Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Posts tagged ‘saul’

Voltaire on King David!


Voltaire on King David

David, who sometimes possessed a conscience tender and enlightened, at others hardened and dark.

When he has it in his power to assassinate his king in a cavern, he scruples going beyond cutting off a corner of his robe—here is the tender conscience. He passes an entire year without feeling the slightest compunction for his adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah—here is the same conscience in a state of obduracy and darkness.”

Did Voltaire miss the point? Or was he just being too kind to David?

If he had missed the point, how could he have explained the murder of his father in law to Michal – his princess wife?

What explanation could David have given to Jonathan – David’s brother in law and soul mate?

Most of all, how could David have had the whole of Israel – especially the tribe of Benjamin, after a murder of their anointed King?

Abner would have still been there after the murder of King Saul, would Abner have left Ishboseth, like Abner did later, on the flimsy grounds of Rizpah?

David was a consummate politician, whose sharp political acumen has been camouflaged by the devotion and humility expressed In the Psalms, ascribed to him. Was Voltaire also a victim of such positioning?

At best one could arrive at a conundrum as to how a man, so selfishly sharp been so devoted to God, not merely to a personalised God, but a God who had unequivocally proclaimed through Moses & other prophets that Righteousness in human conduct was prime?

In King David one arrives at a conclusion that the apparently incompatible traits could be harmonised with wisdom and relentless energy, but can hardly be a prescription to a common man.

Was David keeping Mephiboseth close by, to ensure that the fissiparous elements don’t rally behind him; or was David merely keeping his word given to Jonathan?

If the latter, when Mephibosheth’s servant Ziba accused Mephibosheth of treachery, why didn’t David not forgive Mephibosheth fully? In fact towards the end, after seeking clarification from Mephibosheth, David tells Zeba and Mephiboseth to divide Mephibosheth’s holdings equally!

Worse still is the specious reasoning in killing the children of Rizpah, I can’t imagine a God who would justify the reasoning forwarded in the context of the Gibeonites!

David left nothing to chance, wherever he could, he did something, and sometimes deploying even the name of God very efficiently.

Is that the reason why Jesus doesn’t prefer Himself to be called Son of David? I am inclined to think so – his life was hardly edifying and definitely not emulatable!

A greater scrutiny of what David did, would not have withstood the standards prescribed under the New Testament.

Mehrab & Michal


Michal came running breathlessly and barged into the room of Mehrab and gaspingly said: Hi Sis, did you know that the curly ruddy boy called David, had killed Goliath? And daddy has promised your hand to anyone who killed Goliath. So lucky! Women and girls, all over the cities, towns and villages, are screaming that David had killed his ten thousands and our dad his thousands! You would be lucky to be married to a courageous and capable person like David! “

Mehrab chid Michal and said, “Are you out of your mind? These are promises made by Kings before winning. Once the battle of won, Dad wouldn’t waste his time in keeping his promises. In any case who wants to get married to a skilled shepherd? No breeding and he wouldn’t know how to treat a princess. We are princesses and the whole Israel is looking up to us, why should we surrender to mere skill? Skill is at our beck and call. And you say that he belongs to the Tribe of Judah, which in any case might carry the traits of the tribe – unsophisticated and forceful. But tell me, Michal, does not our tribe of Benjamin have the best slingers? So why should dad have nominated that shepherd boy for the contest?”

Michal was surprised at the impudence of her sister and asked Mehrab, “So what is it that you want?”

Have you seen Adriel? That sophisticated Son of that nobleman Barzilai, who financed our dad in his campaigns? That Adriel, whom we met the other day in one of those dinners before dad went on a campaign to Philistia. He just captivated my heart with his suave manners and polished talk- why would i marry a slinging shepherd?

Michal interjected and said, “But you see David is courageous and took on a man twice his size and an established champion of the sinewy Gathites! And do you know Sis: David cut off his head with Goliath’s own sword and brought it to dad, as proof. He can protect us from any other man.”

Mehrab said, “Us?” That’s just the duty of the many soldiers who maintain our security in service of our Dad, are you getting carried away by that ruddy fellow? Be careful of these rough and tough types, Princess are safe in houses of wealth, not in a house of swords!”

Michal was relieved and happy, she told Mehrab: “So if you are not going to accept David, let me be the trophy for his victory over Goliath.”

Mehrab said, “Go get your head checked, where is the need for all of this excitement? We have our brother Jonathan and he would be the king after our dad, would he be pleased to have a shepherd boy as his brother in law or would he prefer a nobleman like Adriel? If you want, you can have David.”

