Today, I am reading and commenting on  2 Samuel 12-13.

Part of me wants to write about Amnon and Tamar and how that led to Absalom killing Amnon (and later to Absalom’s rebellion), but I am really struck by David’s reaction to Nathan’s confrontation and the following illness and death of his son with Bathsheba.  When Nathan confronted David, David confessed his sin.  At which point Nathan tells David that God has taken away his sin.  However, that did not mean that David would not suffer any consequences from his sin.  In fact, Nathan told David that the consequences of his sin would follow him for the rest of his life.  So, we learn from this that we must confess that we have sinned (and part of that confession is regretting that we had done wrong, not just regretting that we got caught).  If we do confess our sin, God will forgive our sins.  However, we will still need to live with the consequences of our sins.

Which brings me to David’s reaction to one of the consequences of his sin, the son he had with Bathsheba became sick and then died.  When David learned of the child’s illness, he prayed and fasted begging God to heal the child and mourning the boy’s illness.  Then, when he learned that the child had died, he gave up his fasting and mourning.  While the child was ill, David petitioned God for healing, but once the child had died David recognized that the time for mourning was over.  He saw that the boy would not return to this life, but that he would in time join the child with God.  We should think and behave similarly.  While those we care for live, we should pray for their well-being, to the point of fasting and mourning for them if they are ill and/or suffering.  Once those we care for have died, in most cases, we should set aside our mourning and get on with our lives, not necessarily as quickly as David appears to have done here.   I will note that even though David gave up his mourning after his son’s death, he did not fault Bathsheba for mourning their son’s death.  Instead David comforted her in her loss.  We also should strive to comfort those who mourn the loss of their loved ones.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  2 Samuel 4-7.

Shortly after the death of Abner, two brothers killed Ish-Bosheth, cut off his head, and took it to David, expecting to be rewarded for doing so (at least, I assume that is what they expected).  Instead David had them executed for the murder of Ish-Bosheth.  I mention this only because it continues the pattern I referred to in yesterday’s blog.  However, I want to focus on the interaction between Michal and David after David brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem.  While the ark was being transported, David became caught up in the celebration and worship, completely forgetting himself and his dignity.  When Michal, David’s wife and King Saul’s daughter, became embarrassed by David’s behavior (and perhaps a little jealous).  She appears to have felt that his behavior was beneath the dignity of a king.  Then, when David came into his palace, intending to bring the celebration to his own household, Michal rained on his parade and disparaged him and his joy.  David responded by saying that he would be humiliated in order to bring praise to God.  David also made another important point.  Michal was concerned that David had made a fool of himself in front of “slave girls”, those of lower status than herself (and David).  David claimed that he would humiliate himself even further in order to praise God, and would be honored by those “slave girls” for it.  So, we should keep in mind these lessons.  First, we should not be ashamed to express our joy as we worship the Lord.  Second, we may be surprised by how much others respect us for being willing to express our love of God.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  2 Samuel 1-3.

In today’s passage we have two accounts about how David reacted to the deaths of his political enemies (although the death of Abner occurred after Abner had reconciled with David).  When an Amalekite brought David the news of King Saul’s death, claiming to have administered the coup-de-gras, David ordered him executed.  Later, when Joab murdered Abner, David forced Joab to put on a show of mourning for Abner’s death.  After Abner’s burial, David laments his inability to control Joab and Abishai.  In both cases, the death of Saul and the death of Abner, David mourned the loss of those he counted as great men.

One thing which often seems odd to me is the verse which tells us that Joab and Abishai murdered Abner in vengeance for Abner killing their brother.  Yet, one would have thought that if Joab sought vengeance for his brother’s death he would have continued the pursuit of Abner on the day when Abner had killed him, rather than calling off the pursuit.  Instead we have Joab killing Abner after Abner had made an agreement with David to turn over the kingship still held by the House of Saul in return for David giving him Joab’s job as commander of David’s armies.  I realized today that the reference to Joab killing Abner as revenge for the death of his brother records Joab’s defense against a murder charge.  Mosaic law gives implied permission to the family of someone killed by another the right to take the life of the killer.  So, the writer is not claiming that Joab murdered Abner to revenge his brother.  Rather, the writer is explaining, in part, why David could not execute Joab for doing so.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  1 Samuel 28-31.

I always find the account of Saul going to the medium of Endor difficult.  My understanding of Scripture has always been that those who claim to speak with the dead are either frauds or mistaking other spirits for the spirit of the dead.  Yet, this passage is quite clear that the woman summoned Samuel’s spirit and that Saul spoke with him.  This story contains an important lesson for us, one which is easy to miss.  At several points we are told that Saul had implemented God’s law in the land, at least to some degree.  In the introduction to this account we are told that Saul had expelled all of the mediums and spiritists from the land.  That was in accordance with God’s law as given to Moses.  Yet, despite implementing God’s law as the law of Israel, God departed from Saul because of his disobedience.   I don’t want to go into what Saul did, both good and bad, because it would be too easy to draw the wrong lesson.  The lesson is that God desires that we obey Him more than He desires that we offer sacrifices, or sing His praises.  King Saul thought that he could pick and choose which of God’s commands to obey.  It does not work that way, God calls us to obey all of His commands.  While He will forgive us when we fall short of His expectations, we cannot act against His commands just because we have good intentions.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  1 Samuel 25-27.

