Lessons in justice and legalism

"'You are a better man than I am, for you have repaid me good for evil.'" 1 Samuel 24:17, Saul to David


"But he has repaid me evil for good. May God deal with me severely if even one man of his household is still alive tomorrow morning!" 1 Samuel 25 21-22


The second quotation deals with a familiar concept of injustice. David had protected Nabal's sheep, and yet Nabal rejects David's request for assistance. We can see that the reactions do not match the intent behind the initial actions, and so we understand David's rage, even if our less warlike society might disagree with David's plans for mass murder. In Judaic terms, letting an injustice go, unanswered, is a sin, and asking God to bless one's correction of injustice is not only asking a blessing, but also a holy command to enforce justice.


But, what about the first quotation. Wasn't it just as unjust? Here is David, fighting Saul's wars for him, and being hunted like a dog by Saul. Yet, when David has the opportunity to kill Saul, he refrains. David's intent is to honor God by not killing God's anointed, Saul. Saul, in his viewpoint, cedes that David is a better man than Saul. But, wasn't David's action unjust in its own way? Where is the holy command to enforce the justice owed to David by Saul's actions?


David defers that justice to God at one point, but then takes justice on his own at another point. This dichotomous behavior points out some of the inevitable tension between accountability (legalism) and the process of deconstructive reasoning. How is it that a supposedly legalistic society can pick and choose, like a Chinese menu, which "injustice" to avenge, and which "injustice" to praise. It basically comes down to an issue of interpretation, which runs completely counter to the principles of legalism.

Legalism is adherence to doctrinal purity, and at its core is anti-interpretative. Yet, David picks and chooses which injustice to avenge based on his own interpretation of God's will as it relates to him. Remember that God hardened Pharaoh's heart for His purposes. How does David know that God did not harden Nabal's heart. We see no record of that, but the Jews in Egypt also did not know (having not read a document that had not yet been written) that God worked in Pharaoh's heart.

Jesus offers a solution to this conundrum in the John.

"Don't believe me unless I carry out my Father's work. But if I do his work, believe in what I have done, even if you don't believe me. Then you will realize that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." (John 10:37-38)

His instructions are to seek God's will in assessing the veracity of His claims. He does not come to espouse a legalism of faith, but a process of discernment. It is sad that so many of today's "Christians" seem to worship Him in legalism rather than in that process of discernment. They fall back onto human interpretations of rules and regulations, as a simpler answer to a complex question. By retreating from the intellectual challenge offered by Christ, and judging Christ in human terms, they fail in the intellectual challenges offered by the process of faith encouraged by the one they supposedly "worship."

And so they march on churches who dare to follow Christ's instructions to seek Him. They throw stones, foam at the mouth, scream obscenities in "His name," all the while using Him as a shield for their own anger, their own fears. Maybe I am letting too much of myself come into this interpretation, but I am sad when I see legalistic Christianity.