Laodicea's Wealth (part 3)

As a result, Jesus implores this church---the very church upon whose door He stands and knocks so that He might come in and share a meal---to “take My advice and buy gold from me refined by fire so you can become rich!” (Revelation 3:18a).  This is another reference based on historical context.  Laodicea is a place in which large financial transactions take place, with this making a major contribution to the wealth of the city in general, and more than likely, to some of the individuals within the church.  Understandably, precious metals such as gold would have been standard fare in the financial world of the day, which makes sense of Jesus’ reference to the need to buy gold from Him. 

There is no need here to go to any discourses about the impossibility of buying the things of God, or to ponder what it is that Jesus insists needs to be obtained.  Such would be inappropriate, and need only be ventured if one fails to consider the context of Laodicea’s position, its trade, and its source of wealth.  An abundance of gold will generally cause those that possess such abundance to consider themselves rich.  However, Jesus has already informed this church that their practice, quite to the contrary, has made them truly poor.  If they will but discard the practice and enter into what it is that He desires, as demonstrated by His life and practice, then they will truly be rich. 

If the Biblical narrative pattern is followed, these riches (blessings?) that are indissolubly linked to practice will probably have some connection to the Abrahamic covenant.  The true gold that will be purchased from Jesus will be inextricably connected to the kingdom principles that He demonstrated throughout His ministry, and according to the Hebrew prophets, there can be no greater riches than those which are connected to the established kingdom of the Creator God.

According to John, Jesus continues on to say, “Buy from me white clothing so you can be clothed and your shameful nakedness will not be exposed” (3:18b).  Here is yet another contrast.  The issue of putting on clothing appears to be a regular theme in the earliest church.  In his second letter to the Corinthian church, Paul writes: “For in this earthly house we grown, because we desire to put on our heavenly dwelling, in indeed, after we have put on our heavenly house we will not be found naked.  For we groan while we are in this tent, since we are weighed down, because we do not want to be unclothed, but clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (5:2-4).  Though Paul makes reference to houses, dwellings, tents, and clothes, the subject at hand is the glorified, resurrection body that the believer will have when the kingdom of the Creator comes in its fullness. 

In the letter to Laodicea, the shameful nakedness would seem to have the same point of reference, as there will be no glorified body available, and no place in the kingdom of the covenant God made possible for those that operate contrary to the principles of that kingdom in the course of their natural term.  The purchasing of “white clothing” is yet another reference to that which has garnered wealth for Laodicea, which was the textile industry.  Laodicea was a center for the manufacture of clothing, and the sheep that grazed around Laodicea were quite famous for the soft, black wool that they produced, which in turn created a high demand for clothes made from this black wool. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 38)

To whom is Jesus referring when He speaks of sheep?  It is those to whom the Son of Man, the King, speaks and says “For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited Me in, I was naked and you gave Me clothing, I was sick and you took care of Me, I was in prison and you visited Me” (Matthew 25:35-36).  He, as the Son of Man, the King, goes on to add: “I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for Me” (25:40).  If a believer is looking for an answer as to what sort of person he or she is required to be, this is as good as any, especially when the goats are described as those that did not do these things.   

Tying off Jesus’ Temple-fall-and-coming-of-the-Son-of-Man related speech, and continuing a clearly pronounced connective theme, Matthew writes “When Jesus had finished saying all these things” (26:1a).  Based on what has been seen with the synoptic use of “these things,” and the fact that it appears in a related passage in Peter’s second letter, its usage here simply cannot escape attention or be at all considered as a random placement.  Matthew wants to draw attention to the fact that all that has just been heard from Jesus, from the fourth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter through the final verse of the twenty-fifth chapter, was presented in relation to the fall of the Temple and the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days for the purpose of receiving His kingdom.

This, of course, includes Jesus’ insistence that “as for that day and hour no one knows it---not even the angels in heaven---except the Father alone” (24:36).  What Jesus is saying here could not be any more obvious.  In fact, by this point, it would take a willful refusal to acknowledge the point that is being made or to hear Jesus talking about anything but the fall of the Temple when He makes this statement.  This probably does not even need to be said, but to somehow connect this to some kind of rapture or to the return of Jesus to earth, considering the incredibly obvious context that is on offer, is not only absurd but also strains credulity to the point of breaking. 

