Since our readership has rapidly expanded over the past few years, and especially during the past few months, we want to take some time this summer to draw attention to earlier articles for those who may have missed them. Today's article was among those from our first few months and was published on Recovering Grace in October of 2011.
The first Abigail is a wise and beautiful hero, an inspiration to women and men everywhere. Her quick thinking, deliberate action, and diplomatic speech saved many lives. We meet this Abigail in a delightful story told in 1 Samuel 15. Sadly, many of us raised under the Institute in Basic Life Principles and ATI’s teachings grew up hearing a misleading version of this courageous person’s story.
The other version of Abigail is an illustration of the consequences of rebellion. Unhappy with the man whom God had placed in authority over her, she took initiative and stepped out from under his authority, thereby stepping away from God’s will and her “umbrella of protection.” This unwise response to her situation seemingly achieved short-term relief but caused long-term pain, illustrating once again that God hates rebellion. This second version of Abigail’s story is an unfortunate invention appearing in IBLP’s Character Sketches.
This post is the first in a two-part series. The purpose of this post is to see Abigail’s story in Scripture. Abigail’s tale is a literary gem. I recommend you stop reading this now and read her story here.
Abigail’s narrative is woven into the larger story of Saul and David, in the context of God guiding the events of David’s life. God was often quietly at work in the background of David’s life, such as when he protected him from a lion and a bear, Goliath, and eventually Saul. God was with David as he responded to the priests of Nob, the Philistines, and the Moabites. The Lord provided a friend in Jonathan, one who stood by David’s side against his father, the failed king Saul. Desperately clinging to his forfeit kingship, Saul fought God and chased David with murderous intent. Our story here in 1 Samuel 25 is sandwiched in between two chapters (1 Sam. 24 and 26) that each contain a scene where David had an opportunity to kill Saul but he showed restraint and chose not to. Even in this David was aware of God quietly working behind the scenes, such as causing a deep sleep to fall on Saul’s men (see 1 Sam. 26:12).
Nabal was “surly and mean” in sharp contrast to his “intelligent and beautiful” wife, Abigail. We learn from speeches in the story that he was rude and unapproachable (“no one can talk to him” v. 25:17). Nabal’s name became a play on words for “fool” (v. 25). Perhaps his parents did not name him with this intention and it became a nickname later. Proverbs makes a clear contrast between Wisdom and the Fool. Readers who are familiar with ancient Wisdom literature will recognize this as a common theme of other Wisdom writings as well. Nabal played the fool, a stubborn and brash person who is an excessive drinker with a hot temper. Even the style of the narrative suggests the distinction between Nabal and Abigail by reporting Abigail’s speech as a wisdom speech. One commentary calls it a “masterpiece of rhetoric” (Barker & Kohlenberger, p.425). This literary device is subtle to the modern reader but important: in ancient literature wise speeches are made by wise people.
David enters the scene. According to customs of the time, David and his men protected Nabal’s sheep and shepherds under an implied contract. Wool was an important part of the economy and sheep-shearing time was payday. David chose this appropriate occasion to respectfully ask for his fair wages. True to form, Nabal’s response to David’s request was stingy, rude, and nothing short of foolish. His retort that, “Many servants are breaking away from their masters these days,” was an insult to David, the rightful king, the one being hunted by Saul as if he were a breakaway slave. This statement becomes further ironic in light of events that would shortly unfold.
David responded to Nabal in anger, bent on revenge.
One of Nabal’s servants (ironically) broke away to warn Abigail of the danger. Her action was quick and decisive, her haste being named in four verses. She quickly put together what we might call a care package: gifts of food and wine, including fig cakes similar to the food that would soon revive a fugitive Egyptian in the field (1 Sam. 30:11-12). Her ability to do so speaks well of her preparation. The urgency of the situation and her husband’s foolish responses dictated that this was not the time for confrontation. “The attentive reader gains the impression of a woman who decided, years ago, that her very survival would require an energetic but disciplined approach to life.” (Reardon, in Touchstone) She courageously rode on a donkey to meet David and his 400 armed and hot-blooded men to offer them the gift.
Abigail diplomatically offered the answer that turned away David’s wrath. She took the blame for her husband’s wrongdoing (reminding the believer of Jesus’ taking our blame), clearly stating the truth about his actions and attitudes as she interceded to save his life and the lives of those under his direction. She found a way to appeal to David’s honor and to appease his anger without being disloyal to her husband. Her words were perceptive, some say prophetic, as she spoke to his future kingship and the one who was pursuing him (the reader sees Saul in the background).
David understood that her quick judgment and deliberate action had saved him the grief of his hot temper. The same God who had been guiding in the background through the confrontations with the lion, bear, Goliath, the Philistines, and Saul had now guided Abigail directly into David’s path. Unlike the foolish Nabal, David listened and corrected course. He expressed appreciation to Abigail and to the God whose hand had once again quietly intervened. The mission was a success.