Meanwhile Michal had been spreading the word that she was besotted with David and had, during one of those dinners told her dad Saul that Mehrab doesn’t want to marry that David whom she calls a ‘shepherd boy’! Saul was so proud of Mehrab, what a true blue princess daughter, but nevertheless asked Mehrab, “but i had promised my daughter in marriage to the Victor of that battle with Goliath!”

Mehrab said: Dad, you had promised only a daughter, Michal is all in for that slinging shepherd, and let out a guffaw.

Saul was relieved, but he wanted to take full advantage of that alliance. Meanwhile Jonathan was also getting friendly with David and each day, Jonathan was taking an invisible step away from his father’s throne, whereas David was inching his way to Saul’s throne. Saul could sense that and was apprehending that David, who could withstand him, despite his kingship, would definitely decimate Jonathan. But how could Saul convey to Jonathan that David should be used for the state’s purpose in the name of institutional duties, but all credit should be channelised to the personal credit of the King and his family? Despite his best efforts, Jonathan wouldn’t understand and Saul saw that he was ranged against two from his own household – Michal and Jonathan. Saul noticed that Jonathan was even informing of the decisions taken by his father, which were meant to secure the kingdom for Jonathan. How to make a perverse son understand that as a Prince he has to keep himself above affections and do promptly those which have to be done. In exasperation Saul when he found that Jonathan had sneaked Saul’s resolve to terminate David, called his own son: “Thou son of a perverse and rebellious woman” – but not without a reason, all because Jonathan thought that he loved David as his own soul, but the fact was Jonathan forgot that he was the crown prince and David could be his only challenger other than Adriel, and Ishbosheth from Saul’s family!

The imperious Mehrab was right, David knew where to keep his relationships.

Michal, another princess and wife to David, scolds David for having danced naked like a vain man when the Ark was being restored, the unparalleled KJV captures the imperious indignation of a princess thus:

How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

And David’s answer is no less withering:

It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD.

Saul and Mehrab saw it coming, Michal got carried away, but continued to live out her life as a reclaimed spouse of David; and Jonathan was a fool! Fool not because he frittered away his opportunity by not letting his father Saul, who knew the machinations of David, settle scores with David; if Esau sold his birthright for the ruddy porridge, Jonathan offered himself as a sacrifice in the altar of the brilliance of David, much before the succession battles began. The fool admits to David, or so the winner writes his own story, that David would be the king and begs for mercy much before it was due! Read the following and wonder why a prince who is helping a fugitive, beg the fugitive for being merciful to not only him but to his generations later?

And thou shalt not only while yet I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not:

But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth.

Despite all these so called covenants, what happened in a dispute between Mephiboseth and Ziba, his servant? David without wanting to ascertain the facts, divides all the properties of Mephiboseth equally and his servant Ziba walks away with one half! Ishboseth the other son of Saul, when betrayed by Abner, did this covenant come in the way of David restoring to Ishboseth his kingdom? No, never. David plays to the gallery by executing cruelly the two servants who behaved Ishboseth!

Because, David was a man who wanted to be the King and he had it in him to take prompt action he was not carried away by vain purposeless words. But Jonathan and Michal lived in a state of “entitlement” – entitled to the kingdom, by virtue of their father, but David believed that if one wants to rule, he has to have his hands strengthened by war. Read Psalm 144 – and God strengthens one’s hands by taking one through a series of challenges and unless one submitted to each of those processes, there would be no substance and permanence to his ability to face challenges and achieve.

Like Jeremiah puts it poignantly:

If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses?

Jonathan was wearied when he ran with footmen, how could he have run with horses? David perennially strengthened himself by running with horses and outran every horse and every mare! Redeemed his name from those sullying infractions which he had committed for timely benefits; and trusted in himself and gave all glory to God!

So the story of the Princesses ends in the most confusing note: the factual biblical contradictions are reconciled through minor factual tweaking. Whether Michal has children of her own or whether Mehrab died leaving behind five sons, to whom Michal became the adopted mother – needs much better reconciliation. In a gist, Saul lost his connection with God and his daughter Michal and son Jonathan worked at cross purposes with that of their father Saul and it became a ‘house divided’ – in Jesus’ terms, so HOW COULD IT STAND?

Goliath’s sword!


Soon after the victory in the battle with the Philistines had established the slinging skills of David, David was hoping that Mehrab would be offered.

Mehrab was not one to give herself to a shepherd boy who, no doubt had skills but lacked in pedigree. Mehrab had her own exalted notions of her nobility – a Nobility built in one generation, after Saul had abandoned his search of the donkeys and serendipitously found his way to kingship!

David has his own plans. He had no pretensions, even if he had, that was about his achievements based on his skills. A man who honed his skills in the lean hours of his uncool profession – keeper of a few sheep, in Jesse’s words!