Throughout the whole of Matthew twenty-four, Jesus has never once wavered from answering the question that was posed by His disciples and which was prompted by His statement about the Temple.  By way of one final review, Matthew writes “Now as Jesus was going out of the Temple courts and walking away, His disciples came to show Him the Temple buildings” (24:1).  In response to what He sees, Jesus says “Do you see all these things?  I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!” (24:2)  His disciples, who did not imagine that He was talking about anything but the Temple being torn down with not one stone being left on another, which would have been catastrophic and unimaginable to their way of thinking (the end of their world), say “Tell us, when will these things happen?” (24:3b) 

To that Matthew adds “And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (24:3c)  That question is based upon the quite popular seventh chapter of Daniel.  According to what would have been the popular understanding of that passage, the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days, together with the concordant receipt of His kingdom, will mark the end of one age and the beginning of another.  Apart from that, one must remember that Mark and Luke simply have the disciples adding “And what will the sign that all these things are about to take place?”  Yes, the disciples know that Jesus is speaking about the fall of the Temple and want to know how they will know when it is that this singularly cataclysmic event will occur. 

Love On John's Terms (part 27)

The author of John provides an excellent example of the necessity of hearing the story as a whole in what follows from the presentation of Jesus as the good shepherd.  In the twenty-second verse of the chapter, there is a change of scenery in Jerusalem, as the author writes “Then came the feast of the Dedication in Jerusalem.  It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the Temple area in Solomon’s portico” (John 10:22-23).  Clearly, this represents a substantial shift in timing, because all that has been heard from the seventh chapter up to this point has occurred in conjunction with the Feast of Tabernacles, which does not take place in the winter. 

The temptation, then, is to pick up right here with these verses and treat this story separately.  To do so would be foolish, as when Jesus is heard to say “My sheep listen to My voice and I know them, and they follow Me.  I give them eternal life, and they will never perish” (10:27-28a), it can only be heard correctly in the context provided by all that has come before in the narrative, which is also dependent on a knowledge of Israel’s history along with then current understanding of Jewish hopes that would have informed Jesus’ use of eternal life (otherwise, Jesus could not expect to be understood).  As stated, the narrative continues to build, demanding to be heard as a whole. 

Again, the concepts as presented, and especially ideas concerning what is meant by love, demand to be heard on their own terms.  So to understand John’s notion of love, which is prefaced by the description of the way that the Creator God loved the world, and to do so without retrojecting preconceived notions about its definition, it is entirely necessary to take this step by step journey through the Johannine text, so as to come to grips with this author’s theology and its accompaniments (Christology, soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc…) that will define the ethic. 

A fair amount of space in this study has been spent on the issue of “miraculous signs” in this Gospel, with nine such appearances in the text having already been reviewed.  The phrase has not been encountered since the seventh chapter, but it reappears at the close of the tenth chapter, where the author reports that “Many came to Him and began to say, ‘John performed no miraculous sign, but everything John said about this man was true!’  And many believed in Jesus there” (10:41-42).  This is prefaced by a reference to the fact that “Jesus,” following his time spent specifically in Jerusalem, where He has His dealings in the time periods of the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication, “went back across the Jordan River again to the place where John had been baptizing at an earlier time and He stayed there” (10:40).  This mention of John at the close of the tenth chapter is mildly intriguing, as it obviously calls attention to the words and work of John the Baptist.  It takes the step of re-identifying Jesus with John and the exodus-themed movement that John had begun at a place not terribly distant from Jerusalem. 

By making mention that it was being said that “John performed no miraculous sign,” it seems that the author wants to hang a substantial amount of weight on the miraculous signs performed by Jesus, as reported in his Gospel.  It would appear to be the case that the miraculous signs are what, in the author’s mind, set Jesus apart from all those that had come before Him.  With the Resurrection from the dead following His crucifixion being the ultimate miraculous sign, it could be said that the church was fully agreed that Jesus was quite unique.  

