One of the greatest enterprising INITIATIVES shown by David was that he did not graze his sheep or feed his goats with the companionship and the comfort of togetherness with other shepherds. Simply put, DAVID DID NOT ENSCONCE HIMSELF WITH THE COMFORT OF FAMILIARITY! He fed the sheep and goats by grazing them in places fraught with the presence of lions and bears.
That courage to lead his sheep and goats among those uncertainties and challenges prepared him for the greater battles with his enemies later in Life.
The initiative shown in shepherding offered David the opportunities to show his courage and valiance. Those victories gave him the provenance to see Goliath’s temple, as the chink to be taken advantage of.
Plus his skill, in Slinging, honed in those shepherding times makes David see what others COULDN’T see & DO.
If effort is nothing, then David wouldn’t have made it as one of the icons of courage, poetic skills and an able King.
Posts tagged ‘david’
As David was ageing, Joab told David: My lord, I am your cousin and I take the liberty of this relationship to tell you that Kingdom is not easy to divide like other property. My Lord should decide who is going to rule in your stead. Again taking advantage of my relationship of an uncle to all My Lord’s sons, I should say that Adonijah would fit well. David shot back: Where does that leave Solomon? Is he not superior in all imperial skills to Adonijah?
I agree! Yes I agree, but we should consider pedigree.
Bathsheba was an adulteress once. That My Lord regularised it through breach of at least four commandments of Moses, notwithstanding.
But that is known to only three of us and only you are not the interested party, and that’s why your thoughts stray thus, said an angry David.
Abhishaag had been reporting all these conversations to Solomon, when ever he came to see his father alone.
For Solomon, that was a shock, that his mother was an adulteress. Now his fertile imagination wanted a proof as to whether Bathsheba had become a fallen woman before her marriage or after her marriage to David.
In the former case, he deduced that she ought to have been married to someone else than David his father. Adultery had not had such a low threshold then, it had to be physical. Solomon couldn’t handle that his mother had lied to him. But when no occasion arose, how could I hold it against her? , thought Solomon.
But given to nuanced thinking he thought: yeah, it was for my father David’s sake Bathsheba had committed adultery. After all who could have resisted him except Mehrab, with her princessly arrogance at a skillful upstart!
There was a pristine side to the man who gave mankind the fifty first Psalm – How to handle adultery, post-facto, with abject surrender before God. Uriah wasn’t alive for David to fall at his feet. There he surrenders to God unconditionally.
So Solomon thought: But she was an adulterer, for whose sake, didn’t matter.
There Solomon felt a certain sense of uncurious forgiveness for Bathsheba. A bonding, shiningly built on decency of a mom-son relationship.
Solomon wanted the kingdom now, not to hold power but to keep that secret between just his father David and his mother Bathsheba.
Joab has to go! Joab HAS TO GO! No IAM GOING TO SEND HIM FROM WHERE THERE IS NO RETURN!
Joab never ever returned to haunt his mother or his mind!!!!!!
What struck me as a opening remark was I WON’T KEEP YOU LONG, which is what King Henry the Eighth is supposed to have told his six wives!
The story has a certain perverse eagerness, on the part of the person who concocted the story, based on the historical fact that Henry VIII had had six queen consorts most of whom had been executed by Henry! Tharoor merely repeated, what was originally said by , the then Prime Minister TONY BLAIR, to an European delegation. Events couldn’t have unfolded as per that smart one-liner, as the reason for Henry VIII disposing of the Queens on one ground or the other was that, he believed that they were incapable of producing a male heir to the throne. As such, it must have happened after each had brought forth a female child or had gone childless for a while. So such a PREPONDERENT STATEMENT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE AT THE OUTSET OF EACH ENGAGEMENT! It appears to me as a smart concoction post facto!
It leads us to the next fact whether any of the six queens did finally produce a male heir and if so did Henry stop his UXORICIDE? Jane Seymour did gift a male child, who eventually sat as the Defender of Faith, at a tender age of ten and died six years after his ascension! The next was the daughter of his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. She also did not serve long and Elizabeth I, ascended the throne and she became the Defender of the Faith for a full four and a half decades, before James came and legitimised the work of Wycliffe through the KING JAMES VERSION, of the Protestant Bible.
