Choosing To Be the Better You
In “The Road Not Taken,” Robert Frost famously wrote, “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood… I could not travel both and be one traveler.” It’s amazing though how often we come to a fork in life’s road and do in fact try to travel both. “How long will you falter between two opinions?” Elijah asks, and we reply, “Just a little bit longer?” (1 Kings 18:21). “No servant can serve two masters,” Jesus says, yet we say, “Can’t we just try?” (Luke 16:13). Nothing good ever comes of trying to travel two spiritual paths at once; James says of the effort, “He who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind… he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways” (James 1:6, 8). In addition to the instability and hypocrisy that’s inevitable in being double-minded, ultimately, as Frost suggests, a person will only find themselves on one path.
Sometimes, the thing that brings us to a specific fork in the road along our spiritual journey is an innate character trait we have. One of the blessings I’ve truly enjoyed about being a parent is seeing my children mature. As a father of four beautiful children, one of the things I’ve noticed is that some character traits are there from day one. Certain traits that were there at 8 years old were there at 8 days old; they were simply less refined. These innate character traits are neither good nor bad; they merely represent a tendency that can be manifested in good or bad ways.
Take for example a tendency to be quiet and reserved. While sometimes a person can be driven towards this tendency through one or several bad experiences, typically, a person simply either is quiet and reserved or isn’t. It’s not bad to be quiet and reserved; however, like many tendencies, it will bring those with it to a fork in the road. On the one hand, this tendency can manifest itself in humility, while on the other, it can manifest itself in insecurity. The path of humility is one that leads to spiritual success; the path of insecurity leads to spiritual ruin.
When we first encounter Saul, the first man God chose to be king over his people, it seems as though he has a tendency towards being quiet and reserved. However, rather than following the negative path of insecurity, he appears to have chosen the positive path of humility. By recording his words and deeds, the text shows him to be a man who 1) obeys his father and is thorough in carrying out the tasks he is given (1 Samuel 9:3-4), 2) is concerned about the concerns of others (1 Samuel 9:5; cf. Philippians 2:25-26), 3) desires to honor dedicated servants of God (1 Samuel 9:7), and 4) navigates his blessings and opportunities with humility (1 Samuel 9:21). Though he hides from the reality that God has selected him to be king for a while (1 Samuel 10:16, 21-22), as a king, he 5) holds his peace when insulted (1 Samuel 10:27) yet, like any godly man, 6) is stirred to anger and righteous action by the plight of others (1 Samuel 11:5-7). And on top of all of this, he 7) doesn’t take vengeance against those who earlier slighted him, even when he is encouraged to do so by others (1 Samuel 11:12-13).
While Robert Frost is correct in saying that it’s impossible to travel upon two roads at the same time, what his poem doesn’t consider is this reality: life sometimes gives us the opportunity to retrace our steps and choose a different path. While humility was an option that Saul consistently chose early in life, when he was placed in the crucible of kingship, he was given an opportunity to choose a different path. Under pressure, he abandoned the path of humility and chose the path of insecurity as is demonstrated by a series of bad decisions.
After defeating the Ammonites (1 Samuel 11:1-11), Saul was forced to deal with an even greater problem: the Philistines. The Philistines had managed to gain so much influence over Israel that they controlled all the blacksmithing that was done in the two nations, effectively keeping the Israelites from making any new weapons (1 Samuel 13:19). This meant that when Philistia decided to go on the offensive against her, Israel was not only undermanned in comparison but also poorly equipped.
This reality never seemed to have deterred Saul’s son Jonathan. As 1 Samuel 13 opens, Jonathan determines to take the fight to the Philistine bullies and succeeds (1 Samuel 13:3). When Saul sends word of this victory throughout the land, the people begin to say that Saul rather than Jonathan “attacked a garrison of the Philistines” (1 Samuel 13:4). Saul offers no correction. While it’s possible that this may simply be another example of the Bible attributing the actions of the one sent to the sender (as it so often does), it’s also possible that this represents a decision that Saul made which took him off of the path of humility. Later in the account, it’s very clear that the man who used to hold his peace when he was insulted (1 Samuel 10:27) had become a man who couldn’t stand it when other people were praised above him (1 Samuel 18:6-9). It’s clear that what follows Jonathan’s victory does not represent humble confidence but choices reflecting deep insecurity.