Love On John's Terms (part 24)

As it relates to Jesus, the scattering of the sheep under the false shepherd can be understood as another reference to the words of Zechariah (13:7), while also serving to make the point that Jesus, though with the path that He was traveling, certainly had an inkling as to what was in store for Him in His pending crucifixion, was not going to flee from the wolf (the Romans and their cross) and leave His sheep unguarded.  No, He was going to be the shepherd that cared for His sheep, faithfully seeing His role through to the very end for their salvation and life in His kingdom.  Driving this point home, He reiterates that He is “the good shepherd” (John 10:14a), and says “I lay down My life for the sheep” (10:15b).     

Expanding upon this thought in a way that plays into the sensibilities towards Gentiles that have been created throughout the Johannine narrative, and doing so in a way that would have been readily identifiable by the respective audiences (that of both Jesus and John), Jesus says “I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold.  I must bring them too, and they will listen to My voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd” (10:16).  Without spending too much additional time with this story or attempting to unpack the final words of Jesus, it is abundantly clear that it is the willful laying down of His life, especially in a way that is quite contrary to what would be expected of a presumed Messiah that is ushering in the kingdom of the Creator God, that is to be taken as a supreme manifestation of love.  This, among other things of course, is what sets Jesus apart from previous messianic claimants. 

Now this is not to say that previous messianic claimants did not act out of a love for the covenant God and His people, but it does indicate that there was a limiting factor with which Jesus does away, in that His love and His willingness to lay down His life due to that love was not limited to Israel.  This would speak quite loudly to Jesus’ audience and to John’s community, while also speaking quite loudly (when its context and referents are well understood) to all that would come to encounter this love-rooted narrative.  For the Johannine writings, which reflect the ongoing understanding of Jesus amongst the growing and persecuted Christian community, the fact that Jesus is believed to be the Creator God-manifest, and that He is willing to lay down His life for His sheep (encompassing all nations) in a humble self-sacrifice that would brand Him with unspeakable shame in an honor and shame culture, speaks untold volumes about that which is expected from those that strive to rightly bear the image of the Creator God. 

With that understood, and before offering up a change of scenery within Jerusalem, the Johannine audience finds itself ushered out of this story with “Another sharp division took place among the Jewish people because of these words” (10:19).  “These words” were, presumably, His words about sheep, sheepfolds, laying down His life, and His taking that life back up again (10:17-18), along with His speaking about “the Father” (10:17) being “My Father” (10:18).  Not only had Jesus effectively castigated many of the revolutionaries that had come before Him, who were often looked upon as heroic champions of the Jewish people (which presents its own set of problems for Him), the “Father” language that He was employing could have been quite troubling for His hearers. 

Though those that hear this Gospel tale are not going to be troubled by such usage, they would have more than well-understood the reaction recorded within the story, which had “Many of them saying, ‘He is possessed by a demon and has lost his mind!  Why do you listen to him?’” (10:20)  Naturally, this response was not universal, as “Others said, ‘These are not the words of someone possessed by a demon.  A demon cannot cause the blind to see, can it?’” (10:21)  This last statement stands as a reminder of the larger movement (the healing of the man blind from birth) in which the author presents this discourse in which Jesus casts Himself as the good shepherd.  

Good Shepherd (part 2 of 2)

Returning to the question previously posed, to whom was Jesus referring when He said that “All who came before Me are thieves and robbers” (John 10:8a).  With what has been outlined from this quick trip through the preceding chapters of John, we confidently propose that Jesus was referring to previous Messianic claimants.  Jesus was referring to all of those who had risen up in revolt and efforts to overthrow the nations that ruled over the land of Israel, grasping at that which was not theirs to take, and attempting to set themselves up as kings and rulers of God’s land and people.  Not only could this be directed towards all of those that could be looked back upon as potential and failed Messiah figures, but it could be rightly applied to Israel’s then current ruling, dynastic family, as Jesus adds “the sheep did not listen to them” (10:8b).  There were very few in Israel who looked upon the Hasmonean Herods as legitimate rulers. 