Yet, Time, which is common to all mankind, was put to use with a fervent hope that some day those skills, which were assiduously built in those lean hours, would redeem him from shepherding those few sheep.

David met those challenges – more than halfway. The dead lion and the bear bore testimony to his courage and skill. He had embellished his curriculum vitae with valorous deeds – indelible in his own mind. There were no witnesses, when David talks of his achievements before Abner and King Saul, his proof is not based on witnesses, but his own memory and his capability to repeat, if challenged.

David’s trophy was to be the daughter of the King. Mehrab was disinclined, Michal steps in. Michal was no less imperious than her sister, but she saw in David what Mehrab couldn’t see. Michal saw in David, how David filled in the void created by Saul. Saul, the anointed, didn’t want to engage with the Champion of the Philistines. Saul was looking for someone who could defeat Goliath and rescue the Israelites from slavery- that was the King’s job, but there must have been two reasons for avoiding a fight with Goliath.

Firstly, as a king he didn’t want to engage with a mere Champion. A loss would ensure that the whole kingdom, however fledgling it might have been, would have gone lock stock and barrel.

Secondly, Saul must have felt inadequate to fight Goliath.

Besides all this, the failure of Saul was that there was an inordinate delay in either challenging Goliath himself or setting up another person. Saul couldn’t find a man in his service to fight Goliath- not only that a person has to be willing, but in a fair assessment, the person should be an equal. None was found in Israel and Abner was in as much quandary as his King.

That’s where David steps in. David’s credential’s were his own claims of having killed a lion and a bear. I am sure Saul would not have believed all his claims without proof. As per History in the Book of Judges, the Benjamites were the tribe which had the best slingers – they could sling up to a hairbreadth of the target – so the Bible says, and here we have a king from the tribe of Benjamin assessing the capability of a Judahite, in slinging! Reasonably it could be assumed that David was aided by Saul to fight Goliath only after testing the slinging skills of David. The Benjamite Saul must have been overly impressed.

Skill without courage would be a non sequitur! To show courage and execute one’s skills in the face of a formidable challenge is God’s grace. The mind needs to be focused on what is to be done and not buffeted by the negative possibilities. Even if Goliath were to taunt David, David’s retort was courageous towards his opponent and simultaneously humble as a mortal ought to be. Like Ahab said, wisely in one of those rare instances, ‘Let not him who puts on the armour boast like one who is removing it’, David was humble.

After the victory is won, David uses Goliath’s own sword to sever the head of Goliath.

Michal is married off to David much later and that too reluctantly by Saul, after extracting his pound of foreskins. Yet David doesn’t slink away from those who never gave him the promised reward despite the task having been accomplished, yet he continues to labour.

Ŵe also know from the following chapters that the sword of Goliath was not given to David, but was in the safe custody of a priest at Nob. It is only much later David obtains Goliath’s sword from Ahimelech, there Priest at Nob & the father of Abiathar, by telling him a lie which results in the death of Ahimelech, in the hands of Doeg, the informer, at the command of Saul, and the escape of Abiathar. A cursory Reading shows that David Himself might not have been aware of the sword having been there, but we can’t say anything with David. As King Saul says: David was crafty!

Now David is restored his Sword. The sword which was in the service of Goliath, like the hounds of Actaeon, yet was used by David to sever Goliath’s own head. That very sword came back to the hands of David – the symbol of his unadulterated singular victory, which saved the Israelites from the ignominy of an un-responded challenge and the defeat by a Champion of the Philistines!

The Sword of Goliath, once it came into the hands of David, he became a force, no more an appendage in the camp of King Saul, assigned all the risky tasks to pull chestnuts for Saul and his imperious brood of daughters.

The irony of it all is that after David gets the Sword of Goliath, David goes to GATH. Look at God’s ways. I am amazed, Good sends David with the Sword of Goliath into GATH – the very place from where Goliath hailed from. God takes David to the very place where the Sword was forged. David enters Gath, in his own right with his few men. Then he moves to Moab and finally ends up with his own Tribe of Judah, where Adullam plays the host for a while.

I am amazed, except the Grace of God nothing could have taken David with the Sword of Goliath into GATH. David should be inoculated and familiarised with the terrain and people from whom his weapon had emerged.

David was no more a stranger to his own weapon about which he states thus in 1 Samuel 21:

the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.

The battle with Goliath was not won by anyone except by God, through the strengthening the hands of David. But the very trophy, GOLIATH’s SWORD was deprived by Saul, who instead of playing the King had reduced himself to a mere Manager of Israel’s resources, keeping the Sword of Goliath hidden at a nondescript Temple in Nob. What a pity. Saul’s plight was because he had become too imperious and wouldn’t listen to the words of Samuel, nor did he give honour to the division of labour as prescribed in the Scriptures.