As I was reading the story of David and Nabal again, it struck me that, while the passage does not spell it out, David had an agreement with Nabal for David to provide security for Nabal’s men and Nabal’s property.  Nabal’s response to David’s men makes more sense if he had some sort of agreement with David beforehand, even if the agreement was more or less unspoken,  David’s anger at Nabal’s response also makes more sense.  Finally, the fear clearly expressed by Nabal’s servants when they went to Abigail makes more sense.  If there was no agreement of some type between Nabal and David, why didn’t Nabal just ignore David’s messengers?  On the other hand, if there was some sort of agreement, Nabal’s answer would seem to be, “I am not going to pay you.  What are you going to do, appeal to the government over breach of contract? Sure, go ahead and appeal to King Saul’s government.  Hasn’t the king put a price on your head?”  Nabal’s servants would have quickly seen the problem with Nabal’s response.  Sure, David could not appeal to King Saul over Nabal’s failure to keep his end of the bargain, but Nabal had entered into the agreement with David in the first place because King Saul was unable to protect him from raiders and bandits…and David’s men, who had provided protection from those raiders, could easily take that which they had prevented others from taking.   We see a little later in this passage that when David took his men over the the Philistines they became raiders (although exclusively against non-Israelites).  It could be that Abigail’s good business sense was the reason David chose to marry her after the death of Nabal.

I also want to write a bit about David sneaking into King Saul’s camp and taking his spear and water jug.  This story is the first account we have of David’s contentious relationship with the three sons of Zeruiah, who were his nephews.   On the one hand, Abishai volunteers to go with David to infiltrate King Saul’s camp.  On the other hand, he also suggests that David allow him to kill King Saul, despite the fact that David had declined to kill Saul when he had previously had the opportunity.  In fact, on that previous occasion David had expressed feeling guilt about the threat implied by cutting the hem off of Saul’s cloak.  So, we see that Abishai was loyal to David, but failed to share David’s reluctance to kill his fellow Israelites (even when he might have been justified in doing so).  I am not sure what lessons we should take from this passage, but we see here the first indication that while Abishai and his brothers were fiercely loyal to David, they did not fully share his values.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  1 Samuel 21-24.

I am going to write about some elements of today’s accounts which we often overlook.  I am not sure that they contain much in the way of spiritual insight, but we will see.  In this passage, at one point it says that David’s parents stayed with the king of Moab as long as David was “in the stronghold.”  Then at the end of the passage, after David declined the opportunity to ambush and kill King Saul, it says that David and his men “went up to the stronghold.”  On both of these occasions it uses the singular as if it was a single location. In addition, at one point the prophet Gad tells David to leave “the stronghold”.   Elsewhere, it refers to David and his men staying in “strongholds” (in the Desert of Ziph for awhile, then later in the wilderness of En Gedi).  So, I am unsure if the places where the passage uses the singular for stronghold refers to a single place (and, if so, was it the same place each time?), or was the writer just using the singular because it was easier than writing the plural…and it doesn’t really matter for us to understand what was going on.  On to another point: when David was in the Desert of Ziph, near Horesh, Jonathan was able to find him and speak with him.  Yet, just a short time later, Saul was unable to do so.  This is not particularly surprising, since David wanted to meet with Jonathan, and wanted to avoid being found by Saul.

The final item we normally overlook does have a bit of spiritual lesson for us.  Because of the way the passage tells the accounts we normally miss that the priest Abiathar did not join David until he was at Keilah.  Once Abiathar had joined him in Keilah, David had Abiather use the ephod of the high priest (and presumably the Urim and the Thummin ) to consult God’s will.  However, the passage makes clear that David sought God’s guidance in his decisions before that point.  I find two points worth thinking about here.  First, if we seek God’s guidance, He will make it known to us.  In fact, He will even make it known to us in ways which others who are skeptical of our initial interpretation of God’s direction will find convincing.  Second, as we seek to know God’s guidance for our actions, He will provide us with ever clearer ways to understand what He wants from us.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  1 Samuel 18-20.

On a couple of occasions in this passage it says that an evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul.  The idea that an evil spirit might be from the Lord bothers me, so I looked at the translators notes.  They mention that the word translated as “evil” might also be translated as “harmful”.  I am much more comfortable with the idea that a harmful spirit was sent from God upon someone.  Each time this spirit came upon Saul he attempted to kill David right then and there.  The implication being that when these incidents happened, Saul’s personality changed on a dime and he acted in a way uncharacteristic for him.  It struck me today that there seems to be a relationship between the occasions when the evil, or harmful, spirit came upon Saul and the times when he prophesied along with a band of prophets.  One of those latter times happened when Saul pursued David after David fled to Samuel.  However, a similar thing had happened after the first time Saul and met with Samuel before he became king.  I was really hoping that once I wrote about these things I would have some insight into all fit together, but that did not happen.