Jesus repeats Himself and says, “I am the door.  If anyone enters by Me, He will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture” (10:9).  The people were in constant expectation of the re-establishment of national sovereignty and subsequent superiority to the surrounding nations, as in the days of David and Solomon.  They were expecting their God to break in upon history and set up His kingdom in and through them.  This was the reason for the repeated Messianic movements and claimants.  They looked to the long-held promise of a land of their own in which they ruled themselves, knowing that as long as the present situation of being ruled by foreign powers continued, that they were still in exile from God’s promises to them.  It is in this context that Jesus informs the people that the way in which they were attempting to regain control of their land, was not the way that God had intended for them.  It was not the door, so to speak.  Jesus told them that He was the door, and that entrance into the kingdom of God was going to be provided through union with Him.  The people would find their pasture, their land, through what it was that He was going to do, and through their believing in Him. 

Turning His thoughts to the thieves and robbers, the pretenders and presumptuous usurpers that had come before Him (not Satan as the thief and robber), Jesus offers commentary on their methods, saying that “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy” (10:10a).  This was not God’s intention for His people.  Then, as it is now, it was not God’s design for His chosen people to establish and extend His kingdom by force of arms and violent revolution.  There was no need to steal and kill and destroy, as this is quite counter-productive to God’s plans.  Rather, Jesus, speaking forth as the Messiah that came to do the will of His Father, said “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (10:10b).  When Jesus speaks of this giving of life in abundance, is that gift to be thought of as being directed to Israel?  Naturally, that answer is yes.  However, we cannot disconnect the giving of life abundant from the statements about stealing, killing, and destroying.  In that, it must be understood that Jesus is also offering that gift to the Gentiles that were then in possession of the land---the gift of the blessings of the covenant God---in His establishment of the kingdom of God, which was contrary to all the then-current ways of thinking.  The people wanted their Messiah to steal from and kill and destroy the oppressors, but Jesus intended the opposite, desiring to establish the kingdom through the extension of His love, mercy, grace, and faith.  Yes, Jesus intended that the hated Romans, and all Gentile nations, to have the blessings of abundant life as well.      

Making the point about the nature of His kingdom and His role as Israel’s Messiah, Jesus adds to this and says “I am the good shepherd” (10:11a).  This use of “good shepherd,” owing to Old Testament prophecy (the book of Zechariah), was another way of speaking about the Messiah.  In this capacity, Jesus says, “The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (10:11b).  This was designed to begin preparing the people for the fact that their Messiah was going to be killed at the hands of the very ones that the people thought He would forcefully overthrow.  Previously, it had been the case that when a potential Messiah and king rose up, the evidence that the person in question was obviously not the Messiah was his death.  Execution or death at arms was the clear signal of another failed Messiah, but this was not going be the case for Jesus. 

Elaborating on this thought, Jesus presents a short analogy in reference to would-be Messiahs that had risen before Him (thieves and robbers), saying “He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.  He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep” (10:12-13).  How many men before Him had risen up to lead the people in revolution?  How many, when the pressure came and death threatened, ran away, leaving those whom he had previously led to suffer gruesome deaths?  As it relates to Jesus, the scattering can be understood as another reference to the prophecy of Zechariah (13:7), while also serving to make the point that Jesus, though He knew what was in store for Him in His pending crucifixion, was not going to flee from the wolf (the Romans and their cross) and leave His sheep unguarded.  No, He was going to be the shepherd that cared for His sheep, faithfully seeing His role through to the very end, for their salvation and life in His kingdom.  Driving this point home, He reiterates that He is “the good shepherd” (10:14a), and says “I lay down My life for the sheep” (10:15b).   

Good Shepherd (part 1 of 2)

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and robber. – John 10:1  (ESV)

Having put forward this thought, Jesus embarks on a series of statements about entering the door as the shepherd of the sheep, about gatekeepers, about sheep hearing the voice of true shepherd, about their not following strangers, and about sheep fleeing from that voice.  It is then said, not surprisingly, that “they did not understand what He was saying to them” (10:6b).  This lack of understanding must have been communicated by either facial expression or verbally, because Jesus goes on to elaborate, repeating His dictum of “Truly, truly, I say to you”, and going on to say, “I am the door of the sheep” (10:7).  He then makes a slight change to His previous statement in regards to those that climb in by another way, and by doing so, makes it more direct and applicable, saying that “All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them” (10:8). 

