article. It was written by Virginia Stem Owens in the November 19, 1976 edition of Christianity Today. A couple of quotes from the article that were profound:

...once you start praying there is no guarantee that you won’t find yourself before Pharaoh, shipwrecked on a desert island, or in a lion’s den…This is no cosmic teddy bear we are cuddling up to. As one of the children describes him in C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, “he’s not a tame lion.”

Awful things happen when people pray. Their plans are frequently disrupted. They end up in strange places. Abraham “went out, not knowing where he was to go”…How tempting to up the stakes, making prayer merely another consumer product. How embarrassing to admit not only that prayer may get you into a prison, as it did Jeremiah, but also that while you’re moldering away in a miry pit there, you may have a long list of temptations and unanswered question to present to your Lord. How are we going to tell them they may end up lame and vagrant if they grasp hold of this God?

Just think about how powerful prayer is today. And may God help us to understand prayer and have the faith to accept the consequences of our prayers.