So history is not a mere narration of events, it is a subtle interpretation of the events seen through the mental filters of any mind conditioned in a way either voluntarily through an ideology or events.
So when Tony Blair said that Henry told all his wives that he WOULDN’T KEEP THEM LONG, it was an expression of a newly converted Catholic, to further blacken the image of Henry the Eighth, as a demonstration of his adherence to his Catholic belief!
One of the ideas found acceptable by Absalom, when he usurped rather attempted to usurp the throne from his father David, was that he prove to the people with him, that he was irreconcilably alienated from his father David, was to indulge in sex with David, his father’s, concubines, PUBLICLY! Absalom did it publicly and proved to his followers that he cannot reconcile with his father, ever! Likewise, Tony Blair had to be judgementally insensitive to the man on whose edifice he had built his career and his being!
When Henry asked the Church of Rome for the dissolution of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, there was his contemporary, Charles the Fifth, who was the Holy Roman Emperor, who secured the Pope’s temporal interests. And this Charles V, was a nephew of Catherine of Aragon. So the Pope had to make a choice, and circumstances made him to go with the immediate geographical power which was of more immediate importance to the Pope, then.
The interesting part is that the Kingship of England, which is legitimised by the Protestant Church of England , had to suffer the barb of Tony Blair, who because of his catholic leanings, was not willing to see the Liberty gained by the English people even though they were the benevolent byproducts of the evil deeds of Henry VIII!
When Tharoor repeated the quote, it must have gratified many Papists, as Henry’s role has been truly SEMINAL in the Reformatory process (called schism by the Catholic Church) of the Church if England!
Why not we look at the Pope not having granted the dissolution of the marriage between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon as another political compulsion (as Charles V was keen on keeping his aunt as the Queen consort of England)? We desire no such thought as that part of the history would have no great appeal, as there was no departure from normal human affiliations, whereas Henry’s deeds of executing 3 Catherines and two Annes stand in the way of his rehabilitation, for having secured the Liberty of the Church if England! (Btw Jane Seymour died soon after she delivered the baby boy, who became Edward VI) .
Shall we say Jane Seymour DID NOT TAKE LONG TO GIVE HENRY WHAT HE WANTED – A BABY BOY?
But Tharoor’s opening sentence itself was accusative of the moral grounds on which Doctrine of Lapse was invented by the Imperial Governors General, to sustain their hold on Indian revenues!
My dad asked me, ” Why did David try to get Michal, daughter of Saul, after he was accepted by the tribe of Judah as their king, considering the fact that she was cohabiting with another person by name Phlatiel?”
With his vast sense of righteousness and the commandment : THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, to back him, he thought he had stumped me.
I had thought it all out!
I said, IT IS NOT WHY, BUT WHEN, that we should occupy our consideration. David knew he was gypped in the case of Mehrab, when he defeated Goliath. Through his second attempt to get to be the son-in-law he gets the foreskins of the uncircumcised, and gets Michal. The RIGHT to have Michal had been sealed through performance of the bride price, and he had CONSUMMATED his relationship as his wife, yet Saul to spite him uses the old old civil death concept and gets her married to Phlatiel!
David did not go after her like Samson before him, just because his wife has been wrongly given to someone else. HIS PATIENCE COUPLED WITH HOPE made him wait till he was crowned the king at Hebron.
The TIDE TURNED.
Ishboseth asks a foolish question regarding another woman called Rizpah to his commander Abner and Abner, who was sensing the dwindling fortunes of Ishboseth, quickly abandons Ishboseth, citing the Rizpah episode as the reason.
It is at this juncture that David the shrewdest king CLAIMS HIS RIGHT TO MICHAL.
David was no fool, there is no point in being a wise one like Solomon and own an array of foreign princesses and spending his TIME on aesthetic pursuits without consolidating the foundation laid by his father David, ASSIDUOUSLY.
