The Value of Friendship, and Moralism.

In the Old Testament section of the Bible, there is a story of two young men, David and Jonathan, whose friendship had become the flagship of what companionship should be like, a yardstick for all other relationships to look upon and emulate.

David and Jonathan.

Jonathan was the son of King Saul, the first king of Israel whom God appointed with the anointing of oil by the seer, Samuel. One day, God instructed Saul through the mouth of Samuel to slay all the Amalekites - men, women, adolescents, children, and infants - and all their livestock - their sheep, cattle, donkeys, camels, and any other domesticated beast which were counted as their property.

Just to diverge here, this is a prime example of a story that would give the atheist a good reason to discredit the historicity of the Bible and to deny the existence of "a loving, benevolent, caring God." Why would God want to snuff out the lives of a non-Jewish nation, especially children? This is the question put out by such unbelievers daily, especially through YouTube, and watched by millions. And I feel my spirit grieve as the Bible is ridiculed on a national basis. And little wonder why we are in the present political, health and economic mess? Therefore, I'll go into some detail here.

According to 1 Samuel 15:2, the Amalekites were to be punished for attempting to wipe out Israel from the land just after crossing the Red Sea during their exodus from Egypt, as recorded in Exodus 17:8-16. Then in verse 16 itself, God promises to be at war with the Amalekites into the future, from generation to generation.

With such a nature of the story, it's little wonder that this is throwing fuel into the atheist's fire! When a "loving, benevolent, caring God" orders the destruction of men, women, children and infants, the latter having no idea of their nation's history and therefore, had no part in a battle that had taken place hundreds of years before any of them were born, I can't help but step back in shock! Yet, God still pronounced them guilty - guilty of their attempt to annihilate the ancient Israelites centuries earlier. How could a "loving, benevolent, caring God" do a thing like that?

With the added instruction to slay all their livestock - domesticated animals owned by the Amalekites in the same way as a modern farmer would keep sheep and cattle - why they too must pay for the sins of their long-gone human owners, it's a mystery to anyone who has an open mind. As with anyone with some rational thinking, this was one of several issues I had to wrestle with when reading the Bible. As with the issue with the bottles as discussed in my last blog, along with Balaam the prophet and the talking donkey (Numbers 22:21-41) and how a shadow on a sundial managed to move backwards (2 Kings 20:1-11) - and then I wonder why an Amalekite child was slain in mass bloodshed while, more than a thousand years later, Jesus blessed little children and declared that the Kingdom of God was theirs.

Indeed, by first sight, the atheist and the sceptic would have a field day! This, along with how a barge the size of Noah's ark can hold all the species of land animals that had ever existed, dinosaurs included, would make me embarrassed to be a Christian, would it not? Especially when both Jesus Christ and the Apostles had endorsed the historicity of such events. And then the cartoon version of Noah's Ark is presented looking like a rather skimpy bathtub incapable of carrying any large number of beasts.

Going back to the Amalekites, why did God have such an issue with them? What was it about them that had made the Almighty decide to terminate their existence at the hands of King Saul?

There is a need to go back to the beginning. According to Genesis 36:12, the father of the Amalekite nation was Amalek, the grandson of Esau. Esau was the twin brother of Jacob (renamed Israel) and grandsons of Abraham. Esau, who was the firstborn of the two brothers, was also the favourite son of his father Isaac, and he wanted to give his older son a special blessing. But Isaac's wife and mother of the boys, Rebekah, had a preference for Jacob, and she wanted him blessed instead of Esau. By using deception, Jacob was able to fool his elderly father who was already blind through age. In Esau's absence, Jacob stole both Esau's birthright and blessing. Furious with rage after finding out that his younger brother had stolen the blessing originally intended for him, he set his mind to kill him after the death of their father.

Rebekah, sensing the emergency, sent her favourite son to exile from his own family, to live with his uncle Laban, several days journey away. At his uncle's tent, Jacob married both of Laban's daughters, Leah and Rachel, and between them, along with their concubines, he fathered twelve sons who grew up to be the heads of twelve tribes of Israel. Meanwhile, Esau had children by three wives, and one of them became the grandmother of Amalek, whose descendants were an offshoot from the fledgling nation of Edom, of which Esau was the founding father.

It was the Amalekites who were most determined to destroy Israel in revenge for Isaac's blessing stolen from them. Being a stronger warrior people, they posed a real threat to Israel. As soon as the Israelites had crossed the Red Sea on their way to the Promised Land, they were immediately attacked by the Amalekites. It took a miracle of God through Moses for Israel to finally defeat Amalek.

Noah's Ark is brought to ridicule by atheists.

And so, with Amalek defeated under the hand of King Saul after centuries of invasion and attack, the Hebrew monarch approaches Samuel with a greeting, expecting praise from the seer. When instead, the king was rebuked for keeping some of the animals for sacrifice, he was shocked, and even more so after receiving news that he and his son Jonathan were rejected from founding Israel's royal dynasty.

