Against LSM's Allegorizing

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

When we had our little back and forth concerning Jesse, I considered it to be somewhere in between these extremes, although more toward the side of what I consider safe allegorizing. (I know. Hard to tell at the time.) My only real complaint there was the appearance of a need to say that Jesse definitely did any specific thing when there is no record of it. Suggest away all day long and all is well. I'm sure that there will be times that it seems I don't apply my own "rules" very evenly. What you are missing is the labyrinth of stuff through which I view things. (In other words, my colored glasses that I constantly try to say I do not have.)

I came to the conclusion, that to be very precise about it, the two chapters in 1Samuel do not say that Jesse "trained" David.

They say that Samuel would find the next king from among Jesse's sons. I interpret that to mean that David was "the product" of Jesse. And David says "I am the son of Jesse" which I interpret the same way.

I believe that Saul and Abner's interest in who David's father is can be considered as equivalent to asking "Where did he come from?" But according to the letter of the word you do not have to understand that to mean anything more than biologic offspring.

I also think that the term Father includes the charge that "Fathers are to teach their children". This may not apply to all fathers, but it should certainly be understood of Jesse based on 16:1.

I also believe that the commandment "honor your father and mother that it may be well with you" is a law in much the same way that we have laws of nature or science. The fact that it was well with David, is to my mind, evidence or a direct result, of his honoring his father and mother.

I think from the book of Proverbs it can be said that this commandment to honor your father and mother carries with it the meaning to honor the teaching and training that they gave you.

I think David's refusal to use Saul's armor because he had not tested it first is a window into his training process, but I do agree that this does not specifically state that Jesse trained David. I don't agree that it implies that David was untrained. I feel that this statement by David proves he has learned key principles that he adheres to but it doesn't prove that Jesse was the one that taught these principles to him. Adhering to key principles regarding warfare is one kind of training. I believe the statement also proves that David had tested his sling prior to going into this battle and that also is part of training.

I think that Saul's referral to Goliath as a man of war from his youth meant that Goliath is trained as a warrior and that David was not. David's response that he had killed a bear and a lion is a response to Saul saying he has not trained for war. But again the implication that it was Jesse who oversaw this training is conjecture.

I think that David's playing the musical instrument and being nationally famous is one example of training, and that it is very reasonable to assume that Jesse was partly responsible for his learning this instrument. But it is not stated, it is merely a reasonable and logical assumption.

I think that the Psalms David wrote are evidence of a well educated man. Likewise his success as a King and a warrior are also evidence of a well educated man. And of course, his skill at playing a musical instrument is clearly evidence of a well educated man. Since he was a shepherd that was charged with tending the flock I assume that David was home schooled, but again, this is not stated. Still, I find any other idea almost implausible.

I consider, based on the record concerning Abraham passing on his faith to his children, and according to the NT record of the faith in Timothy's grandmother being passed on to him, and according to the keen interest in the genealogy of David from Boaz, Ruth, down to Jesse that David is an example of the faith of his parents and grandparents dwelling first in them and now in him. But this is never stated directly concerning David and Jesse, only that this principle is a Biblical principle and one that God and the apostle's consider. This may add a shade of meaning and importance to 16:1.

However, I do find it interesting that the Bible does not state unequivocally that Jesse trained David, even though I feel the weight of evidence is very compelling.