I had always thought that David was ambitious and that his reluctance to marry Saul’s daughter (first one and then a second one was offered to him as his wife) was because he was aware of Saul’s plans to use it against him.  Today, as I read this, I felt like David’s reluctance to become Saul’s son-in-law was actually out of humility.  Yesterday, I noted that David’s comments about Goliath to members of Saul’s army were perhaps meant to encourage someone to stand up to Goliath in the name of God.  In a similar fashion, it occurred to me today that David’s reluctance to become Saul’s son-in-law was because he genuinely did not believe he was a prominent enough person for that role.  Or, perhaps the reason that David was willing to marry Michal, when he had resisted marrying her older sister Merab was because Michal actually wanted to marry him, while Merab would only have done so because she had no choice.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  1 Samuel 16-17.

Before today, I never really noticed that the elders of the town of Bethlehem trembled when Samuel first arrived there and asked him if he came in peace.  Samuel calmed their fears and invited them to a sacrifice.  I need to give some thought to whether the elders feared Samuel because of what he had done, or if they feared him because of his connection to King Saul.  The next thing which occurred to me is not something new, but worth mentioning now: The two books of Samuel (and most of the other “historical” books of the Old Testament) are compilations of accounts which had been passed down independent of one another.  The above is very clear in today’s passage.  Today’s passage contains three stories about the early years of David’s career.  First, there is the account of Samuel anointing David as king to replace King Saul.  Second, there is an account of how David entered Saul’s service as a musician.  Finally, there is the account of David and Goliath.

Now, because the accounts contained in today’s passage had been passed down as separate stories, there are some apparent conflicts between them.  First I want to look at Eliab’s (David’s eldest brother) reaction to David coming down to see the battle.  Eliab had been present when Samuel anointed David, but nevertheless he interpreted David’s asking about what reward Saul had offered for the man who defeated Goliath as David trying to stir up trouble (I will come back to this later).  The next, and biggest, conflict among these stories comes from the account of King Saul sending messengers to bring David into his service as a musician and then not recognizing him when he came forth to face Goliath.  This has always bothered me: how could King Saul not recognize David if David had been in his service playing music for him when he became agitated?  The answer came to me today.  Before the incident with Goliath, David would probably only be around Saul when Saul became agitated and someone called for him to play his lyre.  In fact, David probably did not spend much time in Gibeah, since his father lived less than a day away.

After Samuel anointed David, the passage says “from that day on, the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon David. ”  I think we see what the passage meant in the account later of David and Goliath, as much in what David said to the Israelite soldiers when he first saw Goliath come forth as in what he ultimately did that day.  David tried to encourage one of the soldiers to stand forth against Goliath in faith that God would be with them. “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?”  When no one else would do so, David himself stood forth, trusting in God.  I believe that this was not the first time David had “stirred up trouble” by pushing people to act in faith.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  1 Samuel 14-15.

I was struck today by King Saul’s order to his army to bring the captured animals to a central location for butchering in order to ensure that the blood was drained from the animals before they were eaten.  In particular, his explanation for the order. which was that he did not want them to sin against God by eating meat with the blood still in it.  This appears to be King Saul attempting to faithfully follow God’s commands, and to ensure that his men do the same.  In fact, when we combine that with Saul seeking God’s guidance as to whether or not he should continue pursuing the Philistines, I believe that he was indeed seeking to serve God faithfully here.  However, it also bears a resemblance to what Saul did after he defeated the Amalekites later in the passage.  Samuel instructed Saul that he should defeat the Amalekites and destroy all of them and all that they had.  Instead of doing so, Saul had his army bring the best of their livestock back in order to hold a great sacrifice/celebration at Gilgal (I want to note that such a sacrificial ceremony would have been a huge feast and a celebration of Saul’s victory).   Samuel’s response is one which we should pay close attention:

To obey is better than sacrifice,

This phrase is indeed one which many today pay attention, but I am not sure that they get it.  This means that we should be more concerned with discipling out fellow believer (and being discipled by them) than in the amount which goes into the offering plate.

Which brings me to Saul’s other failure to keep the command which God gave him through Samuel.  Saul  also kept alive the king of the Amalekites.  I want to take notice that on several occasions the Old Testament tells us that Israel’s king took the king of Israel’s enemy captive rather than killing him.  In this case, Saul had all of the other Amalekites killed, but took the king captive.  Before killing the Amalekite king, Samuel points out that the king was more responsible for the crimes of the Amalekites than any other individual.  No explanation is given for Saul sparing the life of Agag, the king of the Amalekites, so we are left to draw our own conclusions.  To me, the most likely explanation is that King Saul felt greater kinship with King Agag than he did with the people over whom he ruled.  Thus Saul spared King Agag out of a misplaced sense of kinship.  This would be consistent with those in positions of power throughout history.  They often demonstrate greater concern for the interests of the ruling class of the enemies of the people over whom they hold authority than for the interests of those for whose interests they are theoretically responsible.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.