What does Jesus mean when He said that “All who came before Me are thieves and robbers”?  About whom is He talking?  He is obviously not talking about the prophets.  He is probably not talking about humans in general, and it is unlikely that He is referring to the leaders of Israel in that day.  So we must look to the context in which this discourse about being the “good shepherd” is presented.  What is it that comes before the beginning of the tenth chapter of John? 

The ninth chapter of John is taken up with the story of the man who had been born blind, but who had been healed by Jesus.  This story include a notation that anyone confessing Jesus to be the Christ was to be put out of the synagogue (9:22).  Clearly, the idea that this Jesus fellow might very well be the Messiah, was present, with this aside accounting for that fact.  As we come to the close of the ninth chapter, Jesus encounters the formerly blind man again, asks him if he believes in the Son of Man (9:35).  This title carried huge significance to the people of that day.  Upon confirming that he had a desire to believe in the Son of Man, and perhaps more specifically in the ideas, hopes, dreams, and aspirations of God’s people that were represented by that title “Son of Man,” Jesus tells him that “it is He Who is speaking to you” (9:37b). 

Naturally, this follows from the eighth chapter, in which there has been much talk about Jesus Himself, based on His declaration that He was “the light of the world” (8:12).  Though this is not our focus here, with these words, we can hear Jesus positioning Himself as the embodiment of national Israel, taking up what was to have been the task of Israel itself, as it was God’s covenant people Israel that were supposed to be the light of the world.  This, of course, follows from chapter seven, in which we find the people openly asking “When the Christ appears, will he do more signs that this man has done?” (7:31b).  Again, this was Messiah-speak by the people, as “the Christ” was understood to the “anointed One” of God, with such anointing hearkening back to the anointing of the kings of Israel, especially Saul, David, and Solomon. 

It was these words that led to the first movement by the chief priests and Pharisees to arrest Jesus, most likely because He was creating Messianic expectations amongst the people, but had not attempted to gain the support of any of the influential factions or ruling parties.  This may very well have been a political calculation, to test Jesus’ true popularity amongst the people, to bring him in for questioning, and to offer Him a deal to stand in solidarity with the chief priests and Pharisees, depending on the outcome of some private conversations.  Jesus, however, as He would later declare, always spoke openly in the Temple and in the synagogues, purposely avoiding such back-room dealings and the problems that lie therein. 

Finally, we look back to the sixth chapter.  Though the event took place in Galilee and not in Jerusalem, there was already some type of movement afoot in regards to Jesus-as-Messiah, as upon the great and miraculous feeding that had been at His hand, the people responded by saying “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world” (6:14b); and together with that statement of clear, Messianic significance they “were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king” (6:15b).  This is to what Israel, almost as a whole, was constantly looking.  So as we consider all of these things from the sixth chapter, on through Jesus’ shepherd statements of the tenth chapter, it must be remembered that these things are occurring in the context of the often-stoked expectations of the people, beginning with the first major revolt of the second century B.C. and the establishment of the ruling, Hasmonean dynasty, that it was well past the time for their God to enter into history, to send His Messiah, to forcibly remove the pagans from their land, to violently lift the yoke of oppression, and to exalt Israel as chief over all the nations of the world.  It is such remembrance that will give full weight to Jesus’ speaking of Himself as the shepherd of the people.     

Abigail

In between the two instances in which David exercises mercy and spares the life of the one that is attempting to kill him (Saul), we come upon an interesting incident of a person who stands in the role of deliverer within Israel.  The name of this particular deliverer is Abigail.  Abigail, of course, will eventually become one of David’s wives, but when we meet her, she is married to a man named Nabal.  He is said to have been “very wealthy,” while also being “harsh.”  Additionally, we are informed that “his deeds were evil” (1 Samuel 25:2,3).  That use of “evil” should be a clue that God’s judgment is eventually going to fall upon him.