After Jonathan’s victory, a large force of Philistines gathered to fight Israel (1 Samuel 13:5). Saul gathered an army to face them, but found that many Israelites were afraid and hid instead of coming out to fight (1 Samuel 13:6). He had arranged to meet Samuel prior to the battle so that Samuel could lead the army in worship and seek God’s blessing. However, something delayed Samuel, and, as time wore on, more and more of Saul’s troops forsook him (1 Samuel 13:8). Instead of humbly submitting to God and Samuel, God’s prophet, priest, and judge, Saul offered a burnt offering himself (1 Samuel 13:9). Not only is this wrong because Samuel had told him to wait, it is wrong because Saul is not a priest. Saul’s quiet and reserved tendency had embraced insecurity and made a decision in panic.
When Samuel came, Saul tried to justify his decision (1 Samuel 13:11-12), bringing Samuel’s condemnation upon Saul (1 Samuel 13:13-14). Had Saul chosen to retrace his steps and once again pursue humility, it’s possible there could have been a different outcome. Instead, he allowed Samuel to leave, leaving him with a small, ill-equipped army (1 Samuel 13:15-22). Insecurity is a path that coexists with pride, even for the quiet and reserved; Saul stubbornly chose neither to repent nor to make an appeal to the Lord.
Later, when Jonathan acted in faith, taking the fight once again to the Philistines (1 Samuel 14:1-15), Saul had a chance to seek God. Most translations of the text follow the Masoretic text, which states that rather than seek God, Saul chooses to call for the ark of the covenant (1 Samuel 14:18). This would have been a disastrous decision had it been carried out based on what happened before (1 Samuel 4:1-11). The Septuagint though states that Saul call for the ephod, which was available (1 Samuel 14:3) and would have enabled him to be able to get an answer for the Lord. Sadly, when he hears the battle is going well, he seems not to care about God at all. Such is the path of insecurity; it seizes any evidence it can to shore up prideful positions.
Israel is delivered by God that day from the Philistines, but not before Saul can make a rash vow surrounding a mandatory fast (1 Samuel 14:24) which leads to his troops sinning by eating blood after the battle is over (1 Samuel 14:32). While Saul clearly cares about the law surrounding blood (1 Samuel 14:33-34), he doesn’t care anything about drawing “near to God” until a priest suggests it (1 Samuel 14:36). When God didn’t answer him (1 Samuel 14:37), he again pridefully assumed it was because of Jonathan and his vow rather than his own sinful offering. Pride often doubles down on mistakes, leading to more and more insecurity.
One final decision seals the fate of Saul’s kingship and ultimately his soul. In spite of his failings, he is given an opportunity to serve God once again, this time by utterly destroying the Amalekites and their possessions (1 Samuel 15:3). He does so, but spares the Amalekite king and the best of their possessions (1 Samuel 15:9). Later, he says he has done so because of “the people” (1 Samuel 15:15). If this is true, it represents insecurity at its sinful best; it leaves a person powerless before visible people but totally unconcerned with the invisible God. If this is merely an excuse made in haste, it shows how pride perpetuates and justifies decisions made in insecurity. Either way, Saul was rejected as king (1 Samuel 15:23), and though he gives lip service to repentance (1 Samuel 15:24), his life from this point forward would never bear fruits worthy of it (cf. Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8).
Saul’s decisions as recorded in 1 Samuel 13-15 reveal to us that our tendencies will always manifest themselves in reality. Whether that reality is good or bad depends on the decisions we make. Our tendencies will likely lead us to a specific fork in the road; it’s important at that moment to submit to God and pursue the path that leads to spiritual success. You can’t travel two roads; follow God and allow Him to lead you towards becoming the better version of you.