But the Sword of Goliath, probably had to be repaired and had to be polished, where else to get it done than in GATH? Probably that thought took him there, but factually the Sword went to its own place of birth and it was re-sanctified and re-christened in GATH as David’s Sword. The taint of it having been kept wrapped in an Ephod at Nob was over.

Saul is alienated without recourse to him using his Son in law David as a troubled shooter.

David comes on his own. God remembered where Goliath’s Sword lay for years and He RESTORES IT TO DAVID, Gets IT to GATH and not for nothing David in Psalm 144 says:

1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:

2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.

God subdued David’s own people under him, by strengthening David’s hands and making them unite, to take over when Saul when died in the battle.

All started with Goliath’s Sword. Sever yourself from those masters who use you for their purposes and expose you to unwanted risky ventures. Claim your long lost trophy and get it restored and most of all WAIT ON HIM TO EXALT YOU IN DUE TIME.

Sauls would not want Davids to have Goliath’s Sword, lest people congregate with David and create dissipation of the power of Sauls.

Saul’s downfall!


Saul, the King of Israel was after David, his son-in-law. David was sore afraid of Saul, as the whole state machinery was put after David to the extent that David tells Saul’s son Jonathan ‘there is but a step between me and death’!

Even David, so wise and skilled couldn’t withstand the onslaught of the machinery that was set upon by Saul that he decided and migrated his family to the land of Moab. Before David found favour with the king of Moab, David landed up at the palace of Achish, the King of Gath, one of the conglomerates of the Philistines. David was mortally stricken when he was presented before Achish that he feigned madness, and found his escape by a disgusted Achish.

David was able to escape because he was assisted by Jonathan, the son of Saul. Had not Jonathan assisted David, in probability, Saul and Abner would have overtaken David.
Saul was so upset that none who belonged to his own tribe of Benjamin, showed him that his own son Jonathan was in league with David.
The following passage reflects the Loser in Saul.

“Then Saul said unto his servants that stood about him, Hear now, ye Benjamites; will the son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards, and make you all captains of thousands, and captains of hundred”.

Saul’s position as the King of Israel had given him the ability to apportion lands and other resources, which Saul had been whimsically apportioning among his own Tribe of Benjamin.
Saul relies on the Benjamites to inform Saul of the doings and affiliations of David. Basically, Saul expected his tribesmen to give him clue of the life of David and Saul feels that the Benjamites has let him down.

Firstly, that Saul as the King by distributing the resources of his kingdom would be able to buy the LOYALTY of people was erroneous.
Secondly, by distributing such largess to his Tribe, they were DUTY BOUND to inform Saul, was downright stupid.
Thirdly, by thinking that since David was from the other Tribe of Judah, people from Benjamin Tribe wouldn’t sympathise with David’s cause, is a loser’s premise.
Fourthly, that the intangibles like Loyalty, Insider information would be forthcoming only from because of tribal affinity is proven wrong immediately after this verse. It is an Edomite called Doeg, who sneaks on David’s meeting with Ahimelech, the priest at Nob.
It is only a person with information who can share it, irrespective of whether he was a Benjamite or not. In this case it happened to be an Edomite.
The loyalty bought with State’s resources neither got Saul the loyalty of his tribesmen nor the intelligence of the whereabouts of David.

It was this attitude of Saul, that he could BUY the loyalty & information by REWARDING HIS OWN TRIBE by distributing the State’s resources is the greatest flaw. His Tribesmen think it is a matter of RIGHT to be given that largesse. In any case, Saul was NOT PAYING anything out of his own sweat or tears or blood, which makes Saul a cheat, who is merely putting his hand into the till of the National Resources and distributing.
The down fall of Saul was immense. He was so interested in the outcome of his wars, that he went to the extent of getting a Necromancer to raise up Samuel to divine for Saul. The ominous prognosis was “to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me:” – what a terrible thing to hear, from the dead Samuel!

To submit to the limitations of a human being is the true crown of a King. To be just in the distribution of the national resources is the sceptre of righteousness. Gathering information somehow, like Saul, from the dead, takes the seeker there.
Kings beware! Power has its limitation only in two ways:
0. in its supply- when it would be cut off -is known to none.
0. One’s own mortality.

Compliant without Conviction. 