Nor was David a victim of the woman’s VANITY. David cared a fig for what Michal thought of David’s naked performance before his God! In fact he says that it was the same God who made him the King of Israel instead on being merely the son in law of the king! Therefore HE DIDN’T MIND LOOKING VILER IN THE EYES OF THE PRINCESS’ HANDMAIDENS!
Whereas, the biggest fool Solomon, who was running on the steam of his father David, expends the steam in the service of all those alien princesses who adorned his outward magnificence as accessories to his Kingship!
David tells Abner, get the woman Michal, for whom David had made a tally of 100 foreskins as the bride price! Abner, who was the Commander to the Army of Saul and for Abner and his brothers David had carried parched gram, figs etc. when the Giant Goliath was challenging the Israelites to send a challenger to fight him. Further, Abner was the one who once took him to Saul and recommended David as the challenger to Goliath. Abner now returns meekly and yanks the woman from the bosom of Phlatiel and “restores” Michal to David !
That’s MANLINESS OF DAVID coupled with COURAGE to withstand the guile of the woman worshiping men, and advantage seeking tantrum-ing princesses!
David KNEW WHEN TO CLAIM EVEN HIS RIGHTS! That made him the man he was, not succumbing to the sinuous, sensuous and emotional appeals of the feminine LA BELLE DAME SANS MERCI!
David was the Man, maybe Jehu comes close, but without the poetic skills or the pioneering spirit of David, though!
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. – Schopenhauer
Article 161 of the Constitution of India
161. Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases:
The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.
It is no news that the conviction and the sentence were pronounced by the Sessions Judge in Bangalore on a sitting Chief Minister of one of the major states of the country. The sentence was to have been pronounced by the court earlier on a day which was not followed by a public holiday, however for reasons best known to the Honourable judge the verdict was postponed to a day which was to be followed by a court holiday! This may not have been the intention of the Sessions Judge to pronounce the judgment on a day prior to a court’s CLOSED HOLIDAY , but it has so happened – the effect of which was that an appeal could not be filed before the higher court competent to grant relief to the convict.
My question is very ELEMENTARY – if the offence was committed in the state of Tamil Nadu and the prosecution of the offence was followed by the Tamil Nadu police and their prosecutors, does the GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA have the right to exercise the powers vested in him in terms of Article 161 of the Constitution of India?
Assuming that the Governor of Karnataka were to be vested with the powers of Art.161, does the Governor of Karnataka have the power to say that the conviction and sentence on the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu relates to “any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State (Karnataka) extends”? I think not. It would be the power of the Governor of Tamil Nadu who would have the power – simply because, if the Governor of Tamil Nadu did not have the power to pardon/commute the sentence of the convicts in the RAJIV GANDHI MURDER CASE, which was prosecuted by the CBI, merely because the TRIAL PROCEEDINGS were ordered to be conducted in a neighbouring state, the Karnataka state’s Governor would not be able to assume such powers which do not belong to his executive jurisdiction.
The reason for vesting with such powers was to grant the higher power of MERCY to the government over JUSTICE, as MERCY is a higher jurisdiction, as there is every possibility of miscarriage of justice, “reasons of state”, and also as a a protection against laws which are strictly imposed for legal reasons which may not be very reasonable, and may affect the very fabric of the state (cf. Nanavati’s case)! It is time we defined “reasons of state”!
I do not for a moment say that there has been a miscarriage of justice, neither am I authorized to say so, but when a person under oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the head of the Government were to be pushed to the predicament of having to face the verdict of her past action, the verdict could put THE COLLECTIVE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF TAMIL NADU at loggerheads with THE SENTENCE of the VERDICT! Indeed in this case, the CM of Tamil Nadu has been sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years.
In the instant case, the WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF TAMIL NADU has been downgraded unceremoniously without an opportunity of exercising respite from /suspension of the sentence, by the Governor of the state, where the offences were committed. She was straight taken to the gaol! When a constitutional provision is available for such rare occurrences, is it a must that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code should be followed so meticulously? I think not.