Abigail returned home. Nabal* had laid aside his former stinginess and was now eating and drinking to excess, celebrating like a king (one of several opportunities to see an allusion to the now illegitimate King Saul). At the appropriate time, no sooner or later, Abigail explained what had taken place. Gregory the Great praised her timing:
"Wherefore, Abigail laudably did not speak to Nabal about his sin when he was intoxicated, and as laudably told him of it when he became sober. For it was precisely because he did not hear of his fault when drunk that he was able to recognize it." (cited in Franke & Oden, p. 312)
Less than two weeks later, the Lord struck down Nabal and he died. Hearing the news, David sent for Abigail and she accepted his proposal for marriage. The story closes with Abigail and David both being in improved situations. Abigail is married to the future king, a man who respects her and will go to battle to save her. David is married to a strong and passionate, well-connected woman of means who only helps to further his position in life and his political career.
To be continued on Thursday…
*Nabal’s name here holds an additional literary irony: it is very similar in appearance to “nebel,” the word for skin, such as the wine-skins that Abigail gave to David as a peace offering. Drunk, Nabal is literally a “nebel” full of wine until “morning, when the wine was gone out of [him].” (for example, Gordon, p.30)
Bibliography
Abigail. In Encyclopaedia Judaica. (1971). Jerusalem: Encyclopaedia Judaica.
Achtemeier, P. J., Boraas, R. S., HarperCollins (Firm), & Society of Biblical Literature. (1996). The HarperCollins Bible dictionary. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco.
Barker, K. L., & Kohlenberger, J. R. (1994). Zondervan NIV Bible commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Pub. House.
Bromiley, G. W. (1979). International standard Bible encyclopedia: Vol.1. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans.
Brueggemann, W. A. (1990). First and second Samuel. Louisville: John Knox Press.
Constable, Thomas L. “1Samuel.pdf.” 1 Samuel. Sonic Light, n.d. Web. 4 Oct. 2011. <http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/1samuel.pdf>.
Dunn, J. D. G., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
Franke, J. R., & Oden, T. C. (2005). Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press.
Freedman, D. N. (1992). The Anchor Bible dictionary: Vol.1. New York: Doubleday.
Freedman, D. N., Myers, A. C., & Beck, A. B. (2000). Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans.
Gordon, R. P. (2006). Hebrew Bible and ancient versions: Selected essays of Robert P. Gordon. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts. (1976). Character sketches from the pages of Scripture, illustrated in the world of nature. Oak Brook, Ill.: The Institute.
Klein, R. W. (1983). 1 Samuel. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Reardon, Patrick Henry. “Touchstone Archives: Abigail & the Way of Wisdom.” Touchstone Magazine: A Journal of Mere Christianity. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Oct. 2011. <http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-02-026-f#ixzz1YjMGb9lA>.
Walton, J. H., Matthews, V. H., & Chavalas, M. W. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press.
(Photo Credit: Jesse Therrien)
Yep!
I remember reading the Gothard's take on the story and thought "what ?!!" Only Bill Gothard could twist a Biblical story around to his own perverted ideas.
This doesn't exactly fit the specific content of this (very good) article, but it is completely within the scope of Recovering Grace's mission. And I'm not sure if there's a better place to post it, so I'm posting it here. Rachel Held Evans wrote an excellent article yesterday On Forgiveness and Abuse.
Thanks, Jeff.
agree, a very good article on Forgiveness and Abuse, thanks for the link
I usually disagree with Rachel Held Evans, but this is very good.
Can someone who wasn't that exposed to Gothard's teaching(except 2nd hand) please share how Gothard taught this story and twisted it? I would be curious to know.
I have read about Gothard's teaching on "chain of command" etc. A shame so many accepted what Gothard taught without questioning it.
I take it that you want someone to explain BG take on this story and twisted it to his theories to someone that has not been to his seminars? Abigail according to Bill step out and around her husband to meet David in order to save his rear end. However, what Bill doesn't consider in this and all his other OT examples is the culture of the day and if David attack her husband it would have killed all of them. She then married David and fall in the background which Bill took as a sign that she was being judged for her stepping out from under her first husband. Now according to Bill, she only had one son and gave him a name that infers judgement.
Steve, I think Matthew does explain Gothard's imaginative (i.e. false) teaching on Abigail in the 2nd part of the article. I hope RG reposts that Part soon.
Steve, I went back to the Gothard discussion list and found some quotes from the Character Sketch on Abigail. This is not the complete story, and I put the commenter's remarks in brackets:
"Because of her [ie, Abigail's] action she saved the life of her husband and averted destruction of their household. But her initiative involved taking matters into her own hands. The next morning she told her husband what she had done. He had an immediate heart attack and died ten days later. By acting on his behalf rather than simply telling him of his danger, she had temporarily protected his life only to precipitate his death."
[In other words, Abigail killed her own husband because she took the wrong kind of initiative.]
[Then it only gets better... the book goes on to say,] "She spared the leader of the band (David) from the grief of having needlessly killed a man. But that memory and grief might have been the very thing which would have prevented him from later killing another woman's husband in order to cover up his sin with her (Bathsheba and Uriah). By sparing him from a failure which might have been excused, she robbed him of the necessary caution that could have prevented a great weakening of his family and kingdom."