Being Compliant of an unjust law could be a necessity at times and a good strategy sometimes, but rarely both. But in the case of Gideon the Valorous, it was both a Necessity and a Strategy.
The Midianites, who were the Overlords to the Israelites, extracted tribute in the form of  agricultural produce, which probably kept the Israelites poor, with no reserves or leisure – the twin benefits of prosperous activity. Each day’s labour was expended on earning their bare livelihood.
In these hard times for the Israelites, the Overlords kept an eye on the Compliance of the rules the Midianites had made to keep the Israelites in that state of want and lack of leisure.
Seeming to be compliant yet threshing wheat near the wine press keeping his activity out of the view of the Midianites was the valorous man Gideon.
The Midianites, Amalekites and the children of the East came in multitudes like grasshoppers and entered into the labour of the Israelites and destroyed the very source of their sustenance. This impoverished the Israelites.
I can imagine what a plight it would have been when mere numbers are used to subjugate a people in their own land; depriving them of the very source of their sustenance and making them labour without pride & having to conceal their labour and the meagre rewards which accrue out of such clandestine labour, in their own lands. Can one forgive the perpetrators of such cruelty? I guess not.
I can imagine a Gideon, a valorous man, slinking and threshing his homegrown wheat in his own land, gathering the same and saving the wheat for his near and dear ones- all because he was ranged against a multitude of men who outnumbered his clan. Yet that spirit in Gideon sustained him to not give up, but toil in silence and in the dark and gather as much as possible.
When that ass seeking King Saul spared the Amalekite King Agag, much later despite Prophet Samuel’s instructions, did he recall the plight his ancestor Gideon suffered at the hands of the Amalekites? I guess not. Saul was protecting Agag the king of the Amalekites. Samuel definitely had a longer memory of how that Amalekites had attacked the Israelites from the rear, harming the women. children and the enfeebled lot on their journey to Canaan.
Even if Saul hadn’t read that history, he should have had some idea of how a valorous man like Gideon had to cower under the Overlordship of the Amalekites and should have diligently carried out the instructions of Samuel. Alas, Saul didn’t! Saul became a big man in his own eyes – rightly spotted by Samuel and questioned.
Gideon, a valorous man threshing in the dark and away from the sight of the Amalekites had a reason. The Amalekites attacked the enfeebled and the impoverished, having no MANLINESS in them nor the courage to risk and make a frontal attack on their enemies.
An Amalekite doesn’t need your land, he needs your wheat and corn- the finished products. An Amalekite doesn’t want to administer, he just needs all the resources from others.
Moses was able to identify this trait in the Amalekites very early. The Amalekites stole or used violent means to obtain the resources of others without expending any labour on it. At Rephedim, Moses anoints them as enemies of God.
If I have not yet convinced the reader about the ways of an Amalekite, look at that Amalekite who found the same Saul – who wanted to save the life of Agag the Amalekite – in a moribund state leaning on a sword in the mount of Gilboa begging the Amalekite to deliver the coup de grace on Saul. That wretched Amalekite dares to kill a King, though ostensibly at the king’s request. Who knows? There were three, one was the dying Saul, the other was that wretched Amalekite and finally, as always, the Almighty. Out of this one killed the other and very rarely God stands as a witness in such sordid human affairs – except in the case of Abel. Now that Amalekite narrates a story to David, the ultimate story teller. David, the Shrewdest King of Israel, knows better‼️ The Amalekite steals the crown and the bracelet from the dead Saul and takes it to David for a reward.
David was DAVID. Uses the opportunity to redeem his own image in front of the Israelites – especially the Benjamites but also kills the Amalekite for having dared to have been responsible for the final blow to the dying King of Israel. David remembers how to handle an Amalekite – spare them not!
So Gideon was dealing with these type of Amalekites and that needed outward compliance for SURVIVAL – that compliance was strategy.
There is another kind of compliance – Compliant so that one doesn’t take up an issue which carries no purpose.
Jesus, while in the flesh, asks Peter whether the Kings collect customs and tribute from their own children? Peter promptly answers in the negative and Jesus says something absolutely BRILLIANT and becomes Compliant of those unfair Laws, without any Conviction in what he recommended to Peter to do. Read the following:
Matt 17: 24 & 25
Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
Jesus tells Peter to pay not out of the offerings given by people or any other laboured money, but tells Peter to cast a hook and pay the money found in the mouth of the fish as tribute/ custom for Him and Peter. He demeans their greed by getting the money from a fish. 
I sense the contempt Jesus had for such unfair taxation; and the method He used to defray the tax liability was amazing. 
I see this episode as a clear proof of Compliance without Conviction. 
In keeping with His saying : Render unto God that which is God’s, and unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, that piece of money that came out of a fish’s belly, is paid out to the Caesar.
Don’t rebel when your rebellion is to no avail. Just comply WITH CONTEMPT!

Lying Vanities!