The head of the Government of the state of Tamil Nadu was unfortunately tried in a state, which had some serious outstanding issues like the Cauvery Water dispute, in which the then CM of TN (OPS being the present incumbent) had taken a very strident position against the state of Karnataka. That takes one to the next question – If the trial couldn’t have been fair in TN, would the trial in KA been IMPARTIAL, especially in the light of the fact that KA is ruled by a political party which has celebrated the conviction and sentence of the CM of TN?
After all, we should all remember that a Sessions Judge is under the control of the state government in which he is employed and does not have the IMMUNITIES which are enshrined & reserved in the Constitution for the High Court and Supreme Court Justices only! If the Hon’ble Supreme Court was convinced that a FAIR TRIAL was not possible in the state of TN, based on a partisan petition filed by a rival politician, was the point as to whether the trial in KA would be IMPARTIAL, also considered? I wonder if the SC considered the point!
A democratically elected CM of a state needn’t have to be cornered on a Saturday with no option for approaching a higher judicial forum where the Justices are vested with immunities against the government of the day! Even Henry VIII, whose major profession was to accuse his queens of treachery, treason and infidelity and have them executed, sent for the Hangman from Calais, who was known to MERCIFULLY use a fine sword instead of an axe, when Anne Boleyn’s time came for her neck to be laid on the block!
I would like to narrate an episode from the Bible to illustrate my point: the first king of Israel, SAUL was defeated by the Philistines and to circumvent the ignominy of being dragged in the mud and then being killed painfully and ignominiously, Saul planted a spear and leaned on it and he is supposed to have died (I Samuel Ch. 31) but from the account narrated by an Amalekite to David (who became the Second king of Israel), Saul was still alive and that the Amalekite was requested by the moribund Saul, to kill him and the Amalekite claimed to David that he indeed killed Saul and had brought Saul’s Crown and Saul’s bracelet for David. David asks him one withering question at 2 Samuel Ch.1 v. 14 : HOW WAST THOU NOT AFRAID TO STRETCH FORTH THINE HAND TO DESTROY THE LORD’S ANOINTED?
I don’t for a minute say that a Chief Minister of a State is an “anointed” person, much less when NO POLITICAL CHIEF, (which means the prime minister or any of the Chief Ministers) has been included in Article 361 of the Constitution of India, which expressly provides immunity to the President of India and all Governors of the states against institution or continuation of criminal proceedings during the term of their office! Yet the Chief Minister who had won an election in her own name and might and had very recently mopped up 37 Members of Parliament seat out of the total 39 of the state of Tamil Nadu deserved at least a bleak chance at the judicial and executive remedies available in the Constitution of India!
Therefore, our judicial system should not be following AMBUSH JUSTICE of first instance, where all options for judicial remedy and executive remedy are foreclosed and the convicted CHIEF MINISTER is forced to languish and labour under the verdict of a court of first instance, located in a HOSTILE CONTIGUOUS state.
MERCY is above JUSTICE and let us make NO mistake of it.
The trouble with most of the Christian preachers is that they do not highlight the passages in the Bible which reflect COURAGE, EXECUTION OF ONE’S DUTY, ASTUTENESS and WISDOM; instead they parrot those passages which are aimed at making “SHEEP” out of men and women who listen to those sermons.
The reason, I presume, is that WEALTH over COURAGE has become the priority of the Preachers. When the followers are wealthy, they could use Malachi 3:10 and skim them of the cream and lead those smug lives.
One of the Biblical characters whom I admire most is JEHU, the Commander of the Israel army during the reign of AHAB and AHAB’S son JORAM (JEHORAM). and who subsequently became the King of Israel. Jehu was not merely courageous but astute and wise as well. These are difficult qualities to blend. JESUS says, BE WISE LIKE A SERPENT BUT INNOCENT AS A DOVE. That was a blend recommended by JESUS, seldom one hears these being expatiated in the sermons, as the Preachers know that if their followers become “wise as serpents” but also “innocent as doves” the followers would reach their SALVATION without ENRICHING THE PREACHERS! So such passages are left out, in the belief that the “wise” are anyway going to become wise and innocent on their own without their “help”.