"Was Abigail right to act independently of
her husband?"
[Then goes on to answer the question by comparing her
decision with that of Jonathan's when he "told not his father" in I
Samuel 14:1. The book offers this explanation about Abigail's decision to act independently of her husband.]
"We must conclude that, although her motives were sincere, her methods were wrong and displeasing to the Lord who hates rebellion against authority even though that authority be an unwise father or foolish husband."
"Abigail should have followed the principle established in the Law and further explained by the Lord (Deut 19:15; Matthew 18:15-17). Even though she was sure her husband would not listen, she should have confronted him with all of the facts as she knew them. If he refused to listen, she could have asked the shepherds to confirm the facts. If he still didn't listen, she could have cried out to the Lord for justice and mercy. By listening to the bad report of her husband from the young shepherd and then initiating her own course of action, she was limiting the possibilities of God to deal with the situation in a more creative way. It is true that Abigail was successful in her scheme, but there may have been a better method."
ugh. Part two of this post has a picture of one of those quotes, literally "from the pages" of Character Sketches, to borrow their line.
It is an act of injustice to accuse Abigail as is done in Character Sketches. It's beyond idle speculation - it's a false and damaging accusation that is not based on Scripture.
what is even more outrageous is that Gothard make the accusation that because she prevented David from killing them, that this caused David to later on set up the death of Bathseba's husband. It is beyond logic and reason. Likewise, Abigail already knew her husband's character so the accusation that she listen to some "bad report" about her husband make the assumption that she was a bimbo that didn't know what was going on.
"Even though she was sure her husband would not listen, she should have confronted him with all of the facts as she knew them. If he refused to listen, she could have asked the shepherds to confirm the facts. If he still didn't listen, she could have cried out to the Lord for justice and mercy......."
In the meantime David slays the whole group!
This woman had to act fast. Being married to a fool who would not listen to her which she most likely knew, she had to think for herself. Living in a desert type land, she had to walk or ride donkeys everywhere, not a fast mode of transportation and people lived miles from each other. It would have taken days to follow this procedure.
Some questions come to mind---
1. Where is this procedure of how to make an appeal to authority listed in the Jewish law written in the OT? Women being submissive in those days was normal for the times since they were considered chattel. Since Gothard was not yet born all she had was the writings of the OT, if she had been taught to read. Gothard is holding her responsible for something she may have had no way of knowing.
2. Does the Bible state she was wrong in her actions and that she caused David to later sin with Bathsheba? God does not hold back from letting us know who the baddies are in other Bible stories and how their actions affected the situation.
To blame her for what David later did is like that story about the butterfly effect where scientists go back in time to dinosaur times, kill a butterfly and after they return they find earth's history has been changed. Despite millions of insects that died that day it was the one they killed that set in motion events that changed history for millions of years.
You forget Esbee, everything is run by the 7 non optional, universal principles of Gothard. If it's non optional and universal, it also existed from the beginning of time. So it doesn't matter if Abigail couldn't even have known Gothard's ideas(and really, what arrogance), so Gothard had to make her story fit to his satisfaction.
Remember about narcissists. They cannot be wrong. Ever. So even an ancient story must fit their ideas. Consider the gaslighting Gothard used to make this story fit his ideas. How did he gloss over David's praise of her, and conclude all the other bizarre things, DESPITE what Scripture clearly said and did not say? AND he got so many people to accept it without a second thought.
Very interesting. So David had to kill someone, eventually, she just put it off. What rubbish. Steve had to have sex with someone. Bill had to have a pretty young secretary with soft curls. Bill had to assassinate someone's character.
And there was a "better" way, means she was WRONG? If she was wrong shouldn't they have said "there was a good way"? This kind of ambiguous talk allows all kind of teaching without being subject to being pinned down:
-I said better, not right vs. wrong.
-There is black and white, no shades of grey.
-Circumcision is a moral imperative.
-I only said it has medical benefits.
-The correct Christian decision is obvious.
Declare, make ambiguous, then demand strict adherence under threat of God withholding His Grace. When Gothard says "better" watch out.
good point!
Tagging along on the second bullet point, the black-and-white thinking really did a number on me. It was specifically taught that there was no gray, and that since the angel of light intrudes into the light, it's not even really a matter of white and black but more like "good white" and "bad white" (my terms not his), leaving all gray and black out of the picture.
The hypocrisy of Bill and his defenders seems stark to me when a million shades of gray is suddenly the only place they want to live. It's like trying to figure out "who's on first" when you try to consistently apply anything back to them that was previously handed down from them to everyone else.
Sincere but wrong motives? What kind of mind can even think such things?
Looking forward to Part 2
FYI, part 2 can be read here:
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/10/a-tale-of-two-abigails-part-two/
Pingback : A Tale of Two Abigails: Part Two
Pingback : Stay at home, you infernal ladies! | Throwing Out The Bath Water