A phrase which had set my mind to explore the meaning is ‘LYING VANITIES’.
The clearest mention of this phrase occurs in Jonah’s prayer after he had been thrown out from the ship to Tarshish; swallowed by a fish; stayed inside the belly of the fish; and finally spewed out by the fish.
Does this phrase have a specific meaning? I believe it has.
I believe that one of the commandments of God in the old testament is found at Leviticus 19:
26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.

Observing Times’ is with reference to people studying patterns of human existence falling under the influence of the movement of heavenly bodies.
Firstly, one has to have sufficient knowledge of the heavenly bodies; secondly, the movements and the inter se positions of these heavenly bodies will have to be measured accurately. Upon measurement of Time & Space regarding these heavenly bodies, one has to speculate on the effects of these heavenly bodies on human beings and human affairs. Those predictions would be knowledge based.
Then there are those who are possessed by spirits, they also predict human affairs, sometimes with accuracy. The Bible says that those predictions are not prophecies, they are predictions – a mere sporadic foretelling of an event to come in the future, which mostly is within the realm of probabilities.
If one resorts to these forces, (I am not saying that these forces and these predictions are false), they may come to pass, but as human beings when we repose our Faith on such predictions and on the purveyors of such predictions, what we mentally succumb to is
1. We believe that certain things are bound to happen and they would happen anyway.
2. We believe that neither our will nor our actions would change the occurrence of these predictions
3. Through subscription to these beliefs, we repose faith on those people who indulge in those predictions, thereby undermine the power of the Almighty to alter the impossible.
At Jonah chapter 2:8 it is written:
They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.

This leads us to the question as to whether we need MERCY at all and if so to what purpose?
MERCY is a jurisdiction which chronologically falls after judgement of conviction. Mercy could be setting aside of the sentence, proroguing the sentence, commutation of sentence, or remission of the sentence.
So why do humans need Mercy?
Remorse is the feeling that envelops a mind for having done something wrong. This feeling doesn’t go away when it involves an issue that is proscribed by spiritual laws and stays as a millstone round his neck. It could be an event which had happened in his days of ignorance, nevertheless, it hangs. To remove that one needs contrition and REPENTANCE.

Mercy shown without Repentance is Grace. If the execution of the sentence after the conviction had been instantaneous, there would have been no Mercy. But Christianity presupposes that the sinner is intimated of his sins and is allowed time for repentance. But till the repentance takes place, every sinner is in a period of Grace, having no idea of his sins, persisting in those sins, which he falsely believes as right. Therefore, everyone is in a period of Grace.
Evangelist Paul, when he was still Saul and ‘breathing out threatenings and slaughter’ against Christians, may call his actions as zealous acts, but was the recipient of Grace. But when he was intimated of his behaviour of ‘kicking against pricks’, he was directed to go to stay in Damascus and for three days what he did and how God told him to wait for Ananias, was the Repentance phase. Thereafter Saul turned a new leaf and preached Christianity. He obtained Grace as an unpunished sinner and once convicted of his sins, he was pardoned/sentence commuted, we cannot know which, it was between Saul and God.
Grace is the period spent as an unpunished sinner, worthy of death yet spared in time.
This Mercy would not be available for a person who observes ‘lying vanities’. The reason being that if there is no repentance there cannot be any Mercy. Cain, when cursed by God, doesn’t repent, yet he asks for commutation of the curse. Cain didn’t forsake Mercy, as he was not observing lying vanities‼️

One should read the Old Testament Saul, the King at I Samuel Ch: 28

When Saul, the King of Israel, didn’t get any answer from God, he consulted a woman who could bring up the dead. After that incident, he couldn’t ask God for His mercy. The reason was Saul couldn’t repent or seek God’s mercy.

Judas, after his betrayal of Jesus, couldn’t obtain the Mercy, as he had used Jesus as a mere miracle performing diviner‼️ What Judas did was observing lying vanities and forsook Mercy.

The typical example would be DR.FAUSTUS. Please commiserate with me for these words of Faustus:

“FAUSTUS: But Faustus’ offence can ne’er be pardoned:  the serpent that tempted Eve may be saved, but not Faustus.
O gentlemen,
hear me with patience, and tremble not at my speeches!  Though my heart pant and quiver to remember that I have been a student here these thirty years, O, would I had never seen Wittenberg,never read book! and what wonders I have done, all Germany can
witness, yea, all the world; for which Faustus hath lost both
Germany and the world, yea, heaven itself, heaven, the seat of God, the throne of the blessed, the kingdom of joy; and must remain in hell for ever, hell.  O, hell, for ever!  Sweet friends,
what shall become of Faustus, being in hell for ever?”

(Excerpt From
The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus
Christopher Marlowe
https://itunes.apple.com/in/book/the-tragical-history-of-doctor-faustus)

Dr. Faustus through observance of lying vanities couldn’t seek Mercy nor the preceding Repentance‼️

Please read Psalms 31 verse
6: I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the LORD.

