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

There is one aspect of the account of David and Goliath that I can not quite decipher.  The account reads to me as if David was trying to shame one of the warriors into fighting Goliath.  Certainly, the account makes it clear that his brother thought that was what he was doing.  Yet, as soon as he was brought before King Saul, he volunteered to fight Goliath himself.  The conclusion I have always reached is that David tried to instigate someone else in to fighting Goliath because, since he was not a member of King Saul’s army, he could not volunteer to do so himself.  Or, perhaps, he felt that, also since he was not a member of King Saul’s army, it would be inappropriate to volunteer himself.  In either case, that changed when King Saul summoned him to an audience.

What is clear from the account is that David did not believe it required a mighty warrior to defeat Goliath.  He was convinced that God would be on the side of whoever confronted Goliath on behalf of Israel.  David was cocky and arrogant, but he was not conceited.  He thought that, with God on his side, he could defeat Goliath, but he also thought that just about anybody else could do so, with the same qualifier.   And he was right.  The lesson here is not that David was a great hero of God, although he was.  David was confident that he could defeat Goliath because Goliath had defied God.  In the same way, we can be confident that we can defeat those who defy God today.

I want to make one more point about David’s confidence.  He was confident that he could defeat Goliath, but he did not depend on doing it with just one stone.  He prepared for the possibility that he might fail on his first attempt, or even on his second, third, or fourth attempt.  When David armed himself to go out against Goliath, he did not just grab one stone.  He gathered five stones.  David planned for this battle. He did not just stand there and sling a stone at Goliath.  He ran towards him.  As I read the story, I imagined David running towards Goliath with the intent of ducking and running past him if the first stone missed.  David had faith in God, but he also had a plan.

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 really struggled with what to write today.  I like the story of Jonathan going over and attacking the Philistine outpost accompanied by only his armor bearer.  So I thought I might write about that, but I could not figure out what to say.  I like the account of what happened when Saul commanded that no one in his army eat until they had complete victory and Jonathan did not hear so ate some honey. But again I was not quite sure what to write.  There are a couple of other things in this passage that I thought might be a good focus, but could not figure out how to start from them.

Finally, I looked closer at the interaction between Samuel and King Saul after the defeat of the Amalekites and knew that was the place to focus.  When Samuel arrives, Saul greets him by saying that he had done what God had instructed him to do.  I had never noticed before that King Saul actually thought he had done what God had desired.  He believed this despite the fact that Samuel had told him that God wanted him to kill all of the Amalekites and all of their livestock and King Saul had taken their king prisoner and plundered the best of their livestock.  After King Saul had made all of his excuses for not having done so, Samuel tells him the thing which we must always remember: “To obey is better than sacrifice.”  Really this runs directly counter to a saying which is common today.  The saying is, “It is better to beg forgiveness than to ask for permission.”  The point of that latter saying is that, if you know that they will refuse permission, don’t ask for permission, do it anyway and ask for forgiveness afterwards.  King Saul thought that because he was going to sacrifice the animals it was OK that he did not immediately kill them, that he could take advantage of this to further cement his position.

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 11-13.

As we read this we see that this Book was a compilation of stories which had been passed down (that does not mean they were not written before they were compiled into this account, merely that they had been told separately).  The most obvious example of this is the fact that Samuel says in his farewell address that the people of Israel asked for a king when they saw Nahash moving against them.  Yet, there is no mention of this before Saul is anointed king.  This does not mean that it did not happen, just that those who told and/or wrote the account of how it came about that Saul became king did not see that it mattered to the events they were describing.

In any case, this actually lets us see in a clearer light both why some people wanted to execute those who initially rejected Saul’s kingship and why King Saul refused to allow that.  As I see it, King Nahash had started threatening the Israelites, primarily those east of the Jordan, but not only those.  The Israelites recognized that Samuel’s sons were inadequate to lead them against the threat, and asked Samuel to appoint a king over them.  The king would maintain the ability to address such threats when they arose, eliminating the need to build such an ability each time a new threat arose.  Not everyone saw the need for such a king (and even those who acknowledged Saul as king saw no reason to change how they acted).  When Nahash threatened Jabesh Gilead, Saul became angry, not just because of Nahash’s threat, but because, even though the people of Israel had recognized the threat he posed, none of them had gathered to provide Saul with a force to do anything about it.  However, when Saul sent out the call to muster, all of Israel responded, even those who initially refused to acknowledge Saul as king.  This is part of why King Saul was unwilling to allow those who initially rejected his kingship to be executed.  When it mattered, they rose to the occasion.

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 8-10.

When the people of Israel asked Samuel to appoint a king to lead their nation, Samuel warned them about the negative side of choosing a king.  In a way, Samuel’s warning reminds me of the arguments made by those who opposed the adoption of the U.S. Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.  In both cases, the concerns proved to have some basis.  We do not really think of it this way, but what the Israelites were asking for when they asked for a king was a central authority who could unify them, a central government.  In the same way, the U.S. Constitution was intended to establish a central authority who could unify the thirteen states which made up the loose coalition formed by the Articles of Confederation.  I will say that there is one key difference between the two.  The people of Israel were already committed to being unified under a central authority.  That central authority was God.  While the people of the United States had never committed themselves to following God in a unified way.  If the people of Israel had followed through on their commitment to follow God, they would not have needed to appoint a man as king.  If the people of the United States had agreed to commit themselves to following Gog, they would not have needed the Constitution.  People who obey God with their entire being have no need for government of any kind.  Both Ancient Israel and the early United States formed governments in an attempt to overcome their unwillingness to obey God.

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 4-7.

Today’s passage begins with the Israelites suffering a defeat at the hands of the Philistines.  Instead of seeking an answer from God as to why He did not give them victory, they chose to force His hand by bringing the Ark of the Covenant to the battlefield.  As a result they suffered a devastating defeat and the Ark was captured by the Philistines.  The Philistines interpreted their victory, and capture of the Ark, as evidence that their gods were more powerful than the God of Israel.  God promptly disabused them of this notion. So, the Philistines sent the Ark back to the Israelites in a way which demonstrated God’s power.  Even with the return of the Ark, some of the Israelites failed to properly respect God.  Finally, the people turned once more to worshiping God, and Samuel was prepared to tell them what to do.  At Samuel’s instruction they did away with their various idols, gathered to confess their sins and worship God.  The Philistines mustered their armies to attack the assembled Israelites.  Rather than rely on their own strength, the Israelites begged Samuel to cry out to God for them.  God caused the Philistines to panic and flee before the Israelites.

Initially, when things went bad for Israel, they looked to God for help, but they did not first turn from their sin.  It was only when they repented and sought to serve God that He rescued them.  Let us learn from this and act accordingly.

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

I am using 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.

In this passage we see examples of both King Saul and David seeking God’s guidance as to what to do.  However King Saul received no such guidance, while David did receive guidance from God.  The record we have here in 1 Samuel suggests that King Saul frequently sought God’s guidance and even generally sought to enforce God’s laws.  David also frequently sought God’s guidance and seems to have generally sought to enforce God’s laws.  Both King Saul and David after him violated God’s commands.  However, I noticed one difference, when David asked for God’s guidance he followed through completely.  Saul, on the other hand, followed through until his objective was met, then, if he felt there was advantage in not following the rest of God’s instructions, he would fail to follow through.

I am using 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.

We think of the society in which David lived as being a patriarchy where women had limited rights, and we are not wrong.  But the story told in this passage reveals that women were not as powerless in that society as we assume.  When Nabal insulted David’s men, one of the servants told Nabal’s wife Abigail about it.  Clearly that servant believed that Abigail could do something, and he was right.  On her own authority, Abigail gathered supplies and sent them to David, following behind to make amends for her husband’s rudeness..  After Nabal’s death, Abigail married David in what appears to me to be a negotiated alliance.  At about the same time, David married Ahinoam from Jezreel and King Saul gave his daughter Michal, who had been married to David, to another man as that man’s wife.  Up until this point, David’s power as a national figure came from being King Saul’s son-in-law.  Even on the run from King Saul, David would still have had a certain cache as his son-in-law.  When Saul gave Michal to be the wife of another man, that ended.  By marrying these two women, David gained a new power base.  This is important because in a totalitarian system, the ruler makes sure that everyone’s power derives from their relationship to him.  King Saul worked to eliminate any power base which did not derive its power from him.  Here David is seeking to gain the support of such power bases.

I am using 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 think that I have commented on this previously, but I always find it interesting that when David was fleeing King Saul and went to see the priest Ahimelech, the priest was frightened to see that David was by himself.  This suggests two things.  First, it suggests that King Saul sent men out to kill people he had decided were a threat to his power, and second that Ahimelech thought that David was one of those King Saul sometimes sent.  I am pretty confident that the first part of that was true: King Saul sent out men to kill those he had decided were a threat to his power.  Further, it seems likely that Ahimelech believed that some of those killed in that manner had no idea why King Saul wanted them dead.  I always find it enlightening to realize that such totalitarian behaviors go so far back into history.  We even have an informant who rats out Ahimelech to the king for aiding David when he thought David was still a trusted aid to King Saul.  Finally, we see Saul turning to a foreign mercenary to carry out orders his native supporters were unwilling to follow.

I am using 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.

Once again we can be thrown off by our modern way of writing biographies.  The compiler of 1 Samuel takes a story about how David came into favor with Saul and then fell out of favor and weaves it into his account as if it was just a continuation from chapter 17.  Having written that, it does not really connect with the lesson I think we should take from the passage.  As David became more successful serving King Saul, King Saul became more and more jealous of him and sure that David would one day usurp the throne.  Despite this, King Saul arranged for David to marry his daughter.  I would like to note that if David had married King Saul’s older daughter that would have been a clear political move.  Instead, David later agreed to marry Michal, who the passage tells us had fallen in love with him.  This suggests that David married Michal because he was attracted to  her, not because of the political power which came with marrying the king’s daughter.  That is important because it tells us something about David: the people around King Saul who cared for Saul also loved David.  Despite how badly King Saul mistreated him, David never became disloyal.  David only left King Saul’s court when it became obvious that if he stayed, King Saul would have him killed.  This does not necessarily mean that we should stay in situations where we are mistreated.  It does, however, teach us that we should not strike back at those who have authority over us and treat us badly.  If we continue to faithfully serve God in such trying circumstances, others will see and be inspired to serve Him as well.