JEHU fits the bill of having been WISE LIKE A SERPENT but also INNOCENT LIKE A DOVE. How could I say that when he committed regicide and also “reginacide”? Read on and I assure you that I have my reasons for such a conclusion:
II Kings 9
30 And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.
31 And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace, who slew his master?
32 And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs.
Ahab, the husband of JEZEBEL was dead and his son JORAM (JEHORAM) was ruling Israel in Ahab’s stead. The Queen Mother was JEZEBEL and exerting much influence in the affairs of the state of Israel. I would like to tell those readers who are not familiar with the political structure as it was then that the original Israel of 12 tribes had split during the reign of Rehoboam S/o SOLOMON into Israel consisting of 10 tribes and Judah consisting of the 2 tribes of Judah and Benjamin. So AHAB was in that line of the Kings who ruled Israel minus the 2 tribes of Judah and Benjamin and for brevity called JUDAH the kingdom.
JEHU was one of the commanders of the army of AHAB and later served his son Joram, but JEHU was a believer in the God of Israel, whereas Jezebel was a worshiper of BAAL and this had led to a lot of internecine manoeuvrings within the kingdom.
To come back to the thread of the story, Jehu kills JORAM and rides to the palace in JEZREEL, then the capital city of ISRAEL. So JEZEBEL sees JEHU riding into the palace and she “painted her face and tired her her” to receive JEHU and when her offer of PEACE was rejected outright, Jezebel asks him a very LOADED QUESTION; “HAD ZIMRI PEACE? THE MURDERER OF HIS MASTER”
With a little help from 1 Kings 16:15-20 we would be able to understand the connotation!
So here JEZEBEL from the upper floor of the palace addresses JEHU and tells him to recall the fate of ZIMRI and how people would rebel against his regicide and turn against him and kill him. Jezebel had lost her son/step-son JORAM and is still finding time to paint her face and tire her hair- is it because she, as having got used to her regal ways had to present herself ‘beautified’? I guess not. She had lost Ahab and was continuing her life unaffected with her son Joram and now that JORAM was dead her motto must have been THE KING IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE KING – THE NEW KING JEHU. But inter-se between Jezebel and Jehu she wanted to have CONTROL OVER Jehu, so that her writ would continue to run in the kingdom.
JEHU, tells the eunuchs in the palace to throw her down and JEZEBEL meets her match and end in the hands of JEHU. In effect what JEZEBEL told JEHU was YOU COULD HAVE KILLED THE KING, BUT TILL YOU TAKE OVER THE INSTITUTIONS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE KINGDOM, YOU CANNOT EXERCISE CONTROL AND ADMINISTRATION OVER THE KINGDOM. AND I, JEZEBEL, HAVE CONTROL OVER THE ADMINISTRATION TAKE ME AND ALL IS YOURS AND YOU, JEHU, DO NOT HAVE TO FACE THE FATE OF ZIMRI. IF YOU, JEHU, WANT PEACE, THEN MAKE ME YOUR QUEEN! I AM ALL DOLLED UP AND WAITING…….TAKE ME AND WE CAN RUN THE KINGDOM!
This was nothing but SEDUCTION, not all sexual but POWER flavoured with sexual innuendo.
Why was Jehu wise? Jehu DID NOT ENTER the palace, but stood outside. There could have been TREACHERY inside and JEHU was aware of Abhimelechs and Siseras who had met sordid end by getting too close to the tower or inside the tents where women were staying!
THAT WAS THE SERPENT LIKE WISDOM IN JEHU. Yet at the same time he bided his time till he was anointed so that he could take over the reins of Israel. In the BIBLE, the only person who was assured kingship to heirs till the fourth generation was JEHU, not even DAVID was able to retain all the 12 tribes beyond the third i.e David, Solomon and Rehoboam!