In the following passage from
Ezekiel 13:23, it is not a coincidence that vanity and divination are juxtaposed!

Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

In a gist, observing Times depletes a man of his will to stand up for something and becomes a stumbling block in seeking mercy or repenting💐💐💐

David, the shrewdest king of Israel!


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 

AMBUSH JUSTICE ON CM of TAMIL NADU!


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.

Of Leaders & Leadership!


There have been a lot of discussion and opinions strewn about Leaders and Leadership with reference to the recently concluded LIST II elections in the various states of India, especially with reference to UTTAR PRADESH.

LEADER  is a post- facto determination OF A PERSON’S LEADERSHIP.  Anointment as a leader may legitimize his decisions and also empower him, but to exhibit LEADERSHIP, he should PERFORM & DELIVER. Otherwise, like Humayun in the string of the Great Mughals, would be treated as a mere HYPHEN which connected the other two Great Mughals, Babur and Akbar!

Let me expatiate on this point through the story of DAVID & GOLIATH.

Goliath was a Philistine champion. A person who prided on his skills in a one-to-one battle. He had a spear and sword to offend, a buckler, greaves and a helmet to defend and  heckled at the Jewish forces to engage him in a duel. On the other side was the King Saul and his chief of his army Abner. So both Saul and Abner were LEADERS! But they did not want to engage, as they were too big to get into duels with single individuals and expose themselves to the vagaries of a battle. They, though were LEADERS were relying on their POSITIONAL ADVANTAGE to find a person who could win the combat, yet were not willing to engage themselves in the combat.

So SAUL & ABNER went around scouting for a suitably skilled person  to defeat GOLIATH. This was extent of the leadership by Saul. He used his KINGLY position to side-step facing a combat. He was also a trained warrior- at least after he became a King, he was trained. But ABNER was in that position as a WARRIOR only, so he should have stepped in and taken GOLIATH head on. Yet he skirted the combat and wanted somebody else to fight GOLIATH and get the Jews the victory. Their LEADERSHIP WAS CONFINED TO STRATEGY NOT ACTION!

Eventually DAVID was chosen to combat GOLIATH, I am sure DAVID must have demonstrated his skills as a slinger and Saul and Abner would have seen the advantage in sending DAVID, as  – if David’s skill worked- he would be able to finish off GOLIATH before DAVID came into the range of the spear or sword of Goliath. A good ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. Saul and Abner were great ADMINISTRATORS, but exhibited poor  LEADERSHIP qualities. 

DAVID grabs the opportunity. DAVID slings GOLIATH to his death and cuts off the head of GOLIATH with Goliath’s own sword!

DAVID DID NOT RETIRE LEAVING THE VICTORY IN THE HANDS OF THE ADMINISTRATORS! He exhibited LEADERSHIP.The women, show to Saul who the REAL LEADER was: they sang, “Saul got his thousands and David his ten thousands!”

He had earlier refused to wear the coat-mail of Saul . David relied on his own USP – SLING AND SWING THE VERDICT. He did it. That was LEADERSHIP. But still Saul and Abner were the leaders of the Jewish group. They reduced themselves to figure heads!

SIMPLE, TO BE A LEADER YOU NEED A CROWD WHICH RECOGNIZES YOU AS THE LEADER. BUT TO EXHIBIT LEADERSHIP YOU HAVE TO BE WILLING TO DIE FOR THE CAUSE.

DAVID WAS WILLING TO DIE, BUT WON THE BATTLE WITH HIS SKILLS. That makes for LEADERSHIP.

Like what Benjamin Netanyahu said, “IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK, LOOKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? A DUCK. IF IT IS FITTED WITH A NUCLEAR HEAD THEN IT IS A NUCLEAR DUCK!”

So PERFORMANCE (which means FUNCTIONS) matter. Merely calling someone a LEADER is nothing but a feudal technique of management. One should exhibit LEADERSHIP TRAITS to be called a LEADER in a DEMOCRACY.

Let us get our fundamentals right!!

HEROD & DAVID


Consolidating one’s REIGN and passing on the KINGDOM to one’s own children has been one of the greatest pre-occupations of the Emperors, Kings and Satraps.

Anyone who reads THE PRINCE by Niccolo Machiavelli, would be persuaded that the RULERS down the ages have been the most ruthless in pursuing the abovementioned objective. The title of the blog HEROD & DAVID might be, at the first look, seem as if i am likely to contrast their styles in the pursuance of the said objectives, but on the contrary this blog is aimed at comparing the deeds of the the most loved king and one of the most despised rulers of Israel.

