A Double Dog Dare Gone Horribly Wrong

Now Nahash the Ammonite came up and besieged Jabesh-gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, "Make a covenant with us and we will serve you."  But Nahash the Ammonite said to them, "I will make it with you on this condition, that I will gouge out the right eye of every one of you, thus I will make it a reproach on all Israel."  The elders of Jabesh said to him, "Let us alone for seven days, that we may send messengers throughout the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to deliver us, we will come out to you." (1 Samuel 11:1-3 NASB)

They said to the messengers who had come, "Thus you shall say to the men of Jabesh-gilead, 'Tomorrow, by the time the sun is hot, you will have deliverance.'" So the messengers went and told the men of Jabesh; and they were glad.  Then the men of Jabesh said, "Tomorrow we will come out to you, and you may do to us whatever seems good to you."  The next morning Saul put the people in three companies; and they came into the midst of the camp at the morning watch and struck down the Ammonites until the heat of the day. Those who survived were scattered, so that no two of them were left together. (1 Samuel 11:9-11 NASB)

There is a sense of the barbaric in that this Nahash wants to gouge out an eye of every towns person.  And then there's this sense of "honor" in that he allows them to send for help.  The false sense of honor is that this is an affront to the people of Israel.  Nahash is taunting them, daring anyone to stop him.  He is confident that they will do nothing and let him be barbaric.  He's a terrorist, a bully, totally confident in his own power to do whatever he wants to anyone.  It doesn't say how many he brought with him, but it wasn't enough.

Saul summons the people in a rather brutal fashion as well, with a threat, although not involving gouging out an eye.  When the terror of God falls on them, 300,000 show up along with 30,000 of Judah (I don't know why they're numbered separately).  Saul splits them into three companies, and marches to help Jabesh.  In the morning they totally rout Nahash and not one of his men is left with another as they are scattered.

The lesson I take from Nahash is that such people do exist.  Perhaps the venue is different today, I may find them at work, but not gouging out eyes.  Perhaps the threat is different, but the attitude remains: totally self-confident that nothing can stop their trampling of others.  What I learn about my Master here is that He does not tolerate such people.  I learn that He calls His people to fearlessly stand against such threats, and aggressively attack and defeat them.  That last part may not sit well with people, but consider the story again.

When Saul summons the people as he does, the "dread of the LORD fell on the people," and they came, not to stand in front of Jabesh but to attach Nahash and destroy his army.  There has been discussion among believers as to when do we stand against the Nahash's of our world, and when do we fight; something called a Christian Manifesto.  I have avoided such talk and discussion because it's uncomfortable, and I think people use it as an excuse to be violent; to justify bad behavior.  On the other hand, I believe there are times when it is necessary.

I know the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, and neither are our "enemies".  But I also understand that this "warfare" is a spiritual battle, mostly regarding the defeat of sin in my life.  This is a different situation.  Here, the battle was carnal/temporal/physical in setting, and it was still a mandate from my Master.  I have to accept that sometimes my Master calls me and my fellow servants of Jesus to fight temporal/physical battles.

Again, the venues may be different, the weapons my be different, but the concept of standing versus attacking remains.  I believe that sometimes attack is warranted, not because I want to be violent.  I believe it's warranted when my Master wants to use me to remove something hindering Him and His plan.  I don't believe He can't remove it without me, but if He wants to use me, it now becomes about obedience. 

And so I'm clear here, in this context, the people did not break the law.  This is where I sense many "manifesto" discussions go off the rails.  They end up looking for an excuse to fight the government or others in violation of the laws of the land.  I don't think that's what my Master leads us to do.  Perhaps, one day, when my country's leaders begin to persecute the servants of Jesus, then I may violate laws to protect my fellows, but it won't be to attack those in power with guns and bombs.  I don't see that path in the response of the early church to persecution by Rome.

The venues of this application I believe are in defense of my family, my church, and my fellow servants of Jesus. And the application is that I actively engage in the arena where the danger appears.  If city hall, then in their meetings; if in business, then in business; if in schools, then schools; wherever the threat appears, I believe I should engage rather than simply stand.  Now, where's my torch and pitch fork, I have some monsters to hunt; who's with me?