Sometimes, the thing that brings us to a specific fork in the road along our spiritual journey is an innate character trait we have. One of the blessings I’ve truly enjoyed about being a parent is seeing my children mature. As a father of four beautiful children, one of the things I’ve noticed is that some character traits are there from day one. Certain traits that were there at 8 years old were there at 8 days old; they were simply less refined. These innate character traits are neither good nor bad; they merely represent a tendency that can be manifested in good or bad ways.
Take for example a tendency to be quiet and reserved. While sometimes a person can be driven towards this tendency through one or several bad experiences, typically, a person simply either is quiet and reserved or isn’t. It’s not bad to be quiet and reserved; however, like many tendencies, it will bring those with it to a fork in the road. On the one hand, this tendency can manifest itself in humility, while on the other, it can manifest itself in insecurity. The path of humility is one that leads to spiritual success; the path of insecurity leads to spiritual ruin.
When we first encounter Saul, the first man God chose to be king over his people, it seems as though he has a tendency towards being quiet and reserved. However, rather than following the negative path of insecurity, he appears to have chosen the positive path of humility. By recording his words and deeds, the text shows him to be a man who 1) obeys his father and is thorough in carrying out the tasks he is given (1 Samuel 9:3-4), 2) is concerned about the concerns of others (1 Samuel 9:5; cf. Philippians 2:25-26), 3) desires to honor dedicated servants of God (1 Samuel 9:7), and 4) navigates his blessings and opportunities with humility (1 Samuel 9:21). Though he hides from the reality that God has selected him to be king for a while (1 Samuel 10:16, 21-22), as a king, he 5) holds his peace when insulted (1 Samuel 10:27) yet, like any godly man, 6) is stirred to anger and righteous action by the plight of others (1 Samuel 11:5-7). And on top of all of this, he 7) doesn’t take vengeance against those who earlier slighted him, even when he is encouraged to do so by others (1 Samuel 11:12-13).
While Robert Frost is correct in saying that it’s impossible to travel upon two roads at the same time, what his poem doesn’t consider is this reality: life sometimes gives us the opportunity to retrace our steps and choose a different path. While humility was an option that Saul consistently chose early in life, when he was placed in the crucible of kingship, he was given an opportunity to choose a different path. Under pressure, he abandoned the path of humility and chose the path of insecurity as is demonstrated by a series of bad decisions.
After defeating the Ammonites (1 Samuel 11:1-11), Saul was forced to deal with an even greater problem: the Philistines. The Philistines had managed to gain so much influence over Israel that they controlled all the blacksmithing that was done in the two nations, effectively keeping the Israelites from making any new weapons (1 Samuel 13:19). This meant that when Philistia decided to go on the offensive against her, Israel was not only undermanned in comparison but also poorly equipped.
This reality never seemed to have deterred Saul’s son Jonathan. As 1 Samuel 13 opens, Jonathan determines to take the fight to the Philistine bullies and succeeds (1 Samuel 13:3). When Saul sends word of this victory throughout the land, the people begin to say that Saul rather than Jonathan “attacked a garrison of the Philistines” (1 Samuel 13:4). Saul offers no correction. While it’s possible that this may simply be another example of the Bible attributing the actions of the one sent to the sender (as it so often does), it’s also possible that this represents a decision that Saul made which took him off of the path of humility. Later in the account, it’s very clear that the man who used to hold his peace when he was insulted (1 Samuel 10:27) had become a man who couldn’t stand it when other people were praised above him (1 Samuel 18:6-9). It’s clear that what follows Jonathan’s victory does not represent humble confidence but choices reflecting deep insecurity.