But why was that so? A man who wants to be the king should be away from the wiles of wayward women. JEHU succeeded where even DAVID failed and history shows that. That SEXUAL INNOCENCE coupled with the WISDOM to wait and choose the most opportune time to strike makes JEHU a bigger hero than DAVID, but DAVID is incomparable as he makes up with his humility, ability to obtain the Grace from God, poetic talent and cunning!
In INDRA NAGAR, Bangalore there is a very popular church among Christians by name Full Gospel Assemblies of God, the chief pastor being one Paul Thangiah. He speaks forcefully and i like listening to him! I do not go to his church as fundamentally the beliefs subscribed to by FGAG is contrary to my belief system. However, as a Christian who is open minded and listen to the various interpretations of the Bible, i am not averse to listening to his sermons. Pastor Paul Thangiah is a forceful speaker and appears to believe in the brand of Christianity which places a lot of emphasis on personal epiphany of Christianity.
What is PERSONAL EPIPHANY OF CHRISTIANITY?
Well when Paul of Tarsus, was on his way to Damascus armed with letters for persecution from the Synagogue of Jerusalem, he was struck with blindness and subsequently converted to Christianity and also cured of his blindness through the prayers of one Annanias of Damascus. This personal intervention of Jesus was cited by Paul to be the reason for his choice by Christ himself, for him to become the Apostle of the Gentiles. Good luck to his beliefs! The brand of Christianity which Paul spread through his ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES is still seen as the model to be emulated by some Christians. Paul Thangiah belongs to that class of Christians who believe in the CHURCH ORGANIZATION more than eternal personal vigilance to be a Christian of DEEDS. This i believe, should also exist, as without an ORGANIZATION there is no way Christianity would be ably represented in POLITICAL FORA. But this Sunday, i heard Pastor Paul Thangiah speak of some junior pastors who are supposed to be working against the Church leadership of his FGAG. Those are internal issues a i have nothing against it, nor should i have and therefore i have no issues against it.
However, he compared those rebellious minded pastors to that of Joab , the Commander-in-Chief of the army of David, the king of Israel. Joab killed Abner, the Commander-in-Chief of Saul. Abner had met David privately, and had assured David of bringing the tribes of Benjamin and others under the authority of David. It is not clear from the Bible, if that was to be brought about through a rapprochement between Ishbosheth and David, or through betrayal of Ishbosheth by Abner. In any case, before such an arrangement could take effect, Joab kills Abner citing avenging the earlier killing of Joab’s brother by Abner. Later, Joab supports Adonijah in his succession efforts, but gets upstaged by the cleverness of Bathsheba and Solomon, is made King of Israel. As per Solomon, his father David at the time of his death had told Solomon that Shimei and Joab should not be allowed to have a natural death, as the former had insulted David while David was fleeing the takeover bid of Absalom and the latter, as Joab had shed blood during peace time by killing Abner.
If there was one person who was loyal to David, it was Joab, as he was firstly a blood relative to David, their mothers were sisters! In Bathsheba’s matter, it was he who carried out the orders of David in executing Uriah, so that David could legitimize his relationship with Bathsheba. Moreover, there is at least one instance wherein Joab sent for David just before taking over a city in a battle, so that David could have the GLORY and not him (Joab). Joab’s advice to David after the death of Absalom is laudable. So to malign Joab is merely falling into the HISTORY WRITTEN BY THE VICTOR. Since Solomon’s elder brother was supported by Joab and as Joab probably had the letter of David sent for setting up Uriah, Solomon’s mother’s first husband, Solomon MUST HAVE BEEN KEEN on eliminating Joab and therefore USED DAVID’S NAME TO JUSTIFY SOLOMON’S ACTS!
Pastor Paul Thangiah uses the symbol of Joab, to describe the pastors who had probably undermined his authority in FGAG. This seems to be without a proper parallel. Pastor Paul Thangiah’s outburst was interesting- at least it showed how offended he was by others’ deeds.