A King in Narcissistic Clothes
What happens when an adversary stands up against a nation, an organization, community or even a home? 1 Chronicles 21:1â2 suggests that the head of an entity may very well become the inadvertent instrument of corporate demise. In the case of King David, his Achilleâs heel may have always been present, but the friction and temptation of the moment introduced it to the world. Namely, the possible blind spot that temporarily transformed an anointed and charismatic warrior into a toxic decision maker was arrogance. Arrogance, according to Merriam-Webster, can be described as exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate oneâs worth or importance, often in an overbearing manner. Such a manner, arguably, was noticed by his family long before David became a household name. 1 Samuel 17:28â29 indicates that
This text records Eliabâs reaction without understanding that David was being sent by his father to serve them and that the sheep were properly cared for by another shepherd. Additionally, this passage seems to illuminate a deeply held perception that has not received much attention in biblical leadership dialog. Namely, the older brother knew âthe pride and the insolenceâ of his younger brother David. Moreover, when this sibling charge was offered, what is interesting to note is Davidâs reaction. He did not deny the accusation but confirmed it with his questions, What have I done now? Is there not a cause? Perhaps an inference of Davidâs response is that other incidents could have resonated and were not recorded, but this was not necessarily one of them?Now Eliab his oldest brother heard when he spoke to the men; and Eliabâs anger was aroused against David, and he said, âWhy did you come down here? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your pride and the insolence of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle.â29 And David said, âWhat have I done now? Is there not a cause?â
Although Scripture indicates that Satan stood up against Israel and that David was moved to number the nation, it does not exactly spell out the nature of the transgression. This theological ambiguity has sparked an array of theories, but the logic of Matthew Henry resonates when he asserted that, âNumbering the people, one would think, was no bad thing. Why should not the shepherd know the number of his flock? But God sees not as man sees. It is plain it was wrong in David to do it, and a great provocation to God, because he did it in the pride of his heart; and there is no sin that has in it more of contradiction and therefore more of offense to God than pride.â1
In retrospect, one can see how Davidâs vice could have remained dormant until provoked at this point in his career. To better understand, a cursory review of the kingâs calling is delineated. First, it should be noted that David was not the preferred son of Jesse when the Prophet came to anoint the next king. In fact, this marginalized shepherd boy had to be asked for by Samuel when his family overlooked him (1 Sam 16:11â12). Next, Davidâs rise to prominence began when he defeated the giant from Philistine, he took on a key leadership position in the royal ranks and his popularity expanded as he ran from a jealous King Saul who vowed to end Davidâs life. When fate took a turn, and King Saul fell on his sword, David assumed the throne. This defining moment signaled to the world that finally Israel had found a champion, a warrior and king like none other.
As king, David united Israel and achieved numerous accomplishments through the hand of God. Debatably, such triumphs set the conditions during a time when kings went to war, for David to make the decision to remain behind (2 Sam 11). This costly decision would prove to be painful and long lasting because an adulterous affair ensued, an innocent husband was murdered, and a sword forever pierced the household of David. This sword provoked his children to stir up strife in the kingdom and propelled his most beloved son, Absalom, to challenge him for the throne. After a season of fleeing and fighting, the coup was surpressed, and yet another of Davidâs loved ones had passed away, but he had regained the kingdom. It is at this point of renewed power, when there are emotions of triumph and the temptation to take a metaphorical victory lap, that this book cautions leaders to take heed. For it is during such moments that dormant unprocessed matters of the heart may emerge and undermine oneâs ability to be a moral influence. In the case of David, it was the pride and the insolence of his heart as described by his oldest brother Eliab that would set the conditions for a humble king to be transformed temporarily into a narcissist.