After Jonathan’s victory, a large force of Philistines gathered to fight Israel (1 Samuel 13:5). Saul gathered an army to face them, but found that many Israelites were afraid and hid instead of coming out to fight (1 Samuel 13:6). He had arranged to meet Samuel prior to the battle so that Samuel could lead the army in worship and seek God’s blessing. However, something delayed Samuel, and, as time wore on, more and more of Saul’s troops forsook him (1 Samuel 13:8). Instead of humbly submitting to God and Samuel, God’s prophet, priest, and judge, Saul offered a burnt offering himself (1 Samuel 13:9). Not only is this wrong because Samuel had told him to wait, it is wrong because Saul is not a priest. Saul’s quiet and reserved tendency had embraced insecurity and made a decision in panic.
When Samuel came, Saul tried to justify his decision (1 Samuel 13:11-12), bringing Samuel’s condemnation upon Saul (1 Samuel 13:13-14). Had Saul chosen to retrace his steps and once again pursue humility, it’s possible there could have been a different outcome. Instead, he allowed Samuel to leave, leaving him with a small, ill-equipped army (1 Samuel 13:15-22). Insecurity is a path that coexists with pride, even for the quiet and reserved; Saul stubbornly chose neither to repent nor to make an appeal to the Lord.
Later, when Jonathan acted in faith, taking the fight once again to the Philistines (1 Samuel 14:1-15), Saul had a chance to seek God. Most translations of the text follow the Masoretic text, which states that rather than seek God, Saul chooses to call for the ark of the covenant (1 Samuel 14:18). This would have been a disastrous decision had it been carried out based on what happened before (1 Samuel 4:1-11). The Septuagint though states that Saul call for the ephod, which was available (1 Samuel 14:3) and would have enabled him to be able to get an answer for the Lord. Sadly, when he hears the battle is going well, he seems not to care about God at all. Such is the path of insecurity; it seizes any evidence it can to shore up prideful positions.
Israel is delivered by God that day from the Philistines, but not before Saul can make a rash vow surrounding a mandatory fast (1 Samuel 14:24) which leads to his troops sinning by eating blood after the battle is over (1 Samuel 14:32). While Saul clearly cares about the law surrounding blood (1 Samuel 14:33-34), he doesn’t care anything about drawing “near to God” until a priest suggests it (1 Samuel 14:36). When God didn’t answer him (1 Samuel 14:37), he again pridefully assumed it was because of Jonathan and his vow rather than his own sinful offering. Pride often doubles down on mistakes, leading to more and more insecurity.
One final decision seals the fate of Saul’s kingship and ultimately his soul. In spite of his failings, he is given an opportunity to serve God once again, this time by utterly destroying the Amalekites and their possessions (1 Samuel 15:3). He does so, but spares the Amalekite king and the best of their possessions (1 Samuel 15:9). Later, he says he has done so because of “the people” (1 Samuel 15:15). If this is true, it represents insecurity at its sinful best; it leaves a person powerless before visible people but totally unconcerned with the invisible God. If this is merely an excuse made in haste, it shows how pride perpetuates and justifies decisions made in insecurity. Either way, Saul was rejected as king (1 Samuel 15:23), and though he gives lip service to repentance (1 Samuel 15:24), his life from this point forward would never bear fruits worthy of it (cf. Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8).
Saul’s decisions as recorded in 1 Samuel 13-15 reveal to us that our tendencies will always manifest themselves in reality. Whether that reality is good or bad depends on the decisions we make. Our tendencies will likely lead us to a specific fork in the road; it’s important at that moment to submit to God and pursue the path that leads to spiritual success. You can’t travel two roads; follow God and allow Him to lead you towards becoming the better version of you.
-Patrick Swayne
patrick@tftw.org
patrick@tftw.org
Recent
Archive
2025
2024
January
February
March
May
July
August
September
October
November
2023
January
February
March
April
May
June
Mixed, Misplaced, and Reappropriated MetaphorsMen (Not) at Work: Protecting Our Sons from a Dangerous TrendGo Back Further: An Appeal Regarding a Recent Controversy over Women’s Roles in the ChurchDoes the Bible Prescribe Alcohol for Mental Health? (An Examination of Proverbs 31:6)Are You an Idolator?
July
August
September
November