Herod was merely a tetrarch of a part of the dominion of Israel (which was under the Roman rule), but David was a king for the whole of Israel for at least 33 years leaving out the 7 odd years he ruled from Hebron. Further, if Herod had not been the Tetrarch coinciding with the birth of Jesus, he would have merely been a footnote to history.

Herod, as per suspicions available in history, got his brother murdered and married his brother’s wife- as was the custom, to raise the seed of the dead bro! Her name was Herodias and she had a daughter Salome (the subject matter of the play by name SALOME, by Oscar Wilde). One day Salome performs a dance before Herod and naturally, Herod is very impressed with his niece’/step-daughter’s performing art,that he promises to give her anything that she desires. Salome, true to her filial duties, asks her mom Herodias to name the prize. In the meanwhile, there is a Prophet by name John the Baptist, who had been condemning Herod & Herodias’ relationship, therefore  Herod had put him in jail.

Salome. as advised by her mom Herodias, asks for the head of John the Baptist. As usual, the ruler cannot go back on his word, so promptly gets John the Baptist executed and serves his head on a platter to Salome.

STRATEGY:Every incident has to be construed as a strategy, especially when the thing sought has no apparent benefit. Herodias must have known how Herod got rid of his brother and was probably afraid that upon the daily insistence of John the Baptist, Herod might repent some day and get rid of Herodias along with his sense of guilt. She did not want the conscience of Herod awakened. Therefore getting John the Baptist killed would, besides stifling the VOICE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, secure her position in the hierarchy, even after she loses her feminine charms.

The whole Christendom despises Herod and Jesus calls him a FOX.

Let us cut back and see what  David did, to secure the kingdom for his off-springs . It was no less lethal.

Saul, the first King of Israel, dies in the battle and his son Ishbosheth ascends the throne, but not for the whole of Israel, as David rules a part of Israel, from Hebron for 7 years. There was a tribe(?)/people from Gibeon who were not a part of Israel but were in the midst of Israel. These Gibeonites were slain by Saul (II Samuel chap.21 ), and in any case were waiting for settling scores with the house f Saul. There was a famine in Israel for 3 years, and David asks God the reason for the famine. Thankfully for David, God says that it is because of what Saul did to the Gibeonites that the famine was upon Israel. Now the time came for the Fox to give judgement on the chicken. The Gibeonites were asked what David shud do, so that they bless Israel and the famine depart. Predictably, the Gibeonites ask of 7 sons of Saul to be handed over to them for them to kill those sons.

David is the sole authority to decide as to which 7 children of Saul to be handed over. David leaves out Mephiboseth s/o Jonathan (s/o Saul) on the grounds that David had sworn to geal mercifully with Jonathan’s house. In any case Mephiboseth was not a threat to David as he was lame in foot and was kept in David’s palace, so that none could rally around him and stake kingship!

David in a masterstroke hands over the two sons of Rizpah and 5 sons of Michal. Rizpah was the concubine of Saul and was a spunky woman. But Michal was spunkier. Michal had been betrothed to David for 100 foreskins ( that means this item could be had only from an uncircumcised non-abrahamite) but later married off to another man. Like a lion that kills the cubs of the lioness that had littered thru another lion, before fathering its own cubs, David eliminates all the children of Michal. Whether they were her children or not, is not clear from the Bible, as it also says that Michal did not conceive- whether after she was brought to David or before is a conundrum!

STRATEGY: Michal was King’s daughter and David was the king, therefore there was every reason for the Israelites to rally around the doubly ROYAL SEED, if any!!! So eliminate them and pave way for his children thru other women only.

Even today justice is given in the name of God. Aurangzeb eliminated his opponent brothers thru the due process of Justice. Dara Sikoh was executed by Aurangzeb, on legal principles.

Susima, the elder brother of Ashoka the Great, also did to Ashoka, what Dara did to Aurangzeb (instigating the father against the son). In due course both Aurangzeb and Ashoka got their brothers executed. But history highlights the fratricide of Aurangzeb and glosses over the fratricide of Asoka.

Likewise, David’s acts of killing the children/grand-children of the previous king Saul is glossed over, but the act of Herod of killing John the Baptist is highlighted in history.

The reason is simple David and Ashoka repented and showed their contrition towards the latter part of their lives. But Herod was arrogant till the end, and Aurangzeb was glorifying his self-righteousness, instead of showing CONTRITION.

“JUDGE NOT A MAN, TILL HE IS DEAD” , says the Wise One.

ACCORDINGLY, WE JUDGE THE REPENTANT ONES FAVOURABLY, BUT THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND THE WICKED WE DESPISE , AND ALSO GIVE NEGATIVE PUBLICITY.

Tag Cloud