Why have I got into so much detail on Israel's hostile relationship with Amalek? To show that the general historic value recorded in the Bible is well within credibility, thus, an answer to the atheist and the sceptic's mockery, so widely broadcast on the Internet. The Bible reveals what human nature is like, and details both friendship and enmity with an equal realistic scope, so true to life today. Also, as one who loves Israel, having spent up to 22 weeks of my life in the Holy Land, I hope this may provide a plausible answer to the atheist's scepticism and mockery. And so, a strong bond exists between a royal prince and a shepherd's son.

I have read that the friendship between David and Jonathan could be regarded as a bromance. A bromance is an asexual but strong friendship between two people of the same gender. Both partners are heterosexual, with Jonathan quite likely already married and having a son, Mephibosheth.

As the Bible also says that the friendship between two or more men is like the sweet fragrance of the oil which flows down Aaron's head. A poetic way of saying that friendship is pleasing to God. However, during my younger days of the 1970s, all I had to do was to visit the sauna suite at our local leisure centre, and it's more than likely that I exit the building with someone I had befriended whilst bathed. And he would offer me a lift home which was only a short distance away. With such kindness taken into consideration, I felt that it was right to invite him into my apartment for coffee and a chat. 

The friendship between us may last for several weeks, even months. Then, one evening, he drops a hint that he's interested in those bits and pieces beneath my waistline and hidden by my trousers. Despite my own gullibility coming from innocence, I still insisted that I wasn't interested, and that ended the friendship.

In the 1970s in particular, that sort of approach occurred frequently. And not only locally, but they occurred whilst backpacking Italy in 1975, Israel in 1976, and the USA during both 1977 and 1978. And right throughout those occasions, I was already a Christian. However, my lack of interest in sex wasn't solely due to Christian convictions, as I was still very young in the faith. Rather it was more of a lack of desire, even a sense of disgust.

But even as a Christian, I still valued their friendships, as far as I was concerned, they were still human beings, people still loved by God and in need of his grace and forgiveness. In this mode of thinking, I would have still accepted their offer of friendship, such as chatting over coffee, a walk in the park, visiting a pub - whatever - as long as we stayed out of the bedroom. Such a friendship, in my mind, could have still flourished.

One area which I have come to learn by experience, and it's being a moralist. This means a lack of wrongdoing coupled with a judgemental attitude and a complete lack of love and forgiveness. And experience had taught me that a moralist is very much tied with a church-goer. To see this in practice, let's suppose that I am a moralist. But first, I'll just reiterate what had happened when I refused any sexual advance. It was the other person making the advance, and not me, who ended the friendship by walking out of the front door in a huff, but with no angry or sad words spoken. Had he apologised, chances were that I would have forgiven him, and asked him not to try that again, and had he agreed, continued with the friendship, maybe with the hope of gradually winning him to Christ.

But if I was a moralist, chances were that I would have thrown him out of my apartment (or stormed out, had that happened at his home) and angrily distance myself from him, with me insisting that our friendship is over. I would have had a sense of self-righteousness, to be glad that I'm not that way inclined like he is, and thus more deserving of heaven than he could ever be. Whilst thanking God that I'm not that way inclined, there is absolutely no love, no forgiveness, he becomes an object of disdain, to be ignored and avoided. If ever he's seen walking into a church meeting, I would have made sure that I was sitting at the far side of the room, and preferably, way behind him. And as a final coup de gras, I would not want him to come to Christ and be saved. After all, why should he go to heaven if I never had such perverse desires?

With an attitude like that, it's no wonder that in the New Testament, three witnesses testified against the moral-bound Pharisees and members of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The three were John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and Stephen. Both John and Jesus referred to them as a brood of vipers, while Stephen referred to them as stiff-necked. Jesus explains why they are referred to as such:-

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You tithe mint, dill and cumin, and yet you have neglected the weightier matters of the law - justice, mercy and faithfulness...Matthew 23:23.

Dill, tithed in Christ's day.

As a moralist, I would have paid special attention to attending prayer meetings, concentrated on tithing, and perhaps even spent time straightening my tie! Whether I tithed on a weekly or monthly basis, chances were I would have felt a sense of self-satisfaction, having met the basic requirements of "giving to the Lord." But any thought of aiding financially to the pervert who tried it on me would have sent shivers down my spine. Unless he reforms, no way would I give him any money to help him out. As far as I'm aware, he's a sinner and therefore he deserves what he's going through!

What then? Is doing the right thing a bad idea? No, it isn't bad in itself. If someone wants to tithe, then let him tithe, that's a good thing. But he should never judge anyone who doesn't tithe regularly, or not tithe at all. Likewise, it was fine for me to refuse any sexual approach. It was the right thing to do. But to shut him out without any forgiveness or even giving advice would be wrong. It could even drive the other person to suicide.

Finally, what would Jesus have done had he been approached by a homosexual? Condemn him to hell? Most unlikely. Rather, He would have told him to follow Him with a promise that He'll make him a fisher of men in a much better way!