Catching the Little Foxes
This notion of overlooked issues, or the inability to connect the proverbial dots of dormant personality flaws, warrants consideration. To help explore this phenomenon the wisdom of Solomon, Davidâs son and heir to the throne, is invoked. Namely, Bathshebaâs son admonishes influencers in Solomon 2:15 to, âCatch us the foxes, the little foxes that spoil vines, for our vines have tender grapes.â Although this text has an array of scholarly interpretations, this book utilizes Jamieson, Fausset and Brownâs (1997) understanding of foxes. Jamieson et al. suggest that foxes are a:
generic term, including jackals. They eat only grapes, not the vine flowers; but they need to be driven out in time before the grape is ripe. She had failed in watchfulness before (So 1:6); now when converted, she is the more jealous of subtle sins (Ps 139:23). In spiritual winter certain evils are frozen up, as well as good; in the spring of revivals these start up unperceived, crafty, false teachers, spiritual pride, uncharitableness, &c. (Ps 19:12; Mt 13:26; Lu 8:14; 2 Ti 2:17; Heb 12:15). âLittleâ sins are parents of the greatest (Ec 10:1; 1 Co 5:6).2
If, in fact, little foxes are parents of the greatest, then the question becomes, âWho specifically are these guardians, what are their characteristics and how should they be handled?â To offer a plausible biblical explanation to such an inquiry, consider 1 John 2:16 âFor all that is in the worldâthe lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of lifeâis not of the Father but is of the world.â This text essentially introduces the reader to the three categories of âparents,â or foxes, that a leader will face.
The Little Fox of the Eyes
As depicted in Table 1.1, the first fox that a leader should monitor is lust of the eyes, when an influencer may have the impulse to pursue the stimulations of what they see. Although the longings associated with the eyes are broad and limitless, perhaps the central vice that captivates most imaginations revolves around sexual relations outside of marriage. A famous biblical example, outlined in Judges 16:1â5, illuminates this point.
In this text, we find the strongest man that walked the planet being lured by what he saw. Namely, while on a business trip to Gaza (a city of the Philistines located in the extreme southwest of Palestine close to the Mediterranean3) the beauty of a woman of the night arrested his attention. This intense lust of the eyes became so strong that Samson made a decision to overlook the wisdom of Proverbs 6:26, âfor by means of a harlot a man is reduced to a piece of bread,â and âwent into her.â If it were not for the mercy and strength of the Lord in his life, this would have been a fatal move. Why? Because the Gazitesâ intent was to exploit this flaw by staging an ambush. However, Samson was able to outmaneuver the opposition by ripping up the entire gate structure and carrying it to a hill 38 miles away.4 Although Samson had successfully removed himself from that particular battle, his inward war with the lust of the eyes was ongoing and on the verge of a final showdown.Now Samson went to Gaza and saw a harlot there, and went in to her.2 When the Gazites were told, âSamson has come here!â they surrounded the place and lay in wait for him all night at the gate of the city. They were quiet all night, saying, âIn the morning, when it is daylight, we will kill him.â3 And Samson lay low till midnight; then he arose at midnight, took hold of the doors of the gate of the city and the two gateposts, pulled them up, bar and all, put them on his shoulders, and carried them to the top of the hill that faces Hebron.4 Afterward it happened that he loved a woman in the Valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah.5 And the lords of the Philistines came up to her and said to her, âEntice him, and find out where his great strength lies, and by what means we may overpower him, that we may bind him to afflict him; and every one of us will give you eleven hundred pieces of silver.â
Table 1.1
The little foxes of leadership
Little foxes | Trait | Biblical example | Case study |
|---|---|---|---|
Lust of the eyes | Longings stimulated by what one sees. An example of this can include sexual relations outside of marriage | Samsonâs lust for Delilah as recorded in Judges 16 was costly | Why powerful people cheat |
Lust of the flesh | The illicit cravings of the flesh. An example of this is the desire to become rich by unethical means | Judasâ craving for money grew to be the fox that would betray Christ (Matt 26:14â26) | Bernard Madoff |
Pride of life | The sense of arrogance that comes as a byproduct of possessions and power affiliated with this world | Nebuchadnezzarâs pride made him insane as he observed the âtrophyâ of âhisâ kingdom (Dan 4:30) | Adolf Hitler |
Seemingly, Samsonâs fox of the lust of the eyes had grown to its full capacity when he had fallen so quickly for a woman in the Valley of Sorek whose name was Delilah. According to Wiersbe (1994, p. 121)
scholars disagree on the meaning of Delilahâs name. Some think it means âdevotee,â suggesting that she may have been a temple prostitute. However, Delilah is not called a prostitute as is the woman in Gaza, although that is probably what she was. For that matter, Delilah is not even identified as a Philistine. However, from her dealings with the Philistine leaders, she appears to be one. ...