Apparently, David had taken it upon himself, without being asked it seems, to serve as protection for Nabal’s shepherds and his flocks when they were out in the field.  David instructs his men to go and inform Nabal that “When your shepherds were with us, we neither insulted then nor harmed them the whole time they were in Carmel” (25:7b).  On the surface, this hardly seems noble, but for this, David appears to have expected some type of reward.  When Nabal heard this, his response to what he obviously perceived as extortion was “Should I take my bread and my water and my meat that I have slaughtered for my shearers and give them to these men?  I don’t even know where they came from!” (25:11)  David’s predictable response, upon being rebuffed by Nabal, was to give his men instructions to “strap on your sword” (25:13a).  He intended to bring pain and shame and cursing and exile to Nabal and his household.  This is the point at which Abigail actually enters into the story.  One of her servants told her that “These men were very good to us.  They did not insult us” (25:15a), which hardly seems worthy of reward, but nevertheless, the servant went on to tell Abigail, “nor did we sustain any loss during the entire time we were together in the field.  Both night and day they were a protective wall for us the entire time we were with them, while we were tending our flocks” (25:15b-16).  In regards to Nabal, the servant rightly feared that “disaster has been planned for our lord and his entire household” (25:17b), and urged Abigail to intercede. 

In response, Abigail “quickly took two hundred loaves of bread, two containers of wine, five prepared sheep, five seahs of roasted grain, a hundred bunches of raisins, and two hundred lumps of pressed figs” (25:18a), intending to take them to David and his men, so as to appease David’s wrath and spare her husband from the exile of death that was coming to him.  Eventually, Abigail greets David, falls at his feet, and says “My lord, I accept all the guilt!” (25:24b)  In accepting the guilt, she stands in her husband’s place, asking David for mercy, and for the sparing of the one who has become another enemy to him.  She asks to take the punishment upon herself.  At the same time, she offers the presents that she has ordered to be brought to David and says “Please forgive the sin of your servant” (25:28a).  With her gift of fruits and grains and animals, Abigail is not only functioning in the role of deliverer, rescuing her husband from David’s sword that will subjugate him to death, but she also becomes a vibrant reminder of God’s promised blessings upon His people. 

In Deuteronomy, we read about blessings upon baskets and mixing bowls (28:5), upon the produce of the soil, and upon the livestock, which is represented by what Abigail is offering to David.  She does not stop there, but goes on to tell David that “When someone sets out to chase you and to take your life, the life of my lord will be wrapped securely in the bag of the living by the Lord your God.  But He will sling away the lives of your enemies from the sling’s pocket!  The Lord… will make you leader over Israel” (25:29-30a,c).  Now Abigail has reminded David of God’s promises to him, in regards to his rule, doing so by the use of words that sound suspiciously like that which are also to be found in Deuteronomy, when Moses speaks to the people of God’s promise to cause His people’s enemies to flee (28:7), while also making them “the head and not the tail” (28:13), and making sure that they always end up at the top and not at the bottom (28:13). 

David had been about to take it upon himself to stand in the role of one whom God uses to bring the curse upon His people, rather than being the king and deliverer for which purpose his ordination had come.  Not only does Abigial deliver Nabal from David’s sword, but she is also used to deliver David from, as he would say in quoting the words of Abigail, “taking matters into my own hands” (25:33b). 

When Abigail eventually informs her husband about what David had purposed for him, and what she had done for him, “He had a stroke and was paralyzed.  After about ten days the Lord struck Nabal down and he died” (25:37b-38).  We read that “When David heard that Nabal had died,” he was reminded of God’s faithfulness---surely reflecting on the two-fold deliverance that Abigial had provided---and said, “Praised be the Lord who has vindicated me and avenged the insult that I suffered from Nabal!” (25:39a)  David insists that Nabal had attempted to insult and shame him, which is a component of exile, and David sought to return the favor, bringing exile upon Nabal.  With this turn of events, and in his speaking of vindication and the Lord’s vengeance, David employs the language of exodus (redemption, deliverance, salvation), as it was the repeated acts of exodus that would consistently demonstrate God’s vindication of His.  David recognizes that through Abigail’s sacrificial act of deliverance, that “The Lord has kept His servant from doing evil” (25:39b), and he responds by inviting